Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-19-1986 City Council Agenda packetSUBJECT: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. //g/ AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL MEETING DATE: November 19, 1986 ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager's WARNER HUTTON HOUSE Recommended Motion: 1. City agrees in concept to accept the Warner Hutton House for City and Community use. 2. City prefers the house be relocated to City property between Wildcat Creek and the Civic Center on Fruitvale Avenue. 3. Relocation and siting of the house to be at no direct cost to the City. Report Summary: Discusses use of the Warner Hutton House as a City facility. Explains relationship between the House and the development of State Route 85 through Saratoga. Explains desire to save the House because of its historic and architectural significance to the area. Examines various siting options for relocating the House. Briefly describes the roles of various decision making agencies at the Federal, State and local level which could impact the final dispostion of the House. Fiscal Impacts: Potential Annual Additional Revenues Potential Annual Additional Costs One -time Furnishing Costs Potential Site Development Costs Potential Acquisition and relocation costs are unknown but could be very substantial, i.e. Attachments: 1. Report to Council from City Manager, 11/14/86 2. Planning Department Report, 11/10/86 3. Recreation Superintendent's Report, 11/10/86 4. Maintenance Director's Report, 11/13/86 Motion and Vote: $24,000 $21,320 to $28,320 $10,000 $18,000 to $37,000 over $50,000 Staff recommendation with addition of requirement that site plan with parking plan and 2,aL pedestrian traffic study be completed. Passed 3 -2 (Hlava, Moyles opposed),:. REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: WARNER. _HUTTON HOUSE: RECOMMENDATION UM= cD2 'ig' o C� DATE: 11/14/86 COUNCIL MEETING: 11/19/86 1. Accept the house for City use. 2. Select the site located between Wildcat Creek and the City Hall parking lot on Fruitvale Avenue. 3. Condition the above on successful negotiations to acquire, relocate and site the house at no out -of- pocket cost to the City. BACKGROUND In September 1985, the DEIS for proposed State Route 85 identified the Warner Hutton House as a potential candidate under criterion C for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. (See also: Historic Properties Survey Report 04- SCL -85, Environmental Analysis Branch, Caltrans District 4, August 1984.) Since the release of the report more than a year ago, there has been continuing discussion in the community and among various components of the City organization as to ways and means to preserve the Warner Hutton House from destruction because of its location within the existing right -of -way. The discussions have focussed around three major issues: 1) where the house should be located; 2) what use will be made of the house; and 3) who would pay for the costs associated with both relocation (including site preparation and utility connections) and operation and maintenance of the house. Before launching into an analysis of these three major issues, let me recount to the Council staff's understanding of the process of acquiring and siting the house from several hours of conversation with various members of the Caltrans staff. WARNER HUTTON HOUSE Page 2 11/19/86 In order to maintain eligibility for State and Federal funding of the Route 85 project, Caltrans must meet State and Federal standards for dealing with historic resources located in the adopted route corridor. This means that every effort will be made to relocate the house to an appropriate location which will be consistent with the historic value of the house. Only if all such efforts fail would the house Temshed. Much has been said recently about the City being able to get the house for free. Staff has received no such assurance from anyone we have spoken to at Caltrans. What we have been told is that if the City provides a suitable site, all other costs to relocate the house and place it back into operation are negotiable. All of the factors which could enter into such negotiations are outlined in the Planning Department report to me on the house dated November 10, 1986 (copy attached). If the City's decision is to attempt to acquire the house, it is obvious that the negotiations will be quite complex and the process quite protracted. That is why, in my view, it is necessary for the City to make some of the basic decisions now, if it intends to take a leading role in preserving the Warner Hutton House. At your meeting of October 15, 1986, the City Council debated how to proceed to resolve the basic questions and decided to hold a public hearing on this matter on November 19, 1986. At the same time, the staff was directed to prepare a more detailed report on the issues of location, use and cost of the house as a City facility. This report and the attached reports from the Planning Department, the Maintenance Department and the Community Services Department describe in detail the staff's research, analysis, findings and conclusions. The purpose of this report is to, hopefully, tie it all together in a nice neat package. My thanks to the staff team which has worked on this project over the past four weeks, Dan Trinidad, Yuchuek Hsia, Joan Pisani and Valerie Young. ANALYSIS OF LOCATION: First, and most important, it is our conclusion that there is no ideal site for the Warner Hutton House which both maximizes location amuse potential, minimizes siting and operational cost factors from a City -use perspective, and provides maximum potential for appropriate historic siting. The report prepared by Joan Pisani points out the current shortage of space for recreation programs and building rentals and how much time and space is currently being taken for City meetings at the Community Center. This is time and space which should be devoted to community recreation and leisure activity since that is the intended purpose of the building. We have a similar problem with adequate space for the operation of our award winning volunteer program which is also growing rapidly. Therefore, the staff believes that City use of the Warner Hutton House is a viable option from a use standpoint. WARNER HUTTON HOUSE Page 3 11/19/86 If we assume the potential use as stated, we can effectively discuss the other three components as a function of use. The Planning Department Report analyzes three potential locations. In an earlier report presented to the City Council in May of this year, some ten potential locations were discussed, three locations in the Central Park, four locations in and around the Civic Center Complex and three in and around the Village area, including Wildwood Park. Based on our discussions, the project team reduced the number of potential sites to three. These sites are shown in the Planning Department Report. Each site needs to be evaluated from a number of perspectives. These are: 1) security, 2) functionality, 3) master plan consideration, 4) site development costs, 5) heritage resource potential, and 6) operational effectiveness. With one being best and three being worst for each of these factors, here is how we have anlayzed the appropriateness of each site: Master Site Security Function Plan Siting Heritage Operations Total One 3 3 1 3 1 3 14 Two 2 2 1 2 2 2 11 Three 1 1 3 1 3 1 10 At first blush it would appear that site option three would be preferred. However, the potential for significant interference with future expansion of the Civic Center is so much greater than the other two locations that this factor takes on added significance. The site also seems to be a poor one from the perspective of heritage resource potential as we understand that issue as addressed in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and the Section 106 Manual of Mitigation Measures from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. For these reasons, site option three is not considered the optimum. In a similar fashion, site option number one is not considered optimal. While it is best from a heritage and master plan interference perspective, it is significantly inferior to the other two sites in all other respects. Site option two is judged to be most adequate overall. Here is how it is viewed factor -by- factor in comparison to the other two options. Security not as good as option three would be in the evening hours, but most of the disadvantages could be overcome with proper staffing, landscaping and lighting. Functionality not as good as option three because of distance from Community Center building. However, for other than recreation use, functionality is superior because of proximity to City Hall and more lightly used parking areas. WARNER HUTTON HOUSE Master Plan Considerations is equal to option one in that potential interference with future expansion of other buildings is minimal at this location. Site Development Costs utility costs for this option are higher than for option three, but no parking lot costs would be experienced. Option one has the disadvantage of both higher utility costs and costs for parking. Heritage Resource Potential much superior to option three because of both space availability and location. Site number one is slightly better in this regard, but not significantly so. Operational Effectiveness not as good as option three for recreation purposes, but equal or better than option three for City meetings because of location. Would probably require extra staffing at this location for night and weekend recreation use which would not be required with option three. ANALYSIS OF FISCAL IMPACTS: There are two components to consider here. One,e siting costs, may or may not have an impact on the City. The other, operational and equipment costs, would be the responsibility of the City. In his report, the Maintenance Director has projected the siting costs for each of the three options. These range from a low of $18,000 for option three to a a high of $37,000 for option one. The projected annualized cost of maintenance, upkeep and utilities at all three locations is $12,320.00. The Recreation Superintendent has estimated that availability of the house would generate a projected revenue of $24,000 a year. She also estimates that it would cost $10,000 to furnish the house for City use. Depreciation on equipment and furnishings should be calculated on a ten -year life expectancy basis. If the City is able to acquire the house for no cost through negotiation with the State by providing an appropriate site, then we estimate the revenue /cost factors on an annualized basis are as follows: Revenues $24,000 Costs: Staffing $8,000 $13,000 (depending on site) Maintenance 8,620 Utilities 2,100 Repair Replacements 2,600 Total Costs $21,320 to $26,320 Page 4 11/19/86 WARNER HUTTON HOUSE Page 5 11/19/86 Revenue to Cost Ratio: 1.13 to 1 or .91 to 1. Since part of the house is intended to be used for offices for the volunteer programs, cost recovery would be almost total in a worst case scenario and more than enough in a best case scenario with the added office space being a bonus. If option one was ultimately chosen, then added money would have to be set aside for parking lot maintenance (life expectancy of five years would yield an annualized cost of $2,000). If option three was ultimately chosen, the extra $5,000 for staffing would probably not be needed. So from an annualized cost factor, the cost to operate and maintain the three options are estimated below: Site One Site Two Site Three $28,320 26,320 21,320 ANALYSIS OF POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS A prime question to be determined is whether government in general and local government in particular has a role to play in supporting the Arts, Culture, and the preservation of the Heritage of the community. It seems to me that the City, by its past actions, has answered that question in the affirmative many times. However, to what extent and in what form such support shall be is a matter which must be left to judgment on a case -by -case basis. Such judgment should not be made on the basis of interest group pressure, but on the perceived value such support will have for the community as a whole. That is the decision making role which falls to the City Council. Prior to the constitution of the current City Council, your predecessor Council rendered its judgment on this matter by deciding that while it might be willing to place the house on a City -owned site, it was not willing to expand general tax money to underwrite the cost of operating and maintaining such a facility. It has been this principle which has guided the staff in its preparation of this effort. It is entirely possible that some other group will have developed a viable proposal which meets the above principle and will present it to you at your public hearing. If so, please do not feel constrained by the contents of this report in terms of the potential need the City has for this extra space. The need will not disappear, but the Warner Hutton House is not our only solution. What does concern us is the number of bad choices which could be made in terms of locating the house. To us, proposed use is of prime importance. Also of prime importance is WARNER HUTTON HOUSE Page 6 11/19/86 picking a site which would possibly adversely impact future planning for long range community needs. Don't let it be plopped down somewhere just because it might look nice. Consider the long range implications of any location not already analyzed in the staff report from Planning. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: We find that the City could use the house effectively for City and community purposes. We believe that, depending on the location and ultimate staffing needs, we should be able to just about get the facility to pay for itself. We believe that the City should not accept the house if any of the relocation and site preparation costs are to be borne by the City; donation of the site will just about equal the costs of relocation and siting. To expect the City to contribute on a greater than 50 -50 basis would be unreasonable on the part of the State or the Traffic Authority. While we believe that there may be other uses and means of financing the preservation of the house which are just as workable or more workable than the option presented by staff, none has come to our attention so we could evaluate them. Indeed, the reason we have not come up with at least one other option may that we are not qualified to evaluate any other option effectively. We find that either option one, two, or three would be adequate for City use. We are concerned about the appropriateness of any other location either in or around the Civic Center or Central Park area. Indeed, because of future master plan considerations, we have serious reservations about option three which was addressed earlier. Given our choice, we believe the option Two location between Wildcat Creek and the City Hall parking lot on Fruitvale Avenue would be the best overall location for meeting the City's needs as seen by the staff. arry R Peacock, City Manager jm Attachments (3) TO: City Manager FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Warner Hutton House DATE: November 10, 1986 The Warner Hutton House is an 1890's Victorian farmhouse currently located at 13495 Sousa Lane. It 15 about 1840' sq. ft. in area, not including basement and attic. Its dimensions are approximately 33' wide by 55'1ong. It has two bedrooms, 1 1/2 baths, living room, dining room and kitchen with attached breakfast nook. It has a 300 sq. ft. basement and 1,545 sq. ft. unfinished attic. Shown on the attached map are three potential sites for the location of the Warner Hutton House at or near the City Hall complex. These are: Site #1 1) In the Heritage Orchard facing Fruitvale Avenue, just north of Wildcat Creek 2) In the parcel between Wildcat Creek and the City Hall parking lot, also facing Fruitvale Avenue. 3) In the vacant parcel of land between the two City Hall parking lots, facing Allendale Avenue. The map also indicates the number of parking spaces currently existing at City Hall. The total is 178. The analysis of each site addresses issues related to parking, access, and architectural compatibility. Issues related to historic preservation are addressed separately. Site #1 presents no significant topographic problems. The impact on tree removal depends on where the house is sited and whether or not a parking lot is developed with it. Because the site is physically separated from the City Hall complex by Wildcat Creek, several options exist in terms of access and connection. Access could be provided by a driveway off Fruitvale Avenue; this approach could include a parking lot adjacent to the house. Connection to City Hall could then be provided via a footbridge over Wildcat Creek and a pathway to the parking lot. Another alternative would be to utilize existing City Hall parking for the house and not develop an additional parking lot. Again, a footbridge could provide access. A final alternative involves the construction of a vehicular bridge over Wildcat Creek to lead to the site from the existing City Hall parking lot. In terms of architectural compatibility, because the site is physically separate from City Hall, the house would stand alone in the orchard and not conflict with the more modern City Hall architecture. Site #2 Site #2 is lower in elevation than the adjacent City Hall property, and lies within the floodplain of Wildcat Creek. The Santa Clara Valley Water District maintains control of the creek and has indicated that in order to construct on this site, the top of the bank and depth of channel would need to be measured to determine where the house could be located. Because the parcel slopes toward the creek, some fill may be necessary to ensure that the foundation of the house is above flood level. Tree removal would be minimal. The existing City Hall parking lots could be used for the house if located at Site #2. Access to City Hall would be via pathways. Architectural compatibility becomes more of a concern at Site #2. Although there is a difference in grade and some existing landscaping to buffer the two styles, the proximity of the house to City Hall may create some visual conflict between architectural styles. Additional landscaping and/or fencing could be used to mitigate this impact. Site #3 This site is also flat and measures approximately 67'x140'. Although the house could adequately fit on the site, it would appear overwhelmed by the modern City Hall buildings behind it. There would be relatively little open space around it to provide for outdoor patio and yard areas. In terms of parking, the existing City Hall lots would be used. However, the adjacent lots are the most utilized in the City Hall complex, primarily because of the heavy use of the community center for a variety of programs and services. The addition of new uses associated with the house at this location could adversely impact an area with existing parking problems. Site #3 presents the greatest impacts in terms of architectural compatibility. It is surrounded by the modern structures of the City Hall complex and Post Office. In addition it would not be very visible from Fruitvale Avenue. Historic Preservation Issues Because of its architectural integrity and importance to local history, the Warner Hutton House has been determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Because of this status, CalTrans is required to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, which directs Federal and State agencies to take into account the impact of their activities on historic properties. The Section 106 process allows both the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP, a federal agency) and the State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) the opportunity to recommend ways to avoid adverse effects and maximize beneficial effects. These recommendations regarding relocation, preservation and maintenance of the structure are then drafted in the form on a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), in consultation with the affected local jurisdiction. The MOA is signed by the Federal Highway Administration, CalTrans, SHPO and ACHP. A preliminary MOA has already been prepared and is attached. The final MOA will be adopted as part of the final EIR for the Highway 85 project. Target date for federal approval of the final EIR is January 1987. The MOA requires CalTrans to use the Advisory Council's Manual of Mitigation Measures when a structure is moved to a new location. Basically, a site closely resembling the original site is preferable. The SHPO is afforded an opportunity to review and comment on the new site. When the house is moved, CalTrans is also required to use the recommended approaches in the Department of the. Interior's Moving Historic Buildings. Finally, CalTrans must comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings when placing the house at the new site and preparing it for occupancy. A landscaping plan must also be prepared and implemented. The City of Saratoga works closely with CalTrans and the SHPO to develop an acceptable plan for relocation, site preparation, landscaping and structural rehabilitation. The cost of relocating the house, which includes recording the property in accordance with Historic American Building Survey Standards, actual moving, site preparation (utilities, foundation, landscaping, etc.) and structural rehabilitation, will be borne by CalTrans. A 11. C.t0.0 Lc Ault. State of California Memorandum To E. W. Blackmer, Chief Environmental Analysis Branch Attention Barbara Talley L From DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION District 4 Environmental Analysis Branch subject: National Register Properties: Memorandum of Agreement Business and Transportation Agency Dote: September 29, 1986 Ate: 4- SC1 -85 RO.O /R17.9 4134 485000. Transportation Corridor Study Enclosed for your review and for processing are six copies of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for three properties which have been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and which will be adversely affected by the above referenced project. The Preliminary Case Report (PCR) was transmitted to you last week, and Frank Bergen and Steve Mikesell of your staff have already reviewed the MOA in draft form. The proposed project is non controversial as related to historic preservation, and standard mitigation measures are recommended in accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) expedited process. The mitigation proposed consists of relocating the properties and conveying property title to appropriate agencies, organizations, or persons with restrictive covenants regarding preservation and maintenance; all mitigation will be conducted in consultation with the SHPO. FHWA has requested that the PCR and MOA be submitted to them as a package. Target date for federal approval of the final environmental document is January 1987 and for 106 clearance is December 1986. We would therefore appreciate your expediting review of these documents. If you have any questions, please contact Tom McDonnell at ATSS 597 -2175 or Margaret Buss at ATSS 597 -4012. ;!2 17 DARNALL W. YS, Chief Environmen Analysis Branch MLB:mrc cc: DWReynolds TFM ^Donnell RLemmon /CHMorton WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has determined that the construction of a freeway in the Route 85 Transportation Corridor in Santa Clara County between Route 101 in south San Jose and Route 280 near Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino will have an adverse effect upon three historic properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and has requested the comments of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council) pursuant to Section 106 and Section 110f of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470) and its implementing regulations,'" Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties" (36 CFR Part 800), WHEREAS, the three historic properties specified in this Memorandum are known as the Warner Hutton House, located in the City of Saratoga; the LeFevre House and Farm, located in the City of San Jose; and the David Greenawalt Farm, located in the City of San Jose, WHEREAS, the proposed undertaking will require removal of the three historic properties from their current locations, WHEREAS, the Cities of Saratoga and San Jose have expressed interest in the Warner Hutton House and the David Greenawalt Farm, respectively, and the City of San Jose and the Santa Clara County Historical Resources Commission have expressed willingness to help in locating suitable sites and owners for the LeFevre House and Farm, NOW, THEREFORE, FHWA, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the Council agree that the undertaking shall be implemented in accordance with the following stipulations in order to take into account the effect of the undertaking on historic properties. STIPULATIONS 1. FHWA and Caltrans agree to take the steps specified below to mitigate the adverse effect of the proposed undertaking on the historic properties. 2. Conveyance of Properties ta Non Federal Parties The SHPO shall be afforded 30 days to review and comment on the new site for any property covered by this Memorandum. FHWA shall take the SHPO's comments into account in selecting the new sites. One or more of the properties may be conveyed to the City of Saratoga and /or the City of San Jose if said agency(ies) provides an appropriate site and agrees to the stipulations of the appropriate Standard Preservation Covenant in Appendix A of the Council's current Manual Mitigation Measures. Should none of the city or county agencies be able to provide suitable sites or owners, FHWA and Caltrans shall ensure that a marketing plan for the historic property shall be developed in accordance with the stipulations contained in Section I.D. of the Council's Manual of Mitiga tion Measures. FHWA shall ensure that transfer of title to the property incorporates the a Standard Preservation Covenant specified in Appendix PPro t h e e on Council's current Manual of Mitiga i Measures A of the If there is no acceptable offer conforming to the requirements of rehabilitation and maintenance of the Standard Preservation Covenant, FHWA and Caltrans ma transfer the property without y, with the approval of the SHPO, event, the property shall be recorded prix transfer covenants. In in that accordance with Section I.G. of the Council's current Manual of Mitig ion Measures. 3. Relo ion FHWA and Caltrans shall ensure that, prior to relocating the buildings, the three historic properties will be recorded to the standards of the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) to ensure a.permanent record is made of the properties' present appearance and context prior to relocation and provide such documentation of the property's original setting and context as HABS requests. The FHWA and Caltrans shall ensure that the accordance with recommended approaches eroperty e moved in Interior's Movincr Historic Bu Pldrin shes in the Department of the SHPO, by a professional mover who has the ccapabilityntolmovehe historic structures properly. Within 90 days of the move, the SHPO shall evaluate the property on its new site and make a recommedation to the becretary of the Interior as to its continued inclusion in the National Register. 4. Landscaping Should any of the three historic properties be relocated, FHWA shall ensure that a landscaping plan for the historic properties is prepared in consultation with the SHPO, is submitted to the SHPO for approval, and, upon approval, is implemented. 5. Records ion and Demoli ion If no party is found willing to acquire any of the three properties specified in this Memorandum with the conditions outlined above, FHWA and Caltrans may permit demolition of the property, unencumbered of any covenants or restraints. FHWA shall ensure that any of the three historic properties which is to be demolished will be recorded to HABS standards prior to demolition or substantial deterioration and that copies of this documentation are made available to the SHPO and appropriate local archives designated by the SHPO. If one of the historic properties is specified for demolition, FHWA and Caltrans shall ensure that, after the specified property has been recorded in accordance with this Memorandum, the SHPO or the SHPO's designee is allowed 30 days prior to demolition of the property to select architectural elements for curation or use in other projects. FHWA and Caltrans shall ensure that the items selected are removed in a manner that minimizes damage and are delivered to the SHPO or the SHPO's designee. Execution of this Memorandum of Agreement evidences that the Federal Highway Administration has afforded the Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on the Route 85 Transportation Corridor freeway project and its effects on historic properties and that the Federal Highway Administration has taken into account the effects of its undertaking on historic properties. Chairman, ACHP Date Federal Highway Administration. Date California Dept. of Transportation Date State Historic Preservation Officer Date Executive Director, ACHP Date 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Recreation Superintendent SUBJECT: Acquisition and Use of Warner Hutton House DATE: 11/10/86 Acquisition of the Warner Hutton house and its use as additional space for recreation programs and building rentals will greatly enhance the City's ability to provide recreation activities and will generate revenue to offset the initial costs and on- going maintenance costs. The Community Center is currently used for 150 classes, as well as private rentals and City and community meetings. We are not able to accomodate all of the requests for use of the existing building and were limited to adding only ten new programs for the coming Winter class session. The Warner Hutton house,if relocated in close proximity to the Community Center, would be an ideal place for expanding our class offerings, adding specialized classes, and providing meeting rooms, private rentals and office space. Classes Class offerings have grown by 80% since the fall of 1985, in response to community interest. After touring the Warner Hutton house, the Recreation Supervisor and I came up with several ideas for new and expanded classes. By using the current space and the house, we will add 20 classes per week per quarter, generating $20,000 and realizing a net of $12,000 in the first year after paying instructors. The existing kitchen in the house is well designed for group cooking classes and would allow the opportunity to add a number of specialized cooking classes. The present kitchen in the Community Center is small and not adequate for most cooking classes. The Community Center receives many requests for babysitting to be provided during our day time exercise program. One of the bedrooms of the house would be the perfect setting for a fee -based program. City Meetings On an average, the Community Center is utilized 37 hours per month by the City Council, Commissions, City staff and community groups for meetings. It is becoming increasingly difficult to accomodate requests for meeting space because of the full utilization of the building for classes. The front parlor and living room would serve very well for this purpose. Private Rentals It the yard surrounding the house is landscaped properly, there is the potential of renting out the building for weddings, receptions and luncheons. There is a high demand for attractive sites for this type of activity. Acqusition and Use of Warner Hutton House pe RECOMMENDED SITE Two sites have been proposed for relocating the Warner Hutton House onto the Civic Center complex -the lot between the Civic Theatre and Community Center parking lots and the west side of City Hall between the driveway and the creek. The advantages of having the House close to the Community Center far outweigh those of the creekside setting for its use in the recreation program. Utilization of the building would be much greater due to easier access for program participants and staff to the main building. Although the creekside setting would probably be more aestheti- cally pleasing, the relative isolation of the site would limit night time use. Separate supervisory staff would have to be hired for night time use of the building and the potential for vandalism and other problems is greater in that location. The Community Center strongly supports the concept of the City's acquisition of the Warner Hutton House and using it for the purposes I have outlined above. I have attached a list of proposed classes, revenue projections and an estimate of the furnishings which would be required to carry out the proposed activities. Please let me know if you wish any additional information. an Pisani Attachments 11/10/86 (Page 2) (Use of Warner Hutton House) I. RECREATION CLASSES UTILIZING WARNER HUTTON HOUSE Toddler Classes Mom Me Exercise Tiny Tot Tumbling Infant Bonding Cooking Classes Holiday Hors d'oeuvres Sushi French Country Cooking Mexican Cooking 1 Winter Warming Soups Perfect Party Planning 1 Chinese Cooking Children Nature Classes Nature Explores Urban Picnics Weather Watching Home Craft Classes Quilting Embroidery Needlepoint Sewing Adult Classes Money Management Wine Appreciation Tax Law Information II. INCREASED REVENUE PROJECTION A. CLASSES 20 New Community Center classes per quarter C. Classrooms 400 2,500 $20,000 yearly revenue 8,000 instructor's salary $12,000 NET B. RENTAL Outdoor weedings, receptions, luncheons 10 0 $400 $4,000 III. FURNISHINGS A. Conference Room $1,600 8 conference chairs $200 2,500 25 meeting room chairs ©$100 Music Drama Storytelling Program Pioneer Days Sunshine Rainbows Something Buggy Interior Decorating Stress Reduction Calligraphy 4,100 B. Kitchen 800 kitchen table 900 12 chairs 300 butcher block 500 kitchen equip pots, pans, dishes, utensils, clock, etc. 3,000 10 card tables Tumbling mats, rugs, recreation supplies,etc. 2,900 TOTAL $10,000 M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council FROM: Director of Maintenance DATE: November 13, 1986 SUBJECT: Cost Associated with the Relocation and Maintenance of the Warner Hutton House Page 1 of 2 We have prepared a cost analysis and comparison of establishing a proper site for the Warner Hutton House. Additionally, we have estimated the annual maintenance and janitorial care needed if the house is utilized daily for public purpose. Three potential sites have been identified as follows: 1) In the Heritage Orchard facing Fruitvale Avenue, just north of Wildcat Creek. 2) In the parcel between Wildcat Creek and the City Hall parking lot, also facing Fruitvale Avenue. 3) In the vacant parcel of land between the two City Hall parking lots, facing Allendale Avenue. Some, if not all of the following costs will be borne by the Sate or Federal Government. Site 1 2 3 Landscaping: (approx) $15,000 $15,000 $10,000 Utilities: (approx) 12,000 12,000 8,000 Parking Driveway (approx) 10,000 -0- -0- TOTAL $37,000 $27,000 $18,000 MAINTENANCE, UPKEEP AND UTILITIES Assuming regular daily use of the entire building, janitorial cost, based on utilizing normal City crews, is estimated to be as follows: One (1) hour daily, plus three (3) hours per week. 8 hr. x 52 wks. 416 hrs. x $20 8320 per year Janitorial Supplies 300 per year TOTAL JANITORIAL 8620 per year 1 Page 2 of 2 November 13, 1986 Warner Hutton House Again, assuming regular daily use, following utility costs: Water: ($25 per mo. x 12) Gas Elec.: ($100 per mo. x12) Telephone: ($50 per mo. x 12) Roofing: $7,000 20 yr. cycle Carpeting: $5,000 -10 yr. cycle Heating Unit: $2,500 -10 yr. cycle Repainting: $4,000 -8 yr. cycle Dan Trinidad, Jr. Director of Maintenance we anticipate the 300 per year 1200 per year 600 per year TOTAL UTILITIES 2100 per year Repair and replacement cost, as you know, varies greatly. Included in this estimate is the cost of replacing such things as roofing, carpeting, heating unit, as well as repainting both interior and exterior surfaces. The costs shown are amortized annually. 350 per year 500 per year 250 per year 500 per year TOTAL REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT 1600 per year cD2 Lni 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 November 14, 1986 MEMO: To Saratoga City Council Members From: The Saratoga Heritage Preservation Commission Re: Response to recent telephone inquiry regarding use of the Warner Hutton House The following list is only a partial sampling of local clubs and organizations which responded in a very positive manner to a phone inquiry regarding their interest in having the Warner Hutton House made available to them for meeting space. Nearly half of the organizations contacted, indicated that there is a considerable need in the area for a moderately sized facility, with a kitchen for food service, and that they are going outside of Saratoga for this type of space. Existing facilities are either overbooked or too large and expensive. The Heritage Commission feels that, with such a pressing need for meeting space evident in the community, that the rental fees alone would probably cover expenses for maintenance. However, the City of Saratoga needs to see that this type of faci=lity, utilizing the maximum potential of the Hutton House, is done in a first class manner, befitting Saratoga! Properly landscaped, with adequate lighting and parking etc., this beautiful house would probably be booked for meetings and receptions from the moment it becomes available. To start "from scratch" and build such an attractive facility'would be prohibitive from a financial standpoint. However, here is a one time chance to receive the building as a gift: We are not asking you to take on a liability, but a tremendous asset that you can all take off 0 °'V o Cdr 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 pride in as part of your accomplishment during your term of office on the Saratoga City Council. The Heritage Commission has a proven track record in the field of fund raising. Should the need arise, our special talents and energies are at the disposal of the City for this project on a long- term basis. We ask that you allow CalTrans to give the citizens of Saratoga this great gift, dedicate the appropriate site for it, and put us to work! The following is8a list of the organizations we were able to contact in the short time allotted for this effort. Please note that, though there were other organizations not listed because they cannot pay for rented space, there was a unanimous consensus that this was gong,_torbe a popular asset for the City of Saratoga. Santa Clara Valley Model T Club Santa Clara Valley Square Dance Association Saratoga Airline pilots Wives Saratoga Contemporary Artists Saratoga Lions Club Saratoga Optimist Club The Star Players Summit League of Saratoga Los Gatos VITA Valley Institute of Theater Arts Horseless Carriage Club f America Hospice of the Valley Junior Achievement of Santa Clara County Kiwanis Club of De Anza continued... UELVW ©2 0 Lni 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 Los Gatos Business Professional Women's Club Networking Breakfast Club San Jose Opera Guild Santa Clara Valley Carvers Santa Clara County Library Saratoga Branch Friends 0f the Library Willys Peck Saratoga Community Garden Foothill Club (indicated a need for a smaller facility than they provide) Senior Center American Association of University Women (AAUW) AREA CODE 408 887 -1655 SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Council Members: WILLYS I. PECK ATTORNEY AT LAW Nov. 13, 1986 Re: Warner Hutton house POST OFFICE BOX 321 14275 SARATOGA AVENUE This letter is in support of the proposal to move the above structure from Sousa Lane to city -owned property for maintenance as a municipal resource. Although writing as an individual, my opinions are colored by long association with the Saratoga Historical Foundation, which has seen the best and worst regarding the moving of old buildings. The worst involved the old Marsh house, moved under threat of imminent destruction from Big Basin Way to Wildwbod Park. There it stood on blocks until, in the absence of a master park plan for its permanent placement, and subjected to continual vandalism, it had ultimately to be destroyed. 1 understand the city paid as much fot demolition as the Historical Foundation paid for the original moving. The best involved the McWilliams House and the Swanee Building, both of which, again, were moved under threat of imminent destruction to their present location in the Saratoga Historical Park. I don't think it stretches the bounds of propriety for the Historical Foun- dation to point to these structures as community assets. As I see it, the Warner Hutton house fits into the latter cat- egory; there is ample city -owned land and, from discussion I have heard and read, there are ample uses to which the house could be put. Saratoga has, over the years, lost most of its historically significant buildings. While it may not represent any event or in- dividual of great historical moment, the Warner Hutton house is symbolic of an era and an activity agriculture that shaped this community. That it should survive and be put to good use is, I feel, no less than one could expect from a community like Saratoga. Very truly yours, C/ G( WI LLYS 1. P County of Santa Clara California Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Cailf. 95070 Dear Mayor Hlava and Members of the Council, Barbara Voester, of Saratoga's Heritage Preservation Commission, spoke with me about the possibility of "planting" the Warner Hutton house in the orchard adjacent to the Library. The Commission is considering proposing that the house be made available for meetings and receptions, and Ms. Voester was interested in whether library staff were aware of needs beyond those met by the Library's Community Room. Since the Community Room is heavily used, and since our policy does, of necessity, restrict use in several ways, I think the Heritage Commission would be wise to pursue this possibility for the Hutton house. I am enclosing a copy of our "Policy for the Use of the Saratoga Community Room." You will note that "Community groups will be permitted and encouraged to use this room for educational, cultural and recreational programs when such uses do not conflict with library programs. Such programs and meetings MUST BE FREE AND OPEN TOTHEPUBLIC." Also,.reservations can.be made not more than three months in advance and no group will be booked more than once a month. These limitations exclude use for classes as well as for private parties or receptions. Groups of fewer than eight people are also prohibited since the room seats a hundred and is consistently in demand. by large groups.. If there is any further information you would like the Library to furnish, please let us know. cc: Barbara Voester "At October 24, 1986 An Equal Opportunity Employer Sincerely, Lois Thomas Community Library Supervisor j aratoga C rriunIty Library fi 1365 aratoga Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 -5099 867 -6126 Area Code 408 TO THE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS RE: FROM THE NORCIA FAMILY 14400 NUTWOOD LANE SARATOGA, CA., 95070 THE D. B. NORCIA FAMILY WARREN HUTTON HOUSE RELOCATION REQUEST BY B. VOESTER, COMMISSIONER SARATOGA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION WE WISH TO INFROM THE CITY OF SARATOGA AND THE ENTIRE CITY COUNCIL THAT OUR ENTIRE FAMILY SUPPORTS BARBARA VOESTER IN HER REQUEST TO HAVE THE RESTORED WARREN HUTTON HOUSE RELOCATED TO CENTRAL PARK ORCHARD IN THE CITY OF SARATOGA. THIS WONDERFUL IDEA WILL SET THE STAGE FOR THE RESTORATION OF A BEAUTIFUL ORCHARD AREA THAT WILL BE A REPRESENTATION OF AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE HISTORY OF SARATOGA AND SANTA CLARA VALLEY. CONSIDERING THAT CALTRANS WILL RELOCATE THIS HISTORIC HOME, WITHOUT ANY COST TO THE CITY OF SARATOGA, I SEE NO LOGICAL REASON TO REFUSE TO RELOCATE THIS FREE HOME TO THE CENTRAL PARK ORCHARD. CONGRATULATIONS TO BARBARA VOESTER AND THE SARATOGA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION FOR SUGGESTING SUCH A WONDERFUL IDEA. I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE TO BARBARA VOESTER-SHPC AND THE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT SOME CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN TO THE IDEA OF LANDSCAPING THE MEDIAN DIVIIDERS ON FRUITVALE AVENUE TO REFLECT THE ENTIRE CONCEPT OF CITY PARK ORCHARD. IF THE DIVIDERS WERE PLANTED WITH FLOWERING FRUIT TREES AND GROUNDCOVER THAT BLOOMED AT THE SAME TIME AS THE ORCHARD IT WITH BE A SPECTACULAR SIGHT TO BEHOLD REMINESCENT OF THE TRUE CELEBRATION OF THE ANNUAL BLOSSOM FESTIVAL HELD ANNUALLY IN THE CITY OF SARATOGA. THE CITY HALL-FRUITVALE AVE AREA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AN IMPORTANT ENTRANCE TO THE CITY OF SARATOGA A GATEWAY TO THE CITY OFFICES, THE POST OFFICE, THE COMMUNITY CENTER, THE SENIOR --CENTEF4 JUNIOR HIGHSCHOOL.. AND WEST VALLEY JUNIOR COLLEGE. THIS AREA REPRESENTS THE HEART OF OUR BEAUTIFUL CITY AND RESIDENTS AND VISITORS FROM ALL OF CALIFORNIA, THE UNITIED STATES, AND OTHER COUNTRIES VISIT OUR BEAUTIFUL CITY. BARBARA VOESTER-SHPC HAVE A WONDERFUL DREAM A CITY PARK ORCHARD THAT CITIZENS AND VISITORS WILL DELIGHT IN VISITING TO ENJOY THE HISTORICAL BEAUTY OF OUR PAST. LETS WORK TOGETHER TO MAKE THAT DREAM A REALITY TO RECREATE THE ENTIRE CITY PARK ORCHARD AREA INTO A REPRESENTATION THAT TRULY REFLECTS THE BEAUTIFUL HISTORICAL PAST OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA. 1 y /y w'wn 7 Mn «�l�� w _4/4- 'W ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MEETING DATE: November 19, 1986 City Mgr Approval ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Parks SUBJECT: Hakone Donation Report Summary James Graham McClure and Garnet Copper McClure of San Jose have donated $10.00 to Hakone Gardens. The check and a copy of the acknowledgement letter were forwarded to the Hakone Foundation. Fiscal Impact $10.00 donation. Attachments SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item t? Recommended Motion Accept and acknowledge the donation by way of a letter from the Mayor. c Motion Vote Staff recommendation 5 0. 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Parks SUBJECT: Hakone Donation Fiscal Impact $35.00 donation. Attachments Recommended Motion Motion Vote Staff recommendation 5 -0. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 1 Agenda Item 4/-T MEETING DATE: November 19, 1986 City Mgr Approval Report Summary Tressie V. Campen of San Jose donated $35.00 to Hakone Gardens. The check and a copy of the acknowledgement letter were forwarded to the Hakone Foundation. Accept and acknowledge the donation by way of a letter from the Mayor. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Parks SUBJECT: Hakone Donation Report Summary Fiscal Impact $25.00 donation. Attachments Recommended Motion Motion Vote Staff recommendation 5 -0. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item MEETING DATE: November 19, 1986 City Mgr Approval Kenneth V. and Debra L. McKenzie of San Jose donated $25.00 to Hakone Gardens. The check and a copy of the acknowledgement letter were forwarded to the Hakone Foundation. Accept and acknowledge the donation by way of a letter from the Mayor. 1 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MEETING DATE: November 19,1986 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Parks SUBJECT: Hakone Donation Report Summary Gene and Greta Schott of Saratoga donated $50 to Hakone Gardens. The check and a copy of the acknowledgement letter were forwarded to the Hakone Foundation. Fiscal Impact $50 donation. Attachments Recommended Motion Accept and acknowledge the donation by way of a letter from the Mayor. Motion Vote Staff recommendation 5 -0. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL ji72, 1 Agenda Item City Mgr Approva EXECUTIVE SUMMARY /2 /21 3 Agenda Item 4 MEETING DATE: November 19, 1986 City Mgr Approval ORIGINATING DEPARTMENM: Parks SUBJECT: Hakone Donation Report Summary Mr. and Mrs. Al Buchholz of San Jose have donated $15.00 to Hakone Gardens. The check and a copy of the acknowledgement letter were forwarded to the Hakone Foundation. Fiscal Impact $15.00 donation. Attachments SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Recommended Motion Accept and acknowledge the donation by way of a letter from the Mayor. Motion Vote Staff recommendation 5 -0. 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MEETING DATE: November 19, 1986 City Mgr Approval ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Parks SUBJECT: Hakone Donation Report Summary Mr. Paul S. Sakamoto of San Jose has donated $100.00 to Hakone Gardens. The check and a copy of the acknowledgement letter were forwarded to the Hakone Foundation. Fiscal Impact $100.00 donation. Attachments Recommended Motion SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item L ill Accept and acknowledge the donation by way of a letter from the Mayor. Motion Vote Staff recommendation 5 -0. 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. u MEETING DATE: ORIGINATING DEPT: Recommended Motion: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL City Manager AGENDA ITEM 68 November 19, 1986 CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Reprbgramming_of:HDCA Funds for Senior Center Addition 1. Move to adopt Resolution No. 2347 amending the 1986 -87 Fiscal Year Budget 2. Move to reprogram sufficient HCDA funds to meet cost of con- struction at the time of award of contract for Senior Center Addition Report Summary: The attached budget resolution,has been modified in accordance with your direction at the Novembers meeting to use only HCDA funds fcr the Senior Center Addition. Reprogramming of HCDA funds in excess the amount of the 86/87 deferred allocation of $34,575 will be done following the award of the contract, at which time we will know the precise amount required. Reprogramming can be accomplished with a transfer request to the County and postponment now will not create any delay in the reimbursement cycle. Fiscal Impacts: Available-HCDA funds will be reprogrammed and no General Fund money will be used for Senior Center Addition construction Attachments: Resolution No. 2347 Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 5 -0. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. V1(2 MEETING DATE:November 19, 1986 ORIGINATING DEPT.:City Clerk CITY MGR. APPROV SUBJECT: Resolution Declaring Weeds Growing on Certain Described Property to be a Public Nuisance Recommended Motion: Adopt resolution declaring weeds growing on certain described property to be a public nuisance. Report Sunmary• The attached resolution represents the first step in Saratoga's annual weed abatement program administered by the County Building Official. The County has determined that 401 parcels in Saratoga this year have excesIve weed growth which is a fire hazard or otherwise noxious or dangerous. The Council should pass the resolution setting the public hearing for weed abatement- December 17 this year. The County then sends the owners of the 401 parcels notices informing them that the weeds must be abated, either by the owners or by the County; when County abatement will commence; and how they may present any objections at the public hearing. The public hearing is noticed in the newspapers as well. After the public hearing, the Council passes another resolution ordering abatement on properties whose owners did not object or whose objections the Coucil felt were invalid. The final steps take place next summer, when the County presents the Council with a list of properties whose abatement bills have not been paid, and the Council, after hearing any objections, passes a resolution declaring liens on those properties. These procedures are the same as those followed for the last several years. Fiscal Impacts: None to City. County recovers its costs from administrative portion of fee charged to property owners. Attachments: 1. Resolution Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 5 -7/4 AGENDA ITEM (D 30 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Attachments 1. Appropriation Resolution 2. Staff report with map Motion Vote Staff recommendation 5 -0. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 1 Agenda Item MEETING DATE: November 19, 1986 City Mgr Approval ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Maintenance SUBJECT: Hakone Gardens, Perimeter Fencing Pond Filtration System �0 Recommended Motion (1) Approve staff recommendation on the installation of a fence around the perimeter of the main gardens at Hakone and the installation of a filtration system for the Koi pond. (2) Adopt Appropriation Resolution for $5,500 for the above installation. Report Summary In order to protect and preserve valuable Koi and shrubbery at Hakone Garden, staff has determined that a dog should be utilized to discourage predators. Fiscal Impact $5,500 to be appropriated from reserves in Park Development Fund. Cost will be reduced based on amount of donations being made for this purpose. M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council DATE: November 6, 1986 FROM: Director of Maintenance SUBJECT: Hakone Garden Perimeter Fencing Pond Filtration System Recommended Motion (1) Approve staff report on the installation of a fence around the main garden at Hakone and the installation of a filtration system for the Koi pond. (2) Adopt appropriation resolution for $5,500 for the cost of these installations. Background Early this year we became aware that raccoons were feeding on the Koi in the Hakone pond. Raccoons have devistated the Koi population and if we are to maintain a traditional Japanese pond we must prevent further loss. The problem of the lack of fish in the pond is made worse by the unaesthetic cloudy, algae filled water. In the past we were able to keep the water clear by frequently changing the pond water using the San Jose Water Company supplied water. San Jose Water now uses a purifying additive which is toxic to fish and that method can no longer be used. Additionally, this past year, Hakone has been invaded by foraging deer. It seems that since the Lexington fire of 1985 the population of deer in this area has increased dramatically, to the point that the feeding has damaged many trees and shrubs in the garden. Analysis We have checked with several agencies and companies which maintain large fish ponds and the problem is universal. Several types of filter systems have been utilized and have solved the problem at other locations. Extensive research has been performed to find a method of protecting the Koi from the racoons and the shrubbery from the deer. Many suggestions on how to thwart the predators have been received and tried by-- staff. None have proven successful over the long term. One suggestion, which was presented early, appears to offer the best solution. Findings and Conclusions We believe that the pond at Hakone does not represent the care and quality of the rest of the gardens. Its murkiness and lack of fish presents a negative picture of this key garden feature. A filtration system, together with a pool vacuum is needed to maintain clear, healthy water. Dolphin Pet Village has served 1 without cost thus far as our consultants in developing a workable filtration system. Estimate for filter system Miscellaneous: pipe, fittings, cement and misc. materials Pool Vacuum 2,000.00 500.00 $2,500.00 1,000.00 $3,500.00 We feel the predator problem is best solved by keeping a territorial watchdog in the gardens at night. A fence around the perimeter of the main garden area would have to be erected to contain the dog. The attached plan shows the approximate location for installation of the perimeter fence at Hakone Gardens. Listed below are the estimated costs for the fence mater ials. 700' of 4" wire fabric fencing 5' high 1,000.00 88 6' T posts 500.00 Misc. material gate posts, gates, hog rings, wire, cement, miscellaneous hardware, etc. 500.00 2,000.00 Saratoga Optomists have offered to install the fence with support from City Parks staff. Evidence of public concern for the welfare of Hakone Gardens is demonstrated by a steady flow of donations for the purpose of erecting the perimeter fence. It is important that we implement these improvements as soon as possible since a large number of Koi have already been destroyed by raccoons and herons. We need to protect the remaining Koi and also future donations of these beautiful fish, as they are an integral part of the Garden. Dan Trinidad, Jr. Director of Maintenance Attachments 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: November 19, 1986 ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager Repoft Summary: Fiscal Impacts: None directly on Saratoga Attachments: None Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 5-0. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Measure A Draft Strategic Plan Hearing AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL Recommended Motion: Continue hearing to 12 -3 -86. Direct staff to prepare comments on proposed plan based on testimony and Council discussion for Council review and adoption at its meeting of December 3rd. S700 C/0 This hearing is for the purpose of presenting the Traffic Authority's proposed Strategic Plan for Development of Routes 85, 101 and 237 using Measure "A" Money. Since the Authority has extended its review period through the month of December, Council can coutinue this hearing until December 3rd to insure adequate community participation and adequate time for preparation of a complete review of the proposed Plan. f EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: November 19, 1986 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planning SUBJECT:' parcel from RM -4000 to RM -3000 at 14234 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road Recommended Motion: Approve the extension of time for Ordinance NS- 3 -ZC -90 as recommended by the Planning Commissionp by adopting resolution. Report Summary: On June 20, 1984, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. NS- 3- ZC -90, conditionally rezoning the subject property. The conditions =:were not met within the two years required by the Ordinance. On September 24, 1986, the Planning Commission considered the request for.extensiori and recommended that the City Council grant a one year extension to the Ordinance. Fiscal Impacts: N/A Attachments: 1. Staff report to City Council 4. Staff report to Planning Commission 2. Resolution Approving Extension of Time dated 9/24/86 3. Ordinance NS- 3 -ZC -90 Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 5-0. "SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: CITY MGR. APPROVAL es C =206, Morrison Fox One year extension of a conditional rezoning of 2.2 acre 7' SUBJECT: BACKGROUND: goo REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: COUNCIL MEETING: 11/14/86 11/19/86 C -206, Fox and Morrison, Extension of time to complete conditions for rezoning a 2.2 acre parcel from RM -4000 to RM -3000 at 14234 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road_ On June 20, 1984, the City Council adopted Ordinance NS- 3 -ZC -90 which approved rezoning of a 2.2 acre parcel from RM -4000 to RM -3000 subject to conditions stated in Section 2 of the Ordinance. The applicant is working -on obtaining easements across the neighbor's property and require an extension of time to complete the agreement. Oh 24, 1986, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of a one year extension. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the one year extension by adopting the attached 'esolution. Yu hLek Hsia Pla Director YH /kc /dsc RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING THE EXETENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO COMPLETE REQUIREMENTS OF A CONDITIONAL REZONING, NS- 3 -ZC -90 WHEREAS, a conditional rezoning for Sectional District Map No. C -206 has been approved by the City Council of the City of Saratoga; and WHEREAS, the conditions set forth in Section 2 of Ordinance No. NS -3- ZC-90 attached hereto must be fulfilled as set forth in the attached Exhibit "A NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that 1. The City Council grants an extension of time to C -206, for 12 months in which to complete the conditions listed in Ordinance NS- 3- ZC -90. The above and foregoing resolution was regularly introduced and thereafter passed and adopted by the Saratoga City Council on the 19th day of November, 1986, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor, City Council E ORDINANCE NO. NS- 3 -ZC -90 4-x-1,4-tart EXHIBIT AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY AMENDING ORDINANCE NS -3 THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING THE ZONING MAP RE: APN 317 -27 -30 FROM R -M -4000 to R -M -3000 SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Subject to Section 2 of this Ordinance, Sectional District Map No. C -206 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference is hereby adopted, and the Zoning Map of the City of Saratoga adopted by Section 1.8 of Ordinance NS -3 of said City, together with any amendments thereto, is hereby changed and amended by substituting the crosshatched area on the foregoing sectional district map for that portion of the Zoning Map delineated in and by the within adopted crosshatched portion of the sectional district map. So much of the Zoning Map ofthe City of Saratoga, together with any amendments thereto, as in conflict with the within adopted sectional district map is hereby superseded and repealed. SECTION 2: Pursuant to Section 18.11 of Ordinance NS -3, the reclassi- fication set forth in Section 1 of this Ordinance is conditioned upon the following requirements being fully satisfied within twenty -four (24) months from the effective date hereof: (a) Tentative and Final Building Site Approval pursuant to Ordinance NS 60,.showing preservation of all existing residential units and location of proposed new structures. (b) Design Review Approval pproval of existing and proposed structures. In the event the foregoing conditions are not satisfied within the time prescribed in this section, the zoning reclassification shall not become effective. SECTION 3: This Ordinance conditionally reclassifies certain pro- perty shown on the attached sectional map from R -M -4000 to R -M -3000. This ordinance shall become operative and take effect thirty (30) days from its date of passage. This ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law was thereafter passed and adopted this 20th day of June 1984, by the following vote: i f ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: AYES: Councilmanbers Hlava, Moyles and Mayor Fanelli NOES: Councilmenber Clevenger ABSENT: Councilmember Callon i DEPUTY CITY CLEF 11 3,000 1 r CTIONAL MAP S AATOGA 4(C1-1 SCHOOL, C- 206 4E1Lj..o r •Pe{yl r r wins wirimor INFP 117P arlA 4- wr R- 1- 12;500 EXHIBIT "G" REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSIOIJ C -206, REQUEST FOR EXTENSION 14234 SARATOGA SUNNYVALE RD. DAVID MORRISON cl FROM: Lisa Welge DATE: 9/24/86 APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: C -206 Request for Extension 14234 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road APPLICANT: David Morrison APN: 397 -27 -030 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Staff has received a request for a one -year extension of conditional rezoning of a 2.2 acre parcel from RM -3,000 to RM-4,000. The applicant has been unable to meet the conditions of the rezoning within the 24 months allowed and requests this first 12 month extension. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends-'that the Commission grant the one year extension consistent with Chapter 15 of the City Code. The extension will be valid until July 20, 1987. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff reports to Planning Commission dated 4/18/84 and 4/3/84 2. Resolution C -206 -1 3. Ordinance NS- 3 -ZC -90 4. Minutes from Planning Commission meetings 4/11/84 and 4/25/84 5. Plans, Exhibit C and D 6. Letter from Applicant_ LW /kah MF /bjc P.C. Agenda 4/25/84 C�B7�'4 0 °'V oC� REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 4/18/84 Commission Meeting: 4/25/84 SUBJECT: C -206, MORRISON FOX, 14234 SARATOGA SUNNYVALE ROAD At its meeting of April 11, 1984 the Commission considered rezoning the 2.2 acre parcel at the above address from R -M -4000 to R -M -3000. After considerable discussion the Commission directed staff to prepare an ordinance conditionally rezoning the property from R -M -4000 to R -M- 30 0 0 The City Attorney's office has prepared the attached ordinance which would allow the rezoning to occur if the following two conditions are complied with within 24 months of the effective date of the ordinance: 1) Tentative and Final Building Site Approval showing the preservation of all existing residential units and the location of new structures. 2) Design Review Approval The purpose of these conditions is to ensure that the existing moderate income housing units are preserved and that any future development will be harmonious with the existing development. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance conditionally rezoning the site from R -M- 4000 to R -M -3000 and make the necessary findings as shown on Exhibit "F Michael Flores Assistant Planner REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: C -206, Morrison and Fox, 14234 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road REOUEST: Consider rezoning the subject property from R -M -4000 to R -M -3000 to eventually allow the construction of 12 additional apartments where 20 already exist. OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Tentative and Final Building Site Approval, Design Review approval and building permits. PLANNING DATA: PARCEL SIZE: 2.2 acres GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Multi- Family ZONING: Existing: R -M -4000 Proposed: R -M -3000 SITE DATA: UMW g2 7Noai DATE: 4/3/84 Commission Meeting: 4/11/84 SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single family residential to the west and north; multi family residential to the east and southeast; commercial to the southwest. SITE SLOPE: Gentle NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: Non native landscaping dominates the site except for that portion adjacent to Saratoga Creek. PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS: HISTORY: Twenty units were built on the site in the early 1960's. Three of the units are in a two -story structure. The remainder are single -story units. Report to the Pla it Commission C -206, Morrison a ox 4/3/84 Page 2 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The density permitted under the proposed R -M -3000 is consistent with the maximum density of 14.5 dwelling units per acre allowed under the multi family designation of the General Plan. The traffic generated (72 Average Daily Trips) by the 12 additional units that could be built on the site if this rezoning is approved could be accommodated by Saratoga Sunnyvale Road and would be consistent with the following general goals: LU.6.0 Relate new development and its land uses to presently planned street capacities so as to avoid excessive noise, traffic, and public safety hazards. If it is determined that existing streets need to be improved to accommodate a project, such improvements shall be in place or bonded for prior to issuance of building permits. CI.5.0 Use presently planned street capacities in determining land uses and acceptable development densities. If it is determined that existing streets need to be improved to accommodate a project, such improvements shall be in place or bonded for prior to issuance of building permits. The applicant must also conform with the following General Plan policies: LU.6.1 Prior to initial approval, the decision making body shall consider the cumulative traffic impacts of;single family residential projects of 4 or more lots, multi family residential projects of eight or more units, and :commercial projects de- signed for an occupancy load of more than 30 persons. CI.2.7 Prior to further development of major residential (4 or more single family units; 8 or more multi family units) or major commercial (more than 30 person occupancy) projects along the City's major arterials, the impacts of increased traffic shall be studied and a plan for minimizing these impacts shall be developed to the extent feasible. If the applicant wishes to build eight or more dwelling units on the site, a traffic impact study will have to be submitted when application is made for Tentative Building Site Approval. This study must take into account the cumulative traffic impacts of future development along Saratoga Sunnyvale Road and indicate how these impacts, if significant, can be mitigated. The Planning Commission has been working on the Draft Housing Element of the General Plan for the past year. As the Commission is aware there is a need for more housing in Saratoga as expressed in the Draft Housing Element. This project when completed would contribute to meeting some of that need. 'Report to the Ply o Commission C -206, Morrison a�, x C 4/3/84 Page 3 The applicant has indicated that the additional units would be about 700 sq. ft. in size and would be rented for about $650 /month. At this proposed rent these units would be affordable for moderate income households ($18,697 $28,044 per year) or low income house- holds if the County median income increases as projected for 1985. The Draft Housing Element has indicated that there is a potential need for an additional 123 moderate income housing units. STAFF ANALYSIS The site of the proposed rezoning is occupied by 20 units contained in four detached structures. Two carports providing twenty covered parking spaces are also contained on site. The buildings surround a pool and open space area in the center of the site. The center of the site is from 5 to 10 feet lower than Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, about 20 feet lower than adjacent properties to the north and is at about the same elevation or up to 5 feet higher than adjacent pro- perties to the east and south. The applicant has submitted a rough sketch showing the property in its existing condition (Exhibit "C and a tentative layout showing how additional units could be added to the site (Exhibit "D The applicant proposes that the carport building nearest the pool be removed and additional units added in its place and attached to the longest of the existing apartment structures. The carport would be moved to the rear of the property. Additional carports are proposed near the southern property line and at the front of the site. Using the tentative plan proposed by the applicant staff would estimate that no more than seven single -story apartments could be built in that plan. The full potential of 12 units (if the rezoning is adopted) could be constructed if two -story structures are used. However, the tentative plan violates the 25' minimum rear, side and front yard setbacks required for this site and violates the minimum 20' distance required between structures used for human habitation. Variances from these requirements would have to be granted by the Commission if the tentative plan were to be used. Staff estimates that from 5 to 6 additional units and required covered parking could be built on site without requiring variances from ordinance standards. This would require the two existing carports to be placed back to back with a 25' setback from the rear property line and could require two -story construction with the new covered parking beneath the new units. The details of such a plan would be reviewed by the Planning Commission at the Tentative Building Site and Design Review Approval stage of the project. If the tentative development plan is modified so as not to require any variances from City standards, staff feels that the proposed project would be of assistance in helping to meet Saratoga's need for aditional moderate income rental units. Report to the Planni Commission C -206, Morrison aC x FINDINGS: In accordance with Section 18.6 of the Zoning Ordinance staff has prepared the following findings: 1. The proposed rezoning is required to achieve the objectives of the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance as prescribed in. Section 1.1 of said ordinance. 2. The proposed rezoning will not have a significant impact on the environment or adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare. RECOMMENDATION: 4/3/84 Page 4 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the necessary findings and adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council rezone the subject property shown on Exhibit "B" from R -M -4000 to R- M- 3000. APPROVE MF /bjc P.C. Agenda 4/11/84 ieleziAS Michael Flores Assistant Planner RESOLUTION NO. C -206 -1 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA WHEREAS, the Commission held a Public Hearing on said proposed amendment, which Public Hearing was held at the following time and place, to wit: At the hour of 7:30 p.m. on the llth day of April 1984 at the City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California; and thereafter said hearing was closed, and WHEREAS, after consideration of the proposed amendment as it would affect the zoning regulation plan of the City of Saratoga, and after consideration of a Negative Declaration prepared for the project and brought before the Commission, this Commission has made certain findings and is of the opinion that the proposed amendment attached hereto and marked Exhibit "E" should be affirmatively recommended to the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga as follows: That the proposed amendment attached hereto be and the same is hereby affirmatively recommended to the City Council of the City of Saratoga for adoption as part of the Zoning Ordinance of said City, and that the Report of Findings of this Commission, a copy of which report is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "F be and the same is hereby approved, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary is directed to send a copy of this Resolution of Recommendation with attached Proposed Amendment and Report of Findings and a summary of hearings held by this Commission to the City Council for :further action in accordance with State Law. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 25th_ day of April 1984, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Harris Hlava, McGoldrick, Schaefer and Siegfried NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Crowther and Peterson ATTEST: Chairman of the Plan Commission FINDINGS: C -206 Exhibit "F" 1. The proposed rezoning is required to achieve the objectives of the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance as prescribed in Section 1.1 of said ordinance. 2. The proposed rezoning will not have a significant impact on the environment, or adversely affect public health, safety or welfare. Planning Commission .,Meeting Minutes 4/11/84 Page 4 A -945 and UP -557 (cont.) being relocated to a single driveway. The parking and circulation were discussed, and Staff suggested that a condition be added to the Staff Report that the street light that was removed between the two existing driveways be reinstalled. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, noting that there is a tree which will have to be removed because of the relocation of the driveway. She indicated that she feels theproposedparking and circulation are better. She noted that the bank desires to have a strong sodium vapor light over the ATM. She described this, indicating that she did not see any problem with it The public hearing was opened at 8:40 p.m. Herb Cuevas, architect, described the walls on the site. Commissioner Schaeff commented that she feels the retaining wall in back needs some treatment and suggested some landscaping for Staff approval. Mr. Cuevas indicated that the: could provide a surface treatment to the wall which will make it look more like stucco finish. He stated that they could also plant some ivy when they do their landscaping design. Mr. Cuevas described the light fixture, and he noted that the voltage of the bulb can be lowered if it is too intense. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlav,1 seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve UP -557 and A -945, per Exhibits "B -2" "C" and "D" and the Staff Report dated April 5, 1984, with the addition of the following conditions: (1) the street light shall be reinstalled, and (2) the retaining wall shall be texturized, and plantings added for Staff approval. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimous ly 6 -0. 6. C -206 Morrison and Fox, Consideration of Rezoning a 2.2 acre parcel from R -M -4000 to R -M -3000 which could eventually allow the con- struction of 12 additional apartment units at 14234 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road Chairman Schaefer reported that, in discussions with Staff, there is some question as to whether 12 apartment units, as suggested by the applicant, is possible, or whether it would be closer to 5 or 6 units. It was noted that the rezoning on the Neale property is R -M- 4,000. Staff described the applica tion. Chairman Schaefer described the apartment complex. She expressed con- cern regarding the fact that if this were zoned separately, and for some reason the property changed hands or the development went ahead in several years, that it might be extremely intensified. She commented that it is possi ble to impose conditions at the time of reclassification, to include the fact that the project must be done in a specified period of time and the kind of project that would be allowed, so that the City has some control over the kinc of things that would go in this development. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the apartment complex and the adjacent Neale property. The public hearing was opened at 8:52 p.m. John Kahle, attorney representing Clarence Neale, addressed the impact on Mr. Neale's property. He expressed concern about the increase in traffic, possi- ble fire hazard since there is one fire hydrant for all of the units, and the drainage. Staff noted that there will be an additional hydrant in the area when the Neale project goes forward. They also commented that the change of zoning is being addressed now, and if approved there would be a need for tentative and final approval for any intensification on the site, at which time the concerns of Mr. Kahle would be reviewed and conditioned appropriately Clarence Neale questioned the requirement for an additional fire hydrant when his property is developed. Staff clarified that Chief Kraule had reviewed the area and did suggest the hydrant on Mr. Neale's application. Mr. Neale described his property and the surrounding properties, addressing the drainage in the area. He requested a study session with the Commission on his develop- ment. There was a consensus that the Commission would like the proposed devel ment on the Morrison and Fox property to come back to a study session. Dave Morrison, the applicant, described the application. He indicated that he would like the rezoning considered now, and then the details can be worked out 4 Planning Commission .'Meeting Minutes 4/11/84 Page 5 r C -206 (cont.) during the preliminary and final site approval. "Stephen Fox, the applicant, addressed the property. He commented that they do not know how many units they would be proposing. It was pointed out to the applicant that the Commission is concerned about the need for variances, etc. It was the consensus that if the rezoning is granted, it will be understood that it is not granted for 12 units. Chairman Schaefer added that it appears that the Commission is in favor of the rezoning. However, they do not want to give variances on this development or have anyone think they are going to get the maximum possible yield to the detriment of any neighboring property. She stated that if something came up in the future and it looks reasonable, it might be considered, but it is not the Commission's intention to give variances. The City Attorney commented that the Commission does not have to make a judgment on the whole project at this time. He explained that the ordinance allows the Commission to conditionally rezone it, and the condition being that the use to which the property has been reclassified is established within a certain period of time. He stated that the Commission can determine that by making the condition their approval of the Site Development Plan, which will show what the buildings are, where they are, and if variances are required. He commented that if the Commission does not approve the development plan, they can then in effect nullify the reclassification for the zoning. He added that he feels, in view of the language in the ordinance, the Commission should specify a time by which a Building Site Approval has to be submitted and approved, and it can be extended if necessary. Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The City Attorney indicated that the resolution would have to be changed and the section of the code specifically referenced, to make sure that it is clear to the applicant what the condition is he has to satisfy, which is the con- ditional reclassifications There was a consensus to approve the rezoning and it was determined that this item should be put on the Consent Calendar for the next meeting on April 25, 1984. 7. C -207 City of Saratoga, Consideration of amendment of the text of the Zoning Ordinance to eliminate the minimum site area requirement of Section 4A.4, clarifying Section 4A.3(b) to allow second -story structures only when specifically approved by the Planning Com- mission, and other minor modifications per Ordinance NS -3, Article 18 (Planned Community District) It was directed that this matter be continued to April 25, 1984. 8. A -947 Parnas Corporation, Request for Design Review Approval for a two story single family residence on Saratoga Heights Drive, Lot #7, Tract 6665 in the NHR zoning district Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report describing the lot. She indicated that the house will be lower than the street and will not be visi- ble from anywhere. Commissioner McGoldrick added that the applicant had indicated that they would be willing to change the color. Staff described the proposal. The public hearing was opened at 9:50 p.m. No one appeared to address the Commission. It was moved and seconded to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve A -947, per the Staff Report dated April 3, 1984 and Exhibits "B "C" and "D with the added condition that the house not be stark white, that it be off white or medium earthtone. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0. 9. A -950 Parnas Corporation, Request for Design Review Approval for a 2-story single family residence on Saratoga Heights Court, Lot #4, Tract 6665 in the NHR zoning District The proposal was described by Staff. They stated that they were recommending denial, not being able to make the finding relative to perception of bulk. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, April 25, 1984 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Harris, Hlava, McGoldrick, Schaefer and Siegfried Absent: Commissioners Crowther and Peterson Minutes The following changes were made to the minutes of April 11, 1984: On page 4, second paragraph, the second sentence should read: "Commissioner Hlava indicated that she feels the proposed parking and circulation are better." On page 3, the fifth line in the fourth paragraph should read "its lots" instead of "their lots and "second units" should be added to the third sen- tence. On page 6, "Harris" should be added after the word "Commissioner" in the second sentence. Commissioner Schaefer moved to waive the reading of the minutes of April 11, 1984 and approve as amended. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Reorganization The new chairman, Chairman Siegfried, presented a gavel to past Chairman Schaefer for her years of service as Chairman of the Planning Commission. CONSENT CALENDAR The City Attorney stated that the Section 3 of the ordinance regarding C -206, Morrison F, Fox, should read: "This ordinance conditionally reclassifies certain property shown on the attached sectional map from R -M -4000 to R -M -3000. This ordinance shall become operative and take effect thirty (30) days from its date of passage." With that change, Commissioner Hlava moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar listed below. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0. 1. LLA -84 -1 Dorcich /Gibberson, Sobey Road (Evans Lane), Request for Lot Line Adjustment 2. A -864 George and Judith Claussen, Request for One -Year Extension for V -604 Design Review Approval and Variance Approval 3. C -206 Morrison and Fox, Consideration of Rezoning a 2.2 acre parcel from R -M -4000 to R -M -3000 which could eventually allow the construction of 12 additional apartment units at 14234 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road; continued from April 11, 1984 4. Mr. and Mrs. Donald A. Schlotterbeck, 19000 Sunnyside Drive, Construction of a 6' High Redwood Fence within 100' of Saratoga -Los Gatos Road PUBLIC HEARINGS 5a. A -942 Charles Aring, Request for Design Review Approval to construct 5b. V -630 a second story addition, Variance Approval for a 11'6" side yard 5c. SDR -1562 setback and Building Site Approval for a greater than 50% expan- sion at 20080 Mendelsohn Lane in the R -1- 20,000 zoning district; continued from March 28, 1984 It was directed that this matter be continued to the May 9, 1984 meeting. 6. GPA- 83 -1 -A Consideration of Draft Housing Element and Environmental Impac Report; continued from April 11, 1984 1 e-- EXHIBIT FILER. CITY OF SARA702A e_e,t_5i1)6 APTS evtre2-z.z-Acee 4 LA/ r57/1- c eG Pah E 9) 1/106 rePre 354 V759 ""zi,s 001181T FILE Ne. Z CITY OF SARATOGA -_r:, ORDINANCE NO. NS- 3 -ZC -90 c e 44ar EXHIBIT E AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY AMENDING ORDINANCE NS -3 THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING THE ZONING MAP RE: APN 317 -27 -30 FROM R -M -4000 to R -M -3000 SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Subject to Section 2 of this Ordinance, Sectional District Map No. C -206 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference is hereby adopted, and the Zoning Map of the City of Saratoga adopted by Section 1.8 of Ordinance NS -3 of said City, together with any amendments thereto, is hereby changed and amended by substituting the crosshatched area on the foregoing sectional district map for that portion of the Zoning Map delineated in and by the within adopted crosshatched portion of the sectional district map. So much of the Zoning Map of the City of Saratoga, together with any amendments thereto, as in conflict with the within adopted sectional district map is hereby superseded and repealed. SECTION 2: Pursuant to Section 18.11 of Ordinance NS -3, the reclassi- fication set forth in Section 1 of this Ordinance is conditioned upon the following requirements being fully satisfied within twenty -four (24) months from the effective date hereof: (a) Tentative and Final Building Site Approval pursuant to Ordinance NS -60, showing preservation of all existing residential units and location of proposed new structures. (b) Design Review Approval of existing and proposed structures. In the event the foregoing conditions are not satisfied within the time prescribed in this section, the zoning reclassification shall not become effective. SECTION 3: This Ordinance conditionally reclassifies certain pro- perty shown on the attached sectional map from R -M -4000 to R -M -3000. This ordinance shall become operative and take effect thirty (30) days from its date of passage. This ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law was thereafter passed and adopted this 20th day of June 1984, by the following vote: ATTEST: AYES: Councilmembers Hlava, Moyles and Mayor Fanelli NOES: Councilmember Clevenger ABSENT: Councilmember Callon ABSTAIN: None 44„, e DEPUTY CITY CLEF