The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-06-1982 CITY COUNCIL AGENDAj' "d CITY OF SARATOGA AGE-:'.JA BILL NO. 9� DATE: 1 -6 -82 DEPARTMENT: Planning & Policy Analysis SUBJECT: Appointment of Heritage Commission Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. Issue Summary Under the provisions -of the Heritage Ordinance, the Council is to appoint a five (5) member Commission. - one (1) Nominee from Saratoga Historical'Society - one (1) Saratoga Planning Commission - one (1) Architect, Urban Planner -'two (2) At large members who have demonstrated or have interest in the historical aspects of Saratoga. Recom-nendation Staff received only four (4) applications, not including the Planning Commission Representative or the Historical Society,for the Heritage Commission. The Planning Commission suggested Gene Zambetti who served on the Ad Hoc Committee for the Ordinance, and the Historical Society has nominated Warren Heid. Staff recommends: 11 That City Council appoint three (3) individuals from the applications in addition.to the Planning Commissioner and Representative from the Saratoga Historical Society, or 2)" extend the application period for an additional month in an attempt to increase the number of applicants. Fiscal Impacts Staff cost of establishing the Heritage Commission Exhibits /Attachments 1. Applications (4) 2. Additional applications (12) 3. Memo Council Action 1/6: Jensen /Mallory moved to extend application period one month. Passed 5 -0. .-! Qe 33.t D x REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 2/10/82 COUNCIL MEETING: 2/17/82 SUBJECT : Heritage Preservation Commission ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Recommendation : Staff recommends that the City Council select three (3) additional individuals plus the Planning Commission and Historical Society's nominees to serve on the Heritage Preservation Committee. Summary: The Council directed staff to readvertise in order to increase the number of applicants. The application deadline was February 5th and staff received twelve additional applications plus the original four. The Planning Commission suggested Gene Zambetti as their representative and the Historical Society nominated Warren Heid as their representative. . S. R binson, Jr. irector of Planning & Policy Analysis RSR /mgr C I T Y OF S A R A T O G A eri �v INF'ORMATI0, SHIN ci �0 rnr)l Iss i0/' _ For Commissions, Boards or Committees Name Warren B. Heid Residence 867 -4667 Telephone No. Date D EC 9 1981 P"I December 8, 1981 Address 14630 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, Ca. Nearest Cross Street Sixth Street Office 867 -9365 Telephone No. Personal History Grew up in Los Gatos, graduated with BArch, University of California. Opened office in Saratoga as Architect in 1958. Served on Santa Clara Co. Planning Com- mission for 6� years. Past president Rotary Club of Saratoga, Member of American Inst- itute of Architects and serve as Preservation Officer for Santa Clara Valley Chapter. On Board of Trustees for Montalvo Association and Saratoga Historical Foundation, Education B. Architecture, University of California 1950 with Honors in Architecture, Employer Self Type of Business Architecture Year You Became A Saratoga Resident 22 years Address 14630 Big Basin Way, Saratoga,.Ca, Specific Work You Perform Architect /Owner Are You a Registered Voter of the City of Saratoga? Yes Would you be able to attend daytime meetings? V4 Evening Meetings? Yes No Yes List Civic Activities, Clubs, Associations, and neighborhood- level, activities American Institute of Architects, Saratoga Chamber of Coerce, Rotary Club of Saratoga Saratoga Historical Foundation, Montalvo Association, Saratoga 'PTA, Design Review. Committee for City of Saratoga, General Plan Review Ccnudttee 1981 Mditional information and qualifications and /or references. (If additional space is required, use other side.) To c,rhich Ccnmission or Board would you prefer appointmento. Saratoga He Commission Signature Please comlplete and return to the City Clerk, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 WILLYS I. PECIK ' p pp�� ATTORNEY AT LAW �LANNIN6 POlJC.1C % v� AREA CODIi 408 807.1055 POST OFFICE BOX 321 S.1ILITOGA, CALIFOP.NIA 05070 January 5, 1982 14275 SARATOCA A:ENUE Mr. Rob Robinson Planning Director -° ,City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Saratoga Historical Foundation Dear Mr. Robinson: This is to confirm our recent telephone conversat''ion regarding the nomination of Warren B. Heid to serve as the representative of the Saratoga Historical.Foundation on the Historical Preservation Commission under the new ordinance. It is my understanding that Mr. Heid previously had applied to serve on the Commission. I will appreciate your processing this in the appropriate channels. Very truly yours,' WILLY I. PECK, President Saratoga Historical Fdn. .. WIP /mp �aMf0 aJ CITY OF SARATOGA INFORMATION SI-i 7 C' 0 Mni Iss io/'L V ' For Connnissions, Boards or Committees � •�- '� a;;�� 'i Date Pc,. /3, / %/ ..._ ... NamG/'lllli Address i Nearest Cross Street Residence Office Teleohone No. ,& % -/ 57O L Telephone No. R6 - 4f7 1y Personal History �1-7 - l�Cc�- ✓f[.LGI /LLr /. � ��7 /Gf c�_ �ji.GC,�'-G >/Z�! ✓Gi` /�i�- >a�/�.1 /D /Z/: U y / �O�l%J�c? • ✓��i % 7jvl �P�iii - �i ciZi ; C��L yfuy j Ii Education L,7%,14 -,- �i zir /C� =V� ve f��i �6r�rli�c' , Employer a,-7 Addresses /__:�� Type of Business,�C4 /% f,�iCi / / Specific Work You Perform �//Y'�` �C'/ /�11�i1�irl�si�� %�� - (�- ��kr�T�c, /`.�Si'a� Cv. /;�. ��lr�� / /�i•' °tea 3D G�r�[.� %�i �=ci Cis GTE CG1Cc 6• hSlG��, �J�1GCl�. fOfL7f/i //! r�� / Year Y u Bec . A Are'You a Registered / Saratoga Resident % C37Z7 Voter of the City of Saratoga? Yes Would u be able to attend daytime yo ytime meetings? `may Evening Meetings ?��-,�e- r No List Civic Activities, Clubs, Associations, and neighborhood -level activitie ��r, /Ij 1273 -%97J-- / �'��i�', j� -� �t/�� -� e 7�- Additional information and qualifications and /or references. (If additional space is required, use other side..) C To which Commission or Board would you prefer Si Please co*plete and return to the City Clerk, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 �amfo of CITY OF SARATOGA v INFORMATION S= �erl �Cl C. For Commissions, Boards or Committees /ilLr / i Me Residence Telephone No. a Z RECENEID DEC J� 1981 LAW ANA�YSIS� Date ' T Address--f/ %j"-, cl7 - Nearest Cross Stree Office Telephone No. is / iL_ , r.: // /L / , ..tea -/• / ' / - Education Address Type of Business Specific Work You Perform Year You Became A Are You a Registered Saratoga Resident -ZL (p Voter of the City of Saratoga? Yes No Would you be able to attend daytime meetings? Evening Meetings? List Civic Activities, Clubs, Associations, and neighborhood -level activities Addi zformation required, use other side. - To which Commission orZR " qualifica ions d /or references. (If AX, _ion 1 spa .i /. /I Imo:. �.iL� i would you Prefer appointmeant Please conplete and return to the City Clerk, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 I- �a�0j aJ C ITY OF SARATOGA , INFRMFTION SHEET For Ccunnissions, Boards or Committees 1 1981 r Date December.-_2_;� -19L1 Name Rai.sa Kocher Address-1 5139 T'ark Drive Saratoga Nearest Cross Street Rarat -aga -Los C;atos Rd. Residence Office Telephone No. 354 -9513 Telephone No. 8673484 Personal History. Married - Two grown children. Owns interior decorating shop in the same location for 30 years. Active on many civic committees Practiced Optometry for ten years specializing in contact lenses and fitting prismatic astigmatism. Decided to change completely and went back to school and recieved a degree in Interior Design and has been practicing for the least 30 years. Education Maiored from the University of Berlin in medicine and at the Game time ;attended the University of Bosarks-in France and Learned Design, architecture, art etc. Recieved Masters and ".H.D, from TT.S.C. in physics snecializi.n in lenses and nriGmG and rariPvinc a anarinl degree in optometry. Recieved degree in Interior Design from S.J.S. Enployer Owner- Rai-sa Kocher Interiors Address 14519 Big Basin Tray, Saratoga, Ca. Q5070 Type of Business Interior Design Speciiic 1nWoilK %,ou Pei-form Interior Design Year You Became A Are You a Registered Saratoga Resident 1951 Voter of the City of Saratoga? x Yes No [could you be able to attend daytiiTe meetings? c Evening Meetings? X List Civic Activities, Clubs, Associations, and neighborhood- lE:vel activities Soroptimist, Chamber of Commerce -Board of Directors and Village Association - Board of Directors Additional information and (Tialifications and /or references. (If additional space is required, use other side.) To which C nTaission or Board would you prefer appointment? Signature Please complete and return tc) the City Clerk, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 O 01 CITY OF SARATOGA INFORMATION SHMT RECEi VED e(�I I C1 0rnnlISS A- FEB - For Commissions, Boards or Committees - 198 P_LANNI G POLICY. ANALYSIS . Date �- � ,•; / , �,: y , ., � Name ,/ `l9 r' L_ Address Nearest Cross Street;;, Residence Office Telephone No. Telephone No. • j - Personal History v� Z/1 /1 /`',.)% ice �J r ., i��l��' /�� =�� /' /i'-r /�� %� 7 A,i/ t Employer _ Address Type of Business L-1,2 r'�!?f • , i Specific Work You Perform > ; Year You Became A / Are You a Registered Saratoga Resident / � Voter of the City of Saratoga? � Yes No Would you be able to attend daytime meetings? Evening Meetings? List Civic Activities, Clubs, Associations, and neighborhood -level activities Additional information and qualifications and /or references. (If additional space is rewired, use other side.) To which Ca=ission or Board would you prefer appoin Signature Please ooiTlete and return to the City Clerk, tvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 /G- Z/1 /1 /`',.)% ice �J r ., i��l��' /�� =�� /' /i'-r /�� %� 7 A,i/ t Employer _ Address Type of Business L-1,2 r'�!?f • , i Specific Work You Perform > ; Year You Became A / Are You a Registered Saratoga Resident / � Voter of the City of Saratoga? � Yes No Would you be able to attend daytime meetings? Evening Meetings? List Civic Activities, Clubs, Associations, and neighborhood -level activities Additional information and qualifications and /or references. (If additional space is rewired, use other side.) To which Ca=ission or Board would you prefer appoin Signature Please ooiTlete and return to the City Clerk, tvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 CITY OF SARATOGA `J INFORMATION SHII:r �Qm/11�A- i !For Cannissions, Boards or Committees `` Date danua.ry 16, 1,982 Name Mundee Jo 1,alsh Residence Telephone No. 867 -0275 Address 15481 Peach Hill Road, Saratoga Nearest Cross Street Glen Una Drive Office Telephone No. Non.e Personal History. See Resume attached. Husband, John Banning Walsh, employed by Sequoia Union School District. Children, Brett age 12, Brady age 11. Education San Jose State University, San Jose, Calif. B.A., 1965. Major: Interior Design. F1Yployer Self ASddress 15481 Peach Hill Road, Saratoga Type of Business In Store Demons tatiompeci is Work You Perform Supplying companies with people and services to demonstrate their product. Year You Becarm A Are You a Registered Saratoga Resident 1965 Voter of the City of Saratoga? X Yes No Would you be able to attend daytime meetings? Yes Evening Meetings? Yes List Civic Activities, Clubs, Associations, and neighborhood -level activities See attached Resume ?additional information and qualifications and /or references. (If additional space is rewired, use other side.) References: Clifford Petersen. Principal Architect for Swenson Construction Co., Al Pauls, Independent Contractor, Miles Rankin, Saratoga Realtor. Phone_ numbers available upon request. To which Cccrmissicn or Board would you prefer appointment? Heritage Commission Signat ; Please corTlete and return to the City Clerk, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 Ra s ume E.MP LOYME NT Mundee J. Walsh 15481 Peach Hill Road Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 867 -0275 Janun1y 1979 General Manager of BC:V Products, Inc. to present 393 North Morrison Avenue ..San Jose, CA 95126 (408) 298 -5586 Developed representatives program, advertising, coordinated displays at industrial shows, designed booth and layout, color products catalog, and conducted purchasing, inventory control, accounting functions and personnel management. 1966 to 1979 Mundee Walsh Interiors -- focusing on residential and commercial design, consulting, purchasing, sales . promotion, and coordinated, delegated and supervised subcontractors and delivery. EDUCATION San Jose State University, San Jose, Calif. B.A. , 1965, Major: Interior Design. ACCOMPLISHMENTS Consultant for Mitsuru Tada, architect for the Sumitomo Bank of California ano personal residence of Nimei Akamatsu, President of The Sumitomo Bank of California. Designer of the sales manual for Energy Preservation Systems in conjunction with the Pacific Gas and Electric's energy conservation program. Designer of the Summer Kitchen for the Showcase Mansion 1978 in the historic Wehner mansion at The Villages in San Jose. Out of 21 designer participants, my Summer Kitchen was chosen to be photographed for publication in several national magazines. Designer of the home of Al Pauls, Woodside Builders, Santa Cruz, which was illustrated in the San Jose Mercury Supplement. Participant: in the San Jose Symphony Auxiliary at the Le Grand Pique -nique with a table setting, titled "Desert Sunset. " Participant in St. Andrew's annual table setting show which was photographed by Sunset Magazine for publ.t.at:on. Consultant for table decorators show given by O'Connor Hospital Auxiliary. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Window Display Chairman for Eastfield Junior Auxiliary (Butter Paddle in Saratoga) Fund Raising Chairman for Santa Clara County Heart Association Auxiliary New Dimension Committee of Xlontalvo Graphic Design Chairman for Saratoga School Graphics Designer for AYSO Soccer, Saratoga Division Decorations Chairman for St. Andrew's Winter Ball C I T Y OF S A R A T O G A - - -- -- -- - - - - -- INFORMATION SHED r 'DJ For Commissions, Boards or Committee ,. Narle George H. �,dhalen Address P. 0. Box _l (1 41 40 Victor Place Nearest Cross Street Walnut Ave. Residence Office Telephone No. ( 408) 867 -3881 Telephone No. Personal History I came to Saratoga as a child in 10,25 and have resided. here ever since, with exception of military. service (10,41 -46). Married, father of four grown children. Education Graduate of Saratoga Grammar School, Los Gratos ui gh, WPSt Val � E-y College -and currently attending San Jose State University. f Saratoga Fffployer Retired as Postmaster of/ Address Type of Business Post Office Year You Became A Saratoga Resident 1925 Specific Work You Perform Are You a Registered Voter of the City of Saratoga? Would you be able to attend daytime meetings? X X Yes No Evening Meetings? x List Civic Activities, Clubs, Associations, and neighborhood -level activities Saratoga Mens Club; Santa Clara County Library Commission; Board of Directors Santa Clara County Information ez Referral Service (Treasurer); President, Saratoga Advisory Board, Information & Referral Service; Sacred Heart Church, Former Additional information and qualifications and /or references. (If additional space is required, use other side.) President of Parish Council; Chairman of Saratcga Bicentenial Commission (1975 -76); Member, Friends of Saratoga Library; Saratoga Historical Foundation (Docent); Sacred Heart newcomers Committel?;Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council; Lector and Usher at Sacred Heart Church To which Ccmrnission or Board would you prefer appointment? Heritage Preservati.Qn Committec Signature Please ccTrplete and return to the City Clerk, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 SARATOGA HERITAGE COMEAISSION C I T Y OF S A R A T O G A INFOI MATIO14 SHEET i 2 .22 v � J For Commissions, Boards or Committees Date /41 N �✓ � C� Cl c�i%L L �� , , ;, Addre s s _7 0 5 // C` c �-n -� •- -,� -� Nearest Cross Street .tom J' Residence Office Telephone No. �2 6Z Telephone No. ;z ;z Personal History Education, cQP "5-, Employer '� (( Address eType of Business )pp- Specific Work You Perform Year You Became A Are You a Registered Saratoga Resident /CZ,c,I Voter of the City of Saratoga?,,,- Yes No Would you be able to attend daytime meetings? G Evening Meetings? List Civic Activities, Clubs, Associations, and neighborhood -level activities ?Additional information and qualifications and /or references. (If additional space is rewired, use other side.) which Commission or Board would you prefer appointment? Signature Please cormlete and return to the City Clerk, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 ci- l %�.v,,,�,• -�,�.a -L�,� �� ate--- � f.�- e -a.�� ' c �..- �.t- Y,.o�,•�� ,9��t� -- - - - .�iJ¢� the- r '`�� a� Y:, �7LL 11 CITY OF SARATOGA - - -- — —-- — — — — — — SARATOGA HERITAGE INFORMATION SHEET FF 2 1982 COMAISSION For Commissions, Boards or Committees - -- _ Date Name Address /fF 6 b b �,irr _ �'�p�J o(„�.t Nearest Cross Street,— v Residence !!// Office Teleohone No. 3 5 T- S % 7 Telephone No. Personal History Education Employer Address 9Type of Business Specific Work You Perform t Year You Became A Are You a Registered Saratoga Resident 9 '� d Voter of the City of Saratoga? ` Yes No Would you be able to attend daytime meetings? zx9L2 Evening Meetings?� List Civic Activities, Clubs, Associations, and neighborhood -level activities .T i Additional information and qualifications and /or references. required, use other side.) which Ccmmission or Board would you prefer appointment? Signature (If additional space is Please ccxTlete and return to the City Clerk, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 CITY OF SARAT --- v INFORI 1ATI0.1 SHIIT ; - = S C_00rqr)11!SS/()A_ Her4o �J � .I 1 For Ccmni.ssions, Boards or Committees a ' Date 'January 18, 1982 Nary- 14ARK H. PIERCE Address 19783 Braemar Drive, Saratoga, CA Nearest Cross Street Merrihrook Residence Office Telephone NO. 867-6855 Telephone No. 736 -1670 Personal History. I was raised in Saratoga; graduated from Saratoga High School in 1967. I lived in Campbell for 5 years and moved back to Saratoga last year when I purchased a home here. In addition to my full time job, I was in the Army Reserve and taught art -time at San Jose State University. Education B.A. - History, University of Colorado, 1971 Juris Doctor, University of Santa Clara, 1974 1 Errployer KELLY, LEAL & OLIMPIA f •Type of Business Attorneys Year You Became A 1955-1974 Saratoga Resident 1981 - present Address 697 E. Remington Drive ' Sunnyvale, UA 94087 Specific Work You Perform Civil litigation Are You a Registered Voter of the City of Saratoga? Yes x No Would you.be able to attend daytime meetings? Some Evening Meetings? List Civic Activities, Clubs, Associations, and neighborhood -level activities Yes California Bar Association; California Trial Lawyers Association; Santa Clara County Bar Association; San Jose Historical Museum Association; Campbell Parks' & Recreation Commission, 1976 -81; Hillbrook School Board of Trustees Additional inforrnation and qualifications and /or references. (If additional space is recruired, use other side.) u1nich Ccrmission or Board would you prefer appointment? Heritage Commission Signature Please caTlete and return to the City Clerk, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 4 1982 C I T Y OF S A R A T O G A INFORMATION S= For Commissions, Boards or' Committees Date /6 & 3 , /Y1.9 Name T,, V M!!NG 5416 -R Address 1.f'!4_ % /'7'v s �✓F - f<j X2.0 �` o 64 Nearest Cross Street Residence Office Telephone No. �D� -a �7 ^ /�� /� Telephone No. y /S'- �� D `,c,/.4 yA 46tZ_ Personal History:oey ,Omv ►4/SEV 1H A1,45 4 5AI 416LAWI'Y- _�D��9AI9 - .S-cr4dfD 4ol!5'11Z 3 yi45 W ,Qio4 J °ReE ICA / .A//. 4I.G�.�- ldll -Eo _4>04JS, 6'1%k tOWA? 7Y IAI,50410 CE ('b S sox/5, d e e- /A/ .4 RE A . ,2 /i✓ L�0 � �n/�oxC6 1st /w�T P / /A/ R4) 5 fAMS5 AD 54r4 f. Education l✓g44SW �/,ea.C-4 wl'Q � 3�'—('oy�t/e• ova.• .Jt4f�oo/ �,Q /pd'.1 ,/6 AT- ('o CC6kC5 (°o •-xSE S i Eaploye�s� ,O Xer!6 V 0<1 �d �a Addresses !d o a e WW 4 ,Type of Business ye d/4 - (Oph,7X4C7' St ES Specific Work You Perform 1-ts 7W6__- 64 /��ri,, - �d�Fv�CE ,✓y�S?��Grt �N/aolS - .loC9C G'6v�' /�Gt'�/C'lEs. Year You Became A Are You a Registered Saratoga Resident 111*11Q Voter of the City of Saratoga ?_ �,� - Yes No Would you be able to attend daytime meetings? of Evening Meetings? List Civic Activities, Clubs, Associations, and neighborhood -level activities )oq t ofL�ic°,cd� /N V,4/310 C�w�sy�SroR�c�c eSCi�+7Y '/1r� ti' ��i� GJ,e,r (Eryrt Vff 4e- ea&d rt or 3;r4r6 o� MP144 Y 194o - Ke►/ a, � j4-*,,'wdA11S CvR� lrAor M6 rE4 e iI��ST �[c�y�i✓.d�t/iI - i4��S6 v-rs — 7EV 0000 s s — •c C°�.rQ► �K�.��fEc }�cFEs - Additional information and qualifications and /or references. (If additional space is required, use other side. ),�✓xae 4 e,CEor 14y to e4 C. eflis?aKJ/ .41P C o Lc 6e o /o 04 e. /, S 7 DA X 3o&e5 . ?D-r Al A4,Ctr ,r�,c/n IAI - H,,R9N TL 4 C L` . which Commission or Board would you prefer appointment? '141e174 6 E Signature Please complete and return to the City Clerk, 13777 Fruitva e Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 C I T Y OF S A R A T O G A INFORMATION SHEET For Commissions, Boards or CcmTiittees v Residence Telephone No. Personal History— Date FEB 3 1982 Address O * —tA—t Nearest Cross Street ��pi��L cy- office Telephone No. //I X_ Education Ll�'�iZ-�GLa�ti�Gr �s��l� �i%�1�• r _ Fzployer Address �/lr i *Type of Business L %�'zi - Specific Work You Perform�� -� Year You Became A Are You a Registered Saratoga Resident Ac �,/ Voter of the City of Saratoga? Yes ✓o Would you be able to attend daytime meetings? Evening Meetings? �:► List Civic Activities, Clubs, Associations, and neighborhood -level activities 1/-fr - Additional information and qualifications and /or reference,. (If additional space is required, use other side.)%y / /'� 1 /ors f/ v U c which Commission or Board would you prefer appointment? L Signature Please complete and return to the City Clerk, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 ( /?�lo �G��a/ �,/' -� %rte -�-� -� �5�1 - 0 ��rc�fo aJ CITY OF SARATOGA v , INFORMATION SHEET �J For Commissions, Boards or Committees Date Nam u S L� 4� ►��c. �' Address Nearest Cross Street c L, Residence Office Telephone No. �) ,� .� ;� 9 Ci y-" Telephone No. Personal History t,;. ., j 1 a -C'am_ Rs- _ � Cr . .. C: T i �.yLi -lam - c r G c• Wit. c . S`� J t (� i C1 t.v �p �n ... a- tom. Q ~o r Education �r�'� .01 N. \ iv . it r -e-- G e- i V -e G- Employer )m ca < ,r Address •Type of Business Specific Work You Perform Year You Became A Are You a Registered Saratoga Resident ,� Voter of the City of Saratoga ?__X_ -Yes No Would you be able to attend daytime meetings?—! 'e S Evening Meetings? List Civic Activities, Clubs, Associations, and neighborhood -level activities Z,I: CA s c;_ 1 t 5 !_ v, f Additional information and qualifications and /or references. required, use other side.) (If additional space is which Ccmnission or Board could you prefer appointment? ,� e, r k-t C; v Signature • � � _„ 0 1 , Please complete and return to the City Clerk, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 CITY OF SARATOGA i� . - INFORMATION SHEET c L :J : `' 1982 i For Ccnmiissions, Boards or Conmittee jDa e Namet �� Address Nearest Cross Street Residence Office �l T rl elephone No. 117— No. 67 Fzployer • Type of Business Address Specific Work You Perform M AeZ, Year You Became A Are You a Registered Saratoga Resident z Voter of the City of Saratoga? Yes No Would you be able to attend daytime meetings? /J Evening ings? Lis�t�j Civic Activities, Activ'iities, Clubs, Associations, eighborhood- level activitie �C / , N WF/ //AM B Add' ional formation and qualifications and/or references. (I additional space is required, use other side.) ' ��G %' 11/ zo which Commission or Board would you pr'fer appc Signa Please complete and return to the City Clerk, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 ..1/% ✓..�� %%� BUT `�� . ��lU .�l/`��'�,/��,� ."�� 7� 2117L) Av Of Jkxz�-Alll OF C I T Y OF S A R A T O G A RECEiVED INFORMATION S= FEB - 5 1982 For Commissions, Boards or Committees pLAy�{IbG PQLICY ANALYSIS, Date—'/ 7C rua r Name Oa rha ng-, VOeL5-kr, Address //-/a 5 13ur/95 Wa Nearest Cross Street Ma ryo4 "Road Residence �` /D � O Teleohone No. ,7'�1� Personal History &?'!'1 4,07 d. h,Q 44f Office F�O � _� ''r` O Telephone No. 3 6 W Sp` s . -f(R ca_. Wi e4Vj & PiK , MI R�Dt. �✓licP,u ��A,e � 1J 4i �� L Y i7%� iAIY.?� �llL�/L �CLt�£� Q -ia,A b4x, u�c cr2 .uoGc, . ,A�1c vyP. Gr4• tG �b .ci !% d --� Education ,deck y�-4 Se oV A 7h rd Employer 3a I'LL Na_ 6(l/e.*9 .�% • �/ 5 f *Type of Business T ?57 - ttChoaa/ 4ide Address 14 6O %S 4101)a, Specific Work You Perform Wo/-k /rid / K ad //Q Year You Pcame"A Are You a Registered Saratoga Resident %G%`Q (� Voter of the City of Saratoga? ^ v Yes No Would you be able to attend daytime meetings? Evening Meetings? List Civic Activities, Clubs, Associations, and neighborhood -level activities Additional information and qualifications and /or references. (If additional space is required, use other side.) 6M, which Commission or Board would you prefer appointment? Signature, e, Please complete and return to the City Clerk, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 .. t i Ste,` fo aJ CITY OF SARATOGA r v INFORMATION Ski=, For Commissions, Boards or Committees Nacre 2,, �. /.a , _fie 4J Residence _ Teleohone No.�V� 1982 Date Address C :L Nearest Cross StreetL ^T Office Telephone No. Personal History �� ,; L -23, v�-W'c Education Employer !Type of Business Address Specific Work you Perform Year You Becamie A Are You a Registered Saratoga Resident Voter of the City of Saratoga? vZ Yes No Would you be able to attend daytime meetings? -U-e.5 Evening Meetings? i /rs � L List Civic Activities, Clubs, Associations, and neighborhood -level activitiesji ' � C..i'�.G' ?GCi;:,Cr�u ct -Q.i.� %L'�lLL�ll�r� ,:.i ��c:�a:- YtiC�,.� ✓d— C.i�..• C� Additional information and qualifications and /or references. (If additional space is recruired, use other side.) Please complete and return to the City Clerk, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 which Ccmmission or Board would you prefer appointrent? Signature Please complete and return to the City Clerk, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 SARATOGA FOOTHILL CLUB.: P.O. BOX 2233 _ SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 February 4, 1982 Mayor Linda Callon 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor Callon: The Saratoga Foothill Club commends the decision of the City Council to form a Heritage Commission. The Foothill Club, which is celebrating its 75th anni- versary this year, has long played an active role in this community. Prior to the formation of the Historical Society, Foothill Club members assumed the responsibility of preser- ving many of the city's historic records. Our clubhouse'`on Park Place has been designated as a State of California Historic Landmark. Because of the club's long- standing interest in the preservation of Saratoga's heritage, we feel that it would be appropriate for one of our members to serve on the Com- mission. Our House and ,Grounds Chairman,-Mrs. John Corr, has agreed to represent the club in this capacity and has submitted her application for this position to the Depart- ment of Planning and Policy Analysis. Thank you for your consideration of her candidacy. CM /ah Very truly yours, Claire Marino, President Saratoga Foothill Club • CITY OF SARATOGA 2 Initial: AGENDA BILL NO. 9 3 Dept. Hd. DATE: 1 -6 -82 C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: Planning & Policy Analysis. C. Mgr. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUB=- Joint Use Of Moffet Field For Civilian and Military Aviation Use. Issue Summary Santa Clara County ccmiissioned the firm of Hodges and Shutt to develop a master Aviation Plan for Santa Clara County. The report recommended that Moffet Naval Airstation be used for both Military and Commercial Aircraft. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council go on record opposing this joint use of Moffet Field. Fiscal Impacts None. Exhibits /Attachments 1. Report dated 12/23%81 2. Report and letter frcm, Mr. J:m Rains,-Mountain View Chamber of Commerce. Council Action 1/6: Watson /Mallory moved to oppose joint use of Moffett Field. Passed 5 -0. Council requested further information on "pros" of such use. 4 of SAR�9 re 9� REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 12/30/81 COUNCIL MEETING: 1/6/82 SUBJECT Analysis of Proposed Joint Use of Moffett Field for Civilian and Military Aviation Purposes ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- BACKGROUND: Staff recently reviewed a report from Mr. Jim Rains, President of the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce asking for the City of Saratoga's support in defeating the joint military and civilian use of the naval air station at Moffett Field. The attached report states that Santa Clara County has commission- ed the firm of Hodges and Shutt, an aviation planning service, to prepare a recommendation regarding the future aviation in the County of Santa Clara. The Hodge and Shutt Report was published and it indicated that it would be most appropriate to use Moffett Field as a-joint military and commercial use. The attached report summarizes various factors to include: 1) air space and safety, 2) no land space available for future expansion at Moffett Field, 3) security effectiveness, 4) jeopardy to AMES extensive research and development role, 5) noise pollution, 6) Moffett's military role, and 7) multi - million dollar expenditure necessitated in developing the facilities. PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT: The Document details the specific problems associated in using Moffett as a joint facility. It further indicates that the public has not been involved in any of the hearings and that there are numerous problems associated with the joint use of Moffett Field. The problems of the air space and air safety are probably the most significant in that at the present time the Moffett Air Corridor is in the midst of several air corridors serving air- ports at Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose and several small airports. Any international carrier in the same space would create a tremendous problem. The military aircraft have much stronger controls and orders because of the very nature of their Report to Mayor and City Council Joint Use of Moffett Field 12/30/81 Page 2 operation whereas commercial aircraft operate in a much different mode. Moffett Field, in fact, does not have sufficient space to expand into an ordinary airport. Included in the commercial airport system would be a modification to the military security system, additional parking for the commercial travelers, car rental space, and facilities to serve the passengers on the commercial flights. The main purpose of the Moffett Air Station would be in great jeopardy and there may be the necessity for Moffett Field to either modify their current operation or curtail the proposed commercial to the point that it would not be cost effective. The attached report clearly indicates that the major role of the Moffett Air Field is for anti - submarine patrols which would be in jeopardy from the standpoint of the number of aircraft and the strict security of such an operation. Furthermore, the NASA /AMES Research Center would not be at liberty to utilize the facility as they currently do. Probably, more important to the residents of the area is the noise problem and the safety problem. Currently the military aircraft fly over large parts of Santa Clara County but have worked closely with the City of Mountain View and other cities in the area to maintain an acceptable noise standard. With commercial airlines flying into Moffett, there is some concern whether they would cooperate with the residential communities of the area. The last factor of concern is the cost of modifying Moffett Field. From the current situation it is more than adequate to handle the military aircraft from the standpoint that the fire fighting facilities are handled by naval personnel and there are no problems from that standpoint. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the City Council go on record as opposing Moffett Field as a joint military and commercial air- port for the reasons stated above. OJNiA /Ar i MOUNTAIN VIEW CHAbIBER OF COMMERCE 580 CASTRO STREET - 11. O. BOY 4619 MOUNTAIN VIEW. CALIFORNIA. 9,1040 TELEPHONE 968 -8378 �L 7 December 4, 1981 Mayor Linda A. Callon City of Saratoga City Hall Saratoga, Ca. 95070 RE: JOINT MILITARY & CIVILIAN USE OF NAVAL AIR STATION MOFFETT FIELD, CALIFORNIA Dear Mayor Callon: You know that aviation, in all its aspects, becomes in- creasingly important to America with each passing day. An air corridor can accommodate a given number of planes and still preserve basic air safety standards. Santa Clara County has commissioned a study resulting in a Master Plan for Aviation in Santa Clara County. The Master Plan calls for Moffett Field to be a "reliever" airport combining military and civilian uses at Moffett Field. Co- mingling civilian and military aircraft at NAS Moffett Field is a critical decision vitally affecting the home and the way of life in this valley, and also presents grave problems to the U. S. Navy and the role Moffett Field plays in the American defense posture. Attached is a report pre- pared by a committee of this organization setting forth some of the problems and aspects of this matter. The Master Plan for Aviation was prepared by outside con- sultants without input from the jurisdictions and people impacted by the plan. There will have to be public hearings before it can be officially adopted. Your position needs to be known now! If the plan is adopted any opposition may be too little and too late. We would appreciate a copy of any correspondence you initiate on this matter. I! - i Sincerely, ,.� `Jim Rains President G AN ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED JOINT USE OF NAS MOFFETT FIELD FOR MILITARY AND CIVILIAN AVIATION PURPOSES Presented to the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce Governmental Affairs Committee in Special Session on Thursday, October 1, 1981 and the Board of Directors on October 14, 1981. Written and presented by Sherman M. McCormick, Chairman, Governmental Affairs Committee. SUBJECT: JOINT USE OF NAS MOFFETT FIELD Page 1 BACKGROUND From time to time in recent years it has been proposed that Naval Air Station Moffett Field (hereinafter referred to as "Moffett ") become an airfield for the combined and concurrent use of both military and civilian aircraft. Santa Clara County (James A. Hunter, Director of Aviation), has commissioned the firm of Hodges and Shutt, Aviation Planning Services, to prepare recommendations regarding the future of aviation in this County. It is the understanding of this Committee Chairman that the Study has been completed, the re- commendations have been completed, an Aviation Master Plan has been completed, and Moffett is designated for.joint use. In the absence of any information to the contrary it appears that the study has been finalized and recommendations made without seeking any local input from the communities and interests that would be most vitally concerned if such a recommendation were to become operational. If the proposed Master Plan is in existence then local input could border on being a mockery. S U M M A R Y This paper considers some areas considered to be extremely important to this subject. Details are set forth later. The conclusions are as follows: 1. AIR SPACE AND SAFETY The Moffett Air Corridor is one of the most congested corridors in the nation. Adding commercial and civilian aviation landings in this con- gested pattern would be contrary to acceptable basic standards for air. safety. There is no available air space. 2. NO LAND SPACE There is no available land space at Moffett. Present operations and technology are using all available land space. The continual dynamic technological advances will demand additional land area at Moffett. Joint use would cause Moffett to lose a substantial portion of exist- ing acres and the loss, or relocation of, the uses to which the land is now being put. 3. SECURITY EFFECTIVENESS The entire Moffett /Ames role is totally dependent upon maximum security and the screening processes connected therewith. Any approach to joint use would profoundly effect existing security* operations. SUBJECT: JOINT USE OF NAS MOFFETT FIELD Page 2 4. JEOPARDY TO AMES EXTENSIVE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ROLE A possible compromise of security that joint use could preset-it could seriously impact and possibly curtail some of the existing Ames reserach operations. Highly sophisticated experimental craft can only be brought outdoors in a rigidly controlled and secured environment. 5. NOISE POLLUTION At present the noise pollution problem is barely acceptable because of the strict military control placed on this factor by the Moffett commands. The joint use addition on commercial and civilian aircraft, not under the same rigid military control, would create an intolerable noise pollution problem effecting many communities and hundreds of thousands of people. 6. MOFFETT'S MILITARY ROLE Today's international posture will tolerate no diminishing of Moff.ett's present military role. Joint use could mitigate Moffett's position in. America's basic defense attitude. 7. MULTI - MILLION DOLLAR EXPENDITURE NECESSITATED The launching of a joint use program immediately creates the need fur facilities and systems costing millions of dollars. The six (6) pr.ior conclusions are considered of maximum weight and importance. There remains however the basic fact that there are now no facilities for joint use and they would have to be built. Where is the source of this considerable sum of money? San Jose? Santa Clara County? (7. S. Government? Commercial aviation? Civilian aviation? You guess. There has not been the smallest hint as to where the funds will come. PURPOSE: OF THIS DOCUMENT The purpose of this document is to detail at least some of the specific areas, systems, and problems what would be involved in an approach to bring about joint use of Moffett Field. This document is drafted by a civilian, with no military experience. It is based on information available to any person through the reliable news media, and who is an. observer of local affairs and a student of international relations. It represents only the position of the writer. It is hoped that in one form or another the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce, and the City Council of Mountain View can support at least portions of the herein contained information. A strong position on this matter must be taken now. Already the County has prepared a proposed Master Plan without even seeking local input of communities and interests 'that would be vitally involved if joint use was ever seriously considered. SUBJECT: JOINT USE OF NAS MOFFETT FIELD Page 3 AIR SPACE AND AIR SAFETY The most critical issue in any proposed joint use is the matter of air space and air safety. Not only the matter of space and safety for the aircraft, but grossly more important the safety of the congested areas over which the aircraft would be flying and entering into take -off and landing pattern. The existing San Jose Airport opeati.ons has problems - but shifting those problems from one type of contested area to another type of congested area settles nothing. It doubles the critical nature of -the problem for it would create two such problem operations where there is now only one.' The Moffett air corridor is in the midst of several air corridors serving airports at Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose and several small airports serving small aircraft. Extensive international carriers use this same space daily. The Air. Traffic Control facility at Fremont is not there by chance. Safety and traffic needs demanded a place in this vicinity to maintain proper air surveillance. It is imperative that:.proper altitudes and positions be maintained while in the vicinity of this congested air corridor. To now introduce a pattern of commercial and civilian aircraft entering this corridor in landing and take -off postures boggles the mind (from) the safety aspects. Military aircraft are under strict mi..li.t:ary control and orders are obeyed. Commercial aircraft operates in a differ_end mode. Small civilian aircraft. operations is still a, different mode. Putting these three (3) types of traffic into the same Moffett corridor creates problems to make the most caloused person jittery. LAND SPACE Moffett Field is not an ordinary diversified military uses, under, all position it serves in Americ land is used for these purposes. unimproved are essential for the operations. SECURITY EFFECTIVENESS airport. It has many essential many commands, essential to the over- -i's defense posture. All available Landry that.. may appear open and effectiveness and the safety of air Moffett's major role is ant;..- submarine patrol. of the Pacific Ocean, from the frozen north to the far reaches of the Indian. Ocean. This requires eternal vigilance twenty -four (24) hours a day, every day of the year with no exceptions. The dynamic technology in today's, world presents constantly up- dated classification and. sophistications of equipment and operations. "'he rigid secruity such operations demand cannot under any circumstances risk being compromised. Public use of a portion of Moffett would necessitate a complete rethinking of perhaps the entire existing security procedures and practices. SUBJECT: JOINT USE OF NAS MOFFETT FIELD Page 4 Whether operations on today's intense scale would or could continue with a joint use program is something that only military authorities could determine. With the capabilities today's submarine presents America's defense posture cannot risk being diminished in this field. NASA /AMES RESEARCH CENTER Ames Research Center is a strategic and integral part of defense activities. Here are located some of the finest research and development facilities in the world. Additional such facilities are now in the construction stage. After all the research and all the wind tunnel tests, etc., a prototype ultimately has to be put on an airstrip and made to fly. This is the ultimate test for the most advanced experimental craft. The existing relationship between Moffett and Ames permits space to be cleared and secured for a specific period of time so experimental and advance design craft can see the light of day in a protected environment. General.aviation civilian use at Moffett tni_ght well wipe out this priceless service for technological advancement. Billions of dollars have been spent to produce today's capabilities at Ames. There must be no abridgement of this function under any circumstances. NOISE ABATEMENT The City of Mountain View has only recent.y adopted an anti -noise ordinance. For years the Navy and the Cities surrounding Moffett have worked together to maintain noise pollution within acceptable standards. The relationship on this matter has been excellent be- cause Navy craft: and personnel conform immediately to the limits and orders established by Moffett command. Civilian aviation does not, in all due respect, have such rigid contols, nor are they governed by the same rules that govern military aircraft. The noise pollution factor from joint use would create an environ- ment totally unacceptable to surrounding communities. Civilian aircraft operate under FAA criteria, which requires days, and some- times months, to establish after lengthy public hearings, etc. Military aircraft can be regulated immediately by one phone call. JOINT USE REQUIRES MANY NEW FACILITIES COSTING MULTI- MILLION DOLLARS There are no existing facilities at Moffett for civilian joint use of the base. What thought and planning has been given to the large array SUBJECT: JOINT USE OF NAS MOF FETT FIELD Page 5 of new facilities joint use would. require? More important, at a time when many public agencies are pleading exhaustion of funds, what would be the source of the required millions of dol.."a.r.s Among other things, general civli.an aviation at Moffett would immediately require: 1. A new and extensive security system for the civilian use and possibly drastic revamping of the military security system. 2. The existing roadway system sometimes looks like miles of paved parking strips at the peak morn.i_ng and. afternoon hours. A complete roadway system would have to be built with signalization, access roads, service roads, parking areas and major traffic carriers. The existing system never was designed for the traffic loads joint use would present for vehicular traffic in and out of Moffett Field. 3. New utility systems to provide water, sewer, storm drainage, electric, gas, telephone and communication transmission would all be required. 4. A new Fire Department with equipment and buildings, plus under - ground standby water transmiss.ion lines m-ust be established to protect the civilian use factor. 5. Extensive parking areas for employees cars, arriving and departing passenger pick -up, plus commuter parking and .storage must be built, requiring much money and space. 6. Car rental and many other important service functions must be provided. 7. Facilities to service and park c:i.vi.l...i an aircraft, even if only for a short period, must: be built. Back -up aircraft must also be stored and secured. 8. Fuel depots and facilities. for transporting and dispensing must be provided for both aircraft and cars. 9. Catering services for passengers in flight must be provided. 10. Facilities for baggage: handling and transporting of valuables must be provided. 11. Who will. pay these costs? San Jose? It is doubtful they would. spend this kind of money on land which they do not own and which they do not control. Santa Clara County? Both the County and the City are desperately seeking funds to operate existing programs. Expansion money - doubtful.! Federal money? Not in today's, drive 'to balance a grossly extended budget. • r SUBJECT: JOINT USE OF NAS MOFFETT FIELD Page 6 Has any authoritative study been made as to -the estimated acreage requirements and the approximate costs these and other requirements would total? S O L U T I O N 1. The new South County Airport is already in the public domain and has a tremendous growth potential. it is located in the direction of population growth.. It is a much less dense area. Services and utilities are available and some are already in place. It would take air traffic further away from an already dense air corridor. 2. The general Fremont area has some possibilities, but the air traffic would be in proximity of the existing air corridors. 3. As a viable alternative the existing San Jose airstrips could be extended and Bayshore Freeway (U.S. 101) be depressed below grade for less money than adapting Moffett for civilian use. 4. Oakland Airport is seeking additional services and growth. Today's ground transportation minimizes any problems the distance might seem to present. 1..111 VL' JL ll�[1.L �1i1 AGI�NDA BILL NO. f� Initial: Dept. xd. DATE: January 6, 1982 C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Final Building Site Approval SDR -1490 Park Saratoga Association, Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Issue SLUnnary The applicant has subdivided an existing commercial lot ( #69) of Tract 6508 into three (3) separate building sites. Each new lot contains an existing commercial building. All improvements along Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road were done under Tract 6508. Recommendation All requirements for Central Fire Protection District with this site approval have been met. Adopt Resolution 1490 -02, attached, approving three;(3) building sites of subject SDR -1490. Fiscal Impacts None. Exhibits /Attachments A. Copy of Tentative Map Approval. B. Report to Planning Commission. C. Resolution #1490 -02. D. Location Map. Council Action 1/6: Mallory /Jensen moved to adopt on consent calendar. Passed 5 -0. C: ,,g // REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City Of Scratoga A VIN' :Y: *(amended 5/13/81) DATE:' 5/7/81 Commission Meeting: 5/13/81 SUBJECT SDR -1490 Park Saratoga Assoc., Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd, Tentative Building Site Approval - 3 Lots ------------------------ Commerc is 1) ----------------=---=---------- - - - - -- PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is.requesting a 3 lot split of an existing commercial lot of record at the corner of Prospect and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Roads, in the "C -V" zoning district. The three buildings located on the site would then be separated for tax purposes. All of the buildings are completed or under construction after receipt of a Use Permit, Site Approval and Design Review. The main concern expressed about this division comes from Central Fire District which wants to insure that each.building has its own water lines for fighting a potential fire. Their conditions are in this Staff Report. Public Works notes that each parcel should have adequate access and parking on its own. The proposed tentative map shows that the existing Private Access Easements are to be retained "by means of reciprocal agreement between Parcels A, B, and C precluding barring. mutual access." The parking ratio designated for the site by the Use Permit is 1/157 sq. ft., to which each proposed parcel conforms. The easements shown, including landscaping, are already dedicated to the City by the previous parcel map. PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974 General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared and filed with the County of Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of the original project. Notice of Determination was filed June 28, 1978 with the County. The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1490 (Exhibit "B -1" filed May 8, 1981) subject to the following conditions: X Report to Planning L'A,.-ssion 5/7/81 SDR -1490 Page 2 I. GENERAL CONDITIONS Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60, including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or parcel map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the time of final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department regulations and applicable Flood Control regulations and requirements of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60. II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT A. Install a new automatic fire sprinkler service line, including a post indicator valve ( "PIV "), fire department connection, and check valve. B. Each system within the complex shall have only one (1) control valve. C. Existing underground system to.Building "C" shall be disconnected and capped. D. Detailed plans for all of the above shall be submitted to the Central Fire Protection District for approval and inspected prior to covering (24 -hour notice required for appointments due to scheduling). E. All work for the above shall conform to the provisions of N.F.P.A. Phamplets 13 and 24. F. All work, as outlined above, shall be completed prior to recording of and maps. III. PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITION A. No further construction is permitted on any of the newly created lots. Approved: �-- Kathy Kerdus,/Assistant Planner v KK /clh P. C. Agenda: 5/13/81 *as amended at Planning Commission meeting on 5/13/81. RESOLUTION NO. 1490 -02 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF PARK SARATOGA ASSOCIATES The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: The 0.912 acre, 2.696 acre and 0.638 acre parcels shown as Parcels 1, 2 and 3 on the Parcel Map prepared by Kirkeby and Associates, Inc. and submitted to the City Engineer, City of Saratoga, be approved as three (3) individual building sites. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro- duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the sixth day of January , 1982 , by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR ,FrT v4 :1 I P RO S P E'C T 1` CITY LIMITS ROA• D ' V ENDA OR P, �nnn_ D� Y W W Y 2 U J J _J 2 F�l COM(R o FDA '�.. 7 a �z G7 t Y J _� Y NO—DA KNOLlW000 OR C T. �. 9 < ` SEA 13L L. WA's e/ 0- NA T J /•`` / / \�a I A � T _ OAK♦ ✓! JOAM GT. 9LQ C y Y A DII. Z Q u 4 KR 19 ER T. AOON C �✓ ` e ° cn o I u u e �, LOCATION M_An or SDR 11490 J c, PROSPE'C T iFTT OQ QCT a NORAOA cT ] yO wCNA CT ` ul 2 2 1J^ _J VJ L 11 4� CITY LIMITS RO A D r NFra ion or v. Y SO\ � V k� e LOCATION MAP OF SDR 1,490 y 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 W. January 12, 1982 Park Saratoga Associates 1570 The Alameda, Suite 110 San Jose, CA 95126 Gentlemen: At its meeting of January 6, 1982, the Saratoga City Council approved the final map for SDR -1490 by passing Resolution No. 1490 -02. A certified copy of that resolution is enclosed. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, 0ob-'ert WSS k Director of.Community Development RSS:cd Enclosure / cc: Deputy City Clerk J p Y Y CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: AGENDA b%= NO. � 8� Dept. Hd. DATE: January 6, 1982 C. Atty. DEPARIMWr:. Community Development C. Mgr. v ------------------- : --------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: CONSTRUCTION ACCEPTANCE FOR TR. 6526, PARKER RANCH, PROSPECT ROAD Issue Summary The public improvements required for the subject Tract or Building Site have been satisfactorily completed. This "Construction Acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance period. Recommendation Grant "Construction Acceptance" to the subject Tract or Building Site. Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachments 1. Memo describing development and bond. Council Action 1/6: Jensen /Mallory moved to approve. Passed 5 -0. IVIEMOO RAND�IM 11SUATIE1,11 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -34:38 TO: City Manager FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Construction Acceptance for M DATE: December 10, 1981 Tract 6526 Name & Location: Parker Ranch, Prospect Road Public Improvements required for Tract 6526 have been satisfactorily completed. I, therefore, recommend the City Council accept the improvements for construction only. This "construction acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance period. During that year, the improvement contract, insurance and improvement security will remain in full force. The following information is included for your use: 1. Developer: Blackwell Homes Address: P. 0. Box 817 - 125 E. Sunnvoaks Avenue Campbell, CA 95008 2. Improvement Security: Type: Faithful Performance - -- Amount: $895,000.00 Issuing Company: The American Insurance Company c/o Alexander & Alexander Address: P. 0. Box 5700 - 1530 Meridian Avenue San Jose, CA 95150 Receipt, Bond or Certificate No.: 6338861 3. Special Remarks: Certain portions of the street work will have an additional one year maintenance period during which time improvement contract, insurance and improvement security for that portion of the work shall remain in effect. RSS /dsm Robert S. Shook /14 Kt69 h t•R'��'•ct � I. Qq pi`L_ Q 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 k �� ",� F` (408) 867 -3438 0 January 12, 1982 Jack R. Blackwell Blackwell Homes P. O. Box 817 Campbell, CA 95008 Re: Construction Acceptance for Tract 6526 Dear Mr. Blackwell: We reported to the City Council at its meeting of January 6, 1982, that the improvements for Tract 6526 have been satis- factorily completed and;the Council accepted the improvements for construction only. ` When all deficiencies have been corrected at.the end of the one -year maintenance period, we will be in a position to recommend acceptance of the streets and release the bond, except for the portions of street work which are to have an additional one -year maintenance period. Ve y truly your , oW4tS . IS hook Director of Community Development RSS /clh cc: The American Insurance Co. c/o Alexander & Alexander P. O. Box 5700 San Jose, CA 95150 Deputy City Clerk /Y7 Qqa as 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 k (408) 887 -3438 January 12, 1982 Mr. Richard Harkness 72888 Roy Emerson Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Construction Acceptance for SDR -1385 Dear Mr. Harkness: We reported to the City Council at its meeting of January 6, 1982, that the improvements for SDR -1385 have been satisfactorily com- pleted and the Council accepted the improvements for construction. t r When all deficiencies have been corrected at the end of the one - year maintenance period, we will be in a position to recommend acceptance of the streets and release the bond. Ve y truly our Robert S. Sh ok Director of Community Development RSS /clh cc: Wells Fargo Bank - 20514 Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. Saratoga, CA 95070 Deputy City Clerk CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: AGENDA BILL NO. Dept. Hd. DATE: January 6, 1982 C. Atty. DEPAR`.PMM:. Community Development C. Mgr. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -� - - - - -- SUBJECT: CONSTRUCTION ACCEPTANCE FOR SDR -1385, HARKNESS, OAK STREET Issue Summary The public improvements required for the subject Tract or Building Site have been satisfactorily completed. This "Construction Acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance period. Recommendation Grant "Construction Acceptance" to the subject Tract or Building Site. Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachments 1. Memo describing development and bond. Council Action 1/6: Mallory /Jensen moved to approve on consent calendar. Passed 5 -0. �IVi1iE�u 0O�R7A N D �I I�Vi1 uguw @:T O&ULMOD)OZ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 TO: City Manager FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Construction Acceptance for SDR -1385 Name & Location: Oak Street -W I DATE: January 6, 1982 Public Improvements required for SDR -1385 have been satisfactorily completed. I, therefore, recommend the City Council accept the improvements for construction only. This "construction acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance period. During that year, the improvement contract,;insurance and improvement security will remain in full force. The following information is included for your use: 1. Developer: Richard T. Harkness Address: 20300 La Paloma Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 2. Improvement Security: Type: Assignment and Receipt of Investment Certificate Amount: $2,500.00 Issuing Company: Wells Fargo Bank Address: Saratoga, CA Receipt, Bond or Certificate No.: 6501- 008957 -001 3. Special Remarks: RSS /dsm Robert S. Shook CITY OF SARATOGA or ,-.,ENDA BILL NO. 00 Initial: AX& Dept. Hd. DATE: January 6, 1982 C. Atty. DEPARTMENT:. Community Development C. Mgr. t ----------------•---------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: CONSTRUCTION ACCEPTANCE FOR SDR -1338, IWANAGA, SOBEY ROAD Issue Sunlrnary The public improvements required for the subject Tract or Building Site have been satisfactorily completed. This "Construction Acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance period. Recommendation Grant "Construction Acceptance" to the subject Tract or Building Site. Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachmcnts 1. Memo describing development and bond. Council Action 1/6: Mallory /Jensen moved to approve on consent calendar. Passed 5 -0. �MOO RANJj 09TT @2 0&M&'zQ)0& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 TO: City Manager DATE: January 6, 1982 FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Construction Acceptance for SDR -1338 Name & Location: Sobey Road Public Improvements required for . SDR -1338 have been satisfactorily completed. I, therefore, recommend the City Council accept the improvements for construction only. This "construction acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance period. During that year, the improvement contract, insurance and improvement security will remain in full force. The following information is included for your use: 1. Developer: Gordon M. Iwanaqa Address: 20392 Town Center Lane, Suite A Cupertino,. CA 2. Improvement Security: Type: Investment Certificate Amount: $5,000.00 Issuing Company: Wells Fargo Bank Address: Saratoga, CA 95070 Receipt, Bond or Certificate No.: W- 6501.007413 3. Special Remarks: * This Bond can be released provided another Bond in the amount of $2,500.00 is posted. RSS /dsm Robert S. Shook A O 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 �g o• (408) 887 -3438 t January 12, 1982 Mr. Gordon Iwanaga 20392 Town Center Lane, Suite A Cupertino, CA Re: Construction Acceptance for SDR -1338 Dear Mr. Iwanaga: We reported to the City Council at its meeting of January 6, 1982, that the improvements for SDR -1338 have been satisfactor- ily completed and the Council accepted the improvements for construction only. ; When all deficiencies have been corrected at the end of the one -year maintenance period, ree will be in a position to recommend acceptance of the streets and release the bond. Ve y truly yours, obert V.Sh ok Director of Community Development RSS /clh cc: Wells Fargo Bank 20514 Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. Saratoga, CA 95070 / Deputy City Clerk ,// / 9,F CITY OF SAW03GA /, p� Initial: ,AGENDA BILL NO. 0 Dept. Hd. DATE: January 6, 1982 C. Atty. DEPARriMM: P/W Community Development C. Mgr. SUBJECT': Overlaying McCoy Avenue, between Quito Road and Villanova Road Issue SL=ary This project was awarded on October 21, 1981 to Piazza Construction Company for the bid amount of $27,840.00. The Sunland Park Homeowners deposited $27,000.00 with the City to cover costs of northerly half of McCoy Avenue. The -City of San Jose deposited $10,000.00 with the City to cover costs of the-southerly half of McCoy Avenue. Recommendation Approve final acceptance and file Notice of Completion on the above project. Fiscal Impacts Sunland Park Homeowners: $ 18,438.86 City of San Jose 8,489.34 TOTAL AMOUNTS $ 26,928.20 Exhibits /Attachrrr nts 1. Progress Payment No. 2 2. Notice of Completion Council Action + 12% Engineering & Inspection: $ 2,212,,6 1,018,,7: $ 3,23"1.3 M PROGRESS PAYMENT NO. 2 PROJECT 'OdE,ez,aylvv,q /W.C60y L�vE,vu� CONTRACTOR 0 1,�lzzd' %n_ P.O. NUMBER /2667 DATE Jant� 6" /982 =em Contract Quantity Unit Description Unit Price Contract Amount Quantity Completion Amount Completes /. 50oo S.F. �e,�,,� a�%:�a�w'eaS l.�D 80Qo,00 5,425 8,680.dC) 2. 800 �Q� �,Q �1GYl� �1s oha /� Z-100 1,600.0 /,/00 Z, Z Co. 0C 3. 2,.670. S y Fah r4 C XIOZ' 0.80 2, /36.00 3,376 Z, 700, 8C 4, 440 !oh 45,04all 6anc. Overlli 35.00 1S4&V.00 361. Z¢ /2,6430 46 5. 4 6a. ,4d 'cis/ AIY:s to 6rao% 80.00 440.00 4 440, . OC 6. 1,320 L, F. /e / %;v 5k,;v Z117 e 0.20 Z,64-00 13ZO _ Z64 00 PPROVED: ATE: Total Less 10% Z6, 928 Zc 2, 6 9Z. 8 z Sub Total 25"0 3L Less Previous Payment 23, 601. 7& Amnt1nt- tr) Fro Dn, el At., -4119 AC^ Name s" Add—, s— 8 Slat C - RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO J SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE x0tilm of (lamplettim NfdirP is hereby, given that .......Z .............. . the undersigned, ............. ............................... .......... ............................... T....Wayn.a.. Derx iet, z ..................................................... ... ... .... ... . ... .......... .............................. f the agent off* the owner....... of th............. certain lot............ piece..............., or, parcel ....:........ of land .situated in the .... City ... o.f.. S. aratnga......................................... County of •••.......•• ................•.................. .............................., State of California, and described as follows, to -wit: Overlaying McCoy Avenue between Quito Road and Villanova Road That.... khe.. Ci. ty... c. f..& aratoga ........................................................ ............................... ................................................. ............................... . as owner...... of said land, did, on the ......4tx1..... day of ....November ....... .......................... 19 ... 81......... , enter into a contract with ......................... ...... Piazza Construction .. Company .......................................................... ............................... for Oyerlaying. McCoy_.Ayenue,,,,,, ................................................................... ............................... ................................................................................................................................. ............................... ................................................................................................................................. ............................... upon the land above described, which contract was filed in the office of the county recorder of the ......... ............................... county of .................................. ............................... , State of California, on the................. ............................... day of ................. ............................... , 19 ............; That on the ........ 2. 2nd . ..............................: day of ...... Der—ember ......................... 19 ...81.... the said contract or work of improvement, as a whole, was actually completed by the said ................... Piazza..C.4nst .uG.kji, Q n ... QQIAP. a)tY ................................................................ ..............................: That the narne ...... and address...... of all the owner...... of said property are as follows: City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 and the nature of ........ ............................... title to said property is ........................ ............................... ................................................................................................................................. ............................... ................................................. .........................I..... ................................................. ............................... CAI IFON ST�iTE OF tVIA City ..Qf ... Sa.]alt.P.gdOwner ............ s.s. By . ............... ............................... (:o 11111 of.......Santa Clara ........................... J. Wayne Dernetz Agent ................................................................................................................................. ............................... beingduls 'sworn .............~? -.. Ta. yne.. Dernetz......................................... ............................... soys: C I arnAg !;. 11he agent off* the owner...... of the property described in the a forq_•oing notice,. l ImIT read the foregoing notice and know the contents thereof , and the same is of my own knou:ledge. Subscribed and sworn to before me Ibis .......................... day of ...................... 19 ....... 1 ................................................. ............................... ........................................... ............................... J ................................................ ............................... ' Delete words in brackets if owner signs. a CITY OF SARA1bGA AGENDA BILL NO. 1q0 DATE: 1/6/82 Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. DEPAIZn, 'r: Community Development C. Mgr. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -C - - - - - -- suaT . Parking Prohibition on Quito Road - McCoy to Baylor Issue Sumnary Sunland Park area has requested that parking be prohibited and tow away provisions be instituted on the east side of Quito Road between McCoy and Baylor. Recommendation The attached Resolution No. MV implements the narking restrictions and tow away zone when properly signed. Fiscal Impacts Approximately $300.00. E,daibits /Attachments I. November 12, 1981 letter from Sunland Park 2. November 17, 1981 report from Code Enforcement Officer 3. Resolution MV' Council Action 1/6: Mallory /Jensen moved to adopt Res. MV 152 on consent calendar. Passed 5 -0. SUNLAND PARK HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION 18276 Purdue Drive Saratoga, California 95070 12 November 1981 Mayor Linda Callon, Vice Mayor Marty Clevenger, & Councilpersons Cheriel Jensen, John Mallory, & Dale Watson City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave, Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mayor Callon, Vice Mayor Clevenger, & Councilpersons Jensen, Mallory, & Watson: Sunland Park has a wide shoulder frontage, about 1500 feet long, on Quito Road. Unfortunately, we have a continual problem of people parking vehicles "FOR SALE" on this wide shoulder, even though such parking is illegal. We believe that designating this area a "TOM AWAY ZONE" would solve the problem of its becoming an unsightly, used -car lot. Therefore, we request that you take whatever action is appropriate (resolution, ordinance, etc.) to designate this area a "NO PARKING -- TOW AWAY ZONE." (Some cities cite Section 22658 of the California Vehicle Code to establish tow away zones.) Then we request that signs be posted (possibly on the existing posts with "No Motor Vehicles" signs on them) saying "No Parking -- Tow Away Zone -- Violators will be towed away at Owner's Expense, per Saratoga City Ordanance ," or similar. Thank you for your help on this matter. cc: Wayne Dernetz, City Manager •ems Sincerely, - ��i_lliam_G. No z, Preident, Sunland Park Homeowners' Assn. 9LIFOR�IQ" I��1 E NI O R A N D U NII TO: City Manager FROM: SUBJECT V9,9W @:T 0&Z&'X00& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 . Code Enforcement Officer Vehicle for Sale on Quito Road /Sunland Park DATE: November 17, 1981 The Saratoga City Code, Section 9 -75(a) prohibits any person from parking or leave standing upon any public street or highway, in the City, a vehicle for the principal purpose of "displayi.ng such vehicle for sale ". Currently such a vehicle will be cited, which carries a $10.00 fine, but it cannot be towed. The County Sheriff and myself do cite such vehicles and have cited such vehicles parked in subject area. However, the posting of signs stating, "No Parking Tow Away Zone" by Order of the City of Saratoga C.V.C. 22652(d) Ph: 867 -3438 in subject area should greatly help to alleviate this problem. The C.V.C. 22652(d) requires before it can be enforced, the local authority by resolution or ordinance to prohibit parking of unauthorized vehicles and by ordinance authorize the removal of such vehicles. No vehicle can be re- moved unless signs are posted giving notice of the removal. In the meantime the County Sheriff will be instructed to patrol this area and cite all vehicle parked "for sale".. I will also patrol this area daily and cite such vehicles. I recommend the City Council adopt an ordinance declaring this area of Quito Road, in Sunland Park, -to be a "tow away zone" and authorize all vehicles in violation to be towed: away to an authorized garage. %Thomas M. Upson TM U / d f z r RESOLUTION NO. MV- RESOLUTION4 PROHIBITING PARKING ON A PORTION OF QUITO ROAD 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 PARKING LIMIT Quito Road East side of Quito Rd. be- NO PARKING tween McCoy Ave, and ANYTIME Baylor Ave. Section 2: The above area is declared to be a tow away zone in accord with Section 9 -6.1 of the Saratoga -.' ... City Code, and in addition 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 hereinabove set forth section shall become effective at such time as the proper signing in accord herewith is installed. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga heldxw on the day of 198 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ~� MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK f t I 4 RD Iti�IEMOO RAND�1ti7 TO: City Manager 09TT @:T O&M&'XOO& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 FROM: Code Enforcement Officer SUBJECT: Vehicle for Sale on Quito Road /Sunland Park DATE: November 17, 1981 4'�Z The Saratoga City Code, Section 9 -75(a) prohibits any person from parking or leave standing upon any public street or highway, in the City, a vehicle for the principal purpose of "displayi.ng such vehicle for sale "„ Currently such a vehicle will be cited, which carries a $10.00 fine, but it cannot be towed. The County Sheriff and myself do cite such vehicles and have cited such vehicles parked in subject area. However, the posting of signs stating, "No Parking Tow Away Zone" by Order of the City of Saratoga C.V.C. 22652(d) Ph: 867 -3438 in subject area should greatly help to alleviate this problem. The C.V.C. 22652(d) requires before it can be enforced, the local authority by resolution or ordinance to prohibit parking of unauthorized vehicles and by ordinance authorize the removal of such vehicles. No vehicle can be re- moved unless signs are posted giving notice of the removal. In the meantime the County Sheriff will be instructed to patrol this area and cite all vehicle parked "for sale ".. I will also patrol this area daily and cite such vehicles. I recommend the City Council adopt an ordinance declaring this area of Quito Road, in Sunland Park, to be a "tow away zone" and authorize all vehicles' in violation to be towed away to an authorized garage. TMU /df Thomas M. Upson orfi, CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO /q/ DATE: January 6, 1982 DEPARTMENT:. Community Development SUBJECT: QUITO ROAD PATH Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. Issue Suffmary Council recently directed Staff to submit application for TDA funds for construction of a bike path on Quito Road as an extension of the already approved facility. New project to extend from Yorktown to Baylor. Evidence of Council approval must be submitted. Recommendation Approve project and the submission of application for TDA funding (application submitted previously). Fiscal Im cts TDA funds for construction Staff time for design and administration Exhibits /Attachments Application Council Action 1/6: Mallory /Jensen moved to authorize submission of application for TDA funds. Passed 5 -0. " APPLICATION DOCUMENTS: TDA ARTICLE 3 Bicycle /Pedestrian Projects City of Saratoga Contact person. Robert S. Shook County: Claimant: anta Telephone: ( ) ara 408 867 -3438 Name of Project: Quito Road Path. Amount of Claim: $1S,Soo Type and extent of project (check and complete requested information) Bike Path (Class 1) __X_ 2S00 (length) Other Bicycle Facilities — (type) Bike Lane (Class II) _ (length) Pedestrian Walkway — (length) Shared Route (Class III) _ (length) Other Pedestrian Facilities — (type) Bicycle Parking Facilities — (number /type) Project Description: The project consists of a six foot bike path traversing parallel with Quito Road on the easterly side beginning at Yorktown Drive north to Baylor Avenue. The route will service Westmont High School, Rolling Hills Jr. High School, Marshall Lane Elementary School and West Valley College. It will interface with proposed Park and Ride Transit facility at Westmont Avenue and Quito Road. This project is connected to a project funded by T.D.A.. that is to be constructed this fiscal year (81 -82). Financial Plan: Costs for planning, engineering, right -of -way, construction, contingencies, etc.; total cost of project and other funding sources. If this is a segment of a larger project, include prior and proposed funding sources for other segments. The City of Saratoga will fund the preparation of plans, specifications, and the engineer's estimate. The construction will be funded in total by T.D.A. funds. Propose to use 1982 -83 and portion of 1983 -84 T.D.A. funds. I. Project Eligibility (If no, give approximate date of completion in comments.) YES NO A. Is the project approved by the governing agency (City Council or Board of X Supervisors ?) B. If a bikeway, does the project meet Caltrans' mandatory minimum safety design criteria? (Planning and Design Criteria for Bikeways in California, X 1978) C. Has the environmental impact documentation been completed? (See Appendix II in TDA section, MTC Fund Allocation Manual.) X EIR Negative Declaration Notice of Exemption D. Is the project ready to complete within the next fiscal year? X 1. Right -of -way purchased NZA. 2. Agreement of all cities and other agencies involved 3- Commitment of other necessary funds 4. Preliminary design completed --X 5. Final cost estimate. Financial plan completed X 3A E. Provisions have been made to maintain the facility X by claimant other Comment: Since the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, the City of Saratoga has, of necessity, eliminated the routine maintenance program for pedestrian/bicycle facilities, However, if a call is received regarding a maintenance problem or such needs are observed by maintenance personnel, the matter will be taken care of by the Department of Maintenance Services. II. Evaluation Criteria (Answer questions, check as many lines as apply and include any additional information in Comments.) YES NO A. Does the project eliminate problem areas on routes which would provide relatively safe travel uses? X 1. Bridge or removal of barrier 2. Narrow road segments 3. Removal of parking Comment: Will provide separated path 4. Substandard grates.or culverts 5. High traffic volume and speed _X 6_ in area with excess right of way. X B. Does the project provide access to or bicycle parking in high use activity centers? Access Parking 1. Employment 2. Commercial X 3. Educational X 4. Public transportation interface X 5 Governmental or social service centers YES NO X (Please Identify) Family Market and Westgate area SPP Prniar•t I)eSc'''i31sA�`. See Corrunent II C 6. Cultural or recreational X West Valley College 7. Other C. Does the project provide for the improvement of bicycle /transit or YES NO pedestrian/ transit commute use? X Comment: Will interface with proposed County Transit District Park and Ride Facility. D. Does the project provide connection to and continuity of longer routes? X 1. On adopted county bicycle or pedestrian facilities plan 2. On adopted local bicycle or pedestrian facilities plan X Comment: E. Is there demonstrated local support? X 1. Initiated or supported by community or bicycling X organizations 2. Initiated by local employers or employee groups 3. Public hearing held 4. Local funding (amount )_ 5. Local planning or engineering effort Comment• F. Special Circumstances: X G. Additional Materials Required (attach or indicate when each will be provided to MTC). 1. Project location map. 2. Enviromental document. See Appendix II in TDA Section, pages 79 -89. Please note that the copy of a Notice of Exemp- tion or Negative Declaration which is sent to MTC must show a stamp of receipt for filing by the County Clerk or State Secretary of Resources. 3. Legal counsel's opinion that addresses three points (see TDA Application Document Section on page 54): (a). That the claimant is authorized to perform the project for which the funds are claimed. (b). That claimant is eligible to claim under PUC Section 99234. (c). That there is no legal impediment to the claimant applying for funds or there is no pending or threatened litigation which might adversely affect the project or the ability of the claimant to carry out the project. 4. Governing body resolution approving the project and authorizing the submittal of a claim. NOTE: References are to Fund Application Manual, MTC, 1980. ;%— 4 { TwAIM Q U I T O ROAD BIKE PATH 0982 -83 O .� JCS 0 J, I L �P •VCKNALL Kp, �O SCALE: ►Al GO T19"KA ♦A][O P. u[•LO Cox AV Ir . CITY tnr1IT3 I d rA•KO LADO O r r � we cor � r � J t D 0 f � f 0 y�♦ Avc. Y Y y u c � o • 1 � J UKTL[w • Z Y to C PURDUE DR. VANDERBILT DR. CIEMSON AVE. a 0 z a :A:RT:I.l DR. J J McCoy AVE. 1 m YoaKT °►1 WY. L EGEA10: APROPOS rD B /KE OATh f• t CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO: I 0 Z Initial: Dept. Head: DATE: January 6, 1982 City Atty DEPARTMENT: Maintenance Services City Mgr --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- SUBJECT: Authorization to Call for Bids on One Ton Dump Truck Issue Summar Early morning December 4, 1981, the Parks Division International Harvester One Ton Dump Truck was stolen from the City Service Yard. The truck was recovered and the driver apprehended but in the meantime the truck received extensive damage when it was driven through the gate of the yard and when it was driven into a bridge abutment on Quito Road. The truck is currently inoperable and estimate for complete repair is $5,022. Because of the high cost of repair and the overall condition of the truck I do not feel it should be repaired, but a replacement truck should be purchased. Recommendation Authorize staff to call for bids on a new One Ton Dump Truck, estimated cost $14,000. Fiscal Impact It is recommended that the $14,000 be allocated in the Capital Improvement Budget to come from Revenue Sharing Funds. Attachments /Exhibits Report on condition of the truck. Council Action 1/6: Jensen /Clevenger moved to approve. Passed 5 -0. d f i €FE6P3g4� 2S 3/C'JV F3F )id REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 12/28/81 COUNCIL MEETING: 1/06/82 SUBJECT- Condition of Park Division International Harvester One Ton Dump Truck The following is an outline of the damage to the truck which needs to be repaired as a result of the accident as well as comments on the general condition of the truck. Damaged parts which 'need to repaired as a result of the accident include: r,ad'iator, complete realignment of the bed, sub -bed and sides of the truck bed, repair of frame braces, replacement of exhaust pipe and hangers, front end alignment, front fender,,grill and bumper, both doors and left vent window, parking brake cable and linkage, paint and other minor items. The, truck is seven years old, was originally due for replacement in 1981„ and has been considered a "lemon" since its acquisition. It has been driven over 50,000 miles and in addition to the repair.necessitated by the theft and accident the truck was scheduled for major electrical system and carburetor repair at an estimated cost of $550. The truck was purchased for $5,800 in 1974 and the current estimate of complete repair almost equals the original cost of the truck. This is the main reason the staff are recommending that this truck not be repaired and that it be replaced. It is likely the truck has a salvage value of $750 to $1,000 and the bid would request consideration of this salvage value. Staff will be available to answer any questions you might have on this subject. ms ,G� �,� Barbara Sampson, Z Director Maintenance Services CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO: IJ Initial: Dept. Head: DATE: January 6, 1982 City Atty DEPARTMENT: Maintenance Services City Mgr ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- SUBJECT: Community Center Addition Contract Change Order Number Two Issue Summary Prior to completion of the Community Center Addition it has been determined that two changes need to be made in order to complete the building. The first is an additional roof drain to provide improved drainage in the area of the front door to the Addition and the second is increased lighting in both restrooms. The need for these changes could not have been anticipated in the original plans. Recommendation Approve Change Order Number Two for the Community Center Addition in the amount of $700. Fiscal Impact The uncommitted balance in the fund for the Community Center Addition is $9,287. If this Change Order is approved, the uncommitted balance of the fund will be $8,587. Exhibits /Attachments Explanation of Change Order and Change Order Form. Council Action 1/6: Callon /Watson moved to approve. Passed 5 -0. S U ,61' O9LIe�pR REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 12/28/81 COUNCIL MEETING: 1/06/82 SUBJECT Explanation of Change Order Number Two - Community Center Addition --------------- - - - - -- Item One - Roof Drain In the area where the new roof joins the existing roof it is determined that an additional roof drain and downspout are necessary primarily because it is over the main entrance to the building addition. The specifications call for the contractor to "match" level of existing roof and because the old roof had sagged slightly in this area, there is an area which does not drain as rapidly as it should. As a result, water pours over the edge of the roof, right at the main entrance to the Addition. If the additional roof drain is not added, water will flow to the existing and new drain, but we will also have a waterfall during heavy rains right over the walkway. This problem was discovered during the heavy rains in November and December and can be solved by adding a new roof drain which will drain the water more rapidly. Cost is estimated at $600. Item Two - Additional Lighting in Restrooms The wattage and placement of lighting in the new restrooms was designed according to energy use standards for that size of room. Unfortunately, the bathroom stall walls provide a barrier which prevents sufficient light from reaching the major stall area. It is recommended the fan only unit in the bathrooms, which is directly in the area which needs more light, be changed to a combination fan and light unit. Lights will be a bulb fixture to a.maximum of 150 watts, and since they turn on and off with the main switch will not create an extensive use of electricity. Additional cost to change'.these fan units to fan and light units is $50 each for a total of $100. Staff are recommending approval of both items of the Change Order since they will facilitate total use of the building. Barbara Sampson, Director Maintenance Services Form No.. CITY OF SARATOGA CALIFORNIA CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER PROJECT: Community Center Addition CONTRACTOR • Christensen Construction Company CHANGE ORDER NO. Two DATE: December 28, 1981 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE: Additional roof drain and downspout and additional lighting in.restrooms. REASON FOR CHANGE: Improved drainage and lighting. TIME CHANGE: None COST OF CHANGE: $ 700.00 j I i APPROVED: Contractor APPROVED COPY TO: Engineer of work Inspector Bond Counsel RECOMMENDED : Barbara Sampson, Director Maintenance Services Department APPROVED: CITY MANAGER CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO DATE: January 6, 1982 DEPARTMENT:. Community Development SUBJECT: AGREEMENT FOR PLAN CHECKING SERVICES Issue SLunmary Initial: Dept. Hd. V V- A private consultant has been providing plan checking services for the City since September, 1981. At that time the City received proposals from four (4) firms, of which the chosen firm was the low bidder as well as the most experienced. TAI, Inc. does plan checking for Cupertino, Sunnyvale and >} San Jose. Attached is the proposed written contract for plan checking services with this firm. Recommendation Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the attached contract. Fiscal Impacts The plan check services will be less than the fee collected and is in line with the adopted budget. Exhibits /Attachments 1. Contract Council Action 1/6: Jensen /Watson moved to approve. Passed 5 -0. AGREEMENT FOR PLAN CHECKING SERVICES AGREEMENT, effective as of the day of , 1981, by and between THE CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City "), and TECHNICAL ANALYSIS, INC.; a California corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Contractor "). WITNESSETH: City desires expert professional and technical services for review of plans and specifications to determine compliance thereof with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, as adopted by City; and Contractor represents that it is fully qualified and licensed to perform such expert professional and technical ser- vices pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. Contractor's Services. Contractor hereby agrees to render the following services: (a) At the request of City, Contractor shall check plans and specifications for compliance thereof with the require- ments of the Uniform Building Code, as adopted by City, and the energy conservation requirements of the State of California Energy Commission, as set forth in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. (b) Contractor shall furnish to City, within ten (10) working days after plans and specifications are delivered to Contractor for review, a written report wherein Contractor shall either certify such plans and specifications as being in full compliance with the applicable Codes or identify each failure to comply with such Codes. Contractor shall meet with the architect or engineer if necessary for the performance of Contractor's services hereunder. -1- ice. .i:•k- "h.h.r �.4rf� ; .:: ?. �: � _ .. ...... ' ' ' . � .. .. .. .. (c) Upon revision of any plans and specifications to correct deficiencies or Code violations noted in Contractor's written report, Contractor shall backcheck the revised plans and specifications and furnish to City a supplemental written report on the adequacy of the revisions. City shall be the sole judge as to which plans'and specifications, or portions thereof, shall be reviewed by Con- tractor and nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed a commitment by City to utilize any particular quantity or frequency of services by Contractor. All plans and specifications to be reviewed hereunder shall be picked up by Contractor from City's offices and returned thereto, at Contractor's own expense. Con- tractor shall notify City in advance whenever Contractor is unable, for any reason, to render its services hereunder for a period exceeding three (3) working days. 2. Compensation. Contractor shall be compensated for its services as follows: (a) As total compensation for the regular plan check services to be rendered by Contractor pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Agreement, Contractor shall be paid a percentage of the per- mit -fee collected by City from the applicant, based upon the following schedule: Percentage of Plans and Specifications Permit Fee to be Checked by Contractor 32.58 Structural only. 40.08 Structural and energy calculations, 50.08 Structural, energy calculations, handicap, fire /life safety and building in general. 50.0% Structural, electrical, mechanical, energy calculations, handicap, fire/ life safety for residential structures. 55.0% Structural, electrical, mechanical, energy calculations, handicap, fire/ life safety for other than residential structures -2- iA- (b) In the event Contractor is requested by City to review changes on plans or specifications previously checked and -r^ -•- back- checked by Contractor, or to perform any other additional T ""�`•' "{k = -r = `= -' =: "' services beyond those described in Paragraph 1 of this Agreement, Contractor shall be entitled to additional compensation for such services based upon Contractor's standard hourly rates. Before any such additional services are rendered, Contractor shall advise City as to the hourly rates it intends to charge and the estimated number of hours required for performance of the additional services. (c) Contractor's compensation for regular or additional plan check services shall be deemed earned upon presentation to City of the written Code compliance report, and shall be paid by City, within City's standard time for payment, upon submission of itemized statements from Contractor in such detail and form as .Oftl ^'r' ° "- `;`'."**? shall be required by City's Community Development Department, showing the amounts then due and payable to Contractor. - ^ (d) Except for the compensation provided herein, City shall have no liability for payment of any costs or expenses incurred by Contractor in connection with the performance of its services under this Agreement. 3. Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the effective date hereof and shall continue until terminated by thirty (30) days prior written notice from - either party to the other. 4. Assignment and Subcontracts. Contractor acknowledges ;h� that its special skill and expertise is a material consideration for City entering into this Agreement. Contractor shall not assign, subcontract or delegate to any other party the performance of any services to be rendered by Contractor under this Agreement. 5. Independent Contractor. Contractor is, and at all -3- iA- times shall remain, an independent contractor, and not an agent, officer or employee of City. As such independent contractor, neither Contractor nor any of its officers, directors, agents or employees shall be entitled to any salary, fringe benefits, worker's compensation, retirement contributions, sick leave, insurance or other benefit or right connected with employment by the City of Saratoga, or any compensation other than as provided in paragraph 2 of this Agreement. 6. Insurance. Contractor shall, at all times during the term of this Agreement, maintain in full force and effect a policy or policies of general liability insurance covering bodily injury and property damage, in form and amount and issued by an insurance carrier satisfactory to City. Each such policy shall name City, and its officials, agents and employees as insured parties thereunder, and shall be considered primary insurance with respect to any other insurance maintained by City. Each such policy shall further provide for thirty (30) days prior written notice to City of any cancellation, reduction of coverage or other material change in the terms and provisions thereof. A complete copy of each such policy, together with all endorsements thereto, shall be furnished to City. 7. Conflict of Interest. During the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall not accept employment as architect, engineer, designer, consultant or render professional services in any other capacity on behalf of a client constructing any improve- ments or engaged in any development activity within the City of Saratoga, nor shall Contractor or any of its officers, directors, agents or employees acquire or hold a direct or indirect financial interest in any project for which plans and specifications are submitted by City to Contractor for review. Contractor hereby aM 0.10 ' I certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest in this Agreement is an official, agent or employee of ,.:. City. B. Indemnity. Contractor shall indemnify and hold City, and its officials, agents and employees harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, causes of action, expenses or liabilities, including attorney's fees, arising out of or in any manner relating to the performance by Contractor of its services hereunder, and City shall not be liable for any acts or omissions of Contractor. 9. Notices. Any notices required or permitted to be given hereunder shall be in writing and either personally delivered or sent by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the -:•� -��.., ., <:.�..,..,, other party as follows: 3* Q, To City: Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 v To Contractor: President Technical Analysis, Inc. 10455 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Any notice sent by mail shall be deemed received on the second business day after deposit in the United States Mail, addressed in accordance with the foregoing. 10. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior agreements or understandings, whether written or verbal. No ,oy amendment or modification to this Agreement .shall be valid unless in writing and signed by both parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this 0.10 ' I Agreement as of the day and year first above written. . CITY OF SARATOGA By TECHNICAL ANALYSIS, INC., a California corporation By -6- r . i+ CITY OF SARATOGA p Initial: AGENDA BILL NO. 1 a Dept. lid . DATE: January 6, 1982 C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr. --------------- - - - - -- -- SUBJECT: V -562 F A -794 Dr. C. Mayo, 18801 Montewood Drive Issue SLmznary This item was heard on 10/28/81 and received a split vote by a 6 member Commission. Two meetings later the applicant waived his right to have a full Commission vote on the item. The Commission moved to reconsider the item which again received a split vote and was deemed a denial. The project proposal includes single and second story additions which are in excess of Floor Area Ratio requirements, thus requiring the variance. Design Review is required for the second story addition because the floor area exceeds the 50 limitation. Staff noted no significant privacy or visual impacts due to the project Rec9A%999e1-1oh 1. Conduct a public hearing on the appeal or set a hearing de novo. 2. Determine the merits of the appeal and approve or deny, making the appropriate findings listed on the reverse side. 3. Staff recommended approval.o.f.the Design Review,subject to deleting the nonconforming square .footage,and denial of the variance. Fiscal Impacts None noted. E,{hibits /Attachn-ents 1. Letter of Appeal 2. Staff Report dated 10/19/81 3. Planning Commission minutes of 10/28/81 , 11/1,7/8,1: and 12/9/81 -. 4. Exhibits "B" & "C ". 5. Resolution V- 562 -1 Council Action 1/6: Jensen /Mallory moved to continue to de novo hearing 1120. Passed 570. 1/20: Clevenger /Watson moved to uphold appeal and make required findings. Passed 4 -1 (Mallory opposed). FILE NO. V -562 REPORT OF FINDINGS If the Council wishes to approve the subject Variance, they need to make all of the following findings: 1. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property which do not apply gen- erally to other properties classified in the same Zoning District. 3. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified in the same Zoning District. 4. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limita- tions on other properties classified in the same Zoning District. 5. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. If the Council wishes to deny the subject variance, they need to make one or more of the following findings: 1. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circum- stances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property which do not apply generally to other properties classified in the same Zoning District. 3. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified in the same Zoning District. 4. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same Zoning District. 5. The the granting of the variance will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. t pacific design group / architecture and interior design / #22 the factory, campbell, calif. 95006 (40e) 374 -51 20 RECEIVED DEC 1 4 1 81 `. December 11, 1981 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave.' Saratoga, CA 95070 ATTN: Kathy Dunlap On behalf of our clients, Dr. & Mrs. C.M. Mayo of 18801 Montewood, Saratoga, we request an appeal to the City Council on subject A -794, V -562. This action failed in the 12/9/81 Planning Commission meeting by a 3 - 3 vote, after previously (10/28/81) having received a 3 - 3 vote.; At the October meeting the owners were given the option of rehearing before all seven members of the Planning Commission; two meetings went by without all seven members present and then at the last'moment it developed that the meeting of 12/9/81 also was short one member. The owner elected to be heard anyway and the 3 - 3 vote was reaffirmed. ;,•,:; Our proposal meets all criteria of the city save only that the proposal exceeds the floor area ratio formula per NS 3.47. This excess occurs almost in direct relationship to Dr. Mayo's desire to add a racquetball court which is attached to his residence. If the racquetball court were detached the proposal would meet the floor area ratio. It is possible to detach the court. However, because it is the intent of the proposal to use the floor mass of the racquetball court as storage mass for solar heating, it is inefficient in engineering of the solar system and is an economic hardship to the owner to detach the court structure. It is, of course, also less desirable to the owner to have it accessable only by going outside the house. The essential problem, in our opinion, seems to be that the negative votes of the commission were unable in good conscience to make this a finding of "hardship" as required by the applicable ordinances. Again, in our opinion, it seems to be generally agreed by the staff and by the commission that the design as proposed is both esthetically and, in terms of the neighborhood, more desirable than the detached option (charts, and diagrams were provided illustrating the option). In fact, an informal petition was signed by all of the adjacent neighbors signifying their positive response to the proposal. It is of additional interest that many of the homes on Montewood are now, as existing, larger in height, mass, and in square footage than Dr. Mayo's house would be if completed as proposed. _ .. • - 2 - , a, 1900° g ZF g L Vv C REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 10/19/81 Commission Meeting: 10/28/81 SUBJECT: A -794 Dr. C.M. Hayo V -562 18801 Montewood Drive ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- REQUEST: Variance and Design Review approval to construct a major addition in height and a ground level addition which exceeds the floor area ratio. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: This project_ is classified as Categorical Exemption Class I Sec. 15101(e). PUBLIC NOTICING: This project has been noticed by advertising in the newspaper, posting the site and mailing notices to 51 property owners in the vicinity. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Very low density residential. ZONING: R- 1- 40,000 SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single family residential. SITE SIZE: 47,848 sq. ft. SITE SLOPE: 5% + HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE: 30'. SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Existing: 3,671 sq. ft. New first floor: 2,213 sq. ft. (Garage.Addition: 1,003 + sq. ft., Racquetball court: 1,210 + sq. ft.) New second floor: 831 sq. ft. TOTAL: 6,715 sq. ft. FLOOR AREA RATIO: 5,200 + 6% of 7,848 sq. ft. = 5,670 sq. ft. + 5% =5,953 sq. The proposed structure exceeds the F.A.R. by 18%. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 33 %, 37% is maximum allowed. Staff Report A -794 V -562 SETBACKS: Front: 30' Right side: 20' GRADING RFOUIRED: Cut: 205 Cu. Yds. 10/19/81 Page 2 Left side: 20' Rear: 97' Fill: None Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 2' Fill Depth: STAFF ANALYSIS: The project requires a variance since the amount of floor area increase is greater than 5%. The five findings for the variance must be made prior to granting a design review. The findings shall follow the Project Description /Site Analysis. PROJECT DESCRIPTION /SITE ANALYSIS: The applicant is proposing to convert the existing garage to a recreation room, add a second story master bedroom addition and add a racquetball court to the southwestern portion of the dwelling. The exterior materials and design of.the proposed addition will match the existing structure. Vertical wood siding will be used for the exterior walls and wood shingles will be used for the gable -style roof. The project as proposed will exceed the Standard Floor Area Ratio by 1,045 sq. ft. and the Maximum Floor Area Ratio (+5 %) by 762 sq. ft. The existing dwelling is located on a relatively secluded corridor lot. The site contains a variety of trees and other vegetation around the periphery of the lot. The trees along the front and side property lines are .primarily evergreen (pine /redwood) and create an effective buffer in Drotecting the privacy to adjacent neighbors. To the rear, the vegetation which includes nines, redwoods.and eucalyptus, screens visability to the adjacent properties. One 12" evergreen tree will need to be removed for construction of the new driveway turnaround. The ex- isting turnaround area consisting of 1,799 sa. ft. of impervious coverage will be removed. - FINDINGS V -562: 1. There is no physical hardship associated with the subject parcel necessitating a variance. Upon review of the site, staff has found no physical hardships associated with the site in terms of site size or topgraphy which would warrant an addition exceeding the maximum floor area ratio. Staff Report (' 10/19/81 A -794 Page 3 V -562 2. There are no exceptional circumstances which apply only to this property. Although the site is exceptional in that it is secluded by site shape and evergreen vegetation, staff does not feel this warrants a structure on the site which is in excess of ordinance requirements. 3. Denial of this variance would not deprive the applicant the right to develop the property similar_ to others classified in the same zoning district. By current ordinance standards the applicant is allowed. to add up 2,000 sq. ft. to their 3,671 sq. ft. home which would meet the standard floor area ratio.or 2,282 sq. ft. which would meet the maximum F.A.R. Upon examination of the surrounding dwellings, it appears the applicant will be maintaining their right to develop their property in a manner similar:; to other property owners on Montewood, while also conforming to the requirements of the design review ordinance. 4. Granting of this variance would be a grant of special privilege since other property owners in the same zoning district and in a similar circumstance would be required to meet ordinace requirements. 5. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the Community. or injurions to properties in the vicinity. DESIGN REVIEW A -794: While staff cannot make all of the necessary findings to approve the variance for the non - conforming square footage, staff can recommend that the applicant add up to the maximum floor area ratio. As designed, the second story addition. of 831 sq. ft. meets the criteria set forth in the Design Review Ordinance as far as appearance of bulk, protection of privacy, compatability with surrounding structures and height. Both the garage and racquetball court additions also comply with ordinance requirements. Due to the secluded location of the site,-.an addition of Up to 2,282 sq. ft. would not have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. If the Commission approves Staff's recommendation, the applicant will need to apply for Building Site Approval because an addition of more.than 1,835 sq. ft. would be a 50% expansion. IL should also be noted that the deck and dressing room structures at the northern portion of the lot are not in compliance with setback requirements (20' is required). ' Staff Report :; 10/19/81 A -794 Page 4 V -562 However these additions have received building permits from the City of Saratoga Building Department. RECOMMENDATIONS: Variance: Deny per Staff Report dated 10/19/81 and Exhibits 'B & C ". DESIGN REVIEW: Approve ner Staff Report dated 10/19/81 subject to the following conditions: 1. The plans submitted with this application shall have deleted at least 762 sq. ft. of the proposed addition. The revised plans shall require Community Development Department review and approval. 2. Detailed grading and drainage plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Inspection Services. Only these approved plans shall be implemented during construction. 3. If the addition exceeds.1,835 sq. ft., the applicant will need to apply for.Building Site Approval prior to issuance of building permits. i Approved: Sharon Lester, Planning Aide SL:ra P. C. Agenda: 10/28/81 .4 , Planning Commission Minutes - Meeting 10123181 A -792 and V -561 (cont.) the Commission should be consistent in asking that the sign program in the shopping center be maintained. On that basis, Commissioner King moved to deny V -561 and A -792. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion. Commissioner Mania added that he would have difficulty making the five findings. The motion was carried unanimously. The applicant was notified of the 10 -day appeal period. 9a. A -794 C. M. Mayo, Request for a Variance and Design Review Approval to 9b. V -562 - allow the construction of a two -story dwelling which exceeds the floor area ratio by 18% where 5% is the maximum allowed at 18301 Montewood Drive The proposal for the two -story dwelling was described by Staff. They reported that they cannot make the necessary findings relative to the variance and were recommending denial per the Staff Report, and that the design review be approved only relative to the 5% increase over the maxi- mum floor area ratio. The public hearing was opened at 10:50 p.m. Jim Lyle, architect, submitted a statement of the neighbors in favor of the proposal and gave a presentation on it.. Mr. Lyle discussed the findings in the Staff Report, stating that he agrees there is no physical hardship, but he feels there should also be a basis for a variance where there is abundance. He added that this particular site has a certain type of abundance which makes a variance reasonable and one that does not impinge the community. He indicated that the proposal does not constitute an invasion of privacy, nor does it unreasonable interfere with views. He added that it does not create an adverse impact upon the aesthetic character of the neighborhood and it preserves the natural topography. He pointed out that if the applicant was to detach the racquetball court it would no longer count against the square footage. Mr. Lyle stated that if that were done, it would render the use of the racquetball structure as a heat sink impossible, or at least a great deal more difficult and much more expensive. He stated that lie feels that the proposed location of it is better and asked that one possible consideration for the variance might be that you disallow the square footage of the court in exchange for the semi - passive features that can be incorporated into it. Mr. Lyle described the design of the structure, submitting photos of the present home. A letter from the applicant was noted into the record. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she felt the home has been designed to take into consideration solar concepts and it is a good design added that the area has two -story homes that are generous in size on generous lots. Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther stated that he feels that the impact of the extra 700 sq. ft. is not a major impact upon the neighborhood, and the appli- cant could build the plan to completely comply with the ordinances by detaching the racquetball court. He added that the neighbors are in favor; the site is unusual and somewhat exceptional because of its seclusion and its large setback from the street. Commissioner Crowther stated that he could make the findings and would be in favor of the granting the variance. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve A -794 and V -562, making the necessary findings for granting the variance, subject to the Staff Report dated October 19, 1981, deleting Condition No. 1 from the Staff Report. It was also determined that a condi.tionp,should be added, requiring it to be a solar design. Commissioner Bolger"scconded the motion. The findings were further discussed by Commissioner Crowther, and he concluded that all of the findings could be made. Commissioner King 9 - z. L�J Planning Commission r Meeting Minutes - 10/ 28/81 A-79Y and V -561, Page 10 stated that he would be voting against the motion. He commented that lie feels that if the Commission seems to wish to alter the Design Review Ordinance, then possibly they should be dealing more with the fact that the ordinance which was passed is too restrictive. _, -; :.',•.-,.: <:•'- Commissioner Crowther stated that he disagrees; in fact, lie might even make it more restrictive, hie added that he feels the Commission has to be reasonable, and when there are good grounds for granting an exception, he thinks it should be granted. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she would be voting for the motion. She commented that she did not feel the physical hardship is there except as she relates it to solar, and that is something the Commission has been promoting. She stated that she also agrees with Commissioner King that the Design Review Ordinance; in relationship particularly to 1 acre+ zon- ing, is very restrictive, which is bringing up many of these difficult variances. Commissioner Crowther commented that he thinks the ordinance was primarily directed toward affecting a new subdivision, and this is not that situation. Commissioner King stated that he feels the ordinance is directed towards infill and conversion, and applies to this situation. Commissioner Bolger indicated that he basically cannot agree with Commis - sioner King's analysis of the situation, because primarily he does not feel this home is over the floor area ratio because of the racquetball facility. Commissioner Monia stated that he would not vote for the motion, since he has problems making all the necessary findings. He added that, with reference to the racquetball court, obviously, in formulating the ordinance, the Commission did not take into consideration secondary structures. He indicated that he felt this is becoming quite acute and needs to be address - ed in the future. However, he commented, this situation involves a single stricture that is attached, and the Commission is dealing with the ordi- nance as it is; therefore, he does not see how this variance can be granted. Commissioner Zambetti indicated that he could not make the findings. Commissioner Schaefer commented that, if any variances are going to be granted under the ordinance, this particular project certainly is one of the first ones that should be granted, The vote was taken on the motion to approve V -562 and A -794. Commissioners King, Monia and Zambetti dissented, therefore; there was a split vote. The Deputy City Attorney stated thax, under the ordinance, this item should be continued to the next meeting when there will be a full Commission. It was directed that this item be continued to November 17, 1981. MISCELLANEOUS 10. Blackwell Homes, Tracts 6526 and 6528, Request for revision to CC&Rs regarding square footage limitation for residences The requost for revision was described by Staff. They explained that, with the adoption of the new Design Review Ordinance, they feel it is appropriate for the Commission to recommend the modification of the CC&Rs to allow for the applicant to come under the provisions of the new ordi- nance. Bill Heiss, the engineer, stated that, four years ago, in the absence of a Design Review Ordinance, the 4600 sq. ft. size was agreed upon. He added that he felt the standards for buyers have changed since that time. He explained that they would like to amend tie: CC&Rs to make them consis- tent with the ordinance. - 10 - -W3 1 Planning Commission ( Page S Meeting ?linutes 11/17/81 UP -510 (cont.) Condition No. 1 should read: "The maximum number of students occupying the site per day shall not exceed the site's capacity as an elementary school." Condition No. 3 shall read: "Parking shall be restricted to existing park- ing spaces on site." Condition No. 4 shall read: "Classes shall not be conducted any later than 7:00 p.m. Infrequent evening meetings wi71 be allowed on site Weekend ". use is to be restricted." Commissioner King moved to approve UP -,510, per the Staff Report as amended, with the condition that the non - complying uses be removed by June 30, 1982. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion. The Deputy City Attorney clarified that approval of the use Dermit would legitimate those uses that are there now, with a directive to Staff not to initiate action to in effect evict those who do not conform. He added that the use permit would be granted as to those uses which the Commission finds to be in compliance, • and those uses which are not are given until June 30, 1982 to find other premises or effectuate a change in the ordinance. The vote was taken on the motion. The motion was carried, with Commissioners Laden and Bolger dissenting. Chairman Laden recommended that the Commis- sion take the use of school sites under consideration at a study session, and they can then recommend a change in the ordinance to the City Council. It was noted that there is a 10 -day appeal period on the decision. 8a. V.I62'' C M. Mayo, Request for a Variance and Design Review Approval to °- - - — �- 8b. A -794 -� allow the construction of a two -story dwelling which exceeds the floor area ratio by 18% where 5% is the maximum allowed at 13801 Montewood Drive; continued from October 28, 1981 Chairman Laden explained that this item was before the Commission at the last meeting, and it received a split vote. At that time it was directed to be continued to this meeting, in order to have a full Commission; how - ever, there are only five Commissioners present tonight. The Deputy City Attorney explained that the applicant, under the ordinance, would be entitled to have this matter heard by a full Commission. He stated that the applicant could consider the option of having the item continued to a meeting where there is a full Commission, or having it considered at this meeting. After discussion, it was determined that the applicant was not present at the meeting since he had been told there would not be a full Commission. It was, therefore, directed that this item be continued to the December 9, 1981 meeting. Commissioner Crowther commented that he feels that considerations of neighborhood, visual impact, etc. should be made Dart of the Floor Area Ratio. He stated that he is going to propose a change to the ordinance, - where you essentially allow plus and minus credits or debits that relate _... to some of these key issues that have come before the Commission. Break - 9:15 - 9:30 p.m. 9. Consideration of a Revision to the Slope Density Formula in the HCRD • - District to a 2 -10 Acre Straight Line Formula Staff gave a description of the revision being considered and described the areas proposed to be affected. The public hearing was opened at 9:38 p.m. Bill Heiss, civil engineer, stated that he has no problem with this revision; however, he commented that he felt there was an inconsistency in the statement that deals with 40o slope, in that the 40. slope is being excluded from the area, but on the onset it is required that the 40o slope be included in the area to determine its average slope. Ile added that the 40% is an arbitrary number and that factor was used when the ACRD Ordi- nance itself had a 400 limitation on home sites. qtr. Heiss explained that, now that the City is going to the Measure A density, they have really accomplished that goal, because there will be a much more extreme criteria for the density. He added that, during the *Measure A deliberations, the - determination was made that you should not build over a 30o slope, and yet. Minutes - Planning Commission M:-'eting 12/9/81 - Page 2 V -562 and A -794 (cont.) Commissioner Crowther stated that he feels the applicant has all of the neighbors supporting this project, and he feels that it meets all of the conditions and findings needed for a variance. Commissioner Zambetti stated that he could not make the necessary findings for the variance. Commissioner Schaefer moved to approve Variance #V -562, making the findings previously discussed. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion. The vote was taken, which was evenly split, with Commissioners Laden, Zambetti and King opposing the variance,. The Deputy City Attorney stated that this motion would be interpreted as a reconsideration of the prior motion, which has again resulted in an evenly split vote and therefore deemed to be a denial. He added that the applicant therefore has the right of appeal to the City Council. Minutes - Planning Commission Meeting x;2/9/31 _ V -562 and A -794 . � 3- UNAPPROVED Chairman Laden explained that there had previously been a split vote on this matter, and at the last meeting there was not a full Commission and the matter was not heard. She noted that there was not a full Commission at this meeting. She stated that the applicant may choose at this time to either have the matter heard tonight and waive the right to be heard by a full Commission, or request that the matter be continued to a future date when the full Commission is present. iMr. Lyle, the architect representing the applicant, stated that the applicant would like to waive the right to be heard by a full Commission, and stated that they would like the matter heard at this meeting. The City Attorney advised the Commission that their motion should be a motion for reconsideration, and if that motion fails for any reason, including an evenly snlit'vote, then it shall be deemed a denial. He added that the applicant would then have the right to appeal to the City Council within 10 days. Commissioner Schaefer moved to reconsider the matter, in order to expedite the decision. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Staff described the proposal. The public hearing was reopened at 7:.55 p.m. Jim Lyle, the architect representing the applicant, gave a presentation on the project. He showed slides of the site and the neighborhood. He noted that a hardship with the lot is the pre - existing location of the house and the peculiar angle makes it difficult to do alternatives. He clarified that the solar collectors would be stored on the racquetball court. Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she had visited the site, and she feels that the City has an ordinance that was based on careful research and thoughtful comparisons, but nevertheless she thinks that it has resulted in some arbitary numbers. She discussed the necessary findings, and stated that she could make these findings. Commissioner Laden stated that she feels this is a fine home and fits and lot and the neighborhood. However, she added, she cannot personally make the findings for-this variance, because she feels it could be reduced by the 900 sq. ft. to meet the requirements of the ordinance. She noted that she feels the ordinance is restrictive and-she feels it deserves some review by the Commission, but in the meantime she feels that there is a difference between the Design Review Ordinance and the qualifications of passing a variance, and she cannot personally make the findings for the variance, as required by law. Commissioner Bolger stated that he disagrees that the numbers in the Design Review Ordinance are arbitrary; he feels there was a good deal of input that was given by both Staff and the public regarding these numbers. He added that that they may need to'be fine - tuned, which the Commission will be doing in a very short period of time. He commented that he feels it would be inappropriate to break off this racquetball court for just the sake of trying to make it a separate type of entity. He commented that he feels it should be an integral part of the building, and he will support finding this variance. -zff� rnl, NO: V - 5 6 2 RESOLUTION NO. V - 5 6 2 -1 CITY OF SAP,ATOGA PI.AI I NG C(MUSSICN; STATE OF CALIF01:14IIA 11I1EREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Co='ssion has rcccivcd the application of C. M. MAYO for a Variance to allow the construction of a two -story dwelling which exceeds the floor and area ratio by 18% where 5% is the maximum allowed at 18801 Montw�pJSDry applicant (drs (has not) met the burden of Proof required to support his said application; ROW, =— REF0P.r, BE IT .RESOLVED that after careful' consideratiou of :z- aps, facts, eo:hibits and other evidence submitted in this matter, the .applicat-iou for the Variance be, mid the same is hereby (go ier}) (denied) , subject to the follouinr, conditions.: Per Exhibits "B" and ''C ". (Motion to Reconsider was -a split vote and therefore deemed a denial). BE 1T FL'it'I_HER 1U.S0LATED that the Report of Findings attached hereto be approved and adopted, and the Secretary be, and is hereby directed to notify the parties affected by this decision. 1'1:S1']7D AID ADOPTED by the City of Sara to-a PlmininS C=1iSSi on, State of Cal_'forni_a, this 9th day of December 19 81y by t11e follo;,ring roll c111 Dote: AYES: Commissioners King, Laden and Zambetti NOES: Commissioners Bolger, ABS12'.Yr: Commissioner Monia Crowther, and Schaefer I 3.11 ",,In F_NDINGS V -562: 1. There is no nhysical hardship associated with the subject parcel necessitating a variance. Upon review of the site, staff has found no physical hardships associated with the site in terms of site size or topgraphy which would warrant an addition exceeding the maximum floor area ratio. 2. There are no exceptional circumstances which apply only to this property. Although the site is exceptional in that it is secluded by site shape and evergreen vegetation, staff does not feel this warrants a structure on the site which is in excess of ordinance requirements. 3. Denial of this variance would not deprive the applicant the right to develop the property similar_ to others classified in the same zoning district. By current ordinance standards the applicant is allowed. to add up 2,000 sq. ft. to their 3,671 sq. ft. home which would meet the standard floor area ratio or 2,282 sq. ft . which would meet the maximum F.A'.R, Upon examination of the surrounding.dwellings, it appears the applicant will be maintaining their right to develop their property in a manner similar-.'to other property owners on Montewood, while also conforming to the requirements of the design reviex4 ordinance. 4. Granting of this variance would be a grant of special privilege since other property owners in the same zoning district and in a similar circumstance would be required to meet ordinace requirements. 5. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the Community or injurions to properties in the vicinity. ��;�wti ly �'i RtIMlFF: �C11�7k� ►1F2�`F%3A�i`LaX�P�4PLLi51y� .Ot4�'��{iai' r"�'Lf�i:1/11Y�`•iir1�Y .�.#Ni1.W.LRICK �+.fd161�'. ^� .. .e . 1�. of l�il�. I CITY-OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO: It*- Initial: Dept. Head:__ DATE: January 6, 1981 City Atty DEPARTMENT: Maintenance Services City Mgr SUBJECT: Notice of Completion of Community Center Addition Issue Summary Christensen Construction Company was awarded the contract for construction of the Community Center Addition by the City Council on May 20th, 1981. The contractor has 200 days from the official start of work in which to complete the project and this major construction job is now complete, prior to his 200 day deadline. The contractor is required to provide a one year guarantee on all workmanship, parts and items placed in the building. Recommendation Approve Notice of Completion with final payment to be made after approval. Fiscal Impact The contract was awarded in the amount of $195,478. Change Order- Number One approved in October was for $5,934.58, Change Order Number Two to complete the last details of the Addition is in the amount of $700. A total cost of construction of the 3000 square foot Addition was $202,112.58. Exhibits /Attachments Notice of Completion. Council Action 1/6: Jensen /Mallory moved to approve. Passed 5 -0. CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO: Initial: Dept. Head:_ tp� DATE: January 6, 1981 City Atty DEPARTMENT: Maintenance Services City Mgr ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- SUBJECT: Notice of Completion of Community Center Add,iltion Issue Summary Christensen Construction Company was awarded the contract for construction of the Community Center Addition by the City Council on May 20th, 1981. The contractor has 200 days from the official start of work in which to complete the project and this major construction job is now complete, prior to his 200 day deadline. The contractor is required to provide a one year guarantee on all workmanship, parts and items placed in the building. Recommendation Approve Notice of Completion with final payment to be made after approval. Fiscal Impact The contract was awarded in the amount of $195,478. Change Order Number One approved in October was for $5,934.58, Change Order Number Two to complete the last details of the Addition is in the amount of $700. A total cost of construction of the 3000 square foot Addition was $202,112.58. Exhibits /Attachments Notice of Completion. Council Action j Acting ash Owner given Saratoga Community Center�T�lccl' . J`' Wayne Dernetz j' ........._..........._... ...._ ........................ ....................... ike-a--, -n i 41 ti:.e o2e ne:.........._o tlr...............crrtaiu lot... ..piece........., oa' Santa Clara ...1..._..._�............ - I j I parcel......... of land situated in the.......... C. i.. ty.... of.... S. a. r. aw.g?........._ ...................................... ........................Con.uty of j j . ........................ ............................... State of a California, orn and described as follows. to- 2c1ir: ii Construction of Community Center Addition i�l I i That.........�i_tY..._of Sara_ toga ..................................................................................................... ................0'th........... ..............................-......................_......... .._..............._............ as owner......... of said laird, did, on the ................. 1 Ma 81 ............. dayof ................. Y...................... ..............................1 19............. inter into a contract 2 zrith ............ ................................... I.............. ................:.......................... ...._Christensen...Cbnstructlon Company.... .................. ............................... r fo Construction of Community.Ceraer Addition -------------------------------------------------------- . ............................... - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . upon the land above described, which contract was filed in the nice of the county recorder of tile...................... ....... .........................County of ............................................................................................. , State of California.. o;; tile............................. _ .................. ...................._.....day of.................. ............................... -5-i.......... 19...............; Thaton the .................................................................. ............... _...........................day 0f............ January....................... ........................_....., 19...82.... the said contract or work of 1 �nhrov6niei t, as a wliole, was actually completed by the said Christensen Construction Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . That the naine ......... and address ..................of all the owner ......... of said property are as follows: City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Cit. Ownership and the nature of ......_...... -... . ..........................title to said property i. r..........._..................................................................... ............_ ................ _..._...........................--............. ........................._..... ...................................................... .............................................. - .STA7 -E OF CAI_IFORNI.9 o Santa Clara Arent Count f .............................................................. ..............................� J. Wayne Dernetz ............ ................................................. ....... ..... ....... .... ........................... ................ ................... ................ _ ......._.... _........ .... ..._._......... ... . J Wayne Dernetz _VS: benrg d;rly s2e�o�•la, ......... z ....................._..........._..........................................................................._......... ................_.............. I alt.. rn-----%r � . C 0 l rl- 'st -ri P; .;( i0; Iol'i','. r' Ilra2•e read the forego;aanolir c the c ,ntcnlctlrrrcor.r;ndth.cs::r :.c :r. nrrn kno2ulcdgc. .Srrbscribcd anti s2.'oru to hcforc inc this .......... ..._...._...doV oj._...................__........... _._........._l9................ - ..._ ....................._......................_..........__... ............................... ...................................................................................... ............................... _ _ - •I1�!c;e words i., hrack,t, if o.. , tiers. Cowd!ry's Form No. 773 — NOTICE OF COMPLETION BY CWNFR. (C. C. P. S.. 1:93.1) k CITY OF SARATOGA n Initial: AGENDA BILL NO. 07 Dept. Hd. DATE: 1/6/82 C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr. / SUBJECT: School Crosswalk, Oak Street Issue Sunnazy Satatoga Union School District has requested a crosswalk, speed bumps and additional signing of Oak Street. Speed bumps cannot be installed in as much as such devices are illegal. Crosswalk with associated signs along.,, Oak-Street with more speed enforcement is appropriate. Reconmendation Adopt Resolution MV- establishing a crosswalk on Oak Street southwesterly of Fourth Street. Fiscal Impacts Approximately $230.00 Exhibits /Attachments 1. October 23; 1981 letter from Saratoga Union School District 2. November 9, 1981 Memo to Director of Community Development 3. Resolution MV- Council Action 1/6: Clevenger /Mallory moved approval of Res. MV -151. Passed 5 -0. SRRMOR U010H SCHOOL DISTRICT 14675 Aloha Avenue SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070. Q Telephone 867 -3424 October 23, 1981 Nlayor Linda Callon, Members of the City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Frui.tvale Avenue Saratoga., California. 95070- .1':1 Dear. Mayor Callon and Members of the City Council, This past week, I received a letter from Mr. Stephen Peck., Principal of Saratoga rlementa.iry School. In his letter he reports the concern that the PTA., teaching staff and he have relative. to the speed of traffic on Oak Street during school hours, especi. ally the cars coming down the hill.' Two traffic signs are located on Oa.k_Street stating that a school. zone exists. However, there is nothing directly in front of the school to indicate a pedestrian walk. Although the school side of Oak Street is whitecur.bed for passenger parking, parents still park on the other side of the street to pick up their children. Three suggestions have been made which seem reasonable. A cross�valk in front of the school., directl.y'a.cross from the front door, would provide a crossing spot for peclestrians, Speed bumps along Oak Street would slow the cars d.nwn: A(,cli_.ional signs along Oa.k Street miglit provide another. warn:i.ng. To quote Mr. Peck, "1 sincerely feel. that we have a potenti. ally dangerous situation on Oak Street. ' Aw nlarn i nrl i not i nn at th_i - ,- i n,e is to provide the vou- n-sters with a crosswal.l: which could be manned by 6th grade safety patrol members before and after school. Anything done in addition to a crosswalk would be a. bonus," Your help in resolving tlh:i.s problem in the shortest response time w:i 11 he greatly appr.eciated. S i nce re 1 yours ,1 Everett G. McNi-cholas Superintendent }Gi`lcN : dgr 4rz :Iede N1EMORAND�IM 0-MuW @:T O&M&UO(5& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 . TO: Director of Community Development DATE: 11/9/81 FROM: Asst. Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Oak Street School This memo is a response to the letter sent to Mayor Callon by Mr. McNicholas, Superintendent of Saratoga Union School District, regarding Oak Street School. The letter makes three recommendations to improve the traffic safety at Oak Street School. They are, the installation of a crosswalk in front of the school, the installation of speed bumps on Oak Street and placement of additional signs on Oak Street. On November 9, 1981, I made a field study. The speeders which the letter refers to appear to come from Norton Road and Bohlman Road. I agree with the suggestion of installing a yellow cross- walk in front of the school. Saratoga's position on speed bumps is clear. The signing on Oak Street is adequate. My recommendation is to install a crosswalk, yellow with yellow bars, and to increase radar enforcement on Oak Street near Norton Road. John E. Bean JEB /dsc RESOLUTION MV- RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CROSSWALKS BETWEEN INTERSECTIONS The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1: This resolution is adopted pursuant to Vehicle Code Section 21106 of the State of California, and Section 9 -2 of the Saratoga City Code. Section 2: Pedestrian c (r:osswalks are hereby established at the following locations across the following public streets of the City of Saratoga, and the Director of Community Development of this City is hereby directed to cause the painting of parallel lines across said streets at said points, to designate said crosswalks, said lines to be approximately ten (10) feet apart: I Streets Location of Crosswalk Oak Street 200 feet + southwesterly-of the intersection of the center- line of Oak Street and Fourth Street 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 day of 19 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: AGENDA BILL NO. 8 Dept. Hd. PRO_ DATE: December 29, 1981 C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: Administrative Services C. Mgr. ------------------------------------------- - - - - -- SUBJECT: Community Center Senior Wing Rental Fee Issue Summary The Community Center Senior Wing will be opening in January, 1982. For the purpose of generating revenue, it is recommended the Senior Wing be available for private rentals when not in use by senior citizens. The recommended rental rate for the Senior Wing large room and kitchen, $40 /hr. for residents and $50 /hr. for non - residents, is in line with the fees charged for use of other Community Center Rooms. The fee for staff time supervising�a� rental, clean -up and set -up time and the use of the backyard will be the same for groups using the Community Center or Senior Wing rooms. Recommendation It is recommended that Resolution No. be adopted and the new rates become effective immediately. Fiscal Impacts It is estimated the recommended fee for rental of the Senior Wing will increase revenue by $6,000 per year. Exhibits /Attachments Council Action 1 /6:Watson /Jensen moved to adopt Res. 780 -18. Passed 5 -0. CITY OF SARA1'W_1A. A Initial: AGENDA BILL NO I Dept. Hd._ DATE:. 1 -6 -82 C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr. ---------------- - - - - - - - - -- - --- - - - - -_ ------------------------------------------- UP -510 appellant/applicant Warren Jacobsen /One World Montessori SUBJECT: School Board = Moreland School District 12301 Radoyka Issue Summary On November 17, 1981 the Planning Commission granted UP -510 to allow a new master leasee (One World Montessori) and sub- leasees to occupy the Brookview Elementary School site. The applicant wishes to appeal`Item #4 of Recommended =0 Action which states "classes shall not be conducted any later than 7 p.m. Infrequent evening meetings will be allowed on site. Weekend use is to be restricted." The applicant feels this is too restrictive, stating that other schools have educational adult classes in the evenings to 10 p.m. Additionally,-; the Planning Commission is requesting clarification of.the minutes on this also as to when the conditions of the Use Permit are to take effect - after June 1982 or immediately. Council may wish to continue this matter until the Commission has clarified and approved its minutes relative to weekend use. Recazdation 1. Conduct a Public Hearing on the appeal of Item #4. 2. Determine the merits of the appeal and approve or deny. 3. Staff recommended approval of a 9:30 p.m. limit to the Planning Commission. Fiscal Impacts None anticipated. Exhibits /Attachmnts .1,. Appeal letter. 2. Staff Report dated October 8, 1981 (as amended November 17, 1981). 3. Planning Comm ission Minutes of November 17, 1981 (unapproved). 4. Verbatim of Planning Commission:Minutes of November 17, 1981. 5. Resolution UP- 510 -1. 6.' Correspondence regarding Use Permit. Council Action 1/6: Jensen /Hallory moved to continue to February 3 until Planning Commission clarifies terms concerning weekend restrictions. Passed 4 -1 (Watson opposed). 3 2/3: Clevenger/Watson moved to deny appeal and uphold Planning Commission. Passed 5 -0. t 'RECEIVED 2E-C 1 1981 WARREN JACOBSEN ASSOCIATES PLANNING ARCHITECTURE DESIGN December 1, 1981 Saratoga City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Use Permit #UP -510 Gentlemen: On behalf of the One World Montessori School Board, we would like to appeal Item #4 of Recommended Action as stated in the 11/17/81 Report to Planning Commission. This item states "Classes shall not be conducted any later than 7:00 p.m. Infrequent evening meetings will be allowed on site." We appeal this condition on the basis that regular functioning schools are allowed to have educational adult classes in the evenings which run approximately to 9:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.*. We feel that this condition is restrictive and will prohibit One.World from subleasing to tenants that wish to provide this type of evening class. The availability of evening classes benefits the community and allows individuals to attend classes they might otherwise not be able to participate in. S'nc� rely, Warren G. Jacob en AIA WGJ:sf Encl. - Check for $30.00 621 E CAMPBELL AVE SUITE 14 CAMPBELL CALIFORNIA 95008 <�N�y TELEPHONE (408) 374 -6480 City of Sarcfoga- APPROVED BY-__ , DATE: INITIALS: T o� ° MD QA REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION *(amended 11/17/81) DATE: 10/8/81 Commission Meeting: 10/14/81 SUBJECT *- UP -510 - Moreland School District 12301 Radoyka Drive ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- REQUEST: Modification to an existing use permit to allow the One World Montessori School to become the Master Leasee and to allow other uses to occupy the buildings formerly occupied by the Brookview Elementary School. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: This project is a Class 14 categorical exemption according to State E.I.R. Guidelines. PUBLIC NOTICING: This project has been advertised by posting, publication in the newspaper, and by mailings to 85 nearby property owners. GENERiL PLAN DESIGNATION: Community Facilities (Elementary School). ZONING: R-1- 10,000 SURROUNDING LAND USES: Prospect High School to the north and west; single - family residential to the south and east. SITE SLOPE: 12.5 acres BACKGROUND: On September 12, 1979, the Planning Commission approved UP -423, to allow Pacific Academy and other uses (including One World Montessori) to occupy the site (please see the attached Staff Report for UP -423). Since that time the primary leasee has become One World Montessori and new uses are proposed for the site. Condition 5 of UP -423 requires that any substantial change in the operation of the use permit that could adversely impact adjacent properties must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. That is the purpose of this application. Condition 3 of UP -423 required a 90 day trial period for all uses that operated after 6:00 p.m. At the end of the first 90 days of the use permit, staff had received no complaints about the post 6:00 p.m. uses. However, since that time Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners Association has written both the Mayor and the Moreland School District Board complaining about the operation, particularly in terms of the traffic generated (please see attached letters dated August 14, 1981, and August 26, 1981). `. -, 3 ' }Report to Planning Cacmissio� ".� �:.: -' 10/8/81 UP -510 Page 2 STAFF ANALYSIS: Section 3.3(a) of the Zoning Ordinance describes the Community Facilities and institutions allowed as conditional uses in R -1 districts. These uses include: Nursery Schools, private non- profit schools and colleges, not including art, craft, music or dancing schools or business, professional or trade schools and colleges, and religious institutions. The following table describes the operating criteria of each proposed individual user: TABLE I Age of Days of Hours of NAME # students Students # Employees Operation Operation One World Montessori Pacific Academy Sunburst Daycare Developmental Learning Assoc. Inc. Religious . Science of Mind Dance - Plus Fitness - Unlimited Karate 80 26 20 -30 115 35 35 75 14 9 22 25 10 22- 12 10 M thru F 7:30 am- 6:30 pm 6 - 13 7 M thru F 7:00 am - 6:00 pm 22 - 6 2 M thru F 6:30 am - 6:00 pn 5 - 17 8 M thru F 8:00 am - 6:00 pm All ages 3 T thru F Adult 3 T thru F All ages (Church services) Sun. Adults 2 T /Th Adults 2 M/W Adults 2 M/W Adults 2 T /Th Adults 2 T /Th 10:00 am - 4:00 pm 7:30 pm - 9:30 pm 10:00 am -11:00 am 8:30 am - 9:30 am 7:00 pm - 8:30 pm 6:00 pn - 7:00 pm 3:30 pm - 6:30 pm 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm Developmental Learning Associates, Inc. is a.learning disabilities school but is also a profit making institution and is therefore prohibited by the Zoning Ordinance. Dance _ Plus is also prohibited by ordinance as are all music and dancing schools regardless of whether or not they are profit or non - profit. Physical education and karate are not specifically mentioned in Section 3.3 so the Commission must determine if these uses are appropriate for the site. One of the concerns associated with this application, as with UP -423, is the number of parking spaces required for the uses. The following table summarizes the number of parking spaces required during different hours of operation. ',,'Report to Planning Commissic '� 10/8/81 UP -510 Page 3 TABLE II Days Hours Users # Spaces (Max.) M Thru F 6:30 am - One World Montessori 6:30 pm Pacific Academy Sunburst Academy Religious Science of Mind M Thru F 6:30 pm - 9:30 pan Sunday 10:00 am - 11:00 am Religious Science of Mind Religious Science of Mind (Church Services) 22 * 20 ** 33 * ** * This number would increase to 36 if Fitness Unlimited were allowed (assuming 1 space/ 2 students). ** Assumes one parking space /two students. This number would be increased to 26 if Karate classes were permitted. * ** Two parking spaces per 5 seats plus 3 employees. The greatest impact on parking appears to be the Religious Science of Mind Sunday operation. To accommodate this parking need.12 parking spaces should be added to the site. These could be located by using the open, partially gravelled area just to the east of the existing baseball diamonds. It is recommended that the existing cable barricade be removed and that this area be paved and striped for parking. About the same number of students (170 -190) would occupy the site between the hours of 6:30 am - 6:30 pan as in the previous use permit. However, if Developmental Learning Associates, Inc. (the profit making institution prohibited by ordinance), Dance Plus, and Fitness Unlimited are allowed to occupy the site, and additional 154 students would be located there. Approximately 190 night (7:00 pm - 9:00 pan) students were allowed under UP -423. Only about 67 night students would be allowed under this use permit if Dance Plus and Karate were permitted to operate. Residents in the vicinity have complained about traffic congestion due to the operation of the uses under UP -423. However, the traffic data collected by the residents (see letter dated August 14, 1981) indicate that the operation of the uses did not have a significant effect in traffic engineering terms (an average of 26 vehicles /hour). FINDINGS: If the conditions listed under Recommended Action are complied with, the following findings can be made: 1. The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Report to Planning Commission_: - i 10/8/81 Up - 510 <_:. :: ' Page 4 3. The proposed conditional use complies with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance and the General Plan. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve per Staff Report dated October 8, 1981, and Exhibit "B" subject to t e following conditions: * 1. The maximum number of students occupying the site per day shall not exceed the site's capacity as an elementary school. * 2. Those uses that are not permitted under the list of conditional uses in a R -1 District shall be terminated no later than June 30, 1982. * 3. Parking shall be restricted to existing parking spaces on site. * 4. Classes shall not be conducted any later than 7:00 p.m. Infrequent evening meetings will be allowed on site. Weekend use is to be restricted. 5. All day care or nursery operations shall comply with all requirements of State Law and shall be licensed by the State. Prof of such licensing shall be sukmitted to the City prior to their operation. 6. Any use to be added on the site shall require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. 7. Any substantial modification to the operation of the approved uses would require review and approval by the Planning Commission. 8. Any violation of these conditions will suspend this use permit automatically as per Section 16.11 of the Zoning Ordinance. COMMENTS: 1. Staff has received a petition dated September 18, 1981, from nearby residents opposing any profit making use being located on the site. Approved U--- V;: GG� �Y - I Michael Flores, Assistant Planner MF /dra P. C. Agenda: 10/14/81 *as amended by Planning Commission on 11/17/81. Planning Commission Pu�o z ` � v� ' wcobng minute, 11/17/81 The Capital �mprovement Program was discussed, and Commissioner Crowther ` | ' ' for the .`,.^~ ' muxt," that the\amount of $320,000 is listed on page I and listed on the _ la\t page. He also noted that the General P /n 'r Area F """" not "^^^^^~' �nything about El Quito Park. Staff stated that it was their understanding that the Coun I has indicated the ^.`~` to .^q.^^ ' break- down / The explained that, regarding the $1 m1i'llion figure, this may be a ,o"^^"u s^`" tion and the intent is to use add tional state park bonds as they become a ailable on an annual basi Commissioner Crowther stated that he found that t/he as insufficient informa- tion — judge � ^ ~ on that item but on others Staff explained th t the items on the last page are — not inc done _ —' _ future. Staff Idded that perhap,� the last page and its effect should not be considered with, the balance posed to be funded this year.*which anpearl7to be inconsistent with the General ' ..~~^.'^~.^' Crowther __ _-_-_--- he/could 6t deleting the last page, because those consistent with the General Plan withol items in particular are areas where t there isn't sufficient information. ot share his concern because she feels ^ ` that the last ,-~- _ - list for r o and she uoco not see a t\ ving any adverse effect on the General Plan and du ---^-- Commissioner Commission i / finds x 1981-82 _ /1, � conded\the motion. Commissioner Crowther ' General Improve- moved to amend the ti c Programs. Commissioner - recom- mendation Commission finds consistent with the o 197* Ccnoruz f The vote was taken � the Speci on the :monde ' fuuod' with Commis Schaefer, Laden and King dissenting vote was then taken on the to recommend that the * Commission fin consistency between the current General rza^ and the pro- posed Capital z;�rovcnmot Program' as presented in t�c document hofo,o the Commission. The motion was carried, with Commis,iouc�'s ooz8ec and Crowther dissenting. ' �ozoluod School District, Request for u Use Permit to allow a new master zousvu World Montessori) and svh'zcuscv, (Religious. Science of wind, pacific Academy, Sunburst o^' Care' oovczopmvhtuz Learning Associates, Inc., Dance Plus, Fitness Unlimited and Karate) to occupy the orookviow Elementary School site at 12301 nudo/ka Drive; continued from October 20 1981 The present yronnsuz was described by Staff, who explained that this application had been before the commission at study sessions. They commented that they were recommending approval, with deletion of some of �c uses which do not comply with the ordinance. They explained that tile profit-making institutions and ,chnozsuru not permitted on public properties, -' per the ordinance. They added that the applicant has submitted o copy of their loupo and certification from the stoto' certifying them as a non profit organization. Discussion followed on the possibility of changing ' the ordinance, amending the text to allow different uses in the x'l dis- trict under u conditional use permit. Staff suggested that the commis sioo could approve the uses that are currently allowed and the applicant could reapply or modify the use permit if the ordinance were amended. The Deputy City Attorney clarified that the non'con[nrming uses have a right to appeal to the city Council, and at that yoint they might request ` the City Council � initiate /pmo�iuto action for amendment of the exist- ing ordinance, should they desire to do so, and in the meantime perhaps on interim emergency ordinance could he adopted. | x' - Planning Commission �` C Page 3 Meeting Minutes 11/17/81 UP -S10 (cont.) Commissioner Crowther stated that he was concerned that this situation has gone on as long as it has and has created a problem, because he feels it could influence the community's decision on whether our school sites should be kept open for recreational open space needs of the communi- ty or let them develop at a relatively high density. He added that lie personally does not feel the ordinances are strong enough in this area. He indicated that he does not think it was ever the intent that school sites would be used for nurposes that are more intense than their use as a school. Commissioner Crowther handed out a draft that he would ulti- mately like to see in the form of an ordinance, listing conditions that he felt should be made part of this use permit. The public hearing was opened at 8:10 p.m. Warren Jacobsen, representing the applicant, stated that he feels the code, under Article 16, allows that a use permit could be granted for the other uses. He pointed out that the school site is still primarily being used for education and provides community uses. The conditions in the Staff Report were discussed by Mr. Jacobsen, specifically those limiting the number of students and the additional paving for parking spaces. He also indicated that he would provide the Commission a list of the officers of One l'Jorld Montessori and stated that he had submitted a copy of the document given to the State, showing that they were a non - profit organiza- tion. The traffic problem was discussed. Commissioner Bolger pointed out that Mr. Jacobsen had asked to intensify the use of this site further; yet he had agreed that there is a traffic problem already. Mr. Jacobsen stated that it was a problem of economics. The possibility of busing was brought up, and Mr. Jacobsen indicated that he thought that busing would not be possible, since they do not have the resources to buy busses; he stated that they had asked the people using the site to carpool as much as possi- ble. The Deputy City Attorney discussed Article 16 of the code, stating that he did not view it as expanding the scope of use permits under Section 3. He explained that what it provides is that the Commission may grant use permits for conditional uses as are prescribed in the district regulations. He added that the Planning Commission has the power under the use permit to grant variations in terms of area density and structure height; it does not state use per se but relates to physical characteristics of the use. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she feels very strongly that programs like Developmental Learning Associates are badly needed in this area; it is edu- cation, which is exactly what the school was intended for,.and the traffic is during the day. She added that child care is also badly needed. Lawrence Green, Executive Director of Developmental Learning Associates, addressed the issue of traffic, stating that he did not feel that problem would be solved if the non - complying uses were replaced with other uses. lie indicated that he felt the issues were really traffic and zoning. Mr. Green commented that he feels there is a real need in this community for this type of organization. He stated that if the non - compliance becomes an .issue, then he would recommend that the Commission at least examine the possibility of reconsidering the zoning. Paul Gilovich stated that he lives at the corner of Radoyka and Kosich. lie commented that he did not see how the Moreland School District could sublease to anyone else other than the Montessori School, since their lease agreement only lists that school. The Deputy City Attorney stated that the City is not a party to the contract. lie explained that what is being dealt with here is the use permit and the ordinances pursuant to which it is issued, and if it is denied it will not be on the basis of some internretation of the lease. He added that, even though the school district is in effect a public body, the City is not going to make its determinations dependent on how the school board leases out its property. The Deputy City Attorney commented that he-did not see any real conflict, because the school district is also saying that it is required to be used for school purposes and non - profit organizations. Mr. Gilovich indicated that most of the traffic is in the morning, evening, and on Sunday morning. Chairman Laden commented that the Commission has - 3 - • Planning Commission �` C Page 4 Meeting Minutes 11/17/81 UP -510 (cont.) " been considering studying the option of addressing school use perhaps by students per square foot, and that sauare,footage of student occupation can only happen once a day. Mr. Gilovich indicated that he felt that would help the traffic situation, and he discussed the safety situation on his corner. Commissioner Bolger pointed out that, if the use permit were denied, it would nerhaps hasten the School District to dispose of this property. He added that, under the Present zoning, between SO -60 homes could be built in this particular area and it would seem that the traffic pattern would be about the same. Mr. Gilovich stated that he would prefer.the homes there, since he felt that the homeowners would pay more attention to the area. Bill Tulty, from Dance Plus, stated that the money that One World Montessori is paying to the School District is offsetting the expense to all of the taxpayers in the County and State. He added that the people who use Dance - Plus are from this community. Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Chairman Laden commented that she felt all of the Commissioners have deep concern for this situation and feel that there are many schools and activities going on on this site that are very beneficial to the community. However, she added, the Commission also has concern about maintaining the "'°' "' ° ^"' '�'^ •'' =rte ordinances as they are written, Commissioner Crowther expressed concern about adding additional narking ::..:�• -.:.- to the site when there is already concern about traffic. He stated that - ��;�.;��•�� <.;;�,.,T� -�:� he would like to change Condition 3 to read that use of the site shall be - such as to not require any off -site parking. :,_n:,4- •:;,- ;;- :,f't,; Commissioner King expressed his concern that the One World Montessori School has taken the full responsibility for the management of this site. He stated that it is difficult to see where the applicants themselves are dealing with the commercial aspects of many of these things. He added that there is a possibility that this site may be boarded up in June, and possibly the Commission could consider a timeframe regarding this application. Commissioner Bolger stated that he agreed with Mr. Green, in that there are a number of services that are being provided to this community, whether they be profit or non - profit making; that really has very little bearing. fie commented that he would like the Commission to study the ordinance in the future. Commissioner Bolger agreed with Commissioner King's feeling that there has been a lack of policing on this site. However, he added, he feels these services are very much needed in this community, and he would like to see the leasee and the neighborhood get together and achieve a satisfactory solution. Commissioner Crowther stated that he felt the Commission should try to be consistent, and he recalled another school site where the use of the site was restricted to no later than 6:00 p.m., with only infrequent use in the evenings. He added that he felt that same condition should be placed on this site. He indicated that he strongly opposes use on the weekends because that extends it beyond the normal use of the school. Commissioner Crowther indicated that he felt that there should be general criteria that reflect on the neighborhood's concerns and put those in as conditions, which would achieve the objective. The content of regulating the use to that which would approximate the use of an elementary school was discussed. Chairman Laden commented that she feels the ordinance is very clear and she has a problem putting conditions on particular activities and businesses that do not meet the ordinance. She added that, if the Commission wishes the ordinance changed, they should ask the City Council to do that. She indicated that it was her personal opinion that the Commission has to meet the ordinance and then condition the use. The conditions of the Staff Report were discussed, and there was a consen- sus on the following: 4 - L Planning Commission /� ( Page 5 . ` • ....._ _ �lc.etin Mc Minutes 11/17/31 'b UP -S10 (cont.) Condition No. 1 should read: "The maximum number of students occupying the site per day shall not exceed the site's capacity as an elementary Scho01." Condition No. 3 shall read: "Parking shall be restricted to existing park- ing spaces on site." Condition No. 4 shall read: "Classes shall not be: conducted any later than 7:00 p.m. Infrequent evening meetings will be allowed on site. Weekend use is to be restricted." Commissioner King moved to approve UP -S10; per the Staff Report as amended, with the condition that the non- complying uses be removed by June. 30, 1982. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion. The Deputy City Attorney clarified that approval of the use permit would legitimate those uses that are there now, with a directive to Staff not to initiate action to in effect evict those who do not conform. He added that the use permit would be granted as to those uses which the Commission finds to be in compliance, June 30, 1982 to find other and those uses which are not are given until premises or effectuate a change in the ordinance. The vote was taken on the motion. The motion was carried, with Commissioners Laden and.Bolger dissenting. Chairman Laden recommended that the Commis- sion take the use of school sites under consideration at a study session, and they can then recommend a change in the ordinance to the City Council. It was noted that there is a 10 -day appeal period on the decision. 8a. V -S62 - C. M. Mayo, Request for a Variance and Design Review Approval to 8b. A -794 - allow the construction of a two -story dwelling which exceeds the floor area ratio by 18% where S% is the maximum allowed at 18801 Montewood Drive; continued from October 28, 1981 " Chairman Laden explained that this item was before the Commission at the A; last meeting, and it received a split vote. At that time it was directed to be continued to this meeting, in order to have a full Commission; how - ever, there are only five Commissioners present tonight. The Deputy City Attorney explained that the applicant, under the ordinance, would be entitled to have this matter heard by a full Commission. He stated that the applicant could consider the option of having the item continued to a meeting where there is a full Commission, or having it considered at this meeting. After discussion, it was determined that the applicant was not present at the meeting since he had been told there would not be a full - Commission. It was, therefore, directed that this item be continued to the December 9, 1981 meeting. Commissioner Crowther commented that he feels that considerations of neighborhood, visual impact, etc. should be made Dart of the Floor Area Ratio. Fie stated that he is going to propose a change to the ordinance, where you essentially allow plus and minus credits or debits that relate to some of these key issues that have come before the Commission. Break - 9:1S - 9:30 p.m. ..,�;;.._.:rzj••;:�I2riy:i��ri� �::vrR��`��';'.yt, - 9. Consideration of a Revision to the Slope Density Formula in the HCRD Vie:: - ?. - =:t; District to a 2 -10 Acre Straight Line Formula Staff gave a description of the revision being considered and described the areas proposed to be affected. The public hearing was opened at 9:38 p.m. Bill Heiss, civil engineer, stated that he has no problem with this revision; however, he commented that he felt there was an inconsistency in the statement that deals with 40% slope, in that the 40% slope is being excluded from the area, but on the onset it is required that the 40% slope be included in the area to determine its average slope. He added that the 40% is an arbitrary number and that .factor was used when the HCRD Ordi- nance itself had a 40% limitation on home sites. Mr. Hei.ss explained that, now that the City is going to the Measure A density, they have really accomnlished that goal, because there will be a much more extreme criteria for the density. He added that, during the *Leasure A deliberations, the - determination was made that you should not build over a 30% slope, and yet, EXCERPT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION VERBATIM MINUTES - 11/17/81 (UP- 510 - Moreland) W KING - I think that we have had a lot of public input at the Committee-of-the- Whole meeting and I think we have .heard from One World Montessori School j and I guess that I have gradually come to, personally come to a few concerns about this. I guess some of my concerns would reflect what the neighbors said. I am not sure that One World Montessori has taken the full responsibility for the management of this site that is implied in either our ordinances or for that matter, in their lease which may not be before us, but it is a concern to us. I think that we all show the same concerns of the neighborhood and about the school site and so forth but we have before us an applicant, a reluctant applicant who has not truly dealt with the ordinance he was dealing with. As I look at the site with signs up and so on, it is difficult to see where the applicants themselves are dealing with the commercial aspects of many of these things. You can argue that this one is desirable and that that one is not and I think that it has been pointed out that that is not before us, so I guess I have some concern about it. j On the other hand, I wonder , if thinking to what Mr. Reasoner said, I believe that he is the Superintendent of Moreland School District who spoke to us, I believe that there is a possibility that this site may be boarded up in June anyway. So I guess I wonder if there may be something we can consider to let things wind their way down for the next six months and end the issue .... a couple of thoughts.... BOLGER - I would like to make a comment, I think that Mr. Green made a very good point and the fact is that there are a number of different services that are being provided to this community, whether they be- profit or nonprofit, that really has very little bearing, where as the services that are being provided to the community, I think that what I would like to do is that some time in the future, that we take a very hard look at this particular ordinance. I share Mr. King's feeling that there has been a lack of policing that is occurred on this particular site, however I wonder whether or not it might be possible that we could get these two different parties back together, the people from the leasee as well as the neighborhood, then we can achieve a satisfactory solution. It may be a moot point but I think that these services are very much needed in the community. CROWTHER - I have a couple of other comments I think that we should try to be con- sistent and I recall another school site where I believe we restricted the use of the site to no later than 6:00 p.m. or something of that sort, with only infrequent use in the evening. I personally think that the same condition should be placed on this site. I strongly oppose use on the weekends because that extends it beyond the normal use of a school. I would also like to see that condition placed on the site, no intensive uses on the weekends other than for recreational purposes such as the use of the playing fields and that sort of thing, which is the same kind of use you would have at the grammar school there. I don't think that we have the information to decide whether Development#'Learning Associates should or should not be used on the site. I think what we should have general criteria that reflects on the neighbors' concern and put those in the conditions rather than taking specific shots at specific organizations. That is that if we can control the traffic and keep the use down to certain limited hours and that sort of thing, I think that will achieve the objective. LADEN - Are you suggesting that one of the conditions be no evening classes and I don't recall any other school that we did that with. CROWTHER - There was a recent Use Permit with the E1 Quito area. STAFF - Commissioner Crowther is referring to a Use Permit for a nursery school in the E1 Quito Area and there was a limit in terms of the operation on the weekend. CROWTHER - I would take Condition 4, and change 9:30 to 5:00 p.m. and the lockup time to 6:00 p.m. SCHAEFER - Excuse me, I think that anyone that has been involved in child care who works and needs to pick up children realizes that if you hold down a job from 8 to 5 you can not possibly pick up a child before 6:00. It is extremely difficult. CROWTHER - If you want to make it 7 that's alright, or 6 that's fine but I think that 9:30 is too late. SCHAEFER - The other point on that is that if we are going to have dancing classes and things like that, dancing may sound frivilous to some, but dancing of this nature as has been explained to me is much beyond that. I think that Page 2 EXCERPT P. C. VERBATIM MINUTES- 11/17/81 UP -510 - Moreland having classes perhaps go until 9:00 would be a more reasonable kind of thing and have the rooms locked up at 9:15, rather than closing it down. An then perhaps having that go only through June and in June it would be a total new thing when this lease is up and the school district may decide not to do anything further with it. KING - I guess I wonder that if there is a consensus that we ought to try to generally regulate the use of that which would approximate the use of an elementary school and then maybe we could work around that kind of a concept. LADEN - I guess I have a problem and I'll state where I'm coming from right at the begining. I believe that, had the applicant who is here tonight read and followed the lease which required the obtaining of a Use Permit, we at the Planning Commission wouldn't be in the uncomfortable position of having tenants who we are about to drive out in the street. I think that our ordinance is very clear at this time; unfortunately it says nonprofit schools. I have no problem putting conditions on those schools that meet the ordinance or those uses on the school that meet the ordinance: I have a problem putting conditions out there on parti- cular activities and businesses that do not meet the ordinance. I don't think that that is what we should be doing. I think that if we wish to change the ordinance, I suggest that the City Council changes the ordinance, then we should do that. I think that before us tonight is whether we follow the ordinance and issue a use permit for nonprofit schools or whether we are going to follow the ordinance and issue use permits for everybody who is now there or anyone else who may come and try to control those. I think that those are the two issues that we are trying to deal with and I think that the controls have to come after who we decide who we are going to control. My personal opinion is that we have to meet the ordinance and then condition the use from there. CROWTHER - I think that what Commissioner King said is very important, which strongly agree with, that we should try to condition the use to be consistent with that of an elementary school. LADEN - Fine. Alright, we are talking about the conditions under Recommended Action. Should we go through these one at a time or.... The applicant has suggested Condition #1 with a maximum number of students which will be no greater than that shown on Table 1, he feels that that is too restrictive, is there any agreement on the part of the Commission to omitting that? CONSENSUS THAT IT SHOULD STAY. LADEN - Alright, fine. We will skip Condition #2 for now that seems to be the essence of this discussion here right now. Condition #3 is the additional parking.Commissioner Crowther has suggested that we do not require the additional parking to be paved and striped but that parking whould be limited to on site parking as it presently exists. Is that in agreement? SCHAEFER - I don't agree....I mean that I agree that we should not add additional parking, but why not remove the barricades so that they can park right on the existing land. LADEN.- I think that might be inherent with what he is saying if they can provide appropriate parking. SHOOK - I might just remind the Commission that the reason that the paved parking is included in the Staff Report was based on the comment that some of the neighbors were concerned about the parking and the dust and the problems created by that. CROWTHER - I would like to restrict it to the existing parking places on site and indicate that the Use Permit...a condition of the Use Permit, is that they not have any uses that would create a need for parking beyond the available capacity of the site. CONSENSUS LADEN - Alright, Condition #4, classes shall not be conducted later than 9:30, is that deemed to be a problem? I guess I didn't hear that nighttime was as much of a problem as the general traffic flow. No? If there is a way of finding out does that make a difference to the neighbors or is it equally part of the whole problem? CROWTHER - Well again coming back to the fundamental principle of being consistent with elementary schools I think that some nighttime use is possibly Page 3 EXCERPT P. C. VERBATIM MINUTES - 11/17/81 UP -510 - Moreland permissible like the nighttime use you get at elementary schools .... an infrequent thing that an association might use the site once a week or something but not a regular everyday activity type. I would like to see it restricted, the same we did for the use of the E1 Quito site .... that no regular daily activities should operate beyone 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. and that there can be infrequent use of the site for special meetings but that would'be infrequently. LADEN - Is there a consensus on 7:00 p.m.? I do not hear that there are any other objections either by the applicant or the Commission at this time so .... We went rather quickly by Condition #1, now that I sense what was going and I would like to take another moment on that. Looking at your point again of multiple populating of the site seems to be part of the issue and I wonder if we can tie in Condition #1 with the maximum number per day and that therefore deal with trips and it deals with a lot of concerns from the neighbors again. I agree in concept with.normal use of the school. I assume that Condition #1 means that if the uses are not allowed, that those numbers of the maximum would be the maximum taken from the allowed uses, not the total Table. Is that correct? STAFF - Yes. On Page 3 of the Staff Report on the summary of the number of students that might be allowed on the site are only the permitted uses. Its on Page 3, its the second paragraph about the same number of students.... 170 - 190 would occupy the site between the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. which is really the bulk of the permitted uses. That number drops if we eliminate Developmental Learning Associates, Inc., part of Dance Plus and part of Fitness Unlimited, but those are not the major users so we figure at least.... well, approximately 150 students per day, in that range. BOLGER - I guess I'm a little troubled with where you are going with this, we've only heard from Mr. Jacobsen that as soon as he looses one tenant he is out searching for another so I don't think that we should necessarily tie this condition to the existing population; we should concern ourselves with the number of students or something that relates to the traffic problem. CROWTHER - Would it be possible to work it generally and state that the maximum number of students occupying the site shall not exceed its capacity as an elementary school LADEN - That's fine. Is everyone agreeable? Now we are down to the Use Permit and permitted uses, Condition #2. That I think is the essence of what is here in front of us tonight. I guess we, at this point, could probably stand a motion as to what direction we are going. KING - I wonder if we might not deal with a June time frame rather than our present time frame and possibly allow things to run their course, yet giving everyone the assurance that something was ahead of us. So based on those comments I would move to approve UP -510 per the Staff Report as modified by the various recommendations here this evening; however, making it effective in June of 1982 to allow the organizationttime to straighten out their various affairs. LADEN - Then what you are saying is that this Use Permit would not be effective until June of 1982? KING - I'm suggesting that the restrictions to allow the lessor and the tenant seven (7) months or so to clean up their affairs .... Yes LADEN - Is there a second to the motion? SCHAEFER - Second LADEN - Is there discussion? DEP. CITY ATTY. - The permit you are approving would permit those uses .... legeti- mate those uses that are there now and I suppost what you are saying is a directive to Staff not to initiate action to in effect evict those who do not conform. KING - I wasn't proposing to put the Staff in such a position, what I was thinking when making my motion was simply to allow time for the school district and one World Montessori to deal with the issue, rather than put some abrupt conditions on it. SCHAEFER - Is it perhaps possible to have a Conditional Use Permit with a review within say 60 days to see whether or not the affairs have been brought in order.... Page 4 EXCERPT P. C. VERBATIM MINUTES - 11/17/81 UP- 510 - Moreland LADEN - I guess what we are really saying is the Use Permit is granted as to those uses which the Commission finds to be in compliance and those uses which are not, are really given until June to find other premises or to effectuate a change in the ordinance. i KING - That was my intent. CROWTHER - So you would allow them to keep operating in the evenings and so forth... LADEN - No, he's saying with the Conditions as modified with the operation being ceased at 7:00 in the evening; with the mass of students being limited in the number that would normally be conditioned for the school during regular education hours. KING - I was moving toward all the other exceptions with the exception of evicting the nonordinance tenant or two prior to June. LADEN - Mr. Toppel, do you feel comfortable that we have enough evidence to state that these specific organizations do not qualify under the ordinance? DEP. CITY ATTY. - Well, just on the basis of the public input, the ordinance is clear, wisely or not,it does make a distinction between profit and nonprofit organizations and that there doesn't seem to be any question that the particular operations listed here may not fall within the nonprofit classifi- cation. LADEN - Alright, there is a motion and a second on the floor, is there any further discussion? CROWTHER - Did we agree that weekend use would not be permitted other than for recreation? LADEN - I don't recall that that was accepted by the majority. CROWTHER - It is something that would violate the general criteria of an elementary school..... LADEN - Were you suggesting that we restrict the weekend uses? CROWTHER - Yes. LADEN - It is an additional condition that you wish to put in. I think that whether the use or not under the lease„I think that the school district has allowed soccer and other recreational use. CROWTHER - I'm excluding recreational use, that's fine. (LADEN - You're essentially talking about the church use. CROWTHER - Uses which generate a lot of traffic. ;LADEN - Is there a consensus to eliminate weekend use? SCHAEFER - After June I would certainly say to eliminate the weekend use, but I don't feel comfortable doing that now because they fall under the ordinance. LADEN - Is that the general feeling? ZAMBETTI - I'll go along with that. LADEN - May I have a consensus.... Thank you very much.... Now are we going to have an opinion? DEP. CITY ATTY. - I just think that is is necessary to clarify what we are talking about is the effective dates because I think that I'm confused now. Is the motion for the Use Permit to be effective now with a condition that those uses not in conformance with the ordinance be removed by June or is the motion for the Use Permit per say to be effective in June? KING - I intended the former, the conditions of the Use Permit will be effective now, however that the nonpermitted uses be allowed until June of 1982. Page 5 EXCERPT P. C. VERBATIM MINUTES- 11/17/81 ' UP -510 - Moreland DEP. CITY ATTY. - So that the condition . of the Use Permit is those uses that are not in compliance with the statute must be removed by June. That leaves the applicant in apposition then.if he does have a renewal of the lease if the Moreland School District wants to continue the arrangement, he then has a Use Permit to continue with those other uses at that point in time being eliminated? LADEN - I believe that is correct, with the other conditions as stated. DEP. CITY ATTY. - This in effect then becomes Condition #9, well no, its part of Condition #2, that you are setting a time frame for removal of those other uses. KING - Correct LADEN - There is a motion however uncleanly stated and there is a second in front of us, all of those in favor? SCHAEFER - I have one more comment .... on this 7:00 time that we settled on and there are classes that are now ongoing that go to 9:30 and I don't know when they stop; probably they stop in December. I think that because of the total inconvenience it would cause people that signed up for those classes and everything else, if possible to have it go until the-end of 81. LADEN - I would say that we already have confusion enough; I would like to voice an opposition to that and they will probably have to reschedule some of their classes. Alright, all of those in favor of the motion as stated with all of the conditions of the Staff Report, as amended: CROWTHER, KING & SCHAEFER - Aye BOLGER & LADEN - No LADEN - Motion carried on a 3 -2 vote and UP -510 is approved per the Staff Report dated 10/14/81, as amended. USE Pl ?lu1IT .° fEILE NO: UP -510 RESomyfiON N0. UP -S10,1 CITY Or SARATOGA PLANNING CMUSSIOZI STATE OF CALIFO1 NIA T•7IIEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Camussion has rcccived the application of MORELAND SCHOOL DIST. for a mit to allow alnew master leasee (One World Montessori) and sub- leasees (Religious Science and of Mind., Pacific Academy, etc.) to occupy the Brookview Elementary School site at 12301 Radoyka V311;REAS 2 THE applicant (has) -(ix==jc) -net the burden of proof required to support his said application; : RO117, =—REF ORE, BE IT ,RESOLVED that after careful' consideration of .maps, facts, e.3:hibits and other evidence submitted in this matter,Ithe i .application for the Use Permit be, and the same is hereby (granted) subject to the folloAng con(Utions-: i .The amended Staff Report dated October 8,. 1981, with the condition that the non - complying uses be removed bye June 30, 1982 BE IT 17UR '31ER RESOLVED th.at the Report of findings attached hereto be approved and adopted, and the Secretary be, and is hereby directed to notify the parties affected by this decision. 11:SSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Sara toga Planning CoRtlisSion, State of Cal_iforni_a, this 17thday of November 19 81y b)T t] 1C folloiwing roll Cz-al 1'Ote: AM-S: Commissioners Crowther, King and Schaefer hOI;S: Commissioners Bolger and Laden /IDSI.'2'T: Commissioners Monia and Zambet i ATTES f Secretary,•Pla n ommission File No. UP -S10 (Moreland School Dist.) VTMnTATrq 1. The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. The proposed conditional use complies with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance and the General Plan. TOW scm, CE, 12301 Radoyka Dr, Suite 4 Saratoga, Ca. 95070 (408) 255-0590 November 24, 1981, Saratoga Planning Commission Community Development Regulations j�'ti 13777 Fruitvale Avenue C, Saratoga, CA 95070 Attention: Kathy Dunlap Re:.. Use permit for Brookview Elementary School' Dear Commissioners: Speaking for the Board of Trustees of the Religious Science , Church serving the Santa Clara Valley and for the number Of Saratoga residents who are members of our church, I would like to make you aware of our service to the Saratoga community and toy'-,, the use we make of the multi-purpose room on Sunday mornirigs,'.1., Our teaching is much like Dr'. Norman Vincent Peale'..' �We are., a group of positivE thinkers, I happy and optimistic. We believe our messa ge fits the modern need of the modern people of Saratoga, and the Valley. We respect the neighborhood needs and obey the traffic, regulations on Radoyka Drive,,,as we do in our own neighborhoods. Our home here is temporary until we can find permanent Tacilities Please be advised that our average attendance is a little !,,,:' over one hundred per Sunday and that,.usually fewer, than 60 cars are driven through the neighborhood to get to our service Our, parking ushers direct, people.to off-street parking. we p r e s enz LY huld a lease, blur i ni pA pci Ly an - A. j, i 19B20' We trust that w'e'may continue to hold our Sunday S6rvice,.,, in the multi-purpose room at least .until .that date., k I, J Sincere Trustees Richard J . Green Kiyoshi Hamai �V '., Ralph Simmons President" Board 'of Trustees Anita Polst er Roberta Emerson—, k` Candi Trudeaui',: Donald A. Dalberg The Reverend Riebard J. Green, Milnlste'r, Member of Religious Science International � � I� November 30, 1981 Saratoga Planning Commission Community Development Regulations 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Attention: Kathy Dunlap RECEi'p ED 'D C si Dear Planning Commission Members, As a resident of Saratoga for the past seven years, I feel it is!unfair to alter the use - permit for the Brookview Elementary School. As a member of The Religious Science Church and Board member, I feel it would be a disservice to the community to deny the use of Brookview school on Saturdays and Sundays. Our church provides positive, loving, spiritual influence to the community. Our lectures and seminars !bring people of this'area closer together spiritually and to be activeiin our community as responsible,, giving, prosperous citizens. We primarily use Brookview school on Sunday mornings, but on occasion we have educational seminars on Saturdays. This school is only a temporary site until we find a permanent home. Let us enrich the area by reinstating the use - permit for Saturday and Sunday use,. If the use - premit is denied and the school boarded up, the traffic problems which neighbors complain about now will turn into different' type of traffic, like drugs, vandalism,.and defacing of property, Take a look at the school on Cypress Avenue, which is in the Campbell;School District. What a waste of. valuable property.. Please let us keep Saratoga a place to serve all its citizens in a;:.' positive way. Very truly yours,,, . Ro erta L. Emerson 19433 DeHavilland Court Saratoga, CA,9507O i Saratoga: Planning Commission November 2991981 Community Development Regulations 13777- Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga; Ca. .95070 Attention:. Kathy. Dunlap Subject :-Use Permit for Brookview Elementary School,. Radoyka• Drive, Saratoga We are: shocked that on November 17, 1981,. the Commission voted to alter the use permit for this school to exclude Sat- urday and Sunday use of the :facility. This has the.. effect of shutting off Sunday worship at the Church of Religious Science:: which is temporarily at this location until a permanent site_: ,can be found. This.church provides: a very needed service to the Community` Of Saratoga and its residents.. We are - members of this church. and ear, r 8 Y residents, Of, Saratoga.,..r: We feel that your action was 111=- advised and appears to be: biased against religion,. since:At allows use of the . facility by other tenants during the week, but disa?-lows the use_(for one hour) on Sunday., It appears that your action was taken after distorted corm; Plaints- of "excessive traffic.! by a few disgruntled neighbors, k''more objective evaluation of this would disclose. that there is some auto activity there for only about 10 minutes before, and after the Sunday service. And this appears. to be-no dif- ferent in magnitude than that which existed there for years. previously when parents dropped off or picked up their child - ren at the school. For the above - reasons, wee: hereby request that you rescind Your permit:;action against this facility, and to a11I61rnLt:.to continue to provide for the needs of the Saratoga community.. very _Truly y Yours:; 13427 -Old Oak Way Saratoga, Ca..95070 RECEIVE Di 11,p-veN+6eiz ly Sih2 A'fo f�9 � %.✓� ��-f � r.,r.., err moo.✓ De4,z i� ��,�, �y �., �., �•il ,� e... ,�c.�si Ole Ftse /L of es,Ae-.c �, e oN /t eco �a'2e 2 c�.asfgc.•,�.JF Sq -fv�� l itr+ �A,- c•S�IDf �9 iv��jhDOO.� ��.� Qel�i�Q �Pr�oQ A pie.•- iy a 7� /-2e /�f it .q S v6 -�P. cc ar /2e Sc/,,o., .5�7J� /S Te `•- ��.y.A-rz Ce,..f P2 d 1` D 1.11 /CGI�f ea ✓S' '70,01 ZA 7e RECEIVED CilC I z Cti t � ., t -- ��,�`' y�v- < n October 29, 1981 Saratoga, Calif. Members of the Planning Commission City of Saratoga, California Re: UP -510 Use Permit for Brookview School On behalf of residents living in the proximity of Brookview School and with the concurrence of the Board of Directors of the Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners' Association, I wish to submit the following as a summary of our concerns and of the presentation made at the Planning Commission hearing on item UP -510, Tuesday, October 20, 1981: 1).The 10/8/81 Report to the Planning Commission, on page 2, contains the staff analysis and...th e opinion that the operation of several of the current activities are in violation of the zoning ordinance and recommends the discontinuance of these operations. 2) Mr. Jacobsen, on behalf of the One World Montessori School, admitted their — violation of the use permit requiring prior hearings and approval of sub -lease - _ -_- activities. _ - -_= -- -- =_- 3) We feel very strongly that condoning these past improprieties by approval of the new permit would be grossly improper. 4) An inquiry to the Office of the Secretary of State elicited the reply -that -- - only the Pacific Academy was listed as a non - profit institution; furthermore, the IRS has indicated that even that group had failed to file with them for non- profit status; we cannot confirm these statements positively, however. 5) One aspect of the question of the propriety of profit- making organizations on the site does concern us: (a) because of its usage as a school, we under- stand the site has never been zoned in accord with the R-1 rating of the sur- rounding property; (b) the Moreland School District appears likely to undertake disposal of the site in the near future; (c) we therefore feel that any officially sanctioned usage by other than non - profit oganizations could represent a danger- ous precedent for other than residential development. , 6) The aforementioned staff report of 10/8/81 indicated that they did not feel that the traffic count of 26 vehicles per hour constituted a significant effect; we call to your attention that the count referred to was made in mid - summer when activities would naturally be at a lower level. 7) The only access to Brookview School is along a narrow, residential street from one direction only; thus, all vehicles entering must leave by the same route; since there are only a dozen homes on the dead -end beyond the school, an increase of 26 vehicles per hour represents a many -fold increase over the normal! 8) The parking and traffic situation for those residents in the immediate area is frequently intolerable, again reflecting the specific site and the usage for which it was originally planned; the traffic pattern cannot be changed; the recommended parking solutions are either beyond the resources of the leasee -- the case of paving additional spaces -- or represent an unacceptable dust and dirt problem if usage- of theunpaved areas were expanded. 9) As pointed -ou-t _ahe - area has no street lights and the majority of homes. along the-=- theocks= residential area traversed from Saratoga Avenue to the school property have children residing therein; the original usage as an elementary school generated virtually no traffic during the hours of dark- ness whereas all of the current activities at the school site. project traffic to at least -6-P;-M=,= cr-ea:ting a- significant hazard for the residents and their children. In view of the above, we respectfully submit that the request for the use permit for utilization of the site by any group other than those recognized by the zoning ordinance should be denied on the basis that they are illegal, impact the neighborhood in a most undesirable and dangerous manner and grossly violate the Moreland School District's responsibility to the surrounding community to maintain usage of the property in a manner consonant with its original purpose. 9 The above is submitted respectfully by `::� . A Alan Aspey 12421 Lolly Ct Saratoga, CA 95070 / 0/ 4 SAINT ANDREW'S SCHOOL 13601 SARATOGA AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 7 SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 October 14, 1981 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Developmental Learning Associates under the direction of Mr. Green is an important learning resource for the students who need remedial help at Saint Andrew's School. We frequently refer students with learning problems to Mr. Green for evaluation and special education. I am convinced that Developmental Learning Associates provides a necessary service to residents in Saratoga and personally look forward to continued support for our students as a result of the many and varied programs DLA has to offer. Sincerely, . 0,,t C., Alison C. Lucas Academic Dean and Assistant Headmaster 1;�, 0"/ (j September 13, 1981 This petition is to oppose Moreland School District from leasing and or subsequently subleasing to any profit making organizations at t h, e D r o o k v i e w School which i s located at 12301 Radoyka Dr., Saratoga. By definition; a profit malkin-i 0 0 or,�anization is a business, and businesses should be located in commercial'lly zoned areas not in residential areas. I-TA-IE ADDRESS PHONE -7 Z 176 (1676/ Los &'tu706 6108 _187 A6�1c-k �)/2 740-9? 7-21 /0_ AYZ 2- —L:ell L(D' Board of Trustees Anna K. Kurze President Arthur A. Woods, Jr. Clerk John W. Anderson Marilyn M. Incardona Damon G. Nalty "� eUlt'w l!`f Lt YYV lOR-RAND SCHOOL DIST I Y CALIFORNIA'S OLDEST KNOWN RURAL SCHOOL DISTRICT • 1851 September 8, 1981 ROBERT W. REASONER Superintendent Miss Rebecca Keith One World Montessori School, Inc. 12301 Radoyka Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Miss Keith: RECEIVE[) SEP d 9 1981 The attached letter was recently received by the school district identifying concerns of the Brookview Homeowners' Association. I believe you and Bob Bjoring may have already discussed some of their concerns. Clause 3.0 of our lease agreement provides that "Lessee agrees to obtain any zoning or use permits required.and furnish a copy thereof to Lessor within five working days of receipt by Lessee." By coin- cidence, Mr. Reasoner and I had a meeting scheduled with Mr. Robinson and Kathy Kerdus of the City of Saratoga Planning Staff last Thursday to discuss some of the preliminaries on the ultimate disposition of District property within the City. If her memory is accurate, they have only Pacific Academy's use permit on file, and, indeed, thought they were the primary lessee! If this should be the case, immediate contact should be made with the City of Saratoga regarding use permits that may be required. Any further informAtion you may be able to provide on the Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners' Association complaint situation will be appreciated, as well as the necessary attention to permits required from the City of Saratoga. Thank you. Sincerely, Gerard W. Hauck Assistant Superintendent- Business GWH:ch Attachment cc: Mr.. Robinson, Kathy Kerdus Bob Bjori.n.g 4710 C.mpbell 'Avenue San Jose, California 95130 4081379 -1370 SARATOGA PARK WOODS HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION INC. 18701 Kosich Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 255 -8108 August 14, 1981 Honorable Linda Callon Mayor of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue `= Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor Callon: LlC qs') r G M n: D AUG 17 1981 y.r 2=) i fQ =vvn� On July 8, 1951, the Saratoga Park Woods Ilomeowners Association Inc. Board of Directors unanimously agreed to call to your attention a volatile sitution that exists at the former Brookview School at 12301 Radoyka Drive, Saratoga. The volatile sitution is as follows, many profit making organizations are operating at this former public school, a school that was built for and maintained for the immediate local neighborhood. These businesses are being operated both daytime and at night, with most of the particapants coming from outside the local neighborhood, which is very disruptive to the residential character of the neighborhood and probably in violation of city ordinances. A profit making organization by definition is a commerical business, and according to most city planners; commerical businesses are restricted to those areas which are zoned commerical. There are very good reasons for this, as I am sure you are aware. The most important reason being that commercially zoned areas can handle the additional traffic that a commerical business brings upon the area. A residental area __zoned R -1 can not handle, and should not have to handle the additional traffic. Another good reason is areas zoned commerical are well lit at night, our neighborhood is void of all street lights. Thus, when a business is operated at night in our zoned P-. -1 area it is extremely hazardous to the residents. There are numerous traffic violations occuring at the corner of Radoyka Drive and K o s i c h Drive day and night due to this additional traffic as non — resident drivers are not concerned about someone elses neighborhood. Complaints have been recieved due to vehicle traffic entering the school grounds along the southern border. In the past a cable barrier prevented unauthorized vehicle entry. The cable barrier has fallen into disuse, thus, vehicles have access to the school grounds at all hours (teenagers love to spin donuts at night). The following list are profit making organizations (commerical businesses) conducting business at the former Brookview School facility: Montesorri School- 12 months., 3 shifts 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Pacific Academy- 9 months, 7 a.m, to 6:30 p.m. Development Learning Associates Science of Mind Al Anon Junior Achievement Along with dancing and martial arts. We request the City of Saratoga take the necessary measures to alleviate this volatile situation. The volume of outside traffic in our neighborhood poses a daily threat to human safety and distracts from the quality of life normally expected in a Saratoga residential area. Enclosed you will find a graph depicting the traffic during the preiod of July 10 - 24, 1951. Please note; that the Pacific Academy was not in operation during that period of time. Also enclosed is a copy of Article 3 R -1 One - Family Residential Districts, with the areas highlighted that pertain to our problem. Respectively yours, Paul Gilovich President Saratoga Moods i= omeowners Association Inc. Saratoga Park Woods Homeowner's Association 18701 Kosich Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 August 26, 1981 School Board Moreland District 4710 Campbell Avenue Campbell, CA Dear Board Members: Complaints have been brought to us about the current use of the Brookview School for profit making organizations. By definition a profit making organization is a commercial business. It's always been my understanding that commerical businesses were limited to areas zoned commerical. Neighbors in the immediate vicinity of the school are disturbed by the amount of traffic being generated by these businesses and the disregard for traffic laws and the carelessness of the drivers. Contrary to the original purpose of the school for only residents of the neighborhood, the present use brings in most of the traffic from outside, which is further aggravated by the fact the school is used far more hours (day and night) than the customary elementary school time. Also, the neighborhood does not have street lites thus the night traffic from these businesses creates a very dangerous situation for the area. . We would like for you to inform us of the conditions of the current lease and request that you investigate to determine if there are violations of these conditions. Besides this immediate concern, we would like to be kept, infor:aed of the long —term plans for the Brookview site. Please - describe for us your present plan for the future use of Brookview and notify us of any matters that pertain to the use of this property. Thank you for your consideration. You truly, aul Gilovich, President �L n . $01 0 jZ53�'E8 flJ6C3 :` a E tio3 ts.€$s?izi€ et io.O,.o, t € � . W1M6, REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 1 -28 -82 COUNCIL MEETING: 2-3-82 SUBJECT: UP --510 Moreland School District (Brookview School) At their meeting last night, the Planning Commission reconsidered the intent of their previous motion for approval of UP -510, the Use Permit for the Moreland School District (Brookview School). To clarify this issue the Commission moved to approve UP -510, ner th:e Staff Report dated.0ctober 8; 19.8-1, with Condition No. 4 amended to-'read: "Classes shall not be conducted any later than 7:00 p.m. Infrequent evening meetings will be allowed on site. Weekend use is to be restricted to recreational use and the use by the Religious Science of Mind for Sunday morning services.,, The Commission also clarified that the conditions of the Staff Report are to be effective immediately. The Planning Commission defined "infrequent evening meetings" as those meetings and activities not regularly scheduled. A copy of the amended Staff Report is enclosed. 1 f �� Ro e t S. S o0 Director of Community Development RSS:cd Enclosure i Oily of SarcioCg' C1• AP ROVES 3Y: LATE: 11\4ITIALS: 7 _ A D e Q)O& OO O�O� oO �O REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION * *(amended 1/27/82) *(amended 11/17/81) DATE: 10/8/81 Commission Meeting: 10/14/81 SUBJECT: UP -510 - Moreland School District 12301 Radoyka Drive ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- REQUEST: Modification to an existing use permit to allow the One World Montessori School to became the Master Leasee and to allow other uses to occupy the buildings formerly occupied by the Brookview Elementary School. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: This project is a Class 14 categorical exemption according to State E.I.R. Guidelines. PUBLIC NOTICING: This project has been advertised by- posting, publication in the newspaper, and by mailings to 85 nearby property owners. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Community Facilities (Elementary School). ZONING: R -1- 10,000 SURROUNDING LAND USES: Prospect High School to the north and west; single - family residential to the south and east. SITE SLOPE: 12.5 acres BACKGROUND: On September 12, 1979, the Planning Commission approved UP -423, to allow Pacific Academy and other uses (including One World Montessori) to occupy the site (please see the attached Staff Report for UP -423). Since that time the primary leasee has become One World Montessori and new uses are proposed for the site. Condition 5 of UP -423 requires that any substantial change in the operation of the use permit that could adversely impact adjacent properties must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. That is the purpose of this application. Condition 3 of UP -423 required a 90 day trial period for all uses that operated after 6:00 p.m. At the end of the first 90 days of the use permit, staff had received no complaints about the post 6:00 p.m. uses. However, since that time Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners Association has written both the Mayor and the Moreland School District Board complaining about the operation, particularly in terms of the traffic generated (please see attached letters dated August 14, 1981, and August 26, 1981). 10/8/81 - Report to Planning Commissio,_ UP -510 Page 2 STAFF ANALYSIS: Section 3.3(a) of the Zoning Ordinance describes the Community Facilities and institutions allowed as conditional uses in R -1 districts. These uses include: Nursery Schools, private non- profit schools and colleges, not including art, craft, music or dancing schools or business, professional or trade schools and colleges, and religious institutions. The following table describes the operating criteria of each proposed individual user: One World Montessori Pacific Academy Sunburst Daycare Developmental Learning Assoc. Inc. Religious Science of blind . Dance - Plus Fitness - unlimited Karate # students 80 26 20 -30 115 35 35 75 14 9 22 25 10 TABLE I Age of Students 2� - 12 6 - 13 2� - 6 5 - 17 Days of # Employees Operation 10 M thru F 7 M thru F 2 M thru F 8 M thru F All ages 3 T thru F Adult 3 T thru F All ages (Church services) San. Adults 2 T /Th Adults 2 M/W Adults 2 M/W Adults 2 T /Th Adults 2 T /Th Hours of Operation 7:30 am - 6:30 pm 7:00 am - 6:00 pm 6:30 am - 6:00 pm 8:00 am - 6:00 pm 10:00 am - 4:00 pm 7:30 pm - 9:30 pm 10:00 am -11:00 am 8:30 am - 9:30 am 7:00 pm - 8:30 pm 6:00 pm - 7:00 pm 3:30 pm - 6:30 pm 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm Developmental Learning Associates, Inc. is a, learning disabilities school but is also a profit making institution and is therefore prohibited by the Zoning Ordinance. Dance Plus is also prohibited by ordinance as are all music and dancing schools regardless of whether or not they are profit or non - profit. Physical education and karate are not specifically mentioned in Section 3.3 so the Ca mission must determine if these uses are appropriate for the site. One of the concerns associated with this application, as with UP -423, is the number of parking spaces required for the uses. The following table su marizes the number of parking spaces required during different hours of operation. Report to Planning Commissij", 10/8/81 ::.: 'UP -510 Page 3 TABLE II Days Hours Users # Spaces (Max.) M Thru F 6:30 am - One World Montessori 6:30 pm Pacific Academy Sunburst Academy 22 Religious Science of Mind M Thru F 6:30 pm - Religious Science of Mind 20 ** 9:30 pin Sunday 10:00 am - Religious Science of Mind 11:00 am (Church Services) 33 * ** * This number would increase to 36 if Fitness Unlimited were allowed (assuming 1 space/ 2 students). ** Assumes one parking space /two students. -This number would be increased to 26 if Karate classes were permitted. * ** Two parking spaces per 5 seats plus 3 employees. The greatest impact on parking appears to be the Religious Science of Mind Sunday operation. To accommodate this parking need 12 parking spaces should be added to the site. These could be located by using the open, partially gravelled area just to the east of the existing baseball diamonds. It is recommended that the existing cable barricade be removed and that this area be paved and striped for parking. About the same number of students (170 -190) would occupy the site between the hours of 6:30 am - 6:30 pm as in the previous use permit. However, if Developmental . Learning Associates, Inc. (the profit making institution prohibited by ordinance), Dance Plus, and Fitness Unlimited are allowed to occupy the site, and additional 154 students would be located there. Approximately 190 night (7:00 pm - 9:00 pm) students were allowed under UP -423. Only about 67 night students would be allowed under this use permit if Dance Plus and Karate were permitted to operate. Residents in the vicinity have complained about traffic congestion due to the operation of the uses under UP -423. However, the traffic data collected by the residents (see letter dated August 14, 1981) indicate that the operation of the uses did not have a significant effect in traffic engineering terms (an average of 26 vehicles /hour). FINDINGS: If the conditions listed under Recommended Action are complied with, the following findings can be made: 1. The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. q: port to Planning Conunissior ' UP- 510 10/8/81 Page 4 3. The proposed conditional use complies with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance and the General Plan. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve per Staff Report dated October 8, 1981, and Exhibit "B" subject to t e following conditions: 1. The maximum number of students occupying the site per day shall not exceed the site's capacity as an elementary school. * 2. Those uses that are not permitted under the list of conditional uses in a R -1 District shall be terminated no later than June 30, 1982. * 3. Parking shall be restricted to existing parking spaces on site. ** 4. Classes shall not be conducted any later than 7:00 p.m. Infrequent evening meetings will be allowed on site. * ** Weekend use is to be.restricted to recreational use and the use by the 'Religious- Science of Mind for Sunday morning services. 5. All day care or nursery operations shall comply with all requirements of State Law and shall be licensed by the State. Proof of such licensing shall be submitted to the City prior to their operation. 6. Any use to be added on the site shall require a public hearing before the Planning Conudssion. 7. Any substantial modification to the operation of the approved uses would require review and approval by the Planning Commission. 8. Any violation of these conditions will suspend this use permit automatically as per Section 16.11 of the Zoning Ordinance. 1. Staff has received a petition dated September 18, 1981, from nearby residents opposing any profit making use being located on the site. Approved MF /dra V--- P. C. Agenda: 10/14/81 Michael Flores, Assistant Planner ** *Those meetings and activities not regularly scheduled. * *as amended by Planning Commission on 1/27/82 *as amended by Planning Commission on 11/17/81.