HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council/Planning Commission Agenda 2007-08-27,~ ~}~}
~_ ~I ~a
t
sjE .'I:
~` '~ ~;
AGENDA
CITY OF SARATOGA
CITY COUNCIL
JOINT STUDY SESSION
CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 27, 2007
CLOSED SESSION - 5:30 P.M. -NORTH CAMPUS, ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING, 19848 PROSPECT ROAD
CALL MEETING TO ORDER - 5:30 P.M.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
Conference With Labor Negotiators (Gov't Code 54957.6):
Agency designated representative: Barbara Powell, Assistant City Manager and
Monica LaBossiere, Human Resources Manager
Employee organization: Northern California Carpenters Regional Council,
Carpenters Forty Six Northern California Counties Conference Board and Their
Affiliated Locals
6:OOP.M. -NORTH CAMPUS, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 19848.
PROSPECT ROAD
MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
CALL MEETING TO ORDER - 6:OOP.M.
REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA
(Pursuant to Gov't. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on
August 21, 2007)
COMMUNICATIONS FROM PUBLIC
Oral Communications on Non-A~endized Items
Any member of the public will be allowed to address the City Council for up to three (3)
minutes o~z matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the council from
discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff
accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Council Direction to Staff.
Direction Regarding Analysis of Potential Impacts Related to a Project Proposal
for the North Campus
Recommended action:
Accept report and direct Staff accordingly.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate
in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerk@saratoga.ca.us. Notification
48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility
to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II).
Certiftcate of Posing of Agenda:
1, Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare chat the foregoing agenda for the meeting of
the City Council of the City of Saratoga was posted on August 21, 2007 at the office of the City of
Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location.
The agenda is also available on the City's website at 1vw~~-v.saa°ataga.ca.res
Signed this 21~` day ofAugust2007 at Saratoga, California.
Cathleen Boyer, CMC
City Clerk
'~,-
Ann Sullivan
From: Cathleen Boyer
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 12:47 PM
To: Ann Sullivan; Michael Taylor
Subject: FW: North Campus Proposal comments
For the record.
-----Original Message-----
From: City Council
Sent: Monday, August 27, 200712:38 PM
To: Ann Waltonsmith; Aileen Kao; Kathleen King; Chuck Page; Jill Hunter; Dave Anderson; Cathleen
Boyer
Subject: FW: North Campus Proposal comments
From: Bob McMahon (rmcmahon)[SMTP:RMCMAHONCCISCO.COM]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 200712:38:09 PM
To: City Council
Cc: rjmcmahonC~rjmcmahon.com
Subject: North Campus Proposal comments
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Hi,
I just saw that a North Campus Study session was going on tonight (which
I'm unable to attend to voice my opinion) as well as found the website
for following CDC proposal.
http://www.northcampuscdc.com/NCCDC/Welcome.html I've also read an
article in Saratoga News which suggested council members are leaning
towards this proposal, maybe because the proposed improvements are
backed by private funds?
I wanted to add an opinion. The public voted on keeping the North
Campus. I believe the public should be the primary in funding the
improvements as well, whatever they are to be. I'd like to see the
improvements funded by general obligation bonds, i.e. public backing
instead of private backing. If a CDC is what the public wants, than the
city can lease the facilities to them and grant them some sort of a
concession to run it, but let public money be used to improve the
facility.
(Also, I believe the public should be asked to reimburse the monies used
to pay for the property in the first place, though I suspect politically
this may not be what any council member wants to do as it's a very
difficult request after all the negativity from the previous events.)
One lesson I take from the efforts to sell the property and reimburse
the general fund was that the council was perceived as taking actions
without public support. In that regard, I think it prudent that city
council work hard to get public backing on the improvements and not take
what might be perceived as politically expedient approach by using
private funds. Funding with general obligation bonds is a mechanism to
ensure that the public truly backs the project.
Thanks,
Bob McMahon
Saratoga Resident
13654 Verde Vista Ct
PS. Study sessions at 6-8pm during the start of the school year probably
aren't a viable mechanism to determine if there is a unified public
voice on the issue.
'' Addendum North Campus CDC Gymnasium Construction Costs (Conceptual Design)
Romano
Beck Proposal PWI Steve Benain9 MG Construction Staff Estimates
Demolition
275•'
Concrete Foundation & Slab ($10/sq ft)
Steel Building & Erection ($40/sq ft)
Radiant Heating ($5/sq ft)
Gymnasium Flooring ($7/sq ft)
Flooring
II Wall Mounts & Backboards
iun Building cost
CDC (4,500• '
Construction
$ 40,000.00 $ 50,925.00 $ 68,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $
$ 15,000.00 $ 58,200.00 $ 72,750.00 $ 25,000.00 $
$ 73,650.00 $ 145,500.00 $ 167,325.00 $ 125,000.00 $
$ 331,425.00 $ 545,625.00 $ 429,225.00 $ 562,500.00 $
$ 36,825.00 $ 145,500.00 $ 109,125.00 $ 35,000.00 $
$ 43,680.00 $ 109,125.00 $ 181,875.00 $ 75,000.00 $
$ 2,250.00 $ 72,750.00 $ 3,890.00 finishing $
$ 2,200.00 $ 72,750.00 $ 18,187.00 finishing $
$ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 13,900.00 finishing $
$ , 550,030.00 $; 1;205,375.00 . $- 1,064,277.00. ' $ 872,500.00 $
Demolition $ 40,000.00 $ 31,500.00 $ - $
Excavation $ 15,000.00 $ 36,000.00 $ - $
Concrete Foundation & Slab ($10/sq ft) $ 45,000.00 $ 90,000.00 $ 103,500.00 $
Steel Building & Erection ($40/sq ft) $ 180,000.00 $ 337,500.00 $ 265,500.00 $
Radiant Heating ($5/sq ft) $ 22,500.00 $ - $ - $
$ - $ - $
Gymnasium Flooring ($7/sq ft) $ - $ - $ - $
Flooring $ 9,000.00 $ - $ - $
Ceiling $ 9,000.00 $ - $ - $
$ - $ - $ - $
Child D,eveloppment Center. Buildingcost $ °320,500.00 $. ~ 495,000.00 $` 369,000.00 ;-$
Finishing J Landscaping $ 346,970.00 $ 219,227.00 $ 181,875.00 $
Total: ; ; ; $ ` 1,217;500:00 $ :1,919,602.00 $, .,1,615;152.00 , $
_ $
_ $
75,000.00 $
202,500.00 $
29,000.00 $
_ $
_ $
15,000.00 $
6,000.00 $
_ $
327,500.00
513,500.00 $
40,000.00 $
15,000.00 $
101,850.00 $
218,250.00 $
36,825.00 $
123,675.00 $
7,500.00 $
36,375.00 $
15,000.00 $
_ $
594,475.00 $
$
x.. _ $
237,415.00 $
revised 08/25/2007
r
Addendum
North Campus CDC Gymnasium Construction Costs (Conceptual Design)
Site Development Costs
of City Arborist report. $
of Transportation Impact Analysis report. $
for Site Development
Water $
Sewer $
Gas & Electrical $
Telecommunications $
for Planning /Building
Environmental Review $
Conditional Use Permit $
Design Review $
Plan Checking $
Building Permit $
noencies $
', TOTAL
_ $ _ $ - $ - $
_ $ _ $ - $ - $
$ 145,500.00 $ 193,000.00
_ $ _ $ - $ - $
_ $ _ $ - $ - $
_ $ _ $ - $ - $
_ $ _ $ - $ - $
_ $ _ $ - $ - $
_ $ _ $ - $ - $
_ $ _ $ _ $ _ $
_ $ _ $ - $ - $
_ $ _ $ _ $ _ $
_ $ _ $ _ $ _ $
2,065,102.00 $' ' 1,615,152.00 $ . 1,906,500.00. $
$ 5,000.00
$ 5,000.00
$ 25,000.00
$ 75,000.00
$ 75,000.00
$ -
$ 50,000.00
$ 4,400.00
$ 5,200.00
$ 12,500.00
$ 12,500.00
- 5-15%
831,890.00. x
ro of the contractors and the architect recommended the use of traditional building materials for construction. Each of the contractors advised against the use of
iiant heat and advised for the use of wood gymnasium flooring (rather than composite tiles). MG Construction submitted a "bid" using similar (pre-engineered steel)
ilding techniques and materials that resulted in similar cost estimates to those submitted by the Beck proposal.
ilding Departments typically rely upon valuation data provided in 'Building Standards' magazine published by the International Conference of Building Officials
ablishers of the Uniform Building Code). This publication is no longer available as various code development organizations have banded to form the International
de Council.
a data from a 2000 edition and factoring in rising Bay Area construction costs, staff believes an accurate figure for minimum pricing would be $160 - $175 per
re foot.
11,775 square feet (gym and CDC) multiplied by $160 totals $1,884,000. Calculated building valuation data includes, architectural, structural, electrical, plumbing and
mechanical work. The unit cost includes the contractor's profit, which should not be omitted. (It should be noted that the computed building valuation generally
turns out be much less that actual construction figures.)
Staff research validates the accuracy of the Beck cost estimates however "prevailing wage" for public benefit construction projects and uncertain (included or not
included) site development costs may result in higher than anticipated costs for the proposal.
ssible bathrooms for both sexes will be required in each building. The current plan only indicates changing rooms
of approximately $75,000 to $100,000)
revisea urs/15/zuui
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING DATE: August 27, 2007 AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DEPT: Recreation CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Michael Taylor, John DEPT HEAD: Michael Taylor,
Livingstone, John Cherbone, et.al. Interim Recreation
Director
SUBJECT: Direction Regarding Analysis of Potential Impacts Related to a Project
Proposal for the North Campus
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Accept report and direct Staff accordingly.
REPORT SUMMARY:
At the June 6, 2007 meeting, Council received a total of nine conceptual proposals for the use of
North Campus. Following the staff report, public comment, and Council discussion, Council
directed staff to meet with Mr. Alan Beck, Lisa Beck, Neus Diaz, and Juan Menendez to seek
refinement of their proposal to construct a Child Development Center and Gymnasium at the
site.
On .Tune 20, 2007, Mr. Beck submitted a revised proposal that addressed much of Council's
direction. On June 26, 2007, the City Council held a Study Session to consider the proposal for
construction of a gymnasium and child care center at the North Campus. Following discussion,
the Council directed staff to continue evaluating the proposed project and return to Council at a
joint study session with the Planning Commission with additional information and after a more
concerted effort to obtain public input.
Project Description
The current proposal calls for the demolition of the Sanctuary building, the Education building,
and the front driveway in order to construct two new pre-engineered steel buildings at a cost of
$1,217,500. A 7,275°~ gymnasium with a regulation high school size (84' x 50') basketball
court, men's and women's locker rooms, an office, and storage area with an option for the
inclusion of solar panels to the roof of the structure is proposed. The proposal provides the
gymnasium to the City of Saratoga to use at its discretion with all proceeds from the rental of the
facility to go directly to the City. Management and maintenance of the gym would be the
responsibility of the City.
Page I ot.7
The updated project calls for construction of a 45' x 100' child development center building
(4,500°~) with a 6,500°~fenced playground to serve up to 100 children age 2 ~/~ to 6 years old,
with specification of a priority for Saratoga residents. The proposers would operate the childcare
center. The program would include weekend workshops for parents and their children, after hour
teacher availability, and monthly "Parents Night Out" childcare.
Funding for the project would be made through personal investment and apre-approved SBA
loan. The proposal requests a 10 year lease at current market rates with a leaseback credit for
100% of the cost of the gymnasium and 50% of the costs for the child development center.
This report describes public outreach efforts since the last study session and outlines the steps
required to move towards project implementation.
Public Outreach
The project sponsors have created a web site presenting their proposal
(http://www.northcampuscdc.com/NCCDC/Welcome.html). For this meeting, notices were sent
to all property owners within 500 feet of the North Campus, the notice was posted on the
spotlight section of the City website, and quarter-page display ads were published in the
Saratoga News on August 15`h and August 22nd
Project Discussion
The project sponsors have undertaken considerable efforts to present the City with a clear and
complete proposal. Considering the complexity of the unique public-private partnership being
proposed, the project requires considerable planning and negotiation in order to proceed. Items
for consideration include, but are not limited to, the following.
Surrounding Land Uses
Adjacent properties are predominantly single-family residential and the site is in the R-1-10,000
residential zone district.
Conditional Use Permit
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-55.030 (Variation from Standards), a conditional use
may be permitted by a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to have a different site area, density,
structure height, distance between structures, site coverage, setback minimums, and off-street
parking and loading requirements, other than those listed under the specific regulations for
unconditional permitted uses in the zoning district in which it is located.
The proposed project appears to meet all of the setback requirements. The gymnasium is
estimated to have an approximately 30 foot side setback and a 25 front setback. The proposed
day care facility is estimated to have a 25 foot front setback and a 35 foot side setback. Both
proposed structures are over 200 feet from the rear property line. Once a survey is done the exact
locations can be determined. Minimal grading is typically required for this type of project
The following is a list of the exceptions possibly needed for the proposed project.
Conditional Use (Religious and Educational Facility)
.~i'
Permitted uses in the R-1-10,000 zone district include residential land uses. Educational
facilities such as the proposed project require a conditional use permit to operate in
residential zone districts. The daycare facility would be required to go through the
conditional use process however the gymnasium structure would not because it would be
a city-owned and operated building. Any modification to a conditionally permitted use
requires use permit approval.
Parking
The number of parking spaces required by the municipal code varies by type of land use.
The following land uses are present on the site: school and place of public assembly. The
required parking for those land uses pursuant to municipal code section 15-35.030(f)(h)
are listed below:
(f) Schools and day care -One space for each employee, including teachers and
administrators, plus such additional spaces as determined by the Planning
Commission to be adequate for student and visitor parking.
(h) Places of public assembly, including religious institutions, theaters, and
auditoriums -One space for each four seats or one space for each forty square feet
of floor area unusable for seating if seats are not fixed, plus one space for each
two employees.
The proposed parking supply is not sufficient to accommodate on-site parking in the
event that the Administration Building or Fellowship Hall is used at full capacity at the
same time as the gymnasium and child care center (see attached Traffic/Parking Impact
Report - Attachment B). Parking issues could be addressed by limiting the activities that
occur simultaneously through the use permits and agreements. In addition, the project site
plan and building layout should be modified to reduce the offset and better align the exit
driveway with Clarkspur Lane or alternatively restrict left-turn movements out of the
driveway and to require vehicles to make a U-turn at Scully Avenue.
Floor Area
The R-1-10,000 zone district is limited to a maximum allowable floor area of 4,400
square feet. The total proposed floor area of the project buildings is 11,800 square feet.
The proposed project would exceed the maximum allowed floor area and may exceed the
site coverage of 60%. A variation to standards would be required.
Building Height
The maximum height limit in the R-1-10,000 residential zone district is 26 feet. The
height of the proposed gymnasium building is approximately 28 feet. The proposed day
care center will be able to meet this height limitation however the gymnasium would
require a variation to standards.
Design Review
As a City-owned facility, the proposed gymnasium project would be exempt from the design
review process but the child care center would need to comply with all Design Review findings
~i`
stated in Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-45.080 (listed below) and be consistent with the
General Plan.
(a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy.
(b) Preserve natural landscape.
(c) Preserve native and heritage trees.
(d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk.
(e) Compatible bulk and height
(~ Design policies and techniques.
Next Steps
The project sponsors have provided clear conceptual plans for the proposed project. The City
Council must consider whether and how to proceed.
The next steps for the City are to (1) consider any potential revisions or refinements of the
proposal; (2) conduct environmental review; and (3) prepare the implementing agreements.
When the environmental review process is complete, the implementing agreements can be
presented to the City Council for final action. Each of these steps is discussed below.
Proposal Revisions/Refinements
Before beginning the environmental review process, the City must have development plans and a
clear statement of the project that will be approved. Although refinements will likely be
developed in the course of the environmental review, that process can be streamlined to some
degree by making the initial project description as clear and complete as possible. Some issues
to be considered in connection with the project description are:
1. Size and location of structures
2. Design of Structures
3. Parking and Circulation
4. Child Care hours and use policies.
5. Gymnasium hours and use policies
The project sponsors have provided conceptual plans on the first four points; detailed
construction plans of the project- and use proposal would be required. With respect to point
number 5, staff requires Council direction as to the process that should be used to develop a
conceptual gymnasium use plan (e.g., maximum number of classes per day, number of users at
one time, etc.). This use would be influenced by the parking availability. Staff could develop a
proposal for Council review or the Council could direct that staff, an ad hoc committee, task
force, or the Parks and Recreation Commission develop a proposed use plan. Specific days and
hours of usage, planned activities, and staffing will all need to be considered. Once the gym plan
is prepared, the Recreation Department would perform an analysis and staffing plan to project
the costs associated with operating and maintaining the proposed gymnasium.
The City must also decide the level of detail required for the project description. If this were a
private project on private land, detailed plans, elevations, geotechnical and other studies would
be required as part of the initial application before beginning the environmental review process.
=1 , ~..
Because this will be aCity-sponsored project, it is possible to proceed with plans at their current
conceptual level. This could allow the environmental review process to begin more quickly but
could lead to delays during that process or at the project approval stage if information
traditionally included in an application must be prepared while the process is underway.
Infrastructure Upgrades
The July 7, 2002 engineers report indicates substantial improvements to electrical service will be
required. The need for infrastructure upgrades to water, sewer, telecommunications, and
electrical service at the site to accommodate the proposed use needs to be addressed. The details
of these improvements would be established in a site development plan. These improvements
may cost several hundreds of thousands of dollars. Council will need to determine if these costs
will need to be borne by the project proposers or the City.
Environmental Review
In order to approve the proposed project, the City must conduct an environmental review of the
project's potential impacts pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. This would
include a traffic study and parking analysis, including access and egress at the site as well as the
issue of construction staging and the related impact to the neighborhood. The review would also
consider issues such as potential noise and environmental impacts as well as identification of
probable code variances to building height, setback, etc. A preliminary arborist analysis indicates
a potential impact to the large redwood on the site and the need to remove at least two trees and
possibly more.
The process would begin with an initial study to ascertain whether the project could be
developed in a manner that avoids the potential for significant impacts. If that seems possible,
the initial study would be circulated for public review with a proposed environmental document.
If the initial study or public reviews of the environmental document indicate that there may be
unavoidable environmental impacts, it maybe that an environmental impact report is required.
This could build on the work performed for the initial study but would require additional funding
and considerably more time.
Implementing Agreements
The project presents a novel public-private partnership. The City and the project sponsor will
wish to ensure that the terms of that partnership are clear in order to avoid any
misunderstandings or surprises down the road.. Recreation Department staff would work with
the project sponsors to refine the various "deal points" and would then work with the City
Attorney's office to translate those points into formal legal agreements.
Conclusion:
The Study Session is afact-finding meeting where the Council and Commission may discuss the
item and ask questions from or hear statements from members of the public attending the
meeting. During the Study Session, the Council and Commission may only discuss items related
to the project. The agenda does not allow any formal votes or motions on the proposed project or
other matters. No comments made during the Study Session by Council or the Commission are
~.
binding or required to be carried through to the formal public hearing where actions will be taken
on the proposed project.
Staff requests direction regarding:
1. The level of detail to be included in the project description;
2. The process of plan review - to be done by the Planning Commission or City
Council;
3. The process to be used to develop a gymnasium use plan;
4. The method to be used to fund the work required to move forward with review of the
proposed project.
Staff will then return to Council with specific resolutions and contracts to implement Council
direction.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
No funds have been budgeted for this project expense. Council may direct that some expenses
are the responsibility of the project proposer, be the responsibility of the City, or may identify
some expenses that should be shared by the City and the developer.
As apublic-private partnership project that is co-sponsored by the City, several hundred hours of
staff time will incur. The City Attorney's office estimates that drafting the use agreement
documents can be expected to cost in the range of $10,000. The cost for a consultant to prepare
an environmental document is estimated at $35,000 to $50,000,
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
If Council does not provide further direction, current plans to renovate the existing Fellowship
Hall and to make previously identified site improvements (landscaping, irrigation, etc.) will
continue but other improvements to the site would not be considered at this time.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Council has many options regarding evaluating potential uses for the North Campus. Some of
these options include:
• Council may authorize staff to move forward with an analysis of the potential impacts
posed by the Becks' proposed project and approve the allocation of additional funds to
conduct the appropriate studies.
• Council may authorize staff to move forward with an analysis of the potential impacts
posed by the Becks' proposed project and require the Becks to fund the appropriate
studies.
• Council may pursue alternative approaches to the planning and use of North Campus.
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
;~i° ;
Staff will implement Council direction.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Agenda was posted in compliance with the Brown Act. Additionally, the Council and Planning
Commission was noticed, two quarter-page advertisements were published in the local
newspaper, and a mailing list of property owners within 500 feet of the site was created with
notices sent to each home. The project sponsors have also created a web site presenting their
proposal (http://www.northcampuscdc.com/NCCDC/Welcome.html).
ATTACHMENTS:
A -North Campus Child Care and Gymnasium Conceptual Proposal
B North Campus Transportation Impact Analysis
North Campus Gymnasium
and
Child Development Center
19848 Prospect Road
Saratoga, ~A 95070
Proposal
Lisa and Alan Beck
Nieves Diaz and Juan Menendez
12488 Scully Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
(408) 996-1904
lisabeck@mac.com
June 26, 2007
Statement Of Purpose
The following proposal has been developed to present a profile of
a community gymnasium and a childcare facility utilizing the
space previously occupied by the Sanctuary and Education
Building at Saratoga's North Campus location.
Background
A private LLC (Limited Liability Company) will be created to run
the child development center with the main principals and licensed
owners Lisa Beck, Alan Beck, Nieves Diaz and Juan Menendez.
For practical purposes, Lisa Beck will serve as Administrator,
while Nieves Diaz will serve as Facility Operation Manager.
Lisa has both have the educational background and relevant work
experience necessary to effectively perform the duties required of
an administrator of a child development center. She not only has
15 years experience as a preschool teacher, administrator and
kindergarten teacher, but also has played a major roll in opening
and operating 2 preschools, 2 NAEYC accredited after-school
programs, and 1 WASCA accredited private elementary school.
Nieves Diaz owned and operated a successful international candy
manufacturing company for 10 years. She is currently taking the
needed classes to become a teacher and administrator.
Description of the Project
This proposal calls for the demolition of the Sanctuary, Education
Building and front roadway. Two new pre-engineered steel
buildings with steel standing seam roofs and insulated architectural
stucco wall panels will be constructed in their place with a fenced
playground.
Gymnasium
We will provide a high school regulation size gymnasium with
office, storage room and changing rooms with restrooms. We will
provide a state of the art multi-sport the gymnasium floor with
court markings for Basketball and Volleyball. This floor comes
with a 10 year warranty.
The gymnasium roof will be an insulated standing rib metal roof.
This type of roof is compatible with laminated solar paneling
fixtures.
The management and maintenance of the gymnasium will be the
responsibility of the City of Saratoga. All proceeds from the rental
of this facility will go directly to the City of Saratoga.
Child Development Center
We will provide a childcare center that offers flexible and high
quality childcare to families who need care for their children.
Saratoga residents will be given priority enrollment.
The center will offer childcare to approximately 100 children ages
2.5 years to 6 years of age. The management and maintenance of
the child development center will be the responsibility of the
childcare operator.
The playground will include a play structure, sandbox and bike
paths. The fence will be will be a combination open bar steel and
vinyl coated chainlink fencing. It will be available for the City of
Saratoga to use during off hours provided the city is willing to
insure the site at those times
Square footage distribution:
- Gymnasium - 7300 sq. ft.
- Childcare center - 4500 sq. ft. (35 sq ft/child)
- Playground - 6500 sq. ft. (75 sq ft/child)
Estimated Cost: $1,200,000
Lease Teems
The lease shall be for the 4500 sq. ft. child development center
building. The initial lease term shall be for a period often (10)
years, starting at $2.00lsq. ft. subject to a 3% annual increase.
Lease back credit will be given by the City of Saratoga for 100%
of the cost of the Gymnasium, as well as 50% of the cost of the
childcare center building.
The child development center will be granted use of the
Gymnasium at no cost when it is not being utilized.
Tennant may be granted the option to extend the lease for an
additional two (2) five (5) year terms with a 3% annual increase
starting at $2.68/sq. ft.
Community Benefits
Child Development Center
North Campus Child Development Center will provide full time
childcare giving priority to Saratoga residents.
Gymnasium
This facility will be available for Saratoga residents at the city's
discretion.
Weekend Workshops For Parents And Their Children
Workshops will allow parents and children to explore together and
at the same time promote our program to potential families.
Most often parents don't have time to stop and play with their
children at drop off of pick up time. In many cases only one parent
drops off and picks up the child so the other parent rarely sees
teachers and the facility.
On-Ca1UAfter Hours Teacher Availability
Each evening there will be one teacher designated to be "on call."
in the event a parent needs to be late. With many of our clients
being doctors, dentists, corporate and accounting executives, and
self employed, this feature will ease the minds of many parents
who may get caught in a medical emergency, meetings and traffic.
Preserving Heritage Trees
This proposal makes every effort to preserve the heritage trees on
the North Campus site.
Once a Month "Parents Night Out" Child Care
Each month we will offer a night of childcare to residents of
Saratoga giving priority to those families enrolled in our program.
Near the Christmas season, additional weekend times will be
available to families.
The Market
According to the U. S. Bureau of the Census, more than sixty
percent of children of working families are cared for outside the
home.
Currently the options for the North Campus neighborhood are
limited. We can meet these needs by offering "high" quality care in
a professional environment. We recognize each family wishes that
their child be treated like an individual with their own set of needs.
Funding
Twenty percent of the initial startup costs will be funded through
personal funds. The remaining costs will be funded through apre-
approved SBA loan. Ongoing costs will be paid by the collection
of client tuition.
Conclusion
As more households become two working parent homes there is an
increased need for quality care for young children. Childcare
options for the residents surrounding North Campus are limited.
By allowing our organization to utilize the available space within
North Campus, the city will be providing the residents of Saratoga
a much needed childcare facility and gymnasium.
~:
Administration
Building
Fellowship
Hall
~F ~i
1 in = 40 ft
0
r
~ ~ m
~ ¢ Q °o
U r
m ~ ~ ~
p (n m
°~ ~ v
~ ro
~ N ~ o
m ~ N ~
'^ .~
v ,~
U ~'
~ ~
o U
Z ~
U
o
0
North Campus Gymnasium
Storage &
Mechanical
Room
Men's
Changing Room
Women's
Changing Room
Office
95' x 65' Building
84' x 50' Gymnasium Floor
I, ___~I
1 in=l2 ft
75' x 15' Lean-To Building
20' x 15' Storage/Mechanial room
20' x 15' Men Changing room
20' x 15' Women Changing room
15' x 15' Office Beck, Diaz, Menendez
12488 Scully Ave
Saratoga, CA 95070
408-499-6700
Beck, Diaz, Menendez
12488 Scully Ave
Saratoga, CA 95070
408-499-6700
.~
m
U
U
U
0
z
C
c
C
C
O
O
U
E
N O
N
U ~
E
~ °
o
c0
U `~
a~
c+~
0
0
c~
U
N
0
0
_~
U
o
~
~:
U `~
a>
E ~
ai O Q p
c~ p
U ~ Q
~ ~
E
0
0
c>s
U ~
U
Q
c E
L O
U ~
O
O
O
'd'
.~
0
0
T
X
~n
O
I I
.~
0
r
~ ~ m
m ~
~ ¢ Q °o
- ~ U ~
ON mm
_~o~
sm iu
~y
~ N ~ O
[D .- (n O
North Campus Child Development Center
o~
~1 ~ ~ f
Beck, Diaz, Menendez
12488 Scully Ave
Saratoga, CA 95070
408-499-6700
N
Y
N
d U
O
'~
d ~ C N
^
4
-
Ol U
C L
S L L
d N
~
O
Y ~ ~ 'y
`9
O ~ Y
L ~
0 U
L
~ 6
V 01
T ~ O ;~ •_-•
-'
.. ~ ~ 3 , ~
+ - v d ~
~ .. ~ - ti
c~
~1 a'
~ , ~ o
d Y
6 +
N ~ ~
C
' u
+ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ``,
M Q L ~ ~ 6 ~ + N
0 ~ ~ ~ + •C ~ d t d 6 G.y ~ ~O C
~~
~ ~ U ~ ~ d Q Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
t~l ~ ~ 0
O
~ v
~ °
~ o ""
~ c
~ ~
o ~ ~"~
U J 0
O ~
~ o ~ ~ o N O ~
O ~
3 t
~ 2
~ 7
~ L
3 d
~ S
_ O
~
O
,:
x L
LL ~ U ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~
p U _
~ ~ ~ 6 v O :~ S
_ C X
d ~
~~ O
- O
3 Y
d
m U
` u ~
> 3 U
c
~ ~ w ~ ~ 3 0 o A
. ~ as
C
N
>
C d
L
w O
O
+
} m
~ ~
O p
S L C
~
L d
~ 6
_
d
d L C V C S __
+ L
U ~
~ O .L
U d ~
> C
d d
+ d
ti' O
L
~ ~
~ U
T C
O O
c O
~~ C
C u
d
V N
3 O
C N
p
U 6 L
+ 3+ d d D L N d '~ p V
N ~ U
p ~
C t t
'
T N
0 O
~ S
+ N
J (~~y d ~
O O -O + C O
~ C
S + L
O C
d 7 s
U O
L 6 0
+ .
~
U
3 ~
^
O ~
Ol O
~
S C
d d
•~- 6
d Y
+ C
O
C O
d O
O_ T
d d
S L
+
t 6 Ql d O O d V`
O d ~ C d + ~ .L d L N N N C
w.l U V
t • d. +S- d ~ d v!
L ~ ~ d -~ O
7 ~ LO N O
S S + ~ L L ~ 6
- O
d S
o ~ O
d
'm
O L
~ ~ O
~
.3 S
O
~
S
o +
N
~ rl
/1
~"'I N
3
~ C
d
v N
-C
rn
O
c
T
} ~
~
o L
d
o
d
~ d
L
d +
L
~o
c
~d
~ L
d
~ +
L
~° N
L
c C
d
o d
~
~~ ~ ~ s a ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a 3 ~ -~ L
~° p + ~ s L ~ ~ m ~
o' m c .~_ ~ m 3
ai ~
`n ~ ~ ~ N ~ v
> ~ } w ~ v
~ o -° c Y o d
~ m rn
"' d
C d vNi
d > __
~„ S }
N ±
.L
~, '
t ~
t_ E
O '~
T ca oci
L d
N
~ ~
~ ~
3 'C c
6
6 d
L d
,L d
L o
~ ~
L +
-
L c
~_ c
O
°- c
~ 3 u
~ .w o
~ c >`
~ 3 °
'c
d 3 U
+ oLi
> •+N-
" ~
~ o
'+- ~
T -"
3 d L
c ~ ~
d ~
~ v
c o>
~ v
c ~
o °
N U°. 3
L
c
.. _. 0
L N O' d
~C m 3
~ + rn
C L d Ql V d
U S C
~ al + ~ d
~
~ d
~ +
~ d
~~ ~
~
} d
~
.
3 d d
~U j
~ ~
d ~
O ~ Ol L
' Z O
+ 7
~ d
+ ~ d
+ ~ C d
+ Q7
d d
~ + + ~ ~ L U
S
o+ O
N C L
a~ S
+ d
L O
U N d
_ +
~ ~C
, X
d L
U 6
~ +
-
.__ 3 U O
~ U t
U O
S - ~ d
d ~ S ~^' +_
~
~ ~ T ~~ ~
~
~
Q
'
~
V
C
C q
e /
% i"
/"
~
~ V
0 9
~~ ~ ~
~~ .. ~
S, ~
I ~~
1 o~
~
Q o
V ~ ~,r ;
i~ ~.
~}~
t~~..i `
~
~
~ ~
.
~
~ ~ v ~
o u
~ 1
~
("~ ~--- v o~ ° o ~
v ~ ,~
4
~~
~ ~ _ ~ -~ 3 T ~
d ~ V
o
~ - 0 ~ a `(~' ~. ~ a o 00
O +
L
l''~~
~
'
J
~ 00
~ +-
v
° "
,:~
~ c ~ o ~ c
3 ~ ~
-
~
U
-
~~
~ ~
~ ~
~
%r ~
~ ~ ~
v 3 ~
.,~.. .
Pi,
f > : f 5~ti ~ r~ ' ~'' ,
9r t~° ~ ~~ fir.,. ~
,~ ~ ,~.=';gin°`~ _~....
' z~
''~3 .. 4 ,.. .E:.....:
~r ...,.
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~
IipRllt+~~~~~~:: ,dtMllt~~~{f1r7•s'!•pt llri nligu,~~nn ~ ~ipd;ing fq ~ nq ~pu~ ~ r•g: i 71! ,8 ~,a;w~~p
Tµ ! I'ylplluw~
.t W~~ d, s
.. tx ar 4.
~'¢.,. .hu..r.,~ ~ , a, s.' r"
l~,~, ,,::,, "~rMw...
„~ ~
., ,,,
_~. nay,
^'^ ._...._._.... ~~ . Mid 1 ~
f
`tai .i^ e~ ~ ~~ ~ ~^ ~~!
1995
AMD SPORTS CENTER
SUNNYVALE SCHOOL DISTRICT
Sunnyvale, California
Jointly funded by the school disfrid and the AMD Corporation, This
facility is intended to serve the athletic needs of the Columbia Middle
School students and the surrounding community.
The building, which includes a large gymnasium, locker facilities, and
community services, is situated to allow easy access by both students
and the public. The interior space features a Waring cathedral
ceiling, with a large circular window on each end. Auxiliary facilities
are housed in lower flanking masses to minimize the visual impact of
the central space.
The AMD Center is an excellent example of colloboralive efforts
between a public agency and the corporate community, and has been
well received by all of its users.
Project: AMD Spores and Service Censer
Owner: Sunnyvale School District
Construction cost: $3,242,808
Project area: 19,000 sf
~.
`~
~
it ~
.
,_
~~
a.
;„ a k
=r s, a
ar.~,. =.
sr~
i_
4 ..., ,..~.. .:..
1998
GUY EMANUELE JR. ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
NEW HAVEN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Union City, California
This new elementary school is designed in the California Mission syle to
complement the nearby Mission San Jose. Exterior materials include red
clay roofing tiles, white plaster, ceramic tiles, and exposed timber beams.
Connected by covered walkways, the buildings su«ound o series of large
and small couryords, which are protected by decorative fencing and
gates. The campus is easy to supervise and can be secure after-hours.
The muhipurpose building features a gymnasium space and aspeed-line
food service facility. Oversized kindergarten classrooms have child-
friendly reading alcoves. The entire school Is wired for high speed data
communication.
Project: Guy Emanuele Jr. Elementary School
Owner: New Haven Unified School District
Construction cost: $10,503,1 39
Project area: 60,591 sf
ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING
is 99 app ~~~ y~r~ ~, a ~ ~~, ~ ~ ~~ ~~{~:.j~ ~ 9g,~~}! Q ~f
('he new xvV-540 vaal) f~ai~el (calG~res Aiuma SiuelcPs unique Azt~.~co" crmhossi~~g. 7`hss
preieess c, e~.a~es an ~etenor metal s~aali s}~slemihai simr~I~(es the smooth conkm.aq,.~s laa6~
of masonrp stucco tE rs ae<ilable <<i'three c1~,F~1ent widths and m fact is iLe onl, ?6-~ai,ge
f~ ish mefal wal) pang I syste~r~ a3a~~aL^Ifi it a4~" viat~~. The AW-SC~O ~s also atia E 61e iha
36' ~~.~idih tivhichr~llows ~naxnnum flexibilii~ ear mee(ing the needs of designers.
t~esa`gn Features
• Langer lengltis tha3~ aiher industrial%camrr~,ercial panel systems -.standard lc !+&'
~ighf e^rei~t;t - a 2" R17.'l pan~!I wess;hsonly 2.5 Ihs,%s.F.
racior'y caull€ed s+de j;;ints 3e'available as an option to eliminate (ieldcaulkingt
Pre-firtisl~ed irtei'icr andex error surface - no ~ietd paintinG
f'hicknessea fra+n 2° (e Cr" (R-34.4)
Jr jSG'CIf7CitIf117S
Panel7hickr7s;s-'~2"~rcidth:....2" 2.5` 3" 9" 5" 6'"
3n' voidt4~ . .. ... ....... ~ 2:S` 3"
R-Value {by AS7h~t C 23(}; ...... 17:.I. 20:8 ?~F.S 32.0 32,4 4C~,9
FaneE Vs,'idth :. . ............._ ... 3b" 'i2`•
Ptanei LengfEa~ . ................48'0"'standard ~naximui7~
Inst~1<~ilOEi P~iateriah ..:......... Foamed-iii-place urelFiane with a density of appreYi-
mately 2 ~t Ibs:/cu. 1,
1air~t ~onFfgcaratian :.... ........ Inierlecl<ing 6ongue and ,soave
Aaessor8es :.................... aluminum exlrusians, flashirgs, sealants, and
fasfenea s asa avai~c~bla
PaneiC:xterior':.,.....__..,~..._Standa[d is 26 gauge,. siuccr? e~7~boss~d G-90
galvai7ize<3 steel vritl7 PPG Duranar` PYDF finlsi°~ for
ca~nmercial/ii7dusinal al~~plications, and PPG ('urafin
200Q`~~ t-lsgh Performance Cc;ating for co{dsltar'ag~
appdicalions. E3Ufh finishes offer excetlenf value wish .+
24-yearv~ar~rar~ted performance.
Panel Interior :................... Standard is 26 gauge wf3i[e stucco emLgssed G-90 ''
galvanized steel av(th PPG vuraf~in 2004"~ Nigh
Pe,Farniaric~ ~Gatin?~, lJSDA accepted, wari'antcd for
24 years in areas r'aquirin~ heavy v~asbdoovn°
tiusioorer(Jptio,is __.......,.:01her gauges in steel or other materials; a choice of8
standard Pb'DF colors at7d custom color comings 'io
rra(cl~ customer color samples
~ 9 m ~U' n old i`oi]4~. aalrc.atacs ' ~
y~hp rt b i~u ~s Y ;a~zi.;I r o` r~711 S. •ra rrm;y a¢ ;.r,enl
.,, i
l~
x
CONCEALEll CLIF
CONCEALED FASTENER
`" 14 GA. GAl_V. HIDDEN
FASTENER CLIP
k14 x TYPE 6 SELF TAPPING OR
"-~_#14 X "SELF DRILLING SCREW
ONE PER PANEL PER GIRT
]3
1l ti=! f'X"
Y'ih'~e
Contact U+ liar Cullom Options
Heavy Duty Cushioned
wear Layer Vinyl
Protective Rim
Bonding
Layer Base rutoc3ule
Support Lc J ~ t ! - Locking
.... ............. System
Sub-PlrJar
Optionot
Air Cushion UndedayiTaent
PHYSICAL CHARAC'1'ERfST~CS:
Cushioned Surface
Quick Installation Time
Ylinimal Maintenance
Access to Base Pa~ Repairs
Cowt Portability
Excellent Durability
Optional 3nun Undcrlaymcnt for
Added Cushion
PHYSICAL SPECIFICATIONS:
Size: 12.142" ~ 12.142" x l/2"
WcighC 1.75 lbs./sq. ft.
Material: High-Impact Pulypropyluie Base with a Solid Vinyl
Tile Insert
Support Surface Supported by l96 Truncated Conical Legs &
Gussctcd Posts
Heavy duty clew- wear layer with a polyurthanc finish
Locks: 16Latch Locks: 2 Sides wide 4 Female Parts Each
and 2 Sides with 4 Male Parts F,ach
l0 Year Limited Warranty
4
For complete product inFurnuition call and talk to one of our representatives.
2007I3ecchgrove Place
Utica NY 13501 Toll Frce: S00.926.3539
315.733.4600
Fax: 3 l 5.735.4372
Email: info~lmatefles.com
PHYSICAL C'H:112;1CTERIS"PIGS:
Cushioned Surface lur Comfort fi Sale Resiliency
Quick ~~ Easy Assembly
Minimal Maintenance
Recess to BaSJ lur Repairs
Court Portability
Excellent Durability
Optional 3mm Undc.rlayment R>r Added
Cushion
Free-Floating System
Ma~eflex Standard Colors
PHYSICAL SPECIFIC:1"PIONS:
Size: 12" x l~" x 1/2'•
Wcight° .7S Ibs./sq. R. Material: High-Impact Polypropylene
Support Surface Supported by Uuseted C'reomatric Ribs
Static Luading: 18,000 Ibs./sy. ft. ; 125psi
Locks: 20 Positive Illlerlucks: 2 Sides with 5 Fcmalc Parts
Each and 2 Sides with 5 Male farts Cacti
l0 Year Limited warranty
For complete product inlonnation call :md ur(k to une of our representatives.
2007 Bccchgrovc Placa
Utica NY 13501 "Ibll Free: 80(L9?635,9
3 15 ] 3 3.4600
Fax:31S.735.4372
limail: in Cor~rmatcflex.com
Pre~ni,~ni Colors
_ i _~ .__-
I
~Lpt+G. F vl, .]mend F_ud
~; n°J ;iii t:, In: t~ni,,ia Uproi:,
rnvener aMaa~
urv~50ux um~na~e~
UNI.501AR'system5 are designed wish the
highest quali:y,'JL approved components.
The keV component in all our builtling
ihtegia:ed photovoltaic rooliny volutions
rs the UNI~SOLAR` triple ~unclion, silicon
solar panel, which has the highen relative
efficiency under high temperature antl
low IIgM (dowdy( conditions of ell
comparable technologies.
The pre-engineered system solutions are
ompd:m of tomponents ee,ignea to
meet your speciticsotar-electric generating
requirements.
UNI~SOfAR'laminates are lightweight
which is perfect for any roof where loading is
~renoflt metal roofs, shade
ae oaure:, or carports. UNI SOLAR laminates
re less than (17 one Ib/h' comparetl to leatling
compe:itorz 3 to >Ibillt'.
~. ' [J/y/ SOLA2
.
"
' United Solar OVOnIC
~
3a
~~
Y
lvlei
vI I
n 3a
nl..
y3
d
ry nr
~v~
,v. tv.i~ ~. -4
TYPICAL 4Ci if YS+iSe CoR:PQNkNYS
M~a 4[ O ~ru~~n antra
U/7/•SOLA2.
unuoe sloe o„od~
SOLAP ENEPGY SOLUTIONS FOR - _..
Shadow Tolerant and Superior Performance ai both
M1lgh temperature antl under cloudy law-fight eondltions
Rovrdes move real eneegy (Kilowatt-hours( than
cryrtalline panels of same power rating Chased on
Independent studies'( ~:~.,~~. ~~u~ ~a..~a ma
S
~":1'.flR ~ ~~fi(:liS
iftANSP6Ri~T1~iM f.ONRI ISA NT$
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 22, 2007
To: Mr. John Cherbone, City of Saratoga Public Works Director
From: Franziska Holtzman/Sohrab Rashid, P.E.
Subject: Focused Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for the Proposed North
Campus Project in Saratoga, California
1025-446-1
This memorandum presents the results of the focused transportation impact analysis (TIA) for the
proposed North Campus Gymnasium and Child Development Center project in Saratoga,
California.
The analysis was conducted to identify potential impacts of the proposed project on the
surrounding transportation system and to recommend appropriate improvements to mitigate any
significant impacts. Trip generation estimates, intersection analysis, parking impacts, as well as,
site access and on-site circulation are evaluated in this memorandum.
BACKGROUND
The proposed North Campus Gymnasium and Child Development Center is located on the North
Campus property on the south side or Prospect Road opposite Clarkspur Lane between Saraglen
Drive and Scully Avenue in Saratoga, California. Residents of the City of Saratoga will be the
primarily users of the proposed project. The project location and surrounding roadway network
are shown in Figure 1.
Four buildings are currently located on the North Campus property:
1) Sanctuary (to be replaced by proposed project)
2) Education Building (to be replaced by proposed project)
3) Fellowship Hall (currently under remodel, to re-open in 2008)
4) Meeting Room (recently remodeled and rented by City of Saratoga)
The project proposes to replace the existing sanctuary and education building with an 8,150
square foot (s.f.) gymnasium, and a 4,500 s.f. childcare center plus an adjacent 6,500 s.f.
playground. The sanctuary and education building are currently unoccupied and do not generate
any traffic. To present more conservative trip generation estimates, no trip credits were taken for
the existing uses. Existing uses include intermittent meetings, short-term classes, and visits by
Sheriff deputies to write reports.
The fellowship hall is currently under remodel and is expected to re-open in 2008. The fellowship
hall will primarily be used for services, weddings, and parties on weekends. Minimal weekday use
is expected. The meeting room building is rented by the city based on demand and has
intermittent use for meetings and recreational activities. In the future, the City hopes to be able to
rent out the facility nightly. The maximum occupancy of the meeting room is 80 people.
160 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 675 San Jose CA 95113 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717
www.fehrandpeers. com
John Cherbone
August 22, 2007
Page 2 of 8
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Existing Roadway Network
This section describes the existing roadway network near the project site, which is illustrated on
Figure 1.
Prospect Road is a two- to four-lane arterial street that extends east-west between Stevens
Creek County Park and Saratoga Avenue. East of Saratoga Avenue, this roadway is designated
as Hamilton Avenue. Near the project site, Prospect Road is a four-lane road divided by a painted
median, with designated left-turn lanes at all public intersections. The posted speed limit is 40
mph near the project site.
Clarkspur Lane is anorth-south, two-lane, local street within the City of San Jose. It extends from
Prospect Road north to Bonnie Avenue, and forms afour-way intersection with the project site
exit driveway at Prospect Road. The posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour (mph).
Existing Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations
The operation of Prospect Road/Clarkspur Lane/Project Egress intersection was evaluated during
the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Intersection operations were evaluated for the highest one-
hour volume counted between 7:00 and 9:00 AM and between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. New
intersection turning movement counts were conducted at the intersection in August 2007. The
traffic counts are included in Attachment A.
Figure 1 presents the existing AM and PM peak-hour turning movement volumes at the study
intersection. Figure 1 also illustrates the existing intersection lane configurations and traffic
control devices.
Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Pedestrian facilities comprise sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals. Sidewalks are
provided on both sides of Prospect Road bordering the project site. Crosswalks marked by
striping are located at the Prospect Road/Blaney Road intersection approximately 900-feet to the
west of the project site and Prospect Road/Miller Avenue approximately 1,500-feet to the east.
Bicycle facilities comprise paths (Class I), lanes (Class II), and routes (Class III). Bicycle paths
are paved trails that are separate from roadways. Bicycle lanes are lanes on roadways
designated for bicycle use by striping, pavement legends, and signs. Bicycle routes are roadways
designated for bicycle use by signs only. Bicycle lanes are provided on both sides of Prospect
Road. No other bicycle facilities are provided near the project site.
Existing Transit Service
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) operates bus and light rail service in
Santa Clara County. Bus stops for VTA Route 53 are located on Prospect Road at Brookvale
Drive approximately 0.5 miles to the west of the project site. Route 53 operates between
downtown the Sunnyvale Town Center and Westgate Shopping Center in San Jose. Service near
the project site operates on weekdays from 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM with approximately 60 minutes
headways. No weekend service is provided.
John Cherbone
August 22, 2007
Page 3 of 8
PROJECT CONDITIONS
Project Trip Estimates
The amount of traffic added to the roadway system by a proposed project development is
estimated using athree-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip
assignment. The first step estimates the amount of added traffic to the roadway network. The
second step estimates the direction of travel to and from the project site. The trips are assigned to
specific street segments and intersection turning movements during the third step. The project
traffic estimation for the proposed project development is described in the following sections.
Trip Generation
The amount of traffic added to the surrounding roadway system by the proposed project was
estimated by applying trip generation rates for recreational community centers (ITE land use 495)
and child care centers (ITE land use 565) published in Trip Generation (ITE, 7th Edition, 2003).
Rates for the gymnasium are based on square footage, while the rates for the child care center is
based on number of students. The description of recreational community centers in Trip
Generation does not really apply to a stand-alone gymnasium as proposed here. The surveyed
facilities include classrooms, day care or nursery school, meeting rooms, sport facilities (e.g.,
pool, tennis courts, basketball courts, etc.), weight rooms, gymnasiums, locker rooms, and
restaurant or snack bar (ITE, "Trip Generation," 7~' Edition, 2003). Since we do not consider the
ITE rate applicable here, we estimated gym trips based on the expected use of such facilities. For
our gymnasium trip generation estimates we assumed that a total of 14 players, five spectators,
and two referees would use the facility for a sporting event during the evening peak hour. Minimal
use of the gymnasium was assumed for the morning peak hour.
The project trip generation estimates are presented in Table 1. Based on ITE rates, the proposed
project is estimated to generate 634 daily trips, 93 AM peak-hour trips (50 inbound and 43
outbound) and 95 PM peak-hour trips (43 inbound and 52 outbound).
John Cherbone
August 22, 2007
Page 4 of 8
TABLE 1
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION RATES AND ESTIMATES
Land Use/ Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Source Size Rate Total Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total
Gymnasium
ITE~(A)
Mm~
22.80 i 186 I
_
~
~
_1m62 8~
5 ~ 13 _I
1.64 ___ _
l: 4 9 13 __
Fehr & Peers 8,150 s.f. I
g,50
70 0.49 ~ 2 2 4 3.68 ~ 15 '~, 15 ~ 30
Estimates (B) ~
Child Care Center
ITEZ (C)
100
4.48 ~
448
0.80 t 42 }
38 80
0.82 a {
39 j 43 ~ 82
students I
Total Project Trips using ITE
(A + C)
634
50 €
43 93 ~ ~
43 52 i 95
~
Total Project Trips using ~
Fehr & Peers Estimates and 518 44 40 84 ~ 54 ~ 58 ~ 112
ITE(B+C)
t i
Notes:
Trip Generation (7th Edition), Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003. Land use code 495 (Recreational Community
Center). Average rates used due to small project size.
~ Trip Generation (7th Edition), Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003.Land use code 565 (Day Care Center).
Average rates used due to small project size.
Source:
Fehr & Peers, August 2007.
Based on ITE rates, the proposed project is estimated to generate 634 daily trips, 93 AM peak-
hour trips (50 inbound and 43 outbound) and 95 PM peak-hour trips (43 inbound and 52
outbound). Based on our trip rates for the gymnasium and ITE rates for the child care center, the
proposed project is estimated to generate 518 daily trips, 84 AM peak-hour trips (44 inbound and
40 outbound) and 112 PM peak-hour trips (54 inbound and 58 outbound).
Our trip generation rates for the gymnasium are lower in the morning peak hour as compared to
ITE, but higher in the evening peak hour. Overall, our use-based trip generation for the
gymnasium provides a more accurate estimate of vehicle trips and would result in a more
conservative technical analysis. Accordingly, we recommend that the trip generation estimate for
the gymnasium be based on our use assumptions and that trip generation estimates for the child
development center be based on ITE rates.
Assuming 30 trips per sporting event and approximately 3 games per weekday, we estimate that
the proposed gymnasium will generate less than 100 daily weekend trips. Alternatively, based on
the proposed weekend uses of the child development center (weekend workshops, and evening
day care) we assumed approximately 30% occupancy of the child development center, thus
resulting in 50 daily trips. In summary, the proposed project is estimated to generate
approximately 150 daily weekend trips, substantially less than the weekday total. Accordingly,
the subsequent traffic analysis focuses on the weekday peak hours.
John Cherbone
August 22, 2007
Page 5 of 8
Trip Distribution
The directions of approach and departure of the project trips are estimated based on the locations
of complementary land uses, existing travel patterns in the area, and the locations of the project
site driveway. The major directions of approach and departure form the trip distribution pattern for
vehicles generated by the project development. Figure 2 shows the trip distribution pattern for the
project.
Trip Assignment
The trips generated by the project were assigned to the roadway system based on the directions
of approach and departure discussed above. Morning and evening peak-hour project trips were
assigned to each turning movement at the Prospect Road/Clarkspur Lane/Project Egress
intersection. Existing site access is proposed to be maintained, where vehicles enter the site at
an inbound-only driveway located approximately 200 feet west of the Clarkspur Lane intersection.
Project-generated vehicles will exit the site via the outbound-only driveway located opposite
Clarskpur Lane. Figure 2 shows the AM and PM peak-hour project trips assigned to each turning
movement at the study intersection. Project trips were added to exiting traffic volumes to establish
intersection volumes for Project Conditions, as shown on Figure 3.
Intersection Level of Service Calculations
Project impacts were evaluated following the guidelines of the City of Saratoga and the Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), which is the congestion management agency for
Santa Clara County.
The analysis evaluated the operations at the Prospect Road/Clarkspur Lane/Project Egress
Driveway intersection. The study intersection was evaluated during the weekday morning (AM)
and evening (PM) peak hours for Project Conditions. These hours represent the highest one-hour
total of traffic during the lam to gam and 4pm to 6pm peak periods. Generally, Project Conditions
are compared to Background Conditions to determine project level impacts. Background
Conditions consist of existing intersection volumes plus traffic from approved but not yet
constructed developments in the area. However, no approved developments in Saratoga would
add traffic to the study intersection. The City of San Jose is processing an application for the
expansion of Westgate Shopping Center, but the traffic analysis for that project is not yet
available. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, Existing Conditions serves as our baseline
for identifying potential impacts.
Level of Service Method
The operations of roadway facilities are described with the term level of service (LOS). LOS is a
qualitative description of traffic flow based on such factors as speed, travel time, delay, and
freedom to maneuver. Six levels are defined from LOS A, with the best operating conditions, to
LOS F, with the worst operating conditions. LOS E represents "at-capacity" operations.
Operations are designated as LOS F when volumes exceed capacity, resulting in stop-and-go
conditions.
The operations of the unsignalized study intersection is evaluated using the method contained in
Chapter 17 of the 2000 HCM and calculated using TRAFFIX analysis software. LOS ratings for
stop-sign controlled intersections are based on the average control delay expressed in seconds
per vehicle. At two-way or side-street stop-controlled intersections, control delay is calculated for
each movement, not for the intersection as a whole. For approaches composed of a single lane,
control delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane.
John Cherbone
August 22, 2007
Page 6 of 8
Intersection Level of Service Results
Table 2 presents the results of the level-of-service calculations conducted for the Prospect
Road/Clarkspur Lane/Site Egress intersection under Project Conditions. The results for Existing
Conditions are included for comparison purposes.
TABLE 2
PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
Traffic Peak Existing Conditions Project Conditions
Intersection Control Hour Delay LOSZ Delay LOSZ
Prospect Road/Clarkspur Side Street AM 13.5 B 19.3 C
Lane/Site Egress Stop pM 21.9 C 33.3 D
Notes:
' Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle calculated using methods
described in the 2000 HCM. Total control delay for the worst movement is presented for side-street stop-
controlled intersections.
z LOS =level of service. LOS calculations conducted using the TRAFFIX level of service analysis software
package.
Source:
Fehr & Peers, August 2007.
The unsignalized intersection at Prospect Road/Clarkspur Lane/Site Egress is projected to
continue operating at acceptable levels with the addition of project traffic. Attachment B contains
the corresponding calculation sheets.
Peak-hour signal warrants are no met at the Prospect Road/Clarkspur Lane/Project Egress
intersection during either peak hour. Attachment C contains the signal warrant worksheets.
PARKING EVALUATION
The project site currently has 119 on-site parking spaces, of which 108 are provide in the backor
southern portion of the site and 11 are provided adjacent to Prospect Road. The project proposes
to remove the 11 parking spaces adjacent to Prospect Road and retain the 108 spaces provided
in the back of the site. The project does not propose to provide any additional parking spaces.
Based on City of Saratoga code requirements, day care facilities and community facilities (such
as the gymnasium) are required to provide one parking space for each employee, plus such
additional number of spaces as my be prescribed by the Planning Commission (City of Saratoga
Municipal Code, Article 15-35.030, 2006). Therefore, the required parking supply is established at
the discretion of the City based on planned operating characteristics..
Fehr & Peers estimated the parking demand using the parking demand surveys in ITE's Parking
Generation (2004) publication. Table 3 summarizes the parking supply and demand estimates for
the proposed project.
ITE's Parking Generation publishes both average and 85"' percentile parking demand rates. The
estimated average parking demand for the proposed g~mnasium is 31 spaces using ITE's
average parking demand rate and 48 spaces using the 85` percentile parking demand rate. The
John Cherbone
August 22, 2007
Page 7 of 8
average parking demand for the proposed child development center is 24 spaces using ITE's
average rate and 34 using the 85`h percentile parking demand rate.
It should be noted that similar to ITE's trip generation surveys, ITE's parking surveys for
recreational community centers are based on surveys of a small sample of national locations of
public facilities similar to and including YMCAs. The community center facilities description is
identical to the trip generation surveys, and this use is not necessarily representative of the
proposed project.
TABLE 3
NORTH CAMPUS PARKING SPACE DEMAND ESTIMATES
ITEM
Land Use Size Rate Parking Demand
Gymnasium 8,150 s.f. 85`" percentile rate of 5.87 vehicles 48
per k.s.f. gross floor area
Child Development Center 100 students 85'" percentile rate of 0.34 vehicles 34
per student
Net Parking 82
Notes:
~ ITE Parking Generation, 3rtl Edition (2004).
s The average parking demand rate (3.83 vehicles perk.s.f. gross floor area) yields an estimate of 31 on-site
parking spaces.
' The average parking demand rate (0.24 vehicles per student) yields an estimate of 24 on-site parking spaces.
Source:
Fehr & Peers, August 2007.
While the number of students is higher than the projected parking demand, it is assumed that not
all students arrive within the peak-hour. Additionally, it should be noted that the parking demand
for the child care center primarily occurs during the morning and evening peak periods when
parents park to drop off and pick-up their children. During off-peak periods, the child development
center's parking demand is lower and primarily based on the number of employees.
At project completion, the total North Campus site will have 108 parking spaces, which is
sufficient to serve the parking demand of the gymnasium and child development center. However,
there are other uses on the site that share the parking spaces. The meeting room has a seating
capacity of 80 people and based on demand could be used on weekday evenings. Additionally,
the fellowship hall is projected to open in 2008 and will be used for services and weddings on
weekends. The proposed parking supply is not sufficient to accommodate on-site parking in the
event that the meeting room or fellowship hall is used at full capacity at the same time as the
gymnasium and child care center. We recommend that the City draft ajoint-use parking
agreement for the project site that coordinates the uses and projected parking demands to
minimize off-street parking impacts. Currently, parking is permitted on Prospect Road near the
project site. Additionally, the project site needs to develop a parking demand management plan to
efficiently coordinate parking in the event that demand exceeds supply during maximum
occupancy of the North Campus site.
John Cherbone
August 22, 2007
Page 8 of 8
ON-SITE CIRCULATION
The project applicant should submit a final site plan for review of on-site circulation. The
preliminary site plan in Figure 4 indicates that the proposed project will maintain the existing
ingress and egress driveways at the western and eastern border of the project site. Vehicles
entering the project site traverse the western border of the project site to reach the parking in the
back lot. Assuming that the proposed project maintains the same parking configuration as
currently exists on site, the project has sufficient room to navigate the parking spaces and
circulation. Vehicles wil traverse the eastern project border to exit the project site.
Parents will be required to park at the back parking and to walk their children to the child
development center at the front of the project site. The final site plan should be reviewed to make
sure that adequate pedestrian safety is provided in the parking lot and that adequate pedestrian
facilities are provided for access from the parking lot to the child development center and
gymnasium.
SITE ACCESS
As stated above, the proposed project will maintain the existing ingress and egress driveways at
the western and eastern border of the project site. A separate eastbound left-turn lane is provided
at Clarkspur Lane and atwo-way left-turn exists to the west. A painted median is striped east of
Clarkspur Lane that requires vehicles to make a U-turn at Scully Avenue to access residences on
the north side of Prospect east of Clarkspur Lane.
Direct right-turn and left-turn access is provided at both the ingress and egress driveways. All
access movements are easy to navigate, with the exception of the left-turn outbound movement
at the eastern outbound-only driveway. The outbound driveway is opposite Clarkspur Lane but is
aligned at an approximately 30-foot offset to the east of the northbound departure lane. Thus the
outbound left-turn is difficult to navigate, especially during peak commute hours when traffic on
Prospect Road is higher. The project site plan and building layout should be modified to reduce
the offset and better align the exit driveway with Clarkspur Lane. The maximum offset should be
10 feet. An alternative is to restrict left-turn movements out of the driveway and to require
vehicles to make a U-turn at Scully Avenue
Additionally, we recommend the installation of no stopping signs for the peak hours an Prospect
Road along the project frontage and 75-feet to the east and west of the project driveways. This
will help to improve visibility of the driveways and discourage parents from using Prospect Road
to parking when picking up or dropping off their children.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this focused TIA show that the proposed project is not expected to result in any
significant traffic or parking impacts. Per VTA guidelines, a comprehensive Transportation Impact
Analysis is required for the proposed project under the Santa Clara County CMP TIA guidelines
because the site will generate more that 100 trips during one or both commute peak hours.
However, based on our trip assignment, the proposed project will not add more than 10 trips per
lane to any existing signalized intersection. This criterion is established in the VTA guidelines.
Thus, analysis of additional intersections is not required.
Attachments
P: fn U,
c`, W LL
U
w ~ ~
~ LL
J
d ~C
~LL
d
o
OZ
~ =C
Y ~-
~ aLL
av
c7
z~
N ~?
2 ~"
v W~
4
L
o W
Z ~
U
W
O
a
:y6
w
C7
LL
s
~ V
yi `~
7 ~
CT ry
~ O
Q+
w
Q
U
O
~-
O
z
d I'-
c Z
v W
c
E Z
a ~_
0
'w fn
m ~
~ Q
v 0
~ Z
~o Q
c
m Z
E O
N
10
E m
T
~ N
N
d
E
U
t a
o ~
Z F
U
W
~'
O.
~~
~~
u.~
~,,
~.: o
r CJ °
~'~
l:J a
~.^,r
N
W
7
~.
~~
N y
3 N
m N
Q O
d
c zW
~ O~
m NJ
a ~O
o ZN~
~ O I.L
~ U~
~° ~ O
v U=
W
~ ~Y
E ~ W
as
z
E Q
a
~ ~
U
~ W
U
t W
O F-
Z 7`
z
LL] ~
LL] ~
o
.`~ o
a
~~ ~
M
W
LL
v
o ~
. v
¢°-
, , -,
`~ r _ i
~
f
" ~
"`
F. ~ `-ss
w ~w.r
/j
~
NE;rJ Gy~iniiasiurn New Child Care C'en:zr ~
,, ti
_ r.....-
~
.,,.nti,.,.'~ _ \ '
N
P
n
~ '~ Neritac~e
~-~-,. ew
laygro,,i
d Redwood
? t; ~ ' Tree
'~ f'
, y ~~ ~
\ ,,
, x i
,
~ W-.,, /
~
~-} ~ i
,~ 3~ ~-
i w,
~._.~
~,._..1
~-.• ,,
} ~1!"
~
,~
i ~~ ~
~ !?
~}
'` ~ ~ ~
P ~
~ I
l
'1. /~ Y
F^
i
v t !~ I
y F a~~
' it
y
t
/ ,
I, .-' 1
k~
1 in=40 ft
au.:4, gdz.:dar.inY.a:.
1 t:G8 Ss:illy ;.~
-c3.r.95.8'i!M
FEl-IR ~ I~EL[~S
TFA NS PO FTATION CONSULTANTS
North Campus Gymnasium and Child Development Center
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
August 200 FIGURE 4
1025-446
MINUTES
CITY OF SARATOGA
CITY COUNCIL JOINT STUDY SESSION
CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 27, 2007
Vice Mayor Waltonsmith called the Study Session meeting to order at 6:07 p.m.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Jill Hunter, Kathleen King, Chuck Page, Vice
Mayor Ann Waltonsmith
Planning Commissioners Joyce Hlava, Manny Cappello, Rishi
Kumar, Robert Kundtz, Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers and Yan
Zhao
ABSENT: Mayor Aileen Kao
Planning Commissioner Yan Zhao arrived at 6:OOPM
ALSO Dave Anderson, City Manager
PRESENT: Barbara Powell, Assistant City Manager
Richard Taylor, City Attorney
Ann Sullivan, Deputy City Clerk
Michael Taylor, Interim Recreation Director
John Cherbone, Public Works Director
John Livingstone, Community Development Director
REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR AUGUST 27, 2007
Ann Sullivan, Deputy City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section
54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of August 27, 2007 was properly posted on August
21, 2007.
DIRECTION REGARDING ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
RELATED TO A PROJECT PROPOSAL FOR THE USE OF NORTH
CAMPUS
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Accept report and direct Staff accordingly.
Michael Taylor, Interim Recreation Director, presented staff report. Michael
Taylor also provided a detailed cost analysis handout addressing the North
Campus CDC Gymnasium Construction Costs.
Discussion continued regarding costs and how specific improvements to the North
Campus would affect cost.
Planning Commissioners asked to be brought up to par and needed clarification as
to what had transpired previously for the project to be at the current stage.
Michael Taylor explained that a Council Study Session had been held on June 27,
2007 to ask Council for direction regarding a conceptual proposal received from
Alan and Lisa Beck for the use of the North Campus. At that meeting Council
directed staff to conduct parking and environmental studies; schedule a Joint Study
Session with the Planning Commission the end of August; and invite the public to
participate in the discussion. The meeting was scheduled for August 27, 2007;
was noticed and meeting notices were mailed to residents within 500 feet of the
North Campus property.
Michael Taylor stated that tonight's meeting was being held to discuss detailed
costs of the conceptual proposal and that staff needed direction on specific project
items regarding the Beck proposal. He also discussed setback requirements,
parking, traffic analysis, design review and environmental reviews.
Vice Mayor Waltonsmith stated the Beck's would provide more detailed
information in their presentation.
Planning Commission Susie Nagpal asked how staff went about getting a
conceptual design plan.
Councilmember Page stated Council asked for anyone to come up with an "idea"
for the front half of the building and explained how the proposal process is done
and the different conceptual designs that were received.
Michael Taylor responded that the City received nine conceptual proposes
Planning Commissioner Yan Zhao asked how the decision was made to go with
the proposed conceptual design.
Vice Mayor Waltonsmith stated the decision was made to go with what seemed
do-able for the front half of the property.
City Manager Dave Anderson commented that Council direction to staff was to
solicit proposals for use of the front half of the property only.
Vice Mayor Waltonsmith then introduced Alan Beck. Mr. Beck went on to
explain their proposal and that their goal was to turn the property into a point of
gatherings for community events. Mr. Beck continued to explain the exterior of
the buildings would be made of a steel/tin type material along with the use of
stucco on the exterior. Mr. Beck showed samples of flooring that could be used
and explained the cost difference between various types of flooring, noting that
wood flooring is more expensive. Mr. Beck noted that the total proposed
conceptual design comes to $1,217,500.00 and that the Beck's would fund an
additional $100K in Child Development Center (CDC) items such as; cots, mats,
etc., and would have the Center ready for immediate move in and use condition.
Vice Mayor Waltonsmith invited public comments.
2
The following people requested to speak on this item
Bill Ford -asked if a poll of the residents had ever been done regarding the North
Campus.
City Manager Dave Anderson stated that a poll of the community did take place ni
2005; which resulted in citizens wanting a gymnasium.
Bill Ford commented that he didn't care for the proposed use of steel/tin for the
exterior; and that the buildings would always look like a steel/tin building no
matter how much stucco was used. Mr. Ford also stated his concern about the fact
that a hundred kids coming in would bring 200 cars coming in and circulating the
building. He asked if there was some other way to approach this problem.
David Egglestone -stated the Planning Commission appears not to be up to speed
and had a lot of questions. The community didn't have a lot of input and that we
really need to first determine just what is needed and then go out to bid on that
information -have more bids. Mr. Egglestone doesn't feel this proposal is in line
with the neighborhood; variances not in line with what the neighborhood is; and
the samples shown this evening are more in line with a "school" neighborhood, not
a residential neighborhood. Mr. Egglestone also had concerns regarding injury
liability in a gymnasium.
Councilmember King asked Mr. Egglestone what he would like to see at the North
Campus. Mr. Egglestone said he would like to see a Senior Center at North
Campus.
Howard Miller -stated that we all need day care centers at some time and that a
day care would be nice as well as a arts facility. Mr. Miller asked who is going to
manage this project and felt the City should be the one running the project -not a
private firm.
Doug Robertson -stated he is a structural engineer and is very concerned about
steel buildings and the City needs to scrutinize the appearance of whatever is used.
He noted that maintenance is very low on steel; but you need to have the look and
feel for Saratoga. He also noted that there is a tremendous need for a gym in this
community and that it would get a lot of use; however, the seniors should have
something also and recommended a joint use -for seniors and youth. (Mr.
Robertson offered his professional services, if needed).
Councilmember Kind stated both seniors and youth would be able to use the North
Campus facility.
Marc Hoffman -feels strongly about community sports for children and
encourages Council to go forward with the gym proposal.
3
Tom Saari -supports what Council wants to do to provide places for activities; but
must look at what the proposed plan will do as far as hundreds of cars entering and
exiting the property as well as traffic issues occurring on Prospect Avenue.
Councilmember King asked Mr. Saari what he would like to see on the property
and his response was that he would have liked to see houses built; and also likes
the multi-use facility for both seniors and youth.
Roger Piazza -stated he has several issues. Parking, kids screaming and cars in
and out of the property and suggests a sound wall around the property. If a gym is
constructed -who is going to control it? It is important to know what affect it will
have on the neighborhood.
Suiatha Bodapati -stated her family is very concerned about the traffic and noise;
people hanging out in the parking lot; and people throwing things over the fences
into yards. When asked by Councilmember King what she would like to see on
the property, Ms. Bodapati replied with something that would not generate a lot of
traffic and noise; a senior center would be ideal.
Karlina Ott -stated that this reminds her of Kevin Moran Park in many ways.
People have to live with change and she likes the proposal and that it would be a
nice facility for kids. It would also bring in tax dollars.
Catherine Seng (no speaker card) -likes the proposal; lets move forward.
Sue Cohn (no speaker card) -stated it is a good idea to have amulti-use facility;
and is surprised at a gym proposal. Would like to see something that serves
seniors more.
Councilmember Page asked what kind of senior activities she supports and Ms.
Cohn responded a large meeting room for arts, crafts, dancing, etc. -rather than a
gYm•
Councilmember Page stated that presently we are only addressing half the
property; we can think of the larger scope later.
Vice Mayor Waltonsmith closed the public speaking portion at 8:09PM.
Vice Mayor Waltonsmith asked the Planning Commissioners to voice their
concerns:
• Rishi Kumar - Re-design site to minimize traffic; need more alternatives.
• Manny Cappello -Aesthetic/design concerns; traffic flow; parking issues;
sound wall. Feels this is a great project and recommends we move forward.
• Susie Nagpal -Concern ofquasi-public facility use in a middle of
residential area. Likes the gym idea and feels there is a need for a daycare
also. Has concerns about where the Planning Commission is in the project
compared to the Council and feels there should be more public outreach.
4
Concerned about the facade -can't have an industrial appearance; has
traffic and parking concerns.
• Robert Kundtz -Would like to encourage Planning Commission and
Council to button down the process -starting with appointment or hiring of
project manager to handle nature of the project, sensitivities of neighbors,
traffic, parking; etc., in order to have a better understanding of what the
community would like to see on this property.
• Yan Zhao -Feels gym/child care could be a good fit for this location. Has
concerns about a steel look as well as noise and traffic getting in and out of
property.
• Linda Rodgers -Stated this is a beautiful lot and the beauty must be
preserved as much as possible; must preserve the trees. Would like to see
quality design with both exterior and interior and stated a commercial
appearance would not be good in a residential area.
Conditional Use Permit: concerns about hours of operation. Construction of
sound wall would have to be aesthetically appealing. Feels the proposed
design is good for this site, but encourages more input regarding gym.
• Joyce Hlava -Concerns about trees coming down; has difficulty with
taking down a tree when residents are told they can't remove a tree. Has
concerns about parking; if parking is in back and people are walking to front
of facility, feels a "drop off' and traffic queing would be better. Has
concerns about the height; pre-fab structural buildings. Suggests staff find
some pre-fab buildings and have Planning Commissioners take a look at
them to get a better idea of what the proposed design will look like. The
exterior needs to fit into the community. Has signage and noise issues as
well. Has gym concerns and that we may end up with a gym we don't like.
Vice Mayor Waltonsmith thanked the commissioners for their input.
Interim Director Michael Taylor asked for direction to staff.
Councilmember King then asked Planning Commissioners what they would like to
see on the site.
Robert Kundtz stated 1.2 million is a very low price of construction for what was
presented and feels Mr. Beck should spend some money to provide better
estimates. Would like to see amulti-purpose room and feels traffic and sound
concerns are real issues.
Jill Hunter has a lot of reservations about the project, including money issues and
traffic concerns, and feels more research should be done for more ideas for the
North Camp. Mrs. Hunter also has concerns about pre-fab buildings; feels they are
not attractive and doesn't believe the proposed project can be done for $1.2
million.
Susie Nagpal stated we should get more input from the community and see what
they would like at the North Campus. Also feels the cost would be higher than
projected.
5
Chuck Page stated he would like to have a citizens group help decide what can be
done with the property. He also stated he has reservations about the $1.2 million
figure. Mr. Page noted he would like to see something that seniors can use and
thought this was a good "first step" in getting everyone engaged in this project; but
would have to be realistic about what we can do financially.
Linda Rodgers suggested doing things in sequence with the money that is
available.
Joyce Hlava feels the gym is a good idea in terms of low impact use; but feels
money and design issues are concerns for everyone.
Councilmember King stated that she had assumed the Planning Commission was
at the same stage in the North Campus planning process as the Council and feels
we should have more of these meetings with the Planning Commission. She also
feels the Becks came up with the gym idea because it was brought to them by
Council and suggested maybe they could present more ideas with more of a multi-
purpose use
Vice Mayor Waltonsmith would like to move forward with the Beck proposal and
would like money put towards a sound wall and sewer and water upgrades.
Suggested staff work with Mr. Beck for a longer contract and feels we should go
forward with the site proposal and mitigate the issues brought up this evening.
Councilmember King noted she would like to add to Vice Mayor Waltonsmith's
comments in that she would not like to see the public having voted to keep the
property and in 20 years still see these dilapidated front two buildings; and the
buildings deteriorating. Councilmember King agrees we need to move forward.
Councilmember Page stated he would like to see us move forward; keeping in
mind that we do need more public input.
City Manager Dave Anderson noted the environmental impact is a concern voiced
by most everyone that spoke this evening and we would need money to do a
formal Environmental Impact Study. He also stated staff could research additional
architectural plans with the Beck's and bring it back to another Joint Meeting.
Councilmember Hunter stated that before we do architectural plans we need to
take a look at these types of proposed buildings. We need to take our time and do
it right and do it well; build a nice building instead of a manufactured building.
Councilmember Hunter suggested going for a bond measure to support the North
Campus.
Vice Mayor Waltonsmith stated people are usually not in favor of bonds and that
we move forward with the proposal.
6
Councilmember Page stated that by moving forward - it doesn't necessarily mean
the buildings are being built. He feels the Beck's will have to do more and will
have to put some money into it.
Vice Mayor Waltonsmith ended the discussion by stating the consensus is to direct
staff to work with the applicant on the environmental impact issues and schedule
another Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
There be no further business Vice Mayor Waltonsmith adjourned the Joint Meeting at
9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ann ulliva , CMC
Deputy City Clerk
7
1 -- ~ u it c.--e.~w 1
i \ t~-~E~j'~'t .J`i'1--~„ -'7l .Yi•~-~r ~ r"~ tZ- -~. '~~'~~'- ~0~~ wl:"t.o,...~%+~ ~.
--____
.,
i
~F ]~ Q ~~ ;'
°' f7 _ lJ ~i~( C~°'"~-• C-(3h C-C~,~ ~ '.-9xi•~.6~C•ri'I~.-~r' 11~i;
-- fF u L J~ "~ (/~-~Cf:',c ~-*•-'-.,-V /~-C ~^i ~u i'.." ~""C 9'x!7'1 q de •'!~J '/ (r l
l~ -~~
~. c .~``-e/-cY ._-.• ~e.~~ ®.`~° `l.4 ~~ /'~G~'B-mac. ~v +~vES'"~ -z "S -C~ ~ ~~,
,J 7'v •+
lid. ~/`~°,'~7 ~f~(" ~~~~~/7" -Y~ C~ •-.... ~._..~j c -c~ c..._ rG ,6-~ .~r`'--~.~
~ ~ v ~-~'°C_. ~ / ~G~j _ a !t I'!. ./'a wi.~( a...+eGI .~ N..iT ~ ~S °'~ ~iN-!id
C 6-- It C® .~
t~ ~.t~T a! f-~-..~t~ ti - .~r~L ~...5 C/~c-c~..cf -~-~ t-rgfS..°~
~ c,-a.4.~-..} S d ~,q ,,
~!
_ v -..
~- ®.. r0.
// ` -~:
~, e~ cw.~.c-i di-~ -.~e'~~- ~c ~~~ y~~ _ fc-~.n h .-ems
~s-1 u [`~ ~ ~W.s~'~D~(~ o~~"~L/~/~,~ ~ ~4'~.,~/ ( '~ tx -c ..~`-~e-~ ~+.~i.7~.
-~~.'.~_ `°f F~.U „ ~f. A, a f ~ r J ~ s`~~^ .O.-C-sts &i ~.t-r..-P. .. .
l r_+z . i .S . ^~,. ~ Lbte ~t'~ "?°' o / /'~j 1~ f CP ~2 ~ ~;~_'~,