Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-15-1987 City Council Agenda packetf �6 pic EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. A ITEM MEETING DATE: ORIGINATING DEPT Engineering SUBJECT: Recommended Motion: Reject all bids and direct staff to readvertise for bids on this project. Report Summary: In reviewing the bids on this project a large error in quantities of curb and gutter replacement was found in the bidding documents. Documents indicated 6,000 ft. when infact they should have shown 600 ft. This large difference requires that we reject these bids and readvertise. Fiscal Impacts: $100 readvertising cost. Attachments: None. Motion and Vote: Staff recamnendation 5 -0. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 4/15/87 CITY MGR. APPROVAL Concrete Repair for Calendar Years 1987 and 1988 60, ?o ff/o (,cD MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: City Engineer SUBJECT: Concrete Repair Contract RSS /df 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 cc: Maintenance Director City Attorney DATE: April 8, 1987 Upon reviewing this matter it has been found that the large discrepancy between the budget amount and the bid amount is due to an error in the quantity of the curb and gutter replacement. The annual amount should be 600 ft. rather than 6,000 ft. But for this error, and with the same unit prices, the bid amount would have been almost exactly the same as the budget. We have spoken to the City Attorney about this and he sees no option but to correct the contract documents and re- advertise this project. With the attorney's assistance we will insure the City's flexibility relative to the amount, if any, of work to be performed in the second year of this contract. ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING SUBJECT: Repoft Summary: Fiscal Impacts: Attachments: 1. Resolution 36B. 2. Location Map. Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 5 -0. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 4� 6 AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE 4/15/87 Accepting Dedication of for SDR 1321 Worden Lane Saratoga Avenue, Barret Hubbard Company 0.135 miles of street for maintenance. MFG CITY MGR. APPROVAL Recommended Motion: Adopt Resolution No. 36 -B for accepting Dedication of Street for SDR 1321 All improvements for above projects were completed October 1978 and accepted for Final on 2 -20 -80 but Dedication Acceptance was not completed. RESOLUTION NO 36 -B- RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF STREETS It appearing that on or about February 1979 the street, storm drain and other improvements as shown on the hereinafter referred to subdiviison map and on approved improvement plans therefore were completed and thereafter were maintained by the sub divider for a period of not less than an additional year from date of satisfactory completion. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: That portion of the City's previous resolution rejecting the dedication of certain streets, storm drains and other easements as shown on the following described subdivision map: Map of Taxa= No.1321 recorded in Book 4 11 of Maps, at Page 31 the office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California on January 18 19 78 and as set forth in the Clerk's certificate on said map, is hereby rescinded and the previously rejected offers of dedication on said map are hereby accepted, except the following: and all of the above streets which are accepted under this resolution are hereby de- clared to be public streets of the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara,. State of California. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the following described improvement bond or bonds are hereby ordered released: That certain Improvement Bond No. 6003391 dated December 30,1977, and issued by Fidelity Deposit Co. of Maryland The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on the day: of 19 at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR 5A f A� (10.36 y e`j %mil` EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 5 -0. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL April 15, 1987 ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering 1. Resolution No. 1596 -03. 2. Location Map. Resolution 1596 -03 Approving Amended Tract Map for Tract 7798, Montpere Way, Woolworth Construction Co., Inc. (8 lots) Recommended Motion: Adopt Resolution No. 1596 -03 attached, approving amended Tract Map for Tract 7798 X AGENDA ITEM 'T I CITY MGR. APPROVAL )470 Repoft Summary: On October 16, 1985, the City Council approved Final Map for Tract 7798 since then the developer has changed public service easement and emergency vehicle access easement on Lot No. 4. This does not effect city right -of -way and all utility companies and city staff are satisfied with this change. X ft 0 RESOLUTION NO. 1596 -03 RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP OF TRACT 7798 WHEREAS, a final subdivision map of NO EXCEPTIONS amended Tract 7798 having heretofore been filed with this City Council for approval, and it appearing that all streets, public ways and easements shown thereon have not been satisfactorily improved nor completed, and it further appearing that otherwise said map conforms with the require ments of Division 2 of Title 7 of the Government Code of the State of California, and with all local ordinances applicable at the time of approval of the tentative map and all rulings made thereunder, save and except as follows: NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: (1) The aforesaid final map is hereby conditionally approved. Said approval shall automatically be and become unconditional and final upon compliance by subdivider with such requirements, if any, as set forth immediately above as not yet having been complied with, and upon compliance with Section (3) hereof. (2) All street dedications, and all other dedications offered on said final map (except such easements as are declared to be accepted by the terms of the City Clerks certificate on said map), are hereby rejected pursuant and subject to Section #66477.1 of the Government Code of the State of California. (3) As a condition precedent to and in consideration of the future accept ance of any streets and easements not by this resolution now accepted, and as a condition precedent to the City Clerk certifying the approval and releasing said map for recordation, the owner and subdivider shall enter into a written agreement with the City of Saratoga, secured by good and sufficient surety bond or bonds, money or negotiable bonds, in amount of the estimated cost of improvements, agreeing to improve said streets, public ways and easements in accord with the standards of Chap. 14, Municipal Code as amended and with the improvement plans and specifications presently on file, and to maintain the same for one year after completion. The form and additional terms of said written agreement and surety bond shall be as heretofore adopted by the City Council and as approved by the City Attorney. The mayor of the City of Saratoga is hereby authorized to exe- cute the aforesaid improvement agreement on behalf of said city. (4) Upon compliance by subdivider and /or owner with any remaining require- ments as set forth in the preamble of this resolution (if any) and with the provisions of Section (3) hereof, the City Clerk is authorized and directed to execute the City Clerk's certificate as shown on said map and to transmit said map as certified to the Clerk of the Santa. Clara County Board of Supervisors. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and passed by the City Council of the City of Saratoga on the day of 19 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR 740.04 Ts' PSOE' fe+Y .404 "-OT.4 5 00 Jew- 48.50' A S 90 1•64 46.50 8,10_ 4456 9 84'40 126.30 _107.79 45 84'40'00' N 00'72•00'19 11:M o1 9 LOT 5 64:44 M 49'02'30 "E 13 C06TN[TIC1irLSBBR 107.58 s OfDIUIFD 1C Sd.r.W.0. f ABA E 8495, A6. 16 CA 4 7 SAWTA CLAP r0- y OEMS FD. s4" IV_ WID 4 0456948 RE P ddRR 9791 Of, 7 f 96.19 N 46 S. {.V.W.D. EASENGMT. 26.2r PE4 BR E 033, OR, PG 604 Y 26 'E 74;0 Al 49'72'50 "E 124. N 62 1.e23. 94 4044NSTON F0. MONU11EN1 B0A 4710001 NOMURFAT 1 D. IR06 PIPE LANDS 0P CRAVES LAUDS OF 6 18 1 %5 00141PERE WAY ,„i5P4DA LTI EASEMENT PER BA 2522 OR, P4 467 AND BA 9.281, 04. P6 480; 4 _ANDS 0:5 3 SUCNSLAND 'NS •N 39'46 "E 30.2 LP SET WITNESS PIPE AMENDED MAP FOR N 9'14' 34.19 2118111E ,ANDS OF LANDS OF SCNRADER AN50R BA01LE5 679.40- LANDS OF LEAND9E5 L M:5 ALLEN AREA SUMMARY SCALE: 1 50 PRET AREA G6255 AREA LOT S9. Ye. AC. S.. A(. t 13236.95 7.30 '5236.95 0.304 2 10842.56 0_249 17842.56 0.2.9 3 1030/.4 0.256 103: 0.236 A 15138.21 0.348 262.' 0.603 5 14458.39 0.337 323 ".5' 0.743 6 11151 .26 0.40 238. 0.347 7 17612.05 0.404 240.'.56 0.052 8 04451.45 0.332 17386.40 0.399 .NOTE: 0Te .let are. reelects the vas, A•e P tee e ..n I a SArt* (Lat. 805.8. Rater 0.514 (S.C.V.W40.1 ease.e^ts. la SA. •01•40 AD A1LI.L' :au. 0 "E' TRACT NO. 7798 QUITO ROAD ESTATES CONSISTING OF TWO 3NEE1S ANO LYING ENTINELL WITHIN 119E CITY OF SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA AND BEING A PORTION OF QUITO RANCHO, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. THIS MAR WAS PREPARED TO AMEND THE TRACT MR RECORDED IN 600P 551 OA AMPS AT PAGES 41 AND 42. MINOR MODIFICATIONS "ERE MADE TO LO' 4 TO ACCOMMODATE A ;RANGE '0 7.4 ERA( AND ASE 1 RR000H LOT 4. nEL1En CIVIL. E 1 .U87VEYiNO EfCinEE InG CON88TF7UCTION CUPERTINO, CA (4081 807.6488 98 7 45'. FEBRUARY 1987 LEGEND F;.m: r.. A .N„A.E.: 2__.. AS ..'E: SA., _xxy CURVE DATA 34 t. 5T57'.3- O 3 'S•' 10 5..•7,x' S '32'50" 7 35.7: 13.94 35'1`';"' 11 .02 '.235.X 61 1 30 27'58'1 5.X 16. :7 W 29'20'72" 7%3 36.3 9.3' 1 8.58 SHEET TWO OF TWO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: April 15, 1987 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager SUBJECT: Requested Amendment to Saratoga Historical Society Building Lease Recommended Motion: Approve amending the lease agreement with the Saratoga Historical Foundation to charge a monthly rent of $10.00 inclusive of utilities to be paid annually in advance. Report Summary: The Historical Foundation has requested the City pay for utilities for the Saratoga History Museum to help offset an $850 increase in operating costs caused by liability insurance premiums. If action is taken as recommended, City would be offsetting one half of this increase in cost to the Foundation. Fiscal Impacts: Would increase City costs by about $550.00 a year; $119.00 would be offset by rent increase. Attachments: Staff recommendation 5 -0. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL /R b AGENDA ITEM 0, 1. City Manager Memorandum dated 4 -10 -87 2. Letter from Foundation Vice President Willys Peck dated 4 -3 -87 Motion and Vote: C of LrxcoC 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Joyce Hlava David Moyles Donald Peterson April 10, 1987 To: City Council From: City Manager Subject:: Requested Amendment to :Saratoga Historical Socie Building Lease RECOMMENDED MOTION Approve amending the lease agreement with the Saratoga Historical Foundation to charge a monthly rent of $10.00 inclusive of utilities to be paid annually in advance. BACKGROUND Saratoga Historical Foundation rents the Historical Museum building for $1..00 a year. City also rents space to Friends of the Library and the Chamber of Commerce for the same price. City rents to VITA, but on a market rent basis. In all cases, utilities are paid by the tenant. In addition City does give the Chamber of Commerce a $2500 a year grant to support its operations. ANALYSIS What needs to be established is a) whether the Historical Foundation is in a unique set of circumstances in terms of its relationship to the City and 2) whether granting this request would set a precedent which the other lessees would expect to have apply to their situations as well. Each of the four groups makes a significant contribution to the community. Each contribution is unique. In a like manner how each organization sustains itself is also somewhat unique. However, only the Historical Society does not run some sort of "business operation" to help fund its operations, so I think there are grounds for the Council to grant the request if it were inclined to do so. On the other hand, the cost of insurance has impacted most segments of the society not just non profit entities. As such, this added cost has tended to place a resource burden on many,_ not just few. But because the Society has official recognition and connection with the City through its appointment to the Heritage Commission, on balance I would lean in favor of granting the request at least partially. To: City Council Subject: Requested Amendment to Saratoga Historical Society Building Lease FINDINGS Based on the above, I find that there is some merit to the request. Because of the unique circumstances with this organization, I believe some accomodation could be made without setting a precedent. I recommend that the lease be changed from $1 a year to $120.00 a year with the City paying for utilities. Harry Rd Peacock, City Manager j m Attachment: Copy of 4/3/87 Historical Foundation letter Page 2 4/10/87 AREA CODE 408 867 -1655 SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 April 3, 1987 Mr. Harry Peacock, City Manager City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Peacock: On Feb. 3, 1987, i met with you to discuss the insur ance problem faced by the Saratoga Historical Foundation, whose annual premium had gone from approximetly $650 to more than $1,500. You explained that the city could not extend its own coverage to any agency or organization that was not an official arm of the city government. The Historical. Foundation is, of course, a non- profit corporation that contracts with the city for the use of the Historical Museum building, which, as you2.kn9w, it was responsible for acquiring and refurbishing. You also indicated to me that, even though the city could not do us any good on insurance coverage directly, other than structural coverage for:tthe museum building that it actually owns, the city might be able to ease the Historical Foundation's financial burden by paying for utility costs incurred in operation of the museum. These are all paid by the Historical Foundation. This letter is by way of formal request that the city assume this expense, for electricity, gas and water used by the Saratoga Historical Museum. The Foundation currently budgets $550 a year for this purpose. I don't think it is necessary to elaborate on the civic function undertaken by the Historical Foundation in the operation of the museum. It is a munipipal asset in every sense of the word, and, from the Foundation's standpoint, is a totally voluntary activity. I would appreciate your consideration and that of the City Council in evaluating this request. WIP /p WILLYS I. PECK ATTORNEY AT LAW Thank you for your attention to this matter. Ve tr yours APR G QfX POST OFFICE BOX 321 cr 1/� R 14 j ,w t t y VENUE Re: Saratoga Historical Foundation WILLYS PECK, Vice President, Sarato a Historical Foundation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: April 15, 1987 ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL j 1___ SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinance Regulating the Keeping of Animals in Motor Vehicles Recommended Motion: Direct City Attorney to draft an ordinance regulating the keeping of animals in motor vehicles similar to County ordinance NS- 600.21 adopted December 18, 1984, and direct the City Clerk to set the matter for hearing on May 20, 1987 Report Summary: County has requested City adopt ordinance making it an infraction to transport an animal in a motor vehicle unless the animal is safely enclosed and to leave any animal unattended in a motor vehicle without providing proper ventilation. This request was previously made to the Council in 1985. At that time the Council took no action but requested clarification as to what type of vehicle such a law would apply. This request is now being put forth by the Humane Society as well. Fiscal Impacts: Undetermined. Enforcement would fall to Sheriff and CSO's. Any fines generated should be based on recovery of cost to City. Attachments: 1. City Manager memo dated 4 -10 -87 2. Council minutes excerpt of 3 -20 -85 meeting 3. Original letter and Ordinance from County dated 1 -10 -85 4. Humane Society letter dated 12 -30 -86 Motion and Vote: Set for hearing May 20. OEUW ©0 0 Lni 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 April 10, 1987 To: City Council From: City Manager Subject: Proposed Ordinance Regulating the Keeping of Animals in Motor Vehicles Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Joyce Hlava David Moyles Donald Peterson COUNCIL MEMBERS: RECCHIENDEDICTICK Direct City Attorney to draft an ordinance regulating the keeping of animals in motor vehicles similar to County ordinance NS- 600.21 adopted December 18, 1984, and direct the City Clerk to set the matter for hearing on May 20, 1987. BACKGROUND On December 18, 1984, the Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance which made it an infraction to transport or carry an animal in a motor vehicle unless the animal was safely enclosed. The ordinance also required that animals left unattended in motor vehicles were to be provided adequate ventilation. As this ordinance applied only to unincorporated areas but the County supplies animal control services in various incorporated areas as well (including Saratoga), County did ask the City to adopt a similar ordinance. This matter came before the Council on March 20, 1985. I quote from the minutes of that meeting, "Councilmembers discussed ordinance and agreed it was unclear as to the type of vehicle intended to be covered by the provisions of the ordinance. There was consensus to return it to the County requesting clarification of that point. Mayor Fanelli then returned to items preceding public hearings on the agenda." As far as I know, no followup was ever done. Now comes a letter from the County Director of Animal Control and from the Humane Society of Santa Clara Valley requesting the City to adopt and assist in the enforcement of such an ordinance. ANALYSIS From the standpoint of animal and public safety there is little doubt such an ordinance has merit. We all know that animals can die when left in unventilated vehicles. Animals can also be injured or killed if they jump or are thrown fram motor vehicles. In addition motorists can be involved in accidents when they try and avoid hitting an animal thrown or jumping onto a roadway. The question is whether such a law is actually needed. Prudent animal owners will keep their animals adequately confined and won't leave them in a motor vehicle without adequate ventilation. Other animal owners will observe this type of prudent conduct only if the law requires them to do so. A third group will fail to act prudently even though it is against the law. To: City Council Subject: Proposed Ordinance Regulating the Keeping of Animals in Motor Vehicles This same set of conditions exists relative to many other laws. The leash law for dogs is one example as is the seat belt law. In fact statistics indicate that since the wearing of seat belts became mandatory in this State, the percentage of people using seat belts has increased significantly. The passage of this law would, I believe, have a similar effect. Many people who would not otherwise be sensitive to the danger they are creating for their animals would become sensitive and would follow the law. In its absence they would not. Council would seem to have three options in responding to this request: 1. Find that this is not a problem in Saratoga and take no action. The arc vantage in this course of action is there would oot be another law which would require enforcement. The disadvantage would be that if the Council's finding is incorrect, the problem would still remain. 2. Find that there is a problem but that a cam i of community awareness will have more positive results than passing an orinance. The advantage for this option is the same as for option number one. Disadvantages to this option are that there would need to be a program developed which would require an allocation of resources and the effects would tend to be short lived unless the campaign was an ongoing one. 3. Find that there is a problem and passing a law would be the most effective course of action. The pros and cons to this approach have been discussed above. FINDINGS The original Council question was "what kind of vehicle The County ordinance says "motor vehicle I presume the definition applicable in this instance would be the Vehicle Code definition. Beyond that particular concern, there is no written record of any other Council concern regarding adoption of the ordinance as proposed by the County. In the absence of any further information and based on the above analysis, I believe that considering adopting the ordinance is the preferred alternative. jm Attachments: cock, City Manager Exceprt from 3/20/85 minutes Copy of 1/10/85 letter from County Copy of County ordinance Copy of 12/30/86 Humane Society letter Page 2 4/10/87 B. REPORTS FROM OOMNIISSIONS AND CCHMITMES 2. Oral Reports from Caani ssicners None. C. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS CLEVENGER /MOYLES MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 38.128. Passed 5 -0. 6- 3/20/85 change those requirements, but only to move the seating; he felt enforcement would be easy. Mr. Masek then stated that the two spaces offered to him by Mr. Payne do not now exist, but combining his side of the property with Mr. Masek's driveway would result in three or four additional parking spaces. Councilmember Hlava asked whether the appellant would consider continuing the appeal until after the Village Task Force made its report on about April 15 since, as Mayor Fanelli pointed out, a delay would not affect the design or construction schedule of the project. The appellant expressed no interest in a continuance. Mr. Masek named other restaurants which had outside seating, with no additional parking spaces of which he was aware. Councilmember Moyles commented on the long -time Council policy to develop the vacant lot. He did not feel the Village had a parking problem, but he did not wish to compromise Village Parking District #3. He emphasized that the proposal should fit within the bounds of City ordinances. Councilmember Hlava stated that she felt granting the appeal through a piece -meal settlement would be a bad policy. She would not support such a settlement unless an increased number of parking spaces were included. Councilmember Clevenger stated that she did not wish to compromise Village Parking District #3. Councilmember Callon pointed out that the applicant would be at risk if a use permit were granted which restricted the number of people to be seated, since the use permit could be revoked in the event of violations. No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 11:11 p.m. Staff and Councilmembers discussed the possibility of basing the parking space requirements on the number of people served rather than the number of square feet in the facility. In answer to Councilmember Clevenger, Mr. Toppel of the City Attor- ney's Office stated that such an arrangement would not compromise Village Parking District #3 if it were vigorously enforced. Mayor Fanelli expressed concern that the proposed arrangement would cause problems from others seeking to modify their parking requirements in the same way; she further pointed out that Saratoga has traditionally preferred not to enforce certain types of ordinances. CALLON /MOYLES MOVED TO GRANT THE APPEAL WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE USE PERMIT CONDITION THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PERSONS TO BE SERVED AS BASED ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT HAS BEEN ACCOMMODATED BY THE PARKING (THAT IS, THE INTERNAL SQUARE FOOTAGE). Passed 3 -2 (Fanelli, Hlava opposed). D. Ordinance Amending Ch. 8 of the Qty Code by Adding Section 8 -7.3 Relating to Animals and Vehicles (first reading) Councilmembers discussed ordinance and agreed that it was unclear as to the type of vehicle intended to be covered by the provisions of the ordinance. 'there NATir to return it to the County requesting clarification of that point. Mayor. Fanelli then returned to items preceding public hearings on the agenda. 1. Report from Public Safety Camiission on Recruitment of Commissioners After discussion, there was consensus to advertise the vacancy along with the vacancy on the Heritage Preservation Commission and to determine whether to increase the size of the Commission after the applications had been received. The deadline for applications would be April 19. 1. Ordinance Amending Article II and Repealing Article IV of Ch. 14 of the Qty Code pertaining to Sales and Use Taxes (second reading) CLEVENGER /HLAVA MOVED TO READ THE ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FURTHER READING. Passed 5 -0. 2. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow Compact Parking Stalls in the C, P -A, M or R -M zoning districts and establish standards for compact parking stalls (C -213) (second reading) County of Santa Clara California EMA GSA Environmental Management General Services January 10, 1985 SUBJECT: REQUEST TO INITIATE CHANGES IN MUNICIPAL CODES RELATIVE TO ANIMAL CONTROL. The Board of Supervisors at their meeting of December 18, 1985 adopted Ordinance Code Section B4 -14 relating to animals in vehicles. The ordinance requires that animals being transported in vehicles be secured to prevent the animal from jumping or falling from the vehicle, and requires that adequate ventilation be provided animals left in unattended vehicles. Please review your city's Municipal Code to ensure that the wording is consistant with that of the enclosed. attachment. If it is not consistant, please take those steps necessary to amend the code so that the city and county codes will be uniform. Should your office or your city elected officials have questions concerning these amendments, I will be glad to answer questions to clarify the intent. It would be appreciated if you would notify my office when the modification of your Municipal codes has been completed. Sincerely, Daniel R. Smith Director An Equal Opportunity Employer Animal Control Dhrblon 800 Thornton Way San Jose, California 95128 279 -6075 Area Code 408 The Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara do ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Section B4 -14 is added to the Santa Clara County Ordinance Code to read: Sec. B4-14. Animals and Vehicles (a) No person, other than an individual then actually in the process of working a dog or other animal for ranching purposes, shall transport or carry the animal in a motor vehicle on any public highway or public roadway, unless the animal is safely enclosed within the vehicle by means of a container, cage or other device which will prevent the animal from falling from, jumping from, or being thrown from the motor vehicle. (b) No person shall leave any dog or other animal in an unattended motor vehicle without adequate ventilation or in such a manner as to subject the animal to extreme temperatures which may adversely affect the health or well -being of the animal. (c) Any violation of the provisions of this section shall be punishable as an infraction. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara, State of California on AYES: Supervisors NOES: Supervisors ABSENT: Supervisors NONE NONE ATTEST: DONALD M. RAINS, cfe ''ward of Supervisor l irk APFROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: 4 H!RRI ON D. TAYLOR Deputy County Counsel wn-N m i L& Qn4 /1 79 8 4 ORDINANCE NO. NS- 00.0/' AN ORDINANCE TO ADD SECTION B4-14 TO THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY ORDINANCE CODE, RELATING TO ANIMALS AND VEHICLES DEC 1 8 1994 by the following vote: DIRIDON, LEGAN, LOFGREN, MCKENNA, WILSON 1 4 LOFGREN, Chai Board of Supervisors December 30, 1986 Ms. Joyce Lava, Mayor 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor Lava: 04(4 Nt, HUMANE SOCIET (O SANTA CLARA VALLEY As you may be aware, on December 18, 1984 the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors voted to adopt ordinance code section B4 -14 relating to animals in vehicles. The ordinance requires that animals being trans- ported in vehicles be secured to prevent the animal from jumping or falling from the vehicle. It also requires that adequate ventilation be provided for animals left in unattended vehicles. As the sponsor of this ordinance, the Humane Society feels that such an ordinance was long overdue. We were supported in our efforts by the Santa Clara Valley Veterinary Medical Association. The Humane Society of Santa Clara Valley feels that the Board of Supervisors moved in a positive direction when they unanimously passed this ordinance. However, it cannot be effective unless all the communities in the county incorporate the ordinance in their own municipal codes. Therefore, if your community does not have such an ordinance, I hope you will actively work to adopt the one I have enclosed for review and consideration. If you and the members of your City Council see the merit of such an ordinance, as I am sure you will, you must also consider the enforcement process. Currently, the Humane Society is the only active enforcement agency for the ordinance. With only three officers to cover the entire county, such an increase in work- load would be overwhelming and would result in a poor enforcement program. I would therefore recommend that your council ask your police department to assist with the enforcement in your community. This is an important law which is designed to protect both human and animal 2530 LAFAYETTE STREET, SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA 95050 TELEPHONE (408) 727 -3383 A Non Profit Corporation. Nationally accredited by The Humane Society of the United States Helping animals, helping people Ms. Joyce Lava, Mayor Page 2 life. Unrestrained or improperly restrained animals in open trucks present a real hazard to human safety, as well as to the animals themselves. I am available to discuss this matter in person or by telephone (408)727 -7052. Sincerely yours, William J. Burke Director of Operations WJB /ch Enclosure EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 5 -0. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 75 2e- MEETING DATE: 4/7/87 (4/15/87) CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 (Existing) Recommended Motion: A Resolution describing improvements and directing preparation of Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 1978 1988. A Resolution appointing attorneys for Fiscal Year 1987 1988. Repoft Summary: For the past six years, the City of Saratoga has utilized the provisions of the "Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972" to raise the revenue necessary to fund required maintenance and incidental costs within the Landscape and Lighting District LLA -1. Pursuant to the Act, proceedings are required for each fiscal year during which an assessment is to be levied and collected within the District. 2 Resolution No. directs the City Engineer to prepare a report describing the improvements, the costs, the areas involved and the proposed assessments for each parcel. Resolution No. appoints Atkinson /Farasyn as the attorneys for the district. This district includes all previously existing lighting districts, Azule, Azule annexed, Quito and Saratoga Village, Arroyo de Saratoga, Tricia Woods; three (3) Park Maintenance Districts, Manor Drive, Fredericksburg Drive and Greenbrier; one (1) Parking District, Village Parking District No. 1, Meadow Brook, Saratoga Sunnyvale, Leuther Court, Bonnet Way, Brookview School District, Fremont School District. It is anticipated that the Engineer's Report will be ready for preliminary approval at the May 20, 1987 meeting of the City Council. Also, at the May 20, 1987 meeting the resolution of intention of fixing time and place of hearing (hearing should be held on June 17, 1987) should be passed. Fiscal Impacts: The costs for-the administration, maintenance servicing and lighting energy are charged to the various zones within the District based on benefit received. The Santa Clara County Assessor's Office will collect the amount through the taxes and, in turn, remit to the City. Attachmi nts: 1. Resolution No. together with Exhibit "A 2. Resolution No. 0 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION DESCRIBING IMPROVEMENTS AND DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1987 1988 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, as follows: 1. This Council did, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2, Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, conduct proceedings for the formation of the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1 and for the levy and collection of assessments for fiscal year 1980 1981, and did, on June 18, 1980, pursuant to proceedings duly had, adopt its Resolution No. 950 -D, a Resolution Overruling Protests and Ordering the Formation of an Assessment District and the Improvements and Confirming the Diagram and Assessment; 2. The public interest, convenience and necessity require, and it is the intention of said Council to undertake proceedings for the levy and collection of assessments upon the several lots or parcels of land in said District, for the construction or installation of improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, for the fiscal year 1987 1988. 3. The improvements to be constructed or installed, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, are more particularly described in Exhibit "A" hereto attached and by reference incorporated herein. 4. The costs and expenses of said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, are to be made chargeable upon said District, the exterior boundaries of which District are the composite and consolidated area as more particularly shown on a map thereof on file in the office of the Clerk of the City of Saratoga to which reference is hereby made for further particulars. Said map indicates by a boundary line the extent of the territory included in said District and of any zone thereof and shall govern for all details as to the extent of the assessment district. 5. The Engineer of said City be, and is hereby, directed to prepare and file with said Clerk a report, in writing, referring to the assessment district by its distinctive designation, specifying the fiscal year to which the report applies, and, with respect to that year, presenting the following: a) plans and specification of the existing improvements and for proposed new improvements, if any, to be made within the assessment district or within any zone thereof; b) an estimate of the costs of said proposed new improvements, if any, to be made, the costs of maintenance or servicing or both, thereof, and of any existing improvements, together with the incidental expenses in connection therewith; AYES: NOES: ABSENT: City Clerk 6. The office of the Engineer of said City be, and is hereby. designated as the office to answer inquiries regarding any protest proceedings to be had herein, and may be contacted during regular office hours at the City Hall, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070 or by calling (408) 867 -3438. c) diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the assessment district and of any zones within said district and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within the district as such lot or parcel of land is shown on the County Assessor's map for the fiscal year to which the report applies, each of which lots or parcels of land shall be identified by a distinctive number or letter on said diagram; and d) a proposed assessment of the total amount of the estimated costs and expenses of the proposed new improvements, including the maintenance or servicing. or both, thereof, and of any existing improvements upon the several lots or parcels of land in said district in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by such lots or parcels of land, respectively, from said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, and of the expenses incidental thereto. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, at a meeting thereof held on the day of 1987, by the following vote: Attest: Mayor EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 a) The construction or installation, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, within Zones 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, of landscaping, including trees, shrubs, grass or other ornamental vegetation, statuary, fountains and other ornamental structures and facilities, including the cost of repair, removal or replacement of all or any part thereof, providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing or treating for disease or injury. the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste, water for the irrigation of any landscaping, the operation of any fountains or the maintenance of any other improvements. b) The construction or installation, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, within Zones 4, 5, 6 and 7, of public lighting facilities for the lighting of any public places, including ornamental standards, luminaires, poles, supports, tunnels, manholes, vaults, conduits, pipes, wires, conductors, guys, stubs, platforms, braces, transformers, insulators, contacts, switches, capacitors, meters, communication circuits, appliances, attachments and appurtenances, including the cost of repair, removal, or replacement of all or any part thereof, electric current or energy, gas or other illuminating agent for any public lighting facilities or for the lighting or operation of any other improvements. c) The construction or installation, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, within Zones 8 and 16 of landscaping, including trees, shrubs, grass or other ornamental vegetation, statuary, fountains and other ornamental structures and facilities and public lighting facilities for the lighting of any public places, including ornamental standards, luminaires, poles, supports, tunnels. manholes, vaults, conduits, pipes, wires, conductors, guys, stubs, platforms, braces, transformers, insulators, contacts, switches, capacitors, meters, communication circuits, appliances, attachments and appurtenances, including the cost of repair, removal or replacement of all or any part thereof, providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of landscaping, including cultivation. irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing or treating for disease or injury, the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste, electric current or lighting facilities or for the lighting or operation of any other improvements, water for the irrigation of any landscaping, the operation of any fountains or the maintenance of any other improvements. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPOINTING ATTORNEYS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1987 -1988 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, that WHEREAS, this Council has determined to undertake proceedings for the levy and collection of assessments upon the several lots of parcels of land in the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA 1 pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 for the construction or installation of improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof for the fiscal year 1987 -1988; and WHEREAS, the public interest and general welfare will be served by appointing and employing attorneys for the preparation and conduct of said proceedings; 1. That the law firm of ATKINSON FARASYN be, and it is hereby, appointed and employed to do and perform all legal services required in the conduct of said proceedings, and that its compensation be, and it is hereby, fixed not to exceed $500.00. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, at a meeting thereof held on the day of 1987, by the following vote: Attest: NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: City Clerk Mayor EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: 4 -7 -87 (4- 15 -87) CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: SUBJECT: Recommended Motion: A resolution to proceed for the annexation of territory to an existing assessment district known as "City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1 A resolution appointing attorneys for Fiscal Year 1987 1988. Report Summary: We have been requested by-a resident of Sunland Park (Quito Area) along Quito Road and Coffey Construction of Tract 7928 along Saratoga Sunnyvale Road to utilize the provision of the Landscape and Lighting District LLA -1. This would raise the revenue necessary to fund required maintenance and incidental costs of the landscape along Quito Road and Saratoga Sunnyvale Road. Pursuant to the act, proceedings are required for fiscal year during which assessment is to be levied and collected within the District. Resolution No. determines to undertake proceedings for the annexation of territory to an existing assessment district, describes the improvements and directs the City Engineer to prepare an Engineer's Report. Resolution No. appoints Atkinson /Farasyn as the attorneys for the annexation. It is anticipated that the Engineer's Report will be ready for preliminary approval at the May 20, 1987 meeting of the City Council. Also, at the May 20, 1987 meeting the resolution of intention of fixing time and place of hearing (hearing should be held on June)), 1987) should be passed. Fiscal Impacts: The costs for the administration and maintenance of landscaping are charged to the zones within the District, based on benefit received. The Santa Clara County Assessor's Office will collect the amount through the taxes and, in turn, remit to the City. Attachments: 1. Resolution No. together with Exhibit "A" and "B 2, Resolution No. Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 5-0. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL F.NaTNFF.R TN( Landscape and Lighting District LLA -1 (Annexation) 2 a 2. o 4 t e l l/JF/3 AGENDA ITEM �1../ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION DETERMINING TO UNDERTAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO AN EXISTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT KNOWN AS "CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1" PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 ANNEXATION NO. 1987 -1 RESOLVED. by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, as follows: 1. The public interest, convenience and necessity require, and it is the desire of this Council to undertake proceedings for the annexation of territory to an existing assessment district, known as "City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1," pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2, Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, for the construction or installation therein of improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof. 2. The improvements to be constructed or installed, within the territory proposed for annexation including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, are more particularly described in Exhibit "A" hereto attached and by reference incorporated herein. 3. The costs and expenses of said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, are to be made chargeable upon the area to be annexed to said existing assessment district. The territory which is proposed to be annexed to said exisiting assessment district is composed of several parcels, the exterior boundaries of which are more particularly described in Exhibit "B" hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof. The annexation herein proposed shall be known as, and is given the distinctive designation of "City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1 Annexation 1987 -1." A map showing the territory proposed for annexation is on file in the office of the City Clerk to which reference is hereby made for further particulars. 5. The Engineer of said City be, and is hereby, directed to prepare and file with said Clerk a report, in writing, referring to the proposed annexation by its distinctive designation, specifying the fiscal year to which the report applies, and, with respect to that year, presenting the following: a) plans and specification of the existing improvements and for proposed new improvements, if any, to be made within the area proposed to be annexed to the existing assessment district and to be assessed herein; b) an estimate of the costs of said proposed improvements, if any, to be made and of the costs of maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, and of any existing improvements, together with the incidental expenses in connection therewith; c) a diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the area to be annexed to the existing assessment district, which is also the area proposed to be assessed herein and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within said area as such lot or parcel of land is shown on the County Assessor's maps for the fiscal year to which the report applies, each of which lots or parcels of lands shall be identified by a distinctive number or letter on said diagram; and d) a proposed assessment of the total amount of the estimated costs and expenses of the proposed improvements, including the maintenane or servicing, or both, thereof, upon the several lots or parcels of land in said area proposed to be annexed and assessed herein in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by such lots or parcels of lands, respectively, from said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, and of the expenses incidental thereto. 5. The office of the Engineer of said City be, and is hereby, designated as the office to answer inquiries regarding any protest proceedings to be had herein, and may be contacted during regular office hours at the City Hall, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga. California 95070 or by calling (408) 867 -3438. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, at a meeting thereof held on the day of 1987, by the following vote: Attest: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: City Clerk Mayor CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 DESCRIPTION OF WORK ANNEXATION 1987 -1 EXHIBIT "A" The construction or installation, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, within Zones 17 and 18, of landscaping, including trees, shrubs, grass, or other ornamental vegetation, statuary, fountains and other ornamental structures and facilities, including the cost of repair, removal or replacement of all or any part threof, providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing or treating for disease or injury, the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste, water for the irrigation of any landscaping, the operation of any fountains or the maintenance of any other improvements. That certain property situated in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California more particularly described as follows: 1. All lots designated as recorded in Book 57 of Recorders Office. 2. All lots designated as recorded in Book 59 of Recorders Office. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY EXHIBIT "B" lot numbers 1 through 91 as shown on Tract 976 Maps, Pages 14 and 15 in the Santa Clara County lot numbers 92 through 200 as shown on Tract 977 Maps, Pages 40 and 41 in the Santa Clara County 3 Beginning at the Southwesterly corner of Lot 7, as said Lot is shown on the Map of Tract No. 4165, filed for record April 21, 1966 in Book of Maps, numbered 208 at page 33; thence along the Westerly and Southerly boundary lines of said Tract No. 4615 the following five courses and distances: (1) North 0 11' 05" East, 122.07 feet; (2) North 89 48' 55" West 111.42 feet; (3) North 27 42' 14" East, 115.42 feet; (4) along the arc of a curve to the right from a tangent bearing North 77 19' 22" West having a radius of 42.00 feet through a central angle of 163 42' 12" for an arc distance of 120.00 feet and (5) North 46 17' 21" West 149.69 feet to the Northerly line of the parcel of land conveyed to Mijo R. Miljevich, et ux, by Deed Recorded April 22, 1964 in Book of Official Records numbered 6473 at page 420; thence along the Northerly line of said parcel of land conveyed to Miljevich, et ux, South 89 48' 55" West 368.35 feet to the Easterly line of Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road as said Easterly line was established by Deed to the County of Santa Clara, recorded November 22, 1965 in Book of Official Records numbered 7186 at page 408; thence along the said Easterly line of Saratoga /Sunnyvale Road, South 0 44' 14" East 361.88 feet to the Northeasterly line of Miljevich Drive as said Northeasterly line was established by Deed to the City of Saratoga recorded March 29, 1961 in Book of Official Records numbered 5517 at page 698; thence along said Northeasterly line and the Northerly line of said Miljevich Drive and following courses and distances: (1) South 19 00' 48" East 25.57 feet to the start of a curve to the left; (2) along the arc of a curve to the left from a tangent bearing South 0 45' 02" East, with a radius of 20.00 feet, through an angle of 89 03' 53" for an arc distance of 31.09 feet; (3) South 89 48' 55" East 120.64 feet; (4)S 0 47' 38" East 5.00 feet; and (5) South 89 48' 55" East 374.06 feet to the point of beginning. LEGEND DISTRICT BOUNDARY ASSESSMENT NUMBER PRECEDED BY403 -2 X• MUM 10460 J •Kff7f7 Y•7ffaf 0 /8 ig 1 1 4 135 1 136 137 re2 74 i I 75 i 76 77 O 37 36 I 35 4 wa w+ 1 2 3 4 a ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA —I TRACT NO. 977 SUNLAND PARK UNIT NO. 2 n 5 MS COY VANDERBILT 711 CLEMSON r 0 33 6 70 a 7 0 O 138 78 V 0 32 31 0 N 139 140 141 79 ea I0 n 70 90 29 I 29 4 62 1 11 1z 13 O 0 I TRACT N4 976 SUNLAND PARK -UNIT NI 1: 142 i 143 70 1 70 70 70 A I r06 144 b All I A I 70 10 7O b M w 10 x b 1 -IP----- a O e O i `J 62 ¢3 0 V ¢6 I Q• O. tsj 1 1 1 I I I I.. 1 42 I 73 1 72 i. 71 70 69 i:' 68 67 66 65 64 63 1 62 i 61 60 I 59 1 um 1 I 1 i.' 43 I 44 4 5 46 47 46 49 50 I 61 52 S3, I 54 I 66 I, E7 1 Se e 0 1 Ss O I O:' .0: 0 0 0 i �s O 0 4s O �o O 1 O 1 1 I i 1 70 70 i 7d a17 Ja 1101. 1 70 x 70 70 1 tD 7p 1 70 70 1 70 70 70' SWARTHMORE DRIVE 27 2e I 25 J. t w 145 Is 23 I ;'AVENUE 11i 1 146 147 148 149 au 89 DRIVE O; OH m AVENUE r 2''.21. 20 -I. ax 18 1 19 O 4 O D: 4 J -J 1 TL3�? JGJJLYL I u IM r%MIvI 1. Q 23 IM R6 i 152 167 f i IM I t90 1 .1 i2 90 IP O 1 .0,: 1 I 1 0 0 1 n 1 67 0 4 X '7'7777 O 717so7 129 MI5 a a 128 1�1 BAYLOR tl ro 6/ O 981 180 A J 57 0 O 76 •1 51 152 179 s. 70 A 10 0 65 0 178 17f 176 _4- 10 175 156 L 1 1 1• 68 i 0 1, 70 174 r73 57 ES 172 m ao 169 168 1 167 153 160 161 162 169 r r 70 6170 N i 1 0 1 (Joie o -5 ,e 8 8 127 woe 94 95 96 1 t 0 v y '61 Erse i n 152 125 124 97 99 99 n VANDERBILT CLEMSON 1 t ,o 123. 122 421 100 101 i ::102 192; 198; 194 196 0 1 0 0 ;0 2 0 1 1 t J 67 120 103 119 104 n T 116 1 117 L 105 196 116 -1 106 107 0 I 67 AVENUE 200 8 IIS i:'lq 112 108. i 1�• 162 111 1 I, DRIVE AVENUE 0 4 O cc 1'• loo' 1 4 70' d CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND' LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -I ASSESSMENT I DIAGRAM LEGEND DISTRICT BOUNDARY ASSESSMENT NUMBER PRECEDED BY393 -3 N 335.36 269.96 MILJEVICH 172 100 112.69 I s, �I 1 N I 393 It 21 �O'79m n MI 100 I 92.69 0 20379 6/ KILBRIDE 203 CT. 20360 20366 Zp 98 32.22 i 101.33 1 39.40 31.66 4565 I 1 m KO M 1 ,y a 1 i 142 122. 1— 76 6 54 I 6 8.56 I L w 3,. t I o •N I HI 0 60 106 10 1. 104.20 I 102.41 1 98.74 19.31 2 20379 2036) BOOK 393. P 3� A RESOLUTION APPOINTING ATTORNEYS TO CONDUCT PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 1987 -1 TO CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, that WHEREAS, this Council has determind to undertake proceedings for the annexation of territory to an existing assessment district pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and for the construction or installation of improvements in said territory, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof; and WHEREAS, the public interest and general welfare will be served by appointing and employing attorneys for the preparation and conduct of said proceedings; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, as follows: 1. That the law firm of ATKINSON FARASYN be, and it is hereby, appointed and employed to do and perform all legal services required in the conduct of said proceedings, and that its compensation be, and it is hereby, fixed at not to exceed $1,000.00. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California at a meeting thereof held on the day of 1987, by the following vote: AYES, and in favor thereof, Council Members: Attest: NOES, Council Members: ABSENT, Council Members: City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. Mayor City of Saratoga Council Members 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA. 95070 Honorable Council Members: As a Saratoga homeowner, I was pleased to see that landscaping was added along Saratoga Sunnyvale Road. It has transformed that stretch of road into the elegant boulevard it has always had the potential to be. I was disappointed, however, that the landscaping was not carried out all the way to the intersection with Prospect Road. The stretch of Saratoga Sunnyvale Road between Prospect Road and the railroad tracks is the portion which is most in need of a face lift. The lack of a median is unattractive, as is the lack of a paved shoulder and sidewalk in some areas (e.g. in front of the Seven Eleven store and in front of Raynes Plumbing). By beginning the beautification at the city limit, it would make for a more attractive gateway into the city, complementing the stone "City of Saratoga" sign at the Prospect Rd./ Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. intersection. Besides being more attractive for Saratoga residents who drive it every day, the beautification of the road would enhance the appearance of the small shopping areas along that stretch. This could improve their flow of business, which would result in a little more tax revenue for the city (which never hurts). In summary, I commend you for beginning the beautification project on Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, and urge you to finish the project on the remaining stretch of the road, where the pay back in terms of benefits to the city would be even greater. Sincerely Yours, Frank P. Viggiano F. P. Viggiano 20324 Seagull Way Saratoga, CA. 95070 e-P 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. /2 1 MEETING DATE: April 15, 1987 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planning SUBJECT: AZO -86 -003 Proposed Code amendments regarding bed and breakfast establishments Recommended Motion: The City Council should conduct the public hearing, review the new material presented in the staff report and either approve or deny the amendment. Report Summary: The City Council continued the public hearing on this amendment at its. March 4, 1987 meeting and asked staff to provide additional information on historic inns and lodge places in Saratoga. This information is provided in the staff report, along with an analysis of options available to the Council on the amendment. Motion and Vote: Denied amendment 5 te v SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL CITY MGR. APPROVAL c.) 2 0.. AGENDA ITEM: VJ Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: 1. Report to Mayor and City Council (with attachments list at end of report). off 0 1' o Cdr REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: AZO-87 -003, Amendment to bed and breakfast regulations DATE: April 9, 1987 COUNCIL MEETING: April 15, 1987 Background At its March 4, 1987 meeting, the City Council held a public hearing on proposed code amendments regarding bed and breakfast establishments. After hearing public testimony and deliberating on this issue, the Council continued the hearing to the April 15, 1987 meeting and asked staff and the Heritage Preservation Commission for additional information. Specifically requested was a list of potential heritage resources in the area that have been historically used as inns or lodging places, and the lot size and parking availability of these properties. Public notice for this meeting was again posted in the area and advertised by display advertisement in the Saratoga News. Information on inns and lodging houses in Saratoga The Saratoga Historical Foundation has provided a list of former inns and lodging houses in the Saratoga area which date prior to 1945. Although it was common for people to invite friends and family to their Saratoga homes for summer vacations, the list represents those properties officially operating as inns or lodging houses. This list, along with other pertinent information is shown in the following chart and illustrated on the attached map. A large wall -size map showing the Village boun- dary, the 500 ft. boundary, zoning districts, and the location of inns /lodging houses will be available at the 'Ap±il 15 meeting. Name of inn/ lodinq house 1. The Orchard Guest House 2. The Terrace 3. Lundblad's Lodge 4. The Oriental House 5. Toyon Lodge 6. The Lodge Address 14051 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road 14421 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road 14605 Big Basin Way 14950 Vickery Avenue Zoning District R- 1- 10,000 R- 1- 15,000 14550 R -1- 10,000 Oak Street P -A 2 Size of Number of parcel bedrooms .46 acres 6 2.5 acres .74 acres 21171 Congress Springs Rd. not within City limits 5 6 .20 acres 4 R -1- 20,000 4.5 acres 11 apts 7. Saratoga Inn 14363 Saratoga Avenue demolished In relation to the proposed amendment, both the Saratoga Inn and The Lodge may be eliminated from the list because the first has been demolished and the second is not within the Saratoga city limits. The Oriental House may also be eliminated because it is in the P -A zoning district, which already allows bed and breakfast establishments as a conditional use. Of the remaining four on the list, two are within the 500 ft. boundary of the Village proposed by this amendment: The Terrace and Lundblad's Lodge. The remaining two (The Orchard Guest House and Toyon Lodge) are beyond the 500 ft. boundary. The Orchard Guest House is approximately 1,450 ft. from the Village boundary and is currently used as a single family residence. Toyon Lodge is approximately 1,950 ft. from the Village boundary and is a legal non conforming apartment complex containing 11 units. All four properties have adequate area for the parking that would be associated with a bed and breakfast use. Options Given the information provided on former inns and lodges in Saratoga, Staff suggests there are three options for the Council on this issue: 1) Approve the amendment as it is currently proposed; i.e., that the bed and breakfast establishment must, among other requirements, be located within 500 feet of the Village boundary and that the property historically has been used as an inn or place of lodging. The draft ordinance prepared by the City Attorney incorporates the "historic use" change suggested by the Council at the March 4 meeting. Under this amendment, only two properties (Lundblad's Lodge and The Terrace) would qualify, and would still need to go through the use permit process before the Planning Commission. 2) Revise the amendment to allow bed and breakfast uses anywhere in the City, but keep the requirement that the property have a historical use as an inn or place of lodging. The City of Placentia, California, has recently enacted a similar ordinance and it is attached for the Council's review. Under this amendment, two additional properties (The Orchard Guest House and Toyon Lodge) would qualify, to bring the total number of potential bed and breakfast establishments to 4. 3) Deny the amendment. If the Council were to deny the amendment, bed and breakfast uses would still be permitted in the R -M -3000, P -A. and C zones, in accordance with existing regulations. There is currently no requirement that proposed b b's be operated in Designated Heritage Resources. Y ='huek Hsia Planning Director Attachments 1. Map showing former inns /lodging places in Saratoga prior to 1945. 2. Revised draft ordinance for amendment. 3. March 4, 1987 City Council minutes. 4. City of Placentia bed and breakfast ordinance. 5. Letters received on this amendment. The Orienta ouse 14605 Big Basin Way #4 4.44Te" miliimmarA #3 Lundblad's Lodge 14550 Oak Street ga MI' "Q i�� 11111111111 11111114g .:l,. .,,.H.q..,. 4. t•■ 11111114g LOCATION OF FORMER INNS /LODGING PLACES IN SARATOGA PRIOR TO 1945 6 The Lodge -riot in ..cit 21171 Con•. Su s. Rd (5) Rev. 3/27/87 ORDINANCE NO. 71. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SUBSECTION 5- 20.020(a) TO INCLUDE BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE DEFINITION OF "HOTEL;" AMENDING SECTION 15- 12.030 TO INCLUDE BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENTS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN R -1 ZONING DISTRICTS ADJACENT TO THE VILLAGE; AND AMENDING SUBSECTION 15- 35.030(e) PERTAINING TO REQUIRED PARKING FACILITIES FOR BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENTS The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Subsection 5- 20.020(a) in Article 5 -20 is amended to read as follows: "(a) Hotel means any structure, or any portion of any structure, which is occupied or intended or designed for occupancy by transients for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes, and includes any hotel, inn, tourist home or house, motel, studio hotel, bachelor hotel, bed and breakfast establishment, lodging house, rooming house, apartment house, dormitory, public or private club, mobile home or house trailer at a fixed location, or other similar structure or portion thereof." SECTION 2: A new Paragraph (n) is added to read as follows: "(n) Bed and breakfast establishments, and requirements are satisfied: (1) The bed and breakfast site must be located not more than five hundred feet from a boundary line of the Village. (2) The structure in which the bed and breakfast establishment is operated must be an historic landmark, designated as such by the City pursuant to Chapter 13 of this Code. (3) Not more than eight bedrooms may be rented within the bed and breakfast establishment and each rented bedroom shall be not less than one hundred square feet in size. (4) All bedroom rentals shall be for transient occupancy only, as defined in Subsection 5- 25.020(f) of Article 5 -25 in Chapter 5 of this Code. The applicant must demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission, that the structure in which the bed and breakfast establishment is located was previously and lawfully utilized for the commercial operation of a tourist home, inn, or to Section 15- 12.030 in Article 15 -12, where all of the following conditions other similar form of transient occupancy open to the general public. (6) No meal other than breakfast shall be served to the persons renting any rooms within the bed and breakfast establishment. (7) No cooking shall be allowed in any guest rooms. (8) The bed and breakfast establishment shall be owner occupied or owner operated with a resident manager. (9) No signs or exterior lighting shall be installed except as expressly authorized by the use permit. (10) No ancillary uses, including, but not limited to, receptions, parties or weddings, shall be allowed in conjunction with the bed and breakfast use. The foregoing conditions and requirements are not intended to be exclusive and the Planning Commission may impose any other conditions it deems necessary or appropriate for the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15 -55 of this Chapter." SECTION 3: Paragraph (e) of Section 15- 35.030 in Article 15 -35 is amended to read as follows: "(e) Bed and breakfast establishments SECTION 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 5: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption. Rev. 3/27/87 -2- One space for each bedroom to be rented, and one space for the owner or resident manager." The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 1987, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: CITY CLERK Rev. 3/27/87 3 MAYOR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 3 MARCH 4, 1987 COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND PUBLIC Continued The City Manager stated that since this Item was potentially a litigated matter, he did not wish to discuss further in an open meeting. Consensus reached to accept Staff recommendation to acknowledge and file at this time. 4. Ellen Fletcher, Councilmember, City of Palo Alto, supporting no-smoking regulations. Councilmember Moyles asked that this letter be included in consideration of the no-smoking regulations when the Public Hearing was held. Consensus to accept Staff recommendation to acknowledge and file letter. 6. OLD BUSINESS None. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Countywide Coordination of Toxics/Hazmat Programs The City Manager called attention to the letter from Santa Clara Co. Intergovernmental Council of February 19, 1987, and reviewed the history of this Item. He recommended the Council authorize the Mayor to execute a Letter of Agreement with the County on behalf of the City of Saratoga. CLEVENGERJHLAVA MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A LETTER OF AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA. Passed 5 -0. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Ordinance amending Zoning Ordinance Subsection 5- 20.020 (a) to include bed and breakfast establishments in the definition of "Hotel;" amending Section 15- 12.030 to include bed and breakfast establishments as a conditional use in R -1 zoning districts adjacent to the Village; and amending Subsection 15- 35.030 (e) pertaining to required parking facilities for bed and breakfast establishments. (AZO 86 003) (first reading) The City Manager read into the record written communications received from: Ms. Ann Fitzsimmons Lawrence and Helen Abruzzini Mr. Eric Jeffery Gay and Roy Crawford A telephone call was received from Ms. Mary Dutro. The City Attorney addressed his remarks to the audience, summarizing the history of the Ordinance amendment He noted incorrect information circulating in the community; he defined bed and breakfast establishments and reviewed the proposal under consideration, Section 2 of the Ordinance, procedure required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit. In response to Councilmember Moyles' carments, the City Manager stated that he had investigated the circulation of a notice of the public hearing by a private party through Saratoga Elementary School; it was the City Manager's understanding that neither the school board nor the Superintendent of Schools had made any policy decision on the proposed ordinance amendment. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:53 P.M. Mr. Warren Heid, Chairman, Heritage Preservation Commission, reviewed the purpose and accomplishments of the Commission and cited the Memorandum of March 4, 1987. He stated it was the intent of the Commission that bed and breakfast use have very limited application in Saratoga and reaffirmed the need for strict regulations. The Commission favored appropriate public hearing of each application. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 4 MARCH 4, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued In response to Councilmember Moyles' question, Mr. Heid stated that through the years, certain historic buildings have disappeared; currently, there were buildings in the City that should be restored. Citing a letter of Mr. Willys Peck, he stated that the unique flavor of these homes would be maintained only through preservation of these structures; the Heritage Commission encourages owners to preserve these structures. He noted inns and lodges in the community which had operated for many years without affecting the neighborhood. Mr. John Kahle, 20601 Brookwood Ln., Saratoga, noted that these homes required constant attention; he has owned the Julia Morgan House since 1955. He reviewed discussions regarding the B &B's which have occurred since 1982; the conclusion of which was that B &B's should be a part of Saratoga. He felt that B &B's would preserve houses worthy of such and allow visitors to experience the ambiance and history of the area the letter of Mr. Willys Peck was cited. He felt that B &B's could be best controlled through the Use Permit process. In response to Councilmember Peterson's question, Mr. Kahle stated that renovation of the Julia Morgan House would cost $50,000 $100,000; the house has 5 bedrooms, 5 baths and the lot size was 2 1/2 acres; parking would not be a problem Ms. Ann Fitzsimmons, 13480 Saratoga Ave., Saratoga, stated she owned Lundblad's Lodge for the past year, this lodge was a B &B for nearly 80 years. She supported the Ordinance amendment since it would again allow the lodge to be used as a B she plans to restore the lodge. In response to Councilmember Peterson's question, she stated that Lundblad's has 6 bedrooms, 5 baths and the property is 2/3 of an acre; renovation would cost a minimum of $300,000. Mrs. Betty Peck read a letter written by her husband, Mr. Willys Peck, in which he addressed the historical perspective of the inns and lodges. Ms. Lois Svalya, 14277 Elva Ave., Saratoga, stated she was puzzled by an alliance between people holding forth historical perspective and people holding commercial interests which sought to close one of the most significant historical landmarks in Saratoga Saratoga School. She stated there was an associations between developmental interests which wished to see Saratoga School replaced with commercial development, i.e., Old Town, and those who wished to displace the children for more noble reasons learning. Her primary reason for being at the hearing was that zoning ordinances, spot zoning changes, or moving Village boundaries, benefiting special interests of some individuals, was an unhealthy precedent. She did not agree with the argument that citizens could not preserve the beauty, history and ambiance of Saratoga without creating bed and breakfast establishments. In response to Councilmember Moyles' request regarding information to substantiate the conclusion that there was an alliance between developers and individuals who favored the closure of Saratoga School, she stated that she would reveal her sources in private; however, unofficial remarks of individuals in the real estate business were that people who would most like to see Saratoga School closed were those who believed they stood to gain an economic interest. The issue of closure of this school has come up again and again. In response to Councilmember Peterson's question, she had been told that the people who are working actively for the B &B's were also working for the closure and replacement of Saratoga School with a commercial establishment of retail shops. Councilmember Clevenger reiterated the position of the City Council during the past seven years regarding Saratoga School; the Council has never taken any position on the out come of Oak Street School. Mr. John Hurley, 1524 Madrone Hill Rd., Saratoga, reviewed the historical value of preservation of these establishments and stated he had known Mrs. Hazel Bargas of Lundblad's Lodge. Ms. Erma Jackman, 14515 Oak Street, Saratoga, was very much in favor of restoring and maintaining Lundblad's as a lodge. She conveyed testimony of Mr. Warren McLaughlin, who was unable to be present and introduced three Oak Street neighbors who were present. k MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 5 MARCH 4, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. James Cohen, 1492 Vickery Ln., Saratoga, noted the following concerns: Questioned commercialization of buildings to restore them; he cited examples of homes in San Francisco which had been restored without becoming B &B's. Suggested the use permit process be used to monitor requests to tear down or change historical buildings. Questioned the purpose of a Planning Commission, if their decisions were reversed by the City Council. -)This proposal would require citizens to be present for a hearing on each application. Questioned the relevance of recreational activities cited in the letter from Mr. Peck. Questioned the Heritage Preservation Commission, their mandate and authority Noted his preference for living next door to a family residence rather than a rental unit. Mr. Jack Schaub, 14732 Oak Street, Saratoga, was definitely opposed to the proposal and noted there were better ways to preserve historical sites than commercialization of them. He did not agree that establishment of B &B's was the solution to preservation of historical sites. Ms. Diana Parham, 14613 Oak Street, Saratoga, was unfavorable to B &B's in residential neighborhoods. She noted that no other city in the area allowed B &B's in residential areas and suggested they be located in commercial zones. She asked that research be done on the financial costs of renovation, possibility of marketing of the Hotel already located in Saratoga and provision of information to adjacent home owners. She registered a complaint regarding the lack of notice by maiL Ms. Carol Machol, Ronnie Way, Saratoga, noted continuing strong opposition to B &B's in Saratoga. She reviewed statements from the General Plan, Land Use 4.2, and strongly urged the Council not to bring commercial zoning to a residential area. She felt it vital that Saratoga be primarily a residential area and stated that the proposed Ordinance amendment was not sufficiently restrictive; in addition, the City had no means of monitoring these establishments. She cited testimony given at both Planning Commission and Heritage Preservation Commission Meetings and noted that the Heritage Preservation Commission wished to see B &B's throughout the City. Mr. Gary Espinoza, 14510 Oak Street, Saratoga, concurred with Mr. Heid's comments and favored allowing B &B's to save the heritage of the area. He noted that Lundblad's had always been a lodge and favored its preservation as a lodge and the Kahle home as a B &B. Mr. Clarence Neale noted that petitioners of a B &B use were interested in preserving the historical nature of their homes, were collectors of antiques and desirous of doing something with their property. He urged careful consideration of the proposed amendment Ms. Jackie Welch, 20925 Jacks Rd., Saratoga, noted that Saratoga was once famous for its inns and lodges which brought distinction and vitality to the town; these establishments existed harmoniously with neighbors. She would not object to having a B &B in her neighborhood if it insured preservation of a historic building. She noted that Lundblad's Lodge had always been a guest house and thus, was not a change in use; preservation of Lundblad's as a lodge served as a reminder of Saratogaspast Iaaddition, the City would benefit through Hotel/Motel taxes. :u; c: Mr. John Schaub, 20300 Orchard Rd., Saratoga, had no objection to B &B's in Saratoga and recommended that the Council consider them on an individual basis; however, he questioned the logic of a 500 ft area around the Village and noted that this was an accommodation of the requests of two individuals who wished to establish B &B's. Mr. Frank Matas, Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd., Saratoga, stated that he was very angry that some citizens opposed to B &B's were questioned on length of their residency in Saratoga. He stated he was a resident of Saratoga for 25 years and was against B &B's. Ms. Loreen Eale, 14165 Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd., Saratoga, suggested that B &B's may be a way to save historic structures. Mr. Dennis Aldridge, 14607 Aloha, Saratoga, moved his family to this location due to a well defined commercial area in the Village and the proximity of a prime residential district. He opposed B &B's, which would attract transients and pose potential threat to his children. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 6 MARCH 4, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Greg Grodhaus, 20379 Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd., Saratoga, noted that individuals opposed to the proposed amendment were not opposed to B rather they oppose allowing B &B's in residential neighborhoods. Cities which prohibited B &B's in residential areas, regarding them as a commercial use were cited. He protested the insinuation that opposition to B &B's in residential neighborhoods was equivalent to opposition to the preservation of the history of Saratoga. A letter from the Cor Bregman s, 20330 Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd., Saratoga, was presented to be entered into the record by Mr. Grodhaus. Mr. Sam Armijo, 21053 Canyon View Dr., Saratoga, noted that it would be a mistake to rezone a large part of Saratoga for a localized issue involving two parcels of property. He concurred that perhaps special consideration could be given for historical purposes to Lundblad's Lodge; however, the residential integrity of Saratoga should be preserved. Ms. Betty Rowe, 20360 Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd., Saratoga, noted the importance of this issue and asked that it be voted upon by all Saratogans. Mr. Edward Lebowitz, 20295 La Paloma, Saratoga, noted renovation of older homes all over the City and suggested that it was not the Council's responsibility to support the investment of some private citizens; rather, it was the responsibility of the Council to see that these structures were maintained for residential purposes if such was the will of the community. He noted the proximity of the Lundblad's Lodge to Saratoga School and suggested that transients at this location might not be in the best interests of the students. Mr. Bill Thomas, 13282 Pierce Rd., Saratoga, stated that experiences with B &B's were very favorable; he noted that the only practical use for the two buildings in question was a use as a B &B. He noted the atmosphere and the history of B &B's he had visited. Mr. Don Prolo, 20471 Forest Hills Dr., Saratoga, stated that the policy under consideration was clearly discriminatory. He and his wife moved to the area because of the distinctive character, namely, a residential community without invasion from commercial business. He cited adjacent neighbors who also wished denial of the proposed amendment. Mr. Bill Cummingham, 21070 Canyon View Dr., Saratoga, concurred that extending the Village boundary 500 ft. was illogical; however, he was not opposed to individual review of a B &B. He asked why Wildwood Park was not being used as a natural barrier between a commercial and a residential zone, noted existing traffic problems on 4th Street and questioned parking requirements for the proposed B &B's. Ms. Lynn Johnston, 20611 Brookwood Ln., Saratoga, stated that she would not oppose a small operation of the proposed B &B. She felt B &B's should be evaluated on an individual basis and saw no reason the Julia Morgan Home could not serve the community as a B &B. Ms. Lois Cockshaw, 20995 Canyon View Dr., Saratoga, questioned the legality of the notice given; the City Attorney responded to questions. Ms. Cockshaw questioned whether this was not a lot of trouble for two people whose applications were turned down by the Planning Commission and asked why it was being heard again. She noted the location of one of the individuals desiring use of their property as a B &B which was within the 500 ft. area. Ms. Nancy Lund, 14805 Vickery Ave., Saratoga, supported statements made opposing the amendment. She noted traffic problems in the Oak Street area and did not want to see increased traffic from individuals not associated with the school. She did not wish the area to become more commercialized and noted that it was becoming an area for young families. Mr. Kurt Russell, 14634 Aloha, Saratoga, questioned that if preservation of facilities of some historical value were considered, why was the area only 500 ft. from the Village, rather than extending to the City limits in order to save all the historical facilities. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 7 MARCH 4, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Jeffrey Braun, 20220 La Paloma, Saratoga, was astounded that formal notice was not sent, considering the size of an area would be quadrupled within which commercial or semi commercial use would be permitted. He suggested noticing in writing and possibly sent to everyone in the City. He questioned an Ordinance of this magnitude for two possible uses and asked that the experience and decisions of other cities regarding commercial B &B's in residential areas be carefully considered. He added that allowing B &B's in the area may create the pressure wherein a use slightly more commercial than a B &B would be approved and, in time, the entire area would no longer be residential. Mr. Mike Fitzsimmons, 14550 Oak Street, Saratoga, was in favor of the proposed Ordinance since it would add class to the City. He supported the efforts of his mother Ms. Ann Fitzsimmons, in making Lundblad's Lodge a worthwhile venture and noted that developers considered putting in condominiums on the site before it was purchased by the Fitzsimmons. CLEVENGER/ANDERSON MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:39 P.M. Passed 5 -0. In response to Councilmember Anderson's question whether the two properties in question could apply for approval to operate as a B &B in a process other then the proposal under consideration, the City Attorney stated that the options available were: Establishment of-a new category of Conditional Use while retaining the R -1 zoning classification, which the Ordinance under consideration did; application to be restricted by the 500 ft. boundary, or Creation of a different zoning classification, as done in the Paul Masson Winery site; in this case, a "residential, bed and breakfast" zoning. He suggested consideration of various zoning regulations such as minimum lot size. The Mayor recessed the Meeting from 9:46 10:07 P.M. Councilmember Peterson stated that the 500 ft. boundary had caused a great deal of confusion; he summarized the amendment under consideration, stating that rezoning was not being considered nor was there consideration of changing the Village boundaries. In addition, there was no cause /effect relationship between this proposal and Saratoga School. He stated that having Lundblad's Lodge request a Conditional Use Permit with the public hearings and an opportunity to fully consider such an application would be desirable. He stated he would vote against the proposed amendment due to the confusion regarding the 500 ft. boundary unless individual uses could be considered separately. Councilmember Clevenger questioned long term effects of the proposed Ordinance, namely: Will a B &B designation encourage preservation of historic homes; she concluded it unlikely that either of the structures under consideration would be destroyed and noted that many property owners were engaged in the restoration of their homes. Will a B &B designation serve to enhance the neighborhood; she concluded that such designation would not further preserve a neighborhood. Preservation of existing residential neighborhoods was the overriding consideration in the City of Saratoga. She concluded that designating certain structures as B &B's would be deleterious to the neighborhoods and noted the constant threat of commercialization in the area surrounding the Village. She stated she would vote against the proposed Ordinance. Councilmember Anderson concurred with comments made and stated she was not convinced that B &B's were needed to preserve heritage resources. She noted concern regarding traffic problems and the cost of resources provided for tourists, which would not be recovered in taxes placed on the B &B's. Her primary concern was the setting of a precedent of commercial use in a residential neighborhood and the resulting detrin entaleffect upon neighbors; in addition, other commercial ventures would be proposed for this area. In response to Councilmember Moyles' question, the City Attorney reviewed aspects of the General Plan referred to in public testimony, noticing requirements and definitions used in the proposed amendment. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 8 MARCH 4, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Moyles stated he was not persuaded that the proposed Ordinance amendment would create the incentive to preserve the homes in question. He noted the letter written by Mr. Willys Peck and commented that Mr. Peck captured the flavor of Saratoga in his writings. Perhaps what was being sought was the character found in communities which would preserve their heritage; he suggested that an answer could be found without commercializing residential neighborhoods. He was not in favor of a general use of B &B's throughout residential neighborhoods and noted that several members of the public had addressed this issue. He favored a selective, limited use of B &B's, preserving those homes which had historically served this purpose from the turn of the century. Mayor Hlava noted that she appreciated the problem encountered by residents within the 500 ft. area of the Village boundary; in addition, she questioned whether B &B's would necessarily encourage people to preserve historic homes. However, homes in Saratoga which traditionally had been used as lodges or bed and breakfasts should be allowed to serve that use in an attempt to preserve them as historic structures also. She would not vote in favor of the Ordinance under consideration. The City Attorney suggested the addition of a requirement, stating that the Applicant must demonstrate that among the heritage features of the home, that it had been used as a lodge or a similar use. He deferred to the Heritage Commission regarding the number of homes in the City as a whole which could meet this additional requirement; from this information could be determined whether the 500 ft. boundary was necessary or even applicable. Councilmember Moyles asked that conditions insure that not even one new bed and breakfast establishment be introduced into the City of Saratoga; however, consideration should be given to establishments which could demonstrate such a use before the neighborhood grew up around them. The City Attorney suggested that within the Conditional Use Permit process, Conditions could be imposed requiring that the structure be a designated heritage resource and distinctive in having been used in the past as a place of lodging; this would be a restoration of a use. In response to Councilmember Anderson's concern regarding the traffic impact of such use, Councilmember Peterson responded that a conditional use permit could be sufficiently restrictive so as to not unduly impact residential neighborhoods; minimum acreage was suggested as an additional condition. The City Attorney suggested an addition to Section 2: (2) to read, "and the applicant establishes that the structure was previously and historically utilized as a place of lodging." In response to concerns raised by Councilmembers Clevenger and Anderson, Councilmember Moyles suggested the limitation of usage to those establishments which operated before a set, historical date, for example, 1945. Staff and the Heritage Preservation Commission will provide a comprehensive list of historical resources in the area noticing of the Public Hearing through the newspaper. 500 ft. area from the Village boundary to remain; consensus reached that the 500 ft. area be the only area of consideration at this time. Public Hearing to be continued to the Meeting of April 15, 1987. B. Ordinance 71.22 Amending Article 6-10 of the City Code Relating to Alarm Systems (Continued from February 18, 1987; second reading and adoption) The City Manager noted there was no public testimony at the previous hearing; the Council continued the Public Hearing in order to further solicit testimony. He reiterated concem as to the number of false alarms and danger to public safety officers in responding to them. The Public Hearing was opened at 11:08 P.M. Mr. Ralph Metcalf, 14150 Douglass Ln., Saratoga, stated that he has paid approximately $500 in fines. He favored the present Ordinance with the exception of the fact that a grace period was not granted and was favorable to this change in the amended Ordinance. He suggested the keeping of records on the systems used by individual homeowners and performance of various system operators. He asked that permit applications be available upon phone request with a mailed return. Sections: ORDINANCE NO. 87 -0 -105 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLACENTIA ADDING CHAPTER 23.74, BED AND BREAKFAST INNS, TO THE PLACENTIA MUNICIPAL CODE (Amendment 86/10). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE PLA CENTp,)1,., <EiEREBY ORDAINS THAT CHAPTER 23.7 BED ANp BREAKFAST INNS,, THE PLACENTIA MUNICIPAL CODE IN ITS ENTIRETY. Chapter 23.74 23.74.10 Purpose 23.74.20 Definition 23.74.30 Designation 23.74.40 Procedure 23.74.50 Standards 23.74.60 Additional Requirements ADDED TO 23.74.10 Purpose: The purposes of this chapter are (a) Provide the opportunity for the establishment of Bed and Breakfast Inns in structures of historical and /or architectural significance in any district; (b) Maintain certain structures which are unique and contribute to and enrich the aesthetic appeal of the neighborhood and community; (c) Establish site development standards which will provide the opportunity for Bed and Breakfast Inns while maintaining the visual character of residential neighborhoods and the community. 23.74.20 Definition: "Bed and Breakfast Inn" shall mean a residential dwelling in which rooms are rented to paying guests on an overnight basis with breakfast served daily, the entire service to be for one stated price for a total period of time not to exceed 14 days during any consecutive 90 day period. to: 23.7'4.30 Designation: One (1) Bed and Breakfast Inn shall he permitted only on parcels and within a structure(s) which meet all the following conditions: (a) Are existing legally subdivided lots located in approved zones within the City. (b) Are in structures designated as being architecturally and /or historically significant by the City. 23.74.40 Procedure: Each Bed and Breakfast Inn shall require a use permit pursuant to Chapter 23.87 and shall comply with the following: (a) Prior to application, an applicant shall pay the required fee and request an inspection of the property by the Building Official to determine compliance with current building and zoning codes. The Building Official shall file a written report indicating, if necessary, the nature and amount of work required to have the subject site and structure(s) comply with current code. rng.' 1 .f 3 (b) The applic shall submit an application accordance with submittal requirements on file with the Plannin Division. (c) The applicant may request the Planning Commission to consider the inclusion of a structure (not previously designated) o:t the City's List of Historically and /or Architecturally Significant Structures. 23.74.50 Standards: Bed and Breakfast Inns shall comply with the following development standards: (a) Individual Bed and Breakfast units shall not contain cooking facilities. (h) No meals shall be served to guests other than breakfast. Said breakfast meal, if served, shall be served only to registered overnight guests. (c) Parking required shall be: one (1) parking space for each rental room in the residence, in addition to the required parking of the district as stated in Chapter 23.78, Off Street Parking, of the Placentia Municipal Code. (d) Signage shall he limited to one wall sign not to exceed three (3) square feet of sign area. Sign wording shall consist of the name of the occupant or establishment located on premises, and /or description of service rendered. Establishment shall be referred to as an "Inn Such sign shall be attached to and parallel with the front wall of the building. (e) A business license shall be obtained in accordance with Placentia Municipal Code Title 6. (f) All Bed and Breakfast Inns shall be subject to hotel -motel room tax. 23.74.60 Additional requirements: Bed and Breakfast Inns shall be subject to the following requirements: (a) The Bed and Breakfast use shall be shown not to be detrimental to the neighborhood. (b) The primary use shall be residential and retained in a manner which will allow reconversion back to a residential use. (c) An owner, manager, proprietor or caretaker of the property must reside on the subject premises at all times. (d) The provisions of Municipal Code Section 23.78, use permits, shall apply to all Bed and Breakfast Inn uses -and said use permit, if issued, shall run with the title of the subject property. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 3rd DAY OF ATTEST: EDMUND g1 ONC,Y CLERK 87 -0 -105 Page 2 of 3 March 1987. 'fl�C N TON; MAYOR City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Ladies and Gentlemen: Thomas A. Tisch 14735 Aloha Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 March 21, 1987 Recently, in a letter to the Saratoga Union School District Board of Trustees, Ann Fitzsimmons implied that I was acting acting directly or indirectly in my capacity as a Trustee of the Saratoga Union School District when I wrote my letter of February 22nd opposing the proposed bed and breakfast zoning. I wish to make it absolutely clear that I wrote the City council opposing the action as an individual citizen. I am a resident of the area, living at the corner of Komina and Aloha, some few feet outside the boundary of the proposed zoning area, and have lived at that location since 1972. Enclosed is a copy of the letter sent you previously on this matter, as well as my letter to the SUSD School Board on this same matter. I also wish to reiterate my opposition...as an individual...to any such allowed use in an R1 area. I resent the implications of Ms. Fitzsimmons and wish to make it clear that I am entitled, as is any citizen of this community, to speak out on issues which concern me and my family. I have done so in the past and will continue to do so. Thank you for considering my views. TAT:t Copy: Ann Fitzsimmons Sincerely, homas A. Tisch Saratoga Resident Board of Trustees Saratoga Union School District 20460 Forrest Hills Dr. Saratoga, CA 95070 Gentlemen: March 21, 1987 Recently you received a letter dated March 12, 1987, from Ann Fitzsimmons regarding the bed and breakfast issue currently being discussed by the City. The final paragraph of the letter contains an innuendo that I was acting directly or indirectly on behalf of the school district in my capacity as a Trustee when I wrote a letter opposing the proposed Zoning ordinance. I wish to make it absolutely clear that 1 wrote the City council opposing the action as an individual citizen. As you are aware, I am a resident of the area, living at the corner of Komina and Aloha, some few feet outside the boundary of the proposed zoning area, and have lived at that location since 1972. Enclosed is a copy of the letter sent the city council. I resent the implications of Ms. Fitzsimmons and wish to make it clear that 1 am entitled, as is any citizen of this community, to speak out on issues which concern me and my family. I have done so in the past and will continue to do so. TAT:t Copy: Ann Fitzsimmons Sincerely, Thomas A. Tisch Saratoga Resident Clerk, Board of Trustees of the Saratoga Union School District Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Ladies and Gentlemen: 14735 Aloha Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 February 22, 1987 Re:AZO -86 -003 I am opposed to any extension of the "hotel" ordinance to include bed and breakfast inns within 500 feet of the Village within existing R1 areas. I write as a homeowner and 15 year resident immediately adjacent to the proposed area who will have to live with changes produced by such zoning. Our home is located at the corner of Aloha and Komina avenues. Specifically, 1 am opposed to: (a) Zoning which would allow Bed and Breakfast inns within single- family residential areas (R1, I think). (b) Bed and Breakfast inn zoning which would act as an incentive to higher density development or use of our surrounding neighborhood, which already gets too much traffic and too many strangers (My favorite Mustang car, a 20 year family "heirloom was stolen last month from the street in front of my house). (c) Any zoning change which clouds the value of surrounding property by creating uncertainty as to the character of use of property in the neighborhood due to (a) the wide latitude of approved uses (b) the conditional use nature of the permission which would subject all of us to a continuing stream of proposals, hearings and so forth. (d) Such an ill. defined area as "within 500 feet of the Village Even those of us who have lived here 15 years and who know the Village don't know where that boundary is. It should be possible to enumerate the streets, sides of streets, and affected addresses to eliminate any ambiguity whatsoever. I am not opposed to Bed and Breakfast inns within the existing commercial areas of the Village. Arguments that Bed and Breakfast inns be allowed within multiple family zoned areas may have more merit, such as along the Village side of Oak 'Street, or along 4th Street. But I would have to be convinced. Thank you for taking the above views into consideration. TAT: t (e) It is contrary to previous City council action setting a precedent to limit commercial uses to the Village Area as recently in the Young Gallery issue involving the large house on Saratoga -Los Gatos road. Ms. Ann Fitzsimmons 13430 Saratoga Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Ms. Fitzsimmons: April 9, 1987 Re: March 4, 1987 Public Hearing on the B B issue before the Saratoga City Council Your letter of March 20, 1987, came as a surprise. Although it was ostensibly addressed to me, a perceptive person might conclude your intended recepient was actually the City Council. You have cleverly utilized quasi private correspondence as a public forum for the proclamation of your service of saving Lunblad's Lodge from (in your own words) "developers who did look at it with the thought in mind of destroying the Lodge and replacing it with condos!" Indeed, you may regard my silence in any way you choose. My statements do have substance and are based on knowledge. I have discussed your letter with attorneys and have been assured that I have no obligation to share with you the names of the developers who seek to close Saratoga School and replace the children and teachers with commercial development. Although truth is an absolute defense to a charge of "slander" or "libel your familiarity with litigation should make my reluctance understand- able. cc: City Council Sincerely, 1 Lois Svalya Ms. Lois Svalya 14277 Elva Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Re: March 4, 1987 Public Hearing on B B issue before the Saratoga City Council Dear Ms. Svalya: March 20, 1937 Enclosed is a copy of a summary of your comments at the March 4, 1987 hearing before the City Council (page 4). As a property owner on Oak Street (Lundblad's Lodge), I am interested in your remarks at the hearing with respect to "...an alliance between developers and individuals who favored the closure of Saratoga School..." and "...people who are working actively for the B B's were also working for the closure and replacement of Saratoga School with a commercial establishment of retail shops." These are remarkable comments. If there are individuals, whose intent it is to close Saratoga School on Oak Street to develop the school property commercially, I think all property owners should be privy to what you know. I personally oppose any effort to close Saratoga School for any type of development, including condo development. I emphasize condo development because all one has to do is look at the Village side of Oak Street and one can pretty well predict what type of development will take place on the school side of Oak Street as more and more of the old homes are demolished. A little over one year ago Lundblad's Lodge was up for grabs and there were developers who did look at it with the thought in mind of destroying the Lodge and replacing it with condos! -I would appreciate it if you would let all of us know (including the City Council) what you know about efforts afoot to develop the school property. If you do not come forward with this information, I can only assume your statements at the March 4th hearing were without merit. cc: City Council Sincerely yours, lLi» ✓v'" J����J Ann Fita immons MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 4 MARCH 4, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued In response to Councilmember Moyles' question, Mr. Heid stated that through the years, certain historic buildings have disappeared; currently, there were buildings in the City that should be restored. Citing a letter of Mr. Willys Peck, he stated that the unique flavor of these homes would be maintained only through preservation of these structures; the Heritage Commission encourages owners to preserve these structures. He noted inns and lodges in the community which had operated for many years without affecting the neighborhood. Mr. John Kahle, 20601 Brookwood Ln., Saratoga, noted that these homes required constant attention; he has owned the Julia Morgan House since 1955. He reviewed discussions regarding the B &B's which have occurred since 1982; the conclusion of which was that B &B's should be a part of Saratoga. He felt that B &B's would preserve houses worthy of such and allow visitors to experience the ambiance and history of the area the letter of Mr. Willys Peck was cited. He felt that B &B's could be best controlled through the Use Permit process. In response to Councilmember Peterson's question, Mr. Kahle stated that renovation of the Julia Morgan House would cost $50,000 $100,000; the house has 5 bedrooms, 5 baths and the lot size was 2 1/2 acres; parking would not be a problem. Ms. Ann Fitzsimmons, 13480 Saratoga Ave., Saratoga, stated she owned Lundblad's Lodge for the past year this lodge was a B &B for nearly 80 years. She supported the Ordinance amendment since it would again allow the lodge to be used as a B she plans to restore the lodge. In response to Councilmember Peterson's question, she stated that Lundblad's has 6 bedrooms, 5 baths and the property is 2/3 of an acre; renovation would cost a minimum of $300,000. Mrs. Betty Peck read a letter written by her husband, Mr. Willys Peck, in which he addressed the orical ►ers► ctive of the inns and lodges. Ms. Lois Svalya, 14277 Elva Ave., Saratoga, stated she was puzzled by an alliance between people holding forth historical perspective and people holding commercial interests which sought to close one of the most significant historical landmarks in Saratoga Saratoga School. She stated there was an associations between developmental interests which wished to see Saratoga School replaced with commercial development, i..e., Old Town, and those who wished to displace the children for more noble reasons learning. Her primary reason for being at the hearing was that zoning ordinances, spot zoning changes, or moving Village boundaries, benefiting special interests of some individuals, was an unhealthy precedent. She did not agree with the argument that citizens could not preserve the beauty, history and ambiance of Saratoga without creating bed and breakfast establishments. In response to Councilmember Moyles' request regarding information to substantiate the conclusion that there was an alliance between developers and individuals who favored the closure of Saratoga School, she stated that she would reveal her sources in private; however, unofficial remarks of individuals in the real estate business were that people who would most like to see Saratoga School closed were those who believed they stood to gain an economic interest. The issue of closure of this school has come up again and again. In response to Councilmember Peterson's question, she had been told that the people who are working actively for the B &B's were also working for the closure and replacement of Saratoga School with a commercial establishment of retail shops. Councilinem 'r Clevenger reiterated the position of the City Council during the past seven years regarding Saratoga School; the Council has never taken any position on the out come of Oak Street School. Mr. John Hurley, 1524 Madrune Hill Rd., Saratoga, reviewed the historical value of preservation of these establishments and stated he had known Mrs. Hazel Bargas of Lundblad's Lodge. Ms. Erma Jackman, 14515 Oak Street, Saratoga, was very much in favor of restoring and maintaining Lundblad's as a lodge. She conveyed testimony of Mr. Warren McLaughlin, who was unable to be present and introduced three Oak Street neighbors who were present. Ms. Lois Svalya 14277 Elva Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 re: B B issue before the Saratoga City Council Dear Ms. Svalya: April 10, 1987 Your letter of April 9th also came as a surprise. The pur- pose of my March 20th letter was to have you disclose to all of us the names of the "developers and individuals" who favor closure of Saratoga School and the names of people "who are working ac- tively for the B B's" to close and replace Saratoga School with a commercial establishment of retail shops. At the March 4th hearing, when you were questioned by the Council, you did state that John Kahle was not one of these people, however, 3 did not hear you say that Ann Fitzsimmons was not one of these people. Perhaps you will state this at the April 15th hearing before the City Council. 'Truth is an absolute defense to a charge of "slander" or "libel." I have been told that your husband is an attorney. There is a Phillip Svalya listed in the attorney section of the telephone book. 3 assume, therefore, that the information given to me that he is an attorney is correct. I bring this up because your statement about "slander" and "libel" indicate5that you have some familiarity with the law. Why my familiarity with litigation should make you "reluctant," is not clear. I don't know what it is you are reluctant about. Is it your reluctance to disclose the names of the alleged developers? If this is the case, and truth is a defense, why would you be con- cerned about slander or libel? cc: City Council Sincerely yours, Ann Fit immons 20590 Canyon View Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 April 7, 1987 Editor SARATOGA NEWS The Saratoga City Council is again considering legislation to allow designated heritage homes to open as bed and breakfast inns. The current proposal is an ordinance which creates a 500 foot ring around the Village allowing this commercial use in residential neighborhoods. On the surface, the proposal appears innocuous, even charming. The idea of quaint little inns gracing our town is appealing to many residents. However, the reality which would be created by this ordinance is increased commercialization of the downtown area. The Village and adiacent neighborhoods are already heavily impacted by traffic. There is inadequate parking for the commercial establishments we now support in the Village. The new "Village Inn" still remains unopened, and, therefore, provides no guideline for the demand which may exist for these establishments in our area. The resulting burden to be carried by the residents of Saratoga is a large one: greater street maintenance costs, the need to create larger public parking areas, further congestion of our already over crowded streets. Who will pay for these changes? We, the taxpaying citizens. The small amount of revenue brought into the city from these inns will not begin to cover the costs incurred; the 8% hotel tax can only be levied when the rooms are occupied. Of further concern is the enforcement of the limits set forth in the ordinance. A future council could easily utilize the ordinance as a vehicle to bring other commercial uses to these neighborhoods, or to grant commercial uses to historical homes outside of the 500 -foot boundary. Saratoga was incorporated as a residential community and the idea of commercialization encroaching on our neighborhoods and along our major arterials is a great departure from this charter. The Council must consider the full import of their decision and the long -term effect it will have on the direction in which our city will grow. A vote to approve this ordinance can only negatively impact the residents of these neighborhoods and increase the tax burden born by all of us. I urge anyone concerned with this issue to bring th r opinion to the attention of our Council members at toght's (April 15) council meeting. cerel i N ncy rias 74 0197(home); 727- 4482(office) cc- Harry Peacock Grace Cory THE GOOD GOVERNMENT GROUP of Saratoga, California, Inc. P.O. Box 371 Saratoga, California 95070 April 4, 1987 City Council Members: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Joyce Hlava City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 The Heritage Preservation Foundation has proposed that Bed and Breakfast accomodations be allowed in buildings qualify- ing as Heritage Structures, as a means of contributing to the upkeep of houses of historical significance in Saratoga. Some of these are located in areas that are zoned Residential. This has aroused concern on the part of citizens who are opposed to an increase of commercial activities in residential areas and an expansion of commercial zoning. The Board of Directors of The Good Government Group of Saratoga in its' meeting of March 23, 1987, voted to go on record regarding the subject as follows: "The Bed and Breakfast concept should_ not be used as a means of supporting Heritage Designated Homes in residential zones for the following reasons: (1) The concept dilutes the Residential designation. (2) It sets a precedent for the growth of commercial boundaries. (3) It is de facto spot zoning." Thank you for your consideration. We hope that this information will be useful to you in your evaluation of the proposed ordinance regarding the subject. Sincerely, Saratogans in action since 1957. J Frank Cage President David Moyles Donald Peterson Le i :riy-n� 6 moon ,,,,Z._0_,44.,. fp• Members of the City Council City of Saratoga. 13777 Fruitvale Av. Saratoga, CA 95070 Ladies and Gentlemen 20630 Lomita Av. Saratoga, CA 95070 April 6, 1987 RE: Bed and Breakfast Proposal As a resident of the neighborhood adjoining the Village, I would like to take this opportunity to inform the Council of my opposition to and changes in the zoning ordinances. The following are reasons why bed and breakfast establishments should not be allowed in this neighborhood. First and foremost, bed and breakfast establishments will increase traffic and congestion, as well as pollution. Oak Street, in particular, is already crowded enough as it is. Even if the proposed bed and breakfast establishments provide for off street parking, there will be an increase in vehicles turning in and out of driveways. This will exacerbate congestion and present a safety hazard for children walking to and from Saratoga School. Furthermore, opening bed and breakfasts on residential streets adjacent to the Village will introduce into the residential neighborhoods a factor which so far has been limited to the Village: the'drunk'driver. On just about any Friday or Saturday night, one can see them leaving the restaurants on Big Basin Way and getting into their cars. If bedrooms were available for rent on streets such as Oak Street, it is not difficult to see where they would be going after dinner. Second, however innocuous a bed and breakfast establishment may seem, it is still a commercial use in a residential area. Opening a residential area to bed and breakfasts will set a precedent which may result in the inclusion of more objectional uses later on, including liquor and /or eating establishments. Third, there doe"sn't appear to be any economic justification for augmenting the commercial district in. Saratoga. At "present, there is a surplus of rooms available in the Village, and there are at least two large retail spaces in the Village which have been available for rent for months. One final note regarding the preservation of historic buildings: the argument that bed and breakfasts are needed `to preserve the historic buildings in Saratoga is spurious. The Missionary Rouse, a private residence on Oak Street, was recently designated'as an historic building. Nearly every one of my neighbors is unequivocally opposed to this proposal. We are not interested in seeing Oak Street turned into another University Avenue, as was done in Los Gatos. Thank you very much for your consideration. Yours trul tan Bogosian Saratoga News 12378 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road Saratoga, California 95070 Re: Bed Breakfasts To The Editor: April 4, 1987 James R. Cohen, M.D. Saratoga rZ, As one who is not directly affected by the Bed and Breakfast issue, but whose friends and neighbors are, I have been following the arguments with interest, and have decided to add just a couple of my own thoughts. There are probably few people who have as poor a track record as I when it comes to investments, but even I would not buy a property hoping to turn it into a hotel (let's call a spade a spade, a Bed and Breakfast is a hotel), without first ascertaining that it would be legal to do so. That several individuals have chosen to do this is their folly, and I am astounded that they would have the nerve to then ask the city council to change Saratoga's zoning laws to correct their error. I am even more appalled that the city council would even consider accomodating them! Some of these property owners have even tried to hold the city hostage, threatening to not keep up or improve their porperties unless they are allowed to turn then into income generating establishments. I find this insulting, to say the least. There are many Saratoga homeowners taking the expense and trouble of keeping up their beautiful and sometimes historic homes without any more financial incentive then pride and perhaps the assurance of a profit at resale. In a day and age when politicians enjoy at best a tenuous trust and respect, it would behoove our elected officials to avoid even the suggestion or semblance of any favoritism towards a special interest minority at the possible expense of the majority of citizens. That some of the council members have suggested that a compromise solution might be found to accomodate the financial interests of the two or three investors in this issue certainly raises such issues. I have no way of knowing if any council members have ever received election campaign support from anyone who might stand to benefit from the commercialization of Oak Street, but if any have I would certainly expect that member to make such support public and of course abstain from voting on this sensitive issue. Saratoga Neighbors Editor, Saratoga News 12378 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Saratoga, California 95070 Editor and Saratoga Neighbors: Suzanne K. Armbruster 21169 Canyon View Drive Saratoga, California 95070 408 867 -6857 March 26, 1987 On April 15th, the Saratoga City Council plans to further discuss the commercial use of bed and breakfast hotels in residentially zoned districts of our community, specifically, the issue of preserving historically designated buildings by converting them into bed and breakfast inns. The initial idea of such an establishment sounds charming as we imagine unique Victorian structures, artistically decorated and flawlessly landscaped. One might feel that this would be a welcomed addition to any town, especially Saratoga, a picturesque city with a multitude of homes that are perfect for such a setting. But, we must also understand the painful realities of allowing commercial rooming facilities. In addition to the variety of guests who would be frequenting the bed and breakfast hotel, there would also be deliveries of all service related items, food products, linens, housekeeping supplies, etc. and support staff commuting through_ our neighborhood. Our residential communities that have always enjoyed privacy will now be much more visable to transient traffic, thereby increasing the potential for crimes from which we have been sheltered in the past. The more we encourage non residential traffic in our neighborhood, the greater the possibilities for burgleries and other violent crimes. Saratoga has commercially zoned districts that offer a warm welcome to all visitors. These areas of our community already allow hotels and bed and breakfast inns within their boarders. As we concern ourselves with the preservation of historically significant structures, I hope we will also concern ourselves with preserving the security, privacy and quality of life in our community. Please keep these and all other Saratoga News Page 2 March 26, 1987 commercial establishments restricted to the already designated commercial zones and save our living areas and residential zones so that we may continue to enjoy our homes. cc: Saratoga City Council Very truly yours, Suzanne K. Armbruster Saratoga City Council 13777 FrQitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Council Members: Below is a copynof a letter to the editors of the Saratoga News and the San Jose Mercury News we have submitted for publication. We shall appreciate your consideration of our views on this subject. Dear Editor: March 27; 1987 Re: Bed and Breakfast We oppose the proposal to permit commercial Bed and Breakfast establishments in some residential areas of Saratoga. Our residential' neighborhood should remain residential, not commercial. An intrusion of commercial use would increase traffic, decrease surrounding property values, and lower the quality of life for many Saratoga residents. Advocates of the proposal argue that it is a means of preserving old "historical" homes: it is really a means of increasing the property values of a few, while lowering those of many. Other more effective means of preserving such homes are available without lowering the quality of our residential lifestyle and depreciating the value of our homes. Marguerite C. Chapman e 21221 Canyon View Dr. Saratoga CA 95070 867 -4304 Editor Saratoga News 12378 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, Suit 8 Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Sir: DONALD J. PROLO, M.D. 20471 FORREST HILLS DR. SARATOGA, _CALIFORNIA 95070 March 23, 1987 Memories linger over the Saratoga City Council's Public. Hearing on an ordinance to permit bed and breakfast hotels within residential areas 500 feet from the present Village boundaries. Whereas the overwhelming majority of those in attendance opposed this effort by two landowners with the blessing of the Heritage Commission, Mayor Hlava's deft procedural conduct limited articulation of this sentiment of opposition and expression of dissatisfaction and annoyance this citizenry shares over the actions of. its Council. Perhaps the most flagrant abuse of public responsibility lies in this Council's apparent tolerance for the argument that a prominent attorney and respected physician are in need of special consideration to make their investments profitable. Attorney John R. Kahle contended at the Public Hearing that returns of rent on his home are insufficient to allow him to maintain it properly. Doctor Ann Fitzsimmons,who recently purchased a home on Oak Street,is unwilling now to repair it unless this property in a residential neighborhood is allowed a commercial use. The basic twin issues are not preservation of two old homes, but commercialization of residential neighbor- hoods and the City of Saratoga's obligation to individual land- lords. Private investments in this society carry the burden of potential failure along with the monetary rewards of possible success. If an investment in a residential area is predicated on the hope of spot rezoning, that investor is expecting from the City an abrogation of its contract with adjacent homeowners who purchased homes with the understanding that a. residential zoning was inviolable. The City of Saratoga cannot fairly breach this contract with homeowners in support of two investors who seek special favor. Moreover a dangerous precedent for public support of private investments will follow. Owners of the many unoccupied buildings on Big Basin Way should then expect special tax consideration. Throughout the City of Saratoga old homes in need of repair with 2/3 of an acre should be permitted commercial use. This entire community should be alarmed over deliberations of its Council. If this present Council votes to permit commercial ventures in residential neighborhoods, its discre- tionary powers at de facto rezoning should be limited by law and transferred to the vote of the people. cc: Saratoga City Council phone number: (408) 867 -5478 erely, Donald J. P o, M.D. Saratoga City Council Saratoga, Ca. 95070 re: B B Issue, Hearing April 15, 1987 Dear Councilmembers: RECFNED AR Z a. 1987 r March 23, 1987 Enclosed is a Petition that was circulated by Gary Espinoza, who lives at 14510 Oak Street, Saratoga. Mr.'Espinoza had all of these signatures prior to the March 4 hearing but he inadver- tently forgot to turn it in. For the record, I would like to submit this signed petition at this time. Also enclosed for the record is a letter I wrote to the Board of Education dated March 12, 1987 and a letter I wrote to Lois Svalya dated March 20, 1987. Sincerely yours, Ann Fitz' PETITION THE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY PETITION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA TO ADOPT THE FOLLOWING PROPOSED ORDINANCE (N0.71): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SUBSECTION 5- 20.020(a) TO INCLUDE BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE DEFINITION OF "HOTEL;" AMENDING SECTION- 15- 12.030 TO INCLUDE BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENTS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN R -1 ZONING DISTRICTS ADJACENT TO THE VILLAGE; AND AMENDING SUBSECTION 15- 35.030(e) PERTAINING TO REQUIRED PARKING FACILITIES FOR BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENTS The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Subsection 5- 20.020(a) in Article 5 -20 is amended to read as follows: "(a) Hotel means any structure, or any portion of any structure, which is occupied or intended or designed for occupancy by transients for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes, and includes any hotel, inn, tourist home or house, motel, studio hotel, bachelor hotel, bed and breakfast establishment, lodging house, rooming house, apartment house, dormitory, public or private club, mobile home or house trailer at a fixed location, or other similar structure or portion thereof." r SECTION 2: A new Paragraph (n) is added to Section 15- 12.030 in Article 15 -12, to read as follows: "(n) Bed and breakfast establishments, where all of the following conditions and requirements are satisfied: (1) The bed and breakfast site must be located not more than five hundred feet from a boundary line of the Village. (2) The structure in which the bed and breakfast establishment is operated must be an historic landmark, designated as such by the City pursuant to Chapter 13 of this Code. (3) Not more than eight bedrooms may be rented within the bed and breakfast establishment and each rented bedroom shall be not less than one hundred square feet in size. (4) All bedroom rentals shall be for transient occupancy only, as defined in Subsection 5- 25.020(f) of Article 5 -25 in Chapter 5 of this Code. (5) No meal other than breakfast shall be served to the persons renting any rooms within the bed and breakfast establishment. (6) No cooking shall be allowed in any guest rooms. (7) The bed and breakfast establishment shall be owner occupied or owner operated with a resident manager. (8) No signs or exterior lighting shall be installed except as expressly authorized by the use permit. (9) No ancillary uses, including, but not limited to, receptions, parties or weddings, shall be allowed in conjunction with the bed and breakfast use. The foregoing conditions and requirements are not intended to be exclusive and the Planning Commission may impose any /other conditions it deems necessary or appropriate for the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15 -55 of this Chapter." /Vqq/ .4z-4 V. 7 -/shs) V `i9d o,y, St Ra 7-G79 Y‘.76 ativ4t. 54.4.7,3 71' 6 S 867-6 Ie9 I4 S3 t Oalt& ST- S412.47)64 7 ci a-441 g6 14-S70 E4 7 /c4 vv ga-e.21 di F2_4; k67 ~43 t r /4 Io O .1/ V6,57 fi Y /yd 3 0 Sa.I,Q S ,crm z G P6 7,ba /-5z, -O) x 1/. n2- 2' o s tv,.,, wol- K „2 a 'i6 2— akil is_ I67 —/o SECTION 3: Paragraph (e) of Section 15- 35.030 in Article 15 -35 is amended to read as follows: "(e) Bed and breakfast establishments SECTION 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 5: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption. NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER «cuR car' 2..671 t One space for each bedroom to be rented, and one space for the owner or resident manager." ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER 3 G '7j ,.;/---ako-r 0,...2 crp7-rn G 2 7A-ro `4; o. 02--Vsze 7 -9 /,3" 2357 i ve 9t 2 0 3 3 f, 52,77 -3Ifi (7Jt T. 9--6 33t/ L o2d5 -x f67.032•_ 1y95 Oto- Q4. C 41-M' 145C oaf( SH 4 te a /94/7 a/.a z7 -37i (07-(51. r s (1265 Y AircL )P f,e%&&_4• /6 VS t 1 $6 /3 c.67 -04e I I 4141 1 VI Air. `z7i7a` fP '7-6 1Y76o ,eiqv Q p 7 .4). /4;f‘ a- CGe_ 7_24 1/46 (9 g(o NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER v7424,,, ceid („„-e ,07,„(„i „40.,::/ 4/4/ g,Qk GL2 ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER Board of Education c/o Saratoga Union School District 20460 Forrest Hills Drive Saratoga, Ca. 95070 March 12, 1987 Board Members: Mary Ellen Comport, Thomas Tisch, Casandra Houston, Gretchen Newby, Stephen Calebotta Dear Board Members: Enclosed is a copy of a letter I wrote to the City Council of the City of Saratoga dated March 2, 1987. The "'flyer"' attached to this letter was sent home in the Saratoga School newsletter. original flyer was a bright yellow color rather than white). The purpose of this letter is to determine the propriety of inserting this flyer into the school newsletter regarding an issue, the bed and breakfast issue, which is not a school issue. Enclosed is a copy of the proposed amendment that would allow bed and breakfast establishments under certain conditions; nowhere in the amendment is the school mentioned. At best, the flyer is misleading; at worse, it is blatantly false and intended to create fear and anxiety in parents about a non -issue as far as the school is concerned. The flyer states in part the following: "Saratoga Council will consider the extension of the Saratoga Village 500 feet beyond its present boundaries." The above statement is blatantly false. The actual wording of the proposed amendment is as follows: ...Amending section 15- 12.030 to include bed and break- fast establishments as a conditional use in R -1 zoning districts adjacent to the Village; (Emphasis added). There is a big difference between extending the Village b and allowing bed and breakfast establishments in a residential area. The amendment clearly states that bed and breakfast establishments would be a conditional use in R -1 zoning; there would be no zone change. When I confronted Lisa Akers, the principal of Saratoga School, about the flyer,she stated she could see nothing wrong with it since it was just a notice of a meeting. 'The flyer went beyond that. Parents reading this notice could certainly conclude that the school'is a some kind of jeopardy if bed and breakfast establishments were permitted. Board of Education Page 2 March 12, 1987 The notice did not just state time, place and subject matter. The flyer was not signed by anyone, giving the impression that the school itself was the bearer of the message. The very fact that the notice was not signed, makes it suspect. I am sure if I or a parent of the school favoring bed and break- fast establishments wanted to place a notice in the school newsletter stating that the bed and breakfast issue is not a school issue, that there is no zone change threatening the school and that parents need have no concern, we would not have been allowed access to the school newsletter. I would appreciate it, if you would investigate this matter. I would like a written reply from the Board of findings and con- clusions. In closing, I note that Thomas Tisch is a member of the Board of Education. I assume he is the same gentleman who wrote a letter to the City Council in opposition to the bed and breakfast amend- ment. Thank you for looking into this matter. Sincerely yours, e e Ann Fitz morons 13480 Saratoga Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 867 -4231 TO THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA: .Monday, March 2, 107 Late Friday, February 27, 1987 I learned that a "flyer" had been inserted in the Saratoga School newsletter or newspaper that is sent home with all of the children attending the Oak Street School. 1 was able to obtain a copy of the 'flyer* over this past weekend. Enclosed is a copy for review by the City Council. The copy sent home was on deep yellow paper rather than the white. The "flyer" was not signed thereby giving the appearance of being authored and sanctioned by school officials. At 9:00 a.m. Monday,. March 2, 1987 I visited Saratoga School and spoke with the principal, Lisa Akers, about this matter., She said it was with her approval and the approval of the Superintendent of Schools, Michael Felice, that. the "flyer" could be sent home with the children in the school newspaper because, after all, it was just a notice of an upcoming meeting. I asked her. who the author of the notice was and she stated it was: Jill Hunter... I would have.no objection if'perents talked directly to one another about the B and B'issue.. What,l object to is school officials per- mitting individuals,who areHtrying to advance e cause, to. use the school giving the impression thatthe:eChool sanctions their point of view. think this is an improper use of the school. Had a parent signed the notice, we might have another.situation. However, I do not believe private individuals are allowed to send messages in school newspapers. Since the school has now become involved, I can only assume that the message given to parents of the school is similar to #3 item of Mr. Raamat's letter to the City Council dated February 24, 1987 which I have cut out and made a part of this letter: 0 3) The Oak Street school appears to be included in the 500 ft'. redefinition zone. Why? The. change in the 'zoning would con— ceivably provide sort of "legitimacy" for eminent domain con- demnation and closing of the school with subsequent possibility of an hotel development .on site!!!.! We do not need to close schools to build hotels! I do aot- believe we have amateurs in opposition to the B B issue. From what 1 have observed, we have "professional agitators" who know how to side-track .people and create fear in their minds. Respectfully submitted, Ann Fitz mmons /AL )1, e. cuLcds -e cL4 en s ion S eel 00 Gu/s culi a:110 uo i Ciq WL,+ bowjaLA h. cum, ar) cLtoot C0. 1 ()XS IC) 1 IS a t 7:30 (;LnG( I I,u2 h Co S 1 6eJ dia A e SPvt.+ po se. eua ale, at cWoof fljo e vton iArlo Gc.b i itt,cfacf on 0 1.eA ORDINANCE NO. 71. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SUBSECTION 5- 20.020(a) TO INCLUDE BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE DEFINITION 'OF "HOTEL;" AMENDING SECTION- 15-12.030 TO INCLUDE BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENTS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN R -1 ZONING DISTRICTS ADJACENT TO THE VILLAGE; AND AMENDING SUBSECTION 15- 35.030(e) PERTAINING TO REQUIRED PARKING FACILITIES FOR BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENTS The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Subsection 5- 20.020(a) in Article 5 -20 is amended to read as follows: "(a) Hotel means any structure, or any portion of any structure, which is occupied or intended or designed for occupancy by transients for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes, and includes any hotel, inn, tourist home or house, motel, studio hotel, bachelor hotel, bed and breakfast establishment, lodging house, rooming house, apartment house, dormitory, public or private club, mobile home or house trailer at a fixed location, or other similar structure or portion thereof." SECTION 2: A new Paragraph (n) is added to read as follows: "(n) Bed and breakfast establishments, and requirements are satisfied: (1) The bed and breakfast site must be located not more than five hundred feet from a boundary line of the Village. (2) The structure in which the bed and breakfast establishment is operated must be an historic landmark, designated as such by the City pursuant to Chapter 13 of this Code. (3) Not more than eight bedrooms may be rented within the bed and breakfast establishment and each rented bedroom shall be not less than one hundred square feet in size. (4) All bedroom rentals shall be for transient occupancy only, as defined in Subsection 5 25.020(f) of Article 5 -25 in Chapter 5 of this Code. (5) No meal other than breakfast shall be served to the persons renting` any rooms within the bed and breakfast establishment. to Section 15- 12.030 in Article 15 -12, where all of the following conditions (6) No cooking shall be allowed in any guest rooms. (7) The bed and breakfast establishment shall be owner occupied or owner operated with a resident manager. (8) No signs or exterior lighting shall be installed except as expressly authorized by the use permit. (9) No ancillary uses, including, but not limited to, receptions, parties or weddings, shall be allowed in conjunction with the bed and breakfast use. The foregoing conditions and requirements are not intended to be exclusive and the Planning Commission may impose any other conditions it deems necessary or appropriate for the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15 -55 of this Chapter." SECTION 3: Paragraph (e) of Section 15- 35.030 in Article 15 -35 is amended to read as follows: SECTION 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City. Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 5: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty day after its passage and adoption. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: "(e) Bed and breakfast establishments s *s as s The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 1986, by the following vote: CITY CLERK -2- One space for each bedroom to be rented, and one space for the owner or resident manager." MAYOR Ms. Lois 'Svalya 14277 Elva Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Dear Ms. Svalya: March 20, 1987 Re: March 4, 1987 Public Hearing on B B issue before the Saratoga City Council Enclosed is a copy of a summary of your comments at the March 4, 1987 hearing before the City Council (page 4). As a property owner on Oak Street (Lundblad's Lodge), I am interested in your remarks at the hearing with respect to "...an alliance between developers and individuals who favored the closure of Saratoga School..." and "...people who are working actively for the B B's were also working for the closure and replacement of Saratoga School with a commercial establishment of retail shops." These are remarkable comments. If there are individuals, whose intent it is to close Saratoga School on Oak Street to develop the school property commercially, I think all property owners should be privy to what you know. I personally oppose any effort to close Saratoga School for any type of development, including condo development. I emphasize condo development because all one has to do is look at the Village side of Oak Street and one can pretty well predict what type of development will take place on the school side of Oak Street as more and more of the old homes are demolished. A little over one year ago Lundblad's Lodge was up for grabs and there were developers who did look at it with the thought in mind of destroying the Lodge and replacing it with condos: I would appreciate it if you would let all of us know (including the City Council) what you know about efforts afoot to develop the school property. If do not come forward with this information, I can only assume your statements at the March 4th hearing were without merit. cc: City Council Sincerely yours, Ann Fi immons MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 4 MARCH 4, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued In response to Councilmember Moyles' question, Mr. Heid stated that through the years, certain historic buildings have disappeared; currently, there were buildings in the City that should be restored. Citing a letter of Mr. Willys Peck, he stated that the unique flavor of these homes would be maintained only through preservation of these structures; the Heritage Commission encourages owners to preserve these structures. He noted inns and lodges in the community which had operated for many years without affecting the neighborhood. Mr. John Kahle, 20601 Brookwood Ln., Saratoga, noted that these homes required constant attention; he has owned the Julia Morgan House since 1955. He reviewed discussions regarding the B &B's which have occurred since 1982; the conclusion of which 'was that B &B's should be a part of Saratoga. He felt that B &B's would preserve houses worthy of such and allow visitors to experience the ambiance and history of the area the letter of Mr. Willys Peck was cited. He felt that B &B's could be best controlled through the Use Permit process. In response to Councilmember Peterson's question, Mr. Kahle stated that renovation of the Julia Morgan House would cost $50,000 $100,000; the house has 5 bedrooms, 5 baths and the lot size was 2 1/2 acres; parking would not be a problem. Ms. Ann Fitzsimmons, 13480 Saratoga Ave., Saratoga, stated she owned Lundblad's Lodge for the past year, this lodge was a B &B for nearly 80 years. She supported the Ordinance amendment since it would again allow the lodge to be used as a B she plans to restore the lodge. In response to Councilmember Peterson's question, she stated that Lundblad's has 6 bedrooms, 5 baths and the property is 2/3 of an acre; renovation would cost a minimum of $300,000. Mrs. Betty Peck read a letter written by her husband, Mr. Willys Peck, in which he addressed the historical perspective of the inns and lodges. Ms. Lois Svalya, 14277 Elva Ave., Saratoga, stated she was puzzled by an alliance between people holding forth historical perspective and people holding commercial interests which sought to close one of the most significant historical landmarks in Saratoga Saratoga School. She stated there was an associations between developmental interests which wished to see Saratoga School replaced with commercial development, i.e., Old'Town, and those who wished to displace the children for more noble reasons learning. Her primary reason for being at the hearing was that zoning ordinances, spot zoning changes, or moving Village boundaries, benefiting special interests of some individuals, was an unhealthy precedent. She did not agree with the argument that citizens could not preserve the beauty, history and ambiance of Saratoga without creating bed and breakfast establishments. In response to Councilmember Moyles' request regarding information to substantiate the conclusion that there was an alliance between developers and individuals who favored the closure of Saratoga School, she stated that she would reveal her sources in private; however, unofficial remarks of individuals in the real estate business were that people who would most like to see Saratoga School closed were those who believed they stood to gain an economic interest. The issue of closure of this school has come up again and again. In response to Councilmember Peterson's question, she had been told that the people who are working actively for the B &B's were also working for the closure and replacement of Saratoga School with a commercial establishment of retail shops. Councilmember Clevenger reiterated the position of the City Council during the past seven years regarding Saratoga School; the Council has never taken any position on the out come of Oak Street School. Mr. John Hurley, 1524 Madrone Hill Rd., Saratoga, reviewed the historical value of preservation of these establishments and stated he had known Mrs. Hazel Bargas of Lundblad's Lodge. Ms. Erma Jackman, 14515 Oak Street, Saratoga, was very much in favor of restoring and maintaining Lundblad's as a lodge. She conveyed testimony of Mr. Warren McLaughlin, who was unable to be present and introduced three Oak Street neighbors who were. present. PETITION THE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY PETITION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA TO ADOPT THE FOLLOWING PROPOSED ORDINANCE (NO.71): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SUBSECTION 5- 20.020(a) TO INCLUDE BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE DEFINITION OF "HOTEL;" AMENDING SECTION- 15- 12.030 TO INCLUDE BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENTS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN R -1 ZONING DISTRICTS ADJACENT TO THE VILLAGE; AND AMENDING SUBSECTION 15- 35.030(e) PERTAINING TO REQUIRED PARKING FACILITIES FOR BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENTS The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Subsection 5- 20.020(a) in Article 5 -20 is amended to read as follows: "(a) Hotel means any structure, or any portion of any structure, which is occupied or intended or designed for occupancy by transients for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes, and includes any hotel, inn, tourist home or house, motel, studio hotel, bachelor hotel, bed and breakfast establishment, lodging house, rooming house, apartment house, dormitory, public or private club, mobile home or house trailer at a fixed location, or other similar structure or portion thereof." r W 7 F V SECTION 2: A new Paragraph (n) is added to Section 15- 12.030 in Article 15 -12, to read as follows: "(n) Bed and breakfast establishments, where all of the following conditions and requirements are satisfied: (1) The bed and breakfast site must be located not more than five hundred feet from a boundary line of the Village. (2) The structure in which the bed and breakfast establishment is operated must be an historic landmark, designated as such by the City pursuant to Chapter 13 of this Code. (3) Not more than eight bedrooms may be rented within the bed and breakfast establishment and each rented bedroom shall be not less than one hundred square feet in size. (4) All bedroom rentals shall be for transient occupancy only, as defined in Subsection 5- 25.020(f) of Article 5 -25 in Chapter 5 of this Code. (5) No meal other than breakfast shall be served to the persons renting any rooms within the bed and breakfast establishment. (6) No cooking shall be allowed in any guest rooms. (7) The bed and breakfast establishment shall be owner occupied or owner operated with a resident manager. (8) No signs or exterior lighting shall be installed except as expressly authorized by the use permit. (9) No ancillary uses, including, but not limited to, receptions, parties or weddings, shall be allowed in conjunction with the bed and breakfast use. The foregoing conditions and requirements are not intended to be exclusive and the Planning Commission may impose any /other conditions it deems necessary or appropriate for the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15 -55 of this Chapter." �c Urn (Sb, I I jn D -Di /M/4/ 47 7 7-/0/..s/ ,W y P6 7-o/r y 9 5 As_at 1 143 gaik ,te f ?6 7 -Li i l C F F67-/S. �6� ,F7 -L2 o s /4 4 ma c /f r SECTION 3: Paragraph (e) of Section 15- 35.030 in Article 15 -35 is amended to read as follows: "(e) Bed and breakfast establishments SECTION 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 5: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption. NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER One space for each bedroom to be rented, and one space for the owner or resident manager." ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER 5, 1 b' -1 i7 I ez 1 1 fp7-10; '7J /-a)4'- af f 9 1 7cC 1Ti, 0 co, 26 3 Si r-1 dii7ve, 9` 7 7-1/T (9/44.-tej u u-7-771,s a Ve-e-;4647- 7 7-o3 11-16 0a,fr (571- NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER C64044 es ADDRESS -1' 1(3 Board of Trustees Saratoga Union School District 20460 Forrest Hills Drive Saratoga, Ca. 95070 April 2, 1987 re: Bed and Breakfast Issue and Saratoga School Dear Board Members: This is a follow -up of a previous letter I wrote to the Board on March 12, 1987. Enclosed is a copy of an article that appeared in the Saratoga News dated March 25, 1987 regarding Saratoga School and the contro- versy surrounding the school and the Bed and Breakfast issue. Also enclosed is a copy of a letter I wrote to Lois Svalya dated March 20, 1987 relating to the same subject. The District Superintendent of Schools, Michael Filice, is quoted in the Saratoga News article as follows: "Unfortunately, the information in the flyer was erroneous 11 The flyer Mr. Filice is referring to is the flyer that was serted into the Saratoga School newsletter and sent home with all of the children prior to the public hearing on the bed and breakfast issue on March 4, 1987. Lisa Akers, the principal of Saratoga School, told me that she permitted the flyer to go into the newsletter after getting the approval of Mr. Felice. I received a telephone call from Mr. Felice on March 26 stating that someone from the school should have had better communication with the City of Saratoga and that they should have obtained a copy of the Proposed Bed and Breakfast amendment before allowing anything to go into the school newsletter. Why Mr. Filice called me, I do not know. I assume it was done on behalf of the Board of Education. I told him that my letter of March 12 to the Board requested a written reply from the Board as to their findings and conclusions. He said he would see to it that I got a written reply. With respect to Mr. Tisch's letters dated March 21, 1987, addressed to the Board of Trustees and the City Council with copies to me enclosed), the purpose of my calling attention to the fact that Mr. Tisch wrote a letter in opposition to the bed and Board of Trustees April 2, 1987 Page 2 breakfast issue was to allow the Board to have any and all information before it relating to the issue at hand. Mr. Tisch, as a private individual, had an absolute right to write a letter in opposition to the proposed bed and breakfast-or- dinance.. I, likewise, have an absolute right to enlighten the Board as to all facts surrounding an issue. Had I'known about the private or public statements of any other member of the school board relating to an issue the Board would be called upon to decide, 1 would also have called this to the attention of the Board. cc: City Council Thomas Tisch Sincerely yours, Ann Fi €zsimmons 1 h ookoutIive-ta of their loomin g demise? Saratoga School as it appeared in 1898. This building, the third school house in the city's his- tory, was the first located at 14592 Oak St. It was Officials deny latest closure rumors By Cindy Cooper Saratoga schools have plenty of history but what is in store for the future? Saratoga School, dating back to the 1850s, and Saratoga High School, established in the 1960s, have been targets of rumors suggesting closing of the schools. "Every few years," said Saratoga High Principal Tod Likins, "these rumors come up. the (Los Gatos Saratoga Joint Union High School) board has made it very clear it has no intention of closing any schools (in the distri ^t)." 'Enormous resistance' "There is an ongoing fear in Saratoga News /March 25. 19Er7 /pagp 10 the valley about closing schools. Saratoga High is unique, be- cause it serves as the commu- nity school for Saratoga," Likins continued. "Campbell and Fremont dis- tricts could close one of their high schools easily because none is considered a community school. "There would be an enorm- ous resistance to closing Sara- toga High and even Los Gatos High," he said. In 1960, the first year the high school was open, 313 students graduated. The enrollment at the school peaked during the 1976 -77 school year at 2,049. This year the enrollment is 1,330, identical to the 1966 -67 school year. Likins said. 0 io u replaced by the present Saratoga School building in 1923. Enrollment will continue to drop until the year 1990 -91, Lik- ins predicted, at which time it will bottom out with 1,000 stu- dents. Nevertheless. Likins assured that, "We will be around a long time." Saratoga School evolves Several changes have been made to the Saratoga Ele- mentary School on Oak Street through the years. The city's first school conducted a class on the same site in the 1850s in the Sons of Temperance Hall. When that was condemned in 1866, classes were held in a hall at the corner of Fourth and Lumber streets. Three years later, a two -room building was constructed at the former site of the Sons of Temperance Hall. Within 10 years. a bottom floor was added to the building. In 1895, an up-to -date wooden. schoolhouse complete with bell tower, a fire escape, a cord= bination library /office, fcur rooms and an auditorium were built with 165,000 raised by a bond issue. The first unit of today's school was built in 1923. It in- cluded a library, auditorium and cafeteria. Because of earthquake safety worries, the section built in 1923 was closed in 1971 at the sugges- tion of structural engineers. The library and office I to bie transferred into trailers. Two third grade classes were :;used to f oii;;ress Springs Pic;ase turn to page 12 Sctiaa Condnued from mein School. `The (school) board has never The newer parts of the build- ,.t ing, including the Komina Ave dlscl s sed closing a school.' nue wing (added in the late s a 1940s), remained open:. -0 Michael Filice, during the 1973 -74 school year. SUSD superintendent A media center was added." Saratoga News /March 25, 1987/page +12 Developers eyeing site? an educational advantage for But at a March 4 City Council children :the building is "liv- meeting, Saratoga resident Lois' big history it has been made Svalya claimed that business earthquake -safe without de= interests have been planning straying its architectural integ- with developers to convince the rity; it contributes to the flavor Saratoga Union School District of the community; and it is over to close Saratoga School and sell 50 Years Old.", the property for use as a new "commercial development of Council objects shops." But at the March 18 meeting, Svalya was asked by Council- City Councit 'members were man David Moyles to.expand on indignant overthe commission's her comments, but she declined. decision. When contacted by the Sara- "While we: have always taken toga News, she said she feared the 'position that we would like reprisals if she gave any details the building to be saved, it is not about the purposed scheme. our role to decide what to do Councilman Don Peterson re- with. the. school," -Mayor Joyce sponded to Svalya's allegation Hlava said "-That is the school by saying Saratoga School will board's' decision. I'm n very con- be "one of the schools closed corned if `';they Heritage` in Saratoga." Preservation, Commission) went •The Heritage Preservation ahead. (and'sent S letter). This Commission voted at its Feb. 18 was not in hne; with the' city's meeting to send a letter to policy" Saratoga Union School District "For us t� get.involved in the urging board members to save closure schools would be Saratoga School as a school. (political) dynamite," Peterson The reasons the commission said. cited were these: "The school is "1 haven't- heard the ru- architecturally significant: it is mars," said Saratoga Union's cer nr- Assistant Superintendent Mary Gardner. "As far as I know, they are merely rumors." People may be referring to a study done several years ago when the district had to close Congress Springs School, Gard ner said. One report suggested that Saratoga School be the next school closed. The consensus, however, was to determine which school was to be closed if and when a closure was neces- sary. "I would be very sad to see Saratoga not be a school. I am speaking from a purely ro- mantic and historical` `point of view," Gardner said: B&B link raised District -'`Superintendent Michael Filice said the rumors may be related to the bed and' breakfast issue. An unsigned, handwritten flyer sent home with Saratoga School students early this month implied that Saratoga School may eventually be turned into. a :bed and breakfast inn. "Unfortunately, the informa- tion in the flyer was erroneous," said Filice, who added that the flyer was sent with his kngwi- edge. The intention was to encour- age people to attend a March 4 City Connrii hearing on the B &B issue to get more information on it, Filice said. However, Filice conceded that he gets calls all the time from realtors asking if the dis- trict is going to close a school and if so,iphich one. "The (school) board has never discussed closing a school," he said. Speculation about combining Saratoga School with the elementa district is also idle minor, Ellice claimed. Ms. Lois Svalya 14277 Elva Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 March 20, 1987 Re: March 4, 1987 Public Hearing on B B issue before the Saratoga City Council Dear Ms. Svalya: Enclosed is a copy of a summary of your comments at the March 4, 1987 hearing before the City Council (page 4). As a property owner on Oak Street (Lundblad's`Lodge), I am interested in your remarks at the hearing with respect to "...an alliance between developers and individuals who favored the closure of Saratoga School..." and "...people who are working actively for the B B's were also working for the closure and replacement of Saratoga School with a commercial establishment of retail shops." These are remarkable comments. If there are individuals, whose intent it is to close Saratoga school on Oak Street to develop the school property commercially, I think all property owners should be privy to what you know. I personally oppose any effort to close Saratoga School for any type of development, including condo development. I emphasize condo development because all one has to do is look at the Village side of Oak Street and one can pretty well predict what type of development will take place on the school side of Oak Street as more and more of the old homes are demolished. A little over one year ago Lundblad's Lodge was up for grabs and there were developers who did look at it with the thought in mind of destroying the Lodge and replacing it with condos! I would appreciate it if you would let all of us know (including the City Council) what you know about efforts afoot to develop the school property. If you do not come forward with this information, I can only assume your statements at the March 4th hearing were without merit. cc: City Council Sincerely yours, e Ann Fit immons In response to Councilmember Peterson's question, Mr. Kahle stated that renovation of the Julia Morgan House would cost $50,000 $100,000; the house has 5 bedrooms, 5 baths and the lot size was 2 1/2 acres; parking would not be a problem. Ms. Ann Fitzsimmons, 13480 Saratoga Ave., Saratoga, stated she owned Lundblad's Lodge for the past year this lodge was a B &B for nearly 80 years. She supported the Ordinance amendment since it would again allow the lodge to be used as a B she plans to restore the lodge. In response to Councilmember Peterson's question, she stated that Lundblad's has 6 bedrooms, 5 baths and the property is 2/3 of an acre; renovation would cost a minimum of $300,000. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 4, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued In response to Councilmember Moyles' question, Mr. Heid stated that through the years, certain historic buildings have disappeared; currently, there were buildings in the City that should be restored. Citing a letter of Mr. Willys Peck, he stated that the unique flavor of these homes would be maintained only through preservation of these structures; the Heritage Commission encourages owners to preserve these structures. He noted inns and lodges in the community which had operated for many years without affecting the neighborhood. Mr. John Kahle, 20601 Brookwood Ln., Saratoga, noted that these homes required constant attention; he has owned the Julia Morgan House since 1955. He reviewed discussions regarding the B &B's which have occurred since 1982; the conclusion of which was that B &B's should be a part of Saratoga. He felt that B &B's would preserve houses worthy of such and allow visitors to experience the ambiance and history of the area the letter of Mr. Willys Peck was cited. He felt that B &B's could be best controlled through the Use Permit process. Mrs. Betty Peck read a letter written by her husband, Mr. Willys Peck, in which he addressed the historical perspective of the inns and lodges. Ms. Lois Svalya, 14277 Elva Ave., Saratoga, stated she was puzzled by an alliance between people holding forth historical perspective and people holding commercial interests which sought to close one of the most significant historical landmarks in Saratoga Saratoga School. She stated there was an associations between developmental interests which wished to see Saratoga School replaced with commercial development, i.e., Old Town, and those who wished to displace the children for more noble reasons learning. Her primary reason for being at the hearing was that zoning ordinances, spot zoning changes, or moving Village boundaries, benefiting special interests of some individuals, was an unhealthy precedent. She did not agree with the argument that citizens could not preserve the beauty, history and ambiance of Saratoga without creating bed and breakfast establishments. In response to Councilmember Moyles' request regarding information to substantiate the conclusion that there was an alliance between developers and individuals who favored the closure of Saratoga School, she stated that she would reveal her sources in private; however, unofficial remarks of individuals in the real estate business were that people who would most like to see Saratoga School closed were those who believed they stood to gain an economic interest. The issue of closure of this school has come up again and again. In response to Councilmember Peterson's question, she had been told that the people who are working actively for the B &B's were also working for the closure and replacement of Saratoga School with a commercial establishment of retail shops. Counc member Clevenger reiterated the position of the City Council during the past seven years regarding Saratoga School; the Council has never taken any position on the out come of Oak Street School. Mr. John Hurley, 1524 Madrone Hill Rd., Saratoga, reviewed the historical value of preservation of these establishments and stated he had known Mrs. Hazel Bargas of Lundblad's Lodge. Ms. Erma Jackman, 14515 Oak Street, Saratoga, was very much in favor of restoring and maintaining Lundblad's as a lodge. She conveyed testimony of Mr. Warren McLaughlin, who was unable to be present and introduced three Oak Street neighbors who were present. Page 4 Board of Trustees Saratoga Union School District 20460 Forrest Dills Dr. Saratoga, CA 95070 0entlomen$ Recently you reCeired a letter dated March 12, 1987, from Ann yitssiaoone regarding the bed and breakfast issue currently being discussed by the City. Ths final paragraph of the letter contains an innuendo that I was acting directly or indirectly on behalf of the school district in my capacity so a Trustee when I wrote a letter opposing the proposed Zoning ordinance. I wish to asks it absolutely clear that 1 wrote the City council opposing the anion as an individual citizen. As you are aware, I em a reaid of the arse, 'living at the corn of gamine end Aloha, some few feet outside the boundary of the proposed zoning area, and have lived at that location since 1972. Enclosed is copy of the letter seat the city council. 1 resent t implications of Ms. Fitzsimmons sad wish to make it clear that 1 an entitled, as is any citizen of this community, to spook out on issues which concern me and my family. I have done so is the past and will continue to do so. it Copy, Ann Fitzsimmons March 21. 1987 Sihte roly, Thomas A. Tisch Berates. Resident Clerk, Board of Trustees of tits Serstogs Union School District March 21, 1987 City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Ladies and Ge tlomest Recently, in a letter to the Saratoga Union School District Board of Trustees, Ann Fitzsimmons implied that I was acting acting directly or indirectly in my ca as a Trustee of the Saratoga Union School District cap wrote my letter of February 22n4 opposing the proposed bed and breakfast zoning. I wish to make it absolutely clear that I wrote the City council opposing the action as an Individual citizen. I am a resident of the area, living at the corner-of 10o4i441 and Aloha, some foie feet outside the boundary of the proposed zoning area, and have lived at that location since 1972. Enclosed is a copy of letter sent you previously on this matter, as well as my letter to the SUSD School Board on this same matter. I also wish to reiterate my opposition...as an individual...to any such allowed use in an RI area. I resent the implications of Ms. Fitzsimmons and wish to make it clear that I am entitled, as is any citizen of this to speak out on issues which concern me and my family. I have dose so in the past and will continue to do so. Thank you for considering my views. Sincerely, ATtt Copy* Ann Fitzsimmons Thomas A. Tisch Saratoga Resident PETITION TO THE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Re: Commercial Uses in Residential Zones We the undersigned citizens and residents of the City of Saratoga, California, each being over the age of eighteen (18) years, hereby petition the honorable City Council of the City of Saratoga, and state our position on the above subject, as follows: We, and each of us, unequivocally oppose the enactment of any ordinance, or other legislative change which would have the effect of permitting any non residential or commercial uses whatsoever, in residential zones within the City. We specifically object to any ordinance or other legislative device which would permit applications to be made to the City Council or any other City Board or Commission, the granting of which could permit the establishment of bed and breakfast inns, rooming houses, hotels, art galleries, or any other non residential or commercial uses whatsoever in areas of the City presently zoned as single or multi- family residential. We oppose commercial uses of any kind or description in our living areas and residential zones. Addr: A{/' Saratoga, CA 95070 SignaturejAtA„6 Telephone No.: 44f Print Name: Print Name: Vl k,2,, Ba,i4-Q,A, c Addr: 13a �e nrti c, Er4e; Saratoga, CA 95070 Print Name`gzzanno, Y ,g4oJ( Addr: 1 8 (27 an Aq Saratoga Print Name: ZJ,? 2), 43 /4 4 Addr: /9(21] 655 Saratoga, CA 95070 Print Name: p 1? dA dr: S Z� Sys�?� 1 Saratoga, CA 95070 Signature: 4 Telephone No.: ,a---0 7 Print Name: Signature: Print Name: Signature: Print Name: Signature: 4) Telephone No.: cj�`� L Addr: 2013 t&nK- ate; Saratoga, CA 95070 Sohvi 4cM i'1 "K A ecitl i YA m ro 0.414V yi7 Addr: )Aas Saratoga, CA 95070 Telephone No.: 3(o7 094/ 1 Telephone No.: T( 09 Telephone No.: 7V)JS Telephone No.: c(r -c Z� CA 95070 Addr: /'f/oy OkWO6 -nO .L�. Saratoga, CA 95070 Telephone No.: 7 /3 Addr: 0 4/ Neerwaerribrt Saratoga, CA 95070 Telephone No.: 2 /S7 g Addr: /9757) L� Saratoga, CA 95070 Telephone No.: ')-7(A We the undersigned citizens and residents of the City of Saratoga, California, each being over the age'of eighteen (18) years, hereby petition the honorable City Council of the City of Saratoga, and state our position on the above subject, as follows: Print Name: (c)EST Signature: Print Name: Signature: 12 /fit Print Name: Signature: We, and each of us, unequivocally oppose the enactment of any ordinance, or other legislative change which would have the effect of permitting any non residential or commercial uses whatsoever, in residential zones within the City. We specifically object to any ordinance or other legislative device which would permit applications to be made to the City Council or any other City Board or Commission, the granting of which could permit the establishment of bed and breakfast inns, rooming houses, hotels, art galleries, or any other non residential or commercial uses whatsoever in areas of the. City presently zoned as single or multi family residential. We oppose commercial uses of any kind or description in our living areas and residential zones. Print Name: 6 fog Signature:'v7.<2.-uk l� Print Name: 64(j cJ 170Se- Signature: 8� Signature: Print Name: YolfM \r Addr: gO 04121Se vh6/\,; Saratoga, CA 95070 Signature: Y Q�,Q_ 41 c Wt-LAA Telephone No.: V1` Signature: PETITION TO THE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Re: Commercial Uses in. Residential Zones Print Name: ucf Signature: 'Obb 1 ou Addr ilNDe[v4c) G4 Saratoga, CA 95070 Telephone No.: g Addr: 14 Ahctrew t. Saratoga, CA 95070 Addr 5 49/6Z7V/e4 Saratoga., CA 95070 Telephone No.: U i9 5 D 7 7 Addr: JLf Sv Saratoga, CA 95070 Telephone No.: 36 77 Telephone No.: `34.1--S(.3,4 Addr: /57-n Bcit u�- Saratoga, CA 95070 Telephone No. 19 Z6 0 Print Name: c 2 /eS `�t/G Addr:'4'j� b erg (fit t; Saratoga, CA 95070 Signature: Z fc.o� Telephone No.: -�Cl Print Name: if Addr: A0411 t r w c_ Saratoga, CA 95070 Ai )30� Telephone No.: 74( (5"7 1 Print Name:, e ,mod. l?f�i✓ Addr: t-ft1 r'L( Saratoga, CA 95070 0 ,1/ AP Telephone No.: 74( Addr: ILI t\A01/ 640 3((Saratoga, CA 95070 Telephone No.: 86(5 o, Print Name: /All Of m C_k Addr: J 3 Q(.04 GLEN Bole Dp Saratoga, CA 95070 Signature: Telephone No.: 6c Print Name:///,q L/tfi ddr: h/ ,4 e Saratoga, CA 95070 Signature: Print Name: Signature: Print Name: Signature: Signature: Signature: Print Name Signature: i Print Name: Signature: We the undersigned citizens and residents of the City of Saratoga, California, each being over the age of eighteen (18) years, hereby petition the honorable City Council of the City of Saratoga, and state our position on the above subject, as follows: We, and each of us, unequivocally oppose the enactment of any ordinance, or other legislative change which would have the effect of permitting any non residential or commercial uses whatsoever, in residential zones within the City. We specifically object to any ordinance or other legislative device which would permit applications to be made to the City Council or any other City Board or Commission, the granting of which could permit the establishment of bed and breakfast inns, rooming houses, hotels, art galleries, or any other non residential or commercial uses whatsoever in areas of the City presently zoned as single or multi family residential. We oppose commercial uses of any kind or description in our living areas and residential zones. PETITION TO THE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Re: Commercial Uses in Residential Zones c/4 e Addr: as 8 Vic4ery l Telephone No.: Print Name: X 00/0 4 ,"0-eT Addr: isw719g4tapo _4 i 9 Telephone No.: FyN� p') S c r i Addr: Saratoga, CA 95070 Signature:��„ Telephone No.: Print Name: r Addr 0 10(46 V(ry Saratoga., CA 95070 Telephone No.: Saratoga, CA 95070 7 fides c/ Print Name: �at3C 5 Addr: ZD66,5 Saratoga, CA 95070 Telephone No.: 7`( ?/577 Print Name: 4k tageri Ql/ r: 84-74 I`j uRQ.Ort p S arato ga, CA 95070 Signature: ,tiigl!:.■20 Telephone No.: Telephone No.: d g-00 Addr: l5 441 MADI fjVE`A-4' Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga, CA 95070 Telephone No.: 6G,7 2I 2 0(o2r) l.©wlI A Q Saratoga, CA 95070 Telephone No.: 7-7 A-i ow (9.,scuuLj -11,u. 1744 oitA 19-Laukoos 5,-3-wL (AM- Tkg. i- vlk gowo Lom:,-6 ,ki S alt- la-/ 'APR 1 0 1987 Members of the City Council City of Saratoga. 13777 Fruitvale Av. Saratoga, CA 95070 Ladies and Gentlemen: RE: Bed and Breakfast Proposal 20630 Lomita Av. Saratoga, CA 95070 April 6, 1987 As a resident of the neighborhood adjoining the Village, I would like to take this opportunity to inform the Council of my opposition to any changes in the zoning ordinances. The following are reasons why bed and breakfast establishments should not be allowed in this neighborhood. First and foremost, bed and breakfast establishments will increase traffic and congestion, as well as pollution. Oak Street, in particular, is already crowded enough as it is. Even if the proposed bed and breakfast establishments provide for off street parking, there will be an increase in vehicles turning in and out of driveways. This will exacerbate congestion and present a safety hazard for children walking to and from Saratoga School. Furthermore, opening bed and breakfasts on residential streets adjacent to the Village will introduce into the residential neighborhoods a factor which so far has been limited to the Village: the drunk' driver., On just about any Friday or Saturday night, one can see them leaving the restaurants on Big Basin Way and getting into their cars. If bedrooms were available for rent on streets such as Oak Street, it is not difficult to see where they would be going after dinner. Second, however innocuous a bed and breakfast establishment may seem, it is still a commercial use in a residential area. Opening a residential area to bed and breakfasts will set a precedent which may result in the inclusion of more objectional uses later on, including liquor and /or eating establishments. Third, there doesn't appear to be any economic justification for augmenting the commercial district in. Saratoga. At ,present, there is a surplus of rooms available in the Village, and there are at least two large retail spaces in the Village which have been available for rent for months. One final note regarding the preservation of historic buildings: the argument that bed and breakfasts are needed to preserve the'historic buildings in Saratoga is spurious. The Missionary Huse, a private residence on Oak Street, was recently designated as an historic building. Nearly every one of my neighbors is unequivocally opposed to this proposal. We are not interested in seeing Oak Street turned into another University Avenue, as was done in Los Gatos. Thank you very much for your consideration. Yours trul tan Bogosian Saratoga News 12378 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road Saratoga, California 95070 Re: Bed Breakfasts To The Editor: April 4, 1987 Jaynes R. Cohen, M.D. Saratoga 1 t l� 11,0 As one who is not directly affected by the Bed and Breakfast issue, but whose friends and neighbors are, I have been following the arguments with interest, and have decided to add just a couple of my own thoughts. There are probably few people who have as poor a track record as I when it comes to investments, but even I would not buy a property hoping to turn it into a hotel (let's call a spade a spade, a Bed and Breakfast is a hotel), without first ascertaining that it would be legal to do so. That several individuals have chosen to do this is their folly, and I am astounded that they would have the nerve to then ask the city council to change Saratoga's zoning laws to correct their error. I am even more appalled that the city council would even consider accomodating them! Some of these property owners have even tried to hold the city hostage,: threatening to not keep up or improve their porperties unless they are allowed to turn then into income generating establishments. I find this insulting, to say the least. There are many Saratoga homeowners taking the expense and trouble of keeping up their beautiful and sometimes historic homes without any more financial incentive then pride and perhaps the assurance of a profit at resale. In a day and age when politicians enjoy at best a tenuous trust and respect, it would behoove our elected officials to avoid even the suggestion or semblance of any favoritism towards a special interest minority at the possible expense of the majority of citizens. That some of the council members have suggested that a compromise solution might be found to accomodate the financial interests of the two or three investors in this issue certainly raises such issues. I have no way of knowing if any council members have ever received election campaign support from anyone who might stand to benefit from the commercialization of Oak Street, but if any have I would certainly expect that member to make such support public and of course abstain from voting on this sensitive issue. 4 R► Saratoga Neighbors Editor, Saratoga News 12378 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road Saratoga, California 95070 Suzanne K. Armbruster 21169 Canyon View Drive Saratoga, California 95070 408 867 -6857 Editor and Saratoga Neighbors: March 26, 1987 APR 7 1987 v7, G On April 15th, the Saratoga City Council plans to further discuss the commercial use of bed and breakfast hotels in residentially zoned districts of our community, specifically, the issue of preserving historically designated buildings by converting them into bed and breakfast inns. The initial idea of such an establishment sounds charming as we imagine unique Victorian structures, artistically decorated and flawlessly landscaped. One might feel that this would be a welcomed addition to any town, especially Saratoga, a picturesque city with a multitude of homes that are perfect for such a setting. But, we must also understand the painful realities of allowing commercial rooming facilities. In addition to the variety of guests who would be frequenting the bed and breakfast hotel, there would also be deliveries of all service related items, food products, linens, housekeeping supplies, etc. and support staff commuting through our neighborhood. Our residential communities that have always enjoyed privacy will now be much more visable to transient traffic, thereby increasing the potential for crimes from which we have been sheltered in the past. The more we encourage non residential traffic in our neighborhood, the greater the possibilities for burgleries and other violent crimes. Saratoga has commercially zoned districts that offer a warm welcome to all visitors. These areas of our community already allow hotels and bed and breakfast inns within their boarders. As we concern ourselves with the preservation of historically significant structures, I hope we will also concern ourselves with preserving the security, privacy and quality of life in our community. Please keep these and all other 1 Saratoga News Page 2 March 26, 1987 commercial establishments restricted to the already designated commercial zones and save our living areas and residential zones so that we may continue to enjoy our homes. cc: Saratoga City Council Very truly yours, Suzanne K. Armbruster Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Council Members: March 27, 1987 Re: Bed and Breakfast Below is a copy.iof a letter to the editors of the Saratoga News and the San Jose Mercury News we have submitted for publication. We shall appreciate your consideration of our views on this subject. Dear Editor: We oppose the proposal to permit commercial Bed and Breakfast establishments in some residential areas of Saratoga. Our residential' neighborhood should remain residential, not commercial. An intrusion of commercial use would increase traffic, decrease surrounding property values, and lower the quality of life for many Saratoga residents. Advocates of the proposal argue that it is a means of preserving old "historical" homes: it is really a means of increasing the property values of a few, while lowering those of many. Other more effective means of preserving such homes are available without lowering the quality of our residential lifestyle and depreciating the value of our homes. Dean R. Chapman Marguerite C. Chapman 21221 Canyon View Dr. Saratoga CA 95.070 867 -4304 Editor Saratoga News 12378 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, Suite 8 Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Sir: DONALD J. PROLO, M.D. U 20471 FORREST HILLS DR. SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 March 23, 1987 MAR 2 5 1987 Memories linger over the Saratoga City Council's Public Hearing on an ordinance to permit bed and breakfast hotels within residential areas 500 feet from the present Village boundaries. Whereas the overwhelming majority of those in attendance opposed this effort by two landowners with the blessing of the Heritage Commission, Mayor Hlava's deft procedural conduct limited articulation of this sentiment of opposition and expression of dissatisfaction and annoyance this citizenry shares over the actions of its Council. Perhaps the most flagrant abuse of public responsibility lies in this Council's apparent tolerance for the argument that a prominent attorney and respected physician are in need of special consideration to make their investments profitable. Attorney John R. Kahle contended at the Public Hearing that returns of rent on his home are insufficient to allow him to maintain it properly. Doctor Ann Fitzsimmons,who recently purchased a home on Oak Street,is unwilling now to repair it unless this property in a residential neighborhood is allowed a commercial use. The basic twin issues are not preservation of two old homes, but commercialization of residential neighbor- hoods and the City of Saratoga's obligation to individual land- lords. Private investments in this society carry the burden of potential failure along with the monetary rewards of possible success. If an investment in a residential area is predicated on the hope of spot rezoning, that investor is expecting from the City an abrogation of its contract with adjacent homeowners who purchased homes with the understanding that a. residential zoning was inviolable. The City of Saratoga cannot fairly breach this contract with homeowners in support of two investors who seek special favor. Moreover a dangerous precedent for public support of private investments will follow. Owners of the many unoccupied buildings on Big Basin Way should then expect special tax consideration. Throughout the City of Saratoga old homes in need of repair with 2/3 of an acre should be permitted commercial use. This entire community should be alarmed over deliberations of its Council. If this present Council votes to permit commercial ventures in residential neighborhoods, its discre- tionary powers at de facto rezoning should be limited by law and transferred to the vote of the people. cc: Saratoga City Council phone number: (408) 867 -5478 erely, Donald J. P ffig_ed M.D. Saratoga City Council Saratoga, Ca. 95070 re: B B Issue, Hearing April 15, 1987 Dear Councilmembers: March 23, 1987 Enclosed is a Petition that was circulated by Gary Espinoza, who lives at 14510 Oak Street, Saratoga. Mr. Espinoza had all of these signatures prior to the March 4 hearing but he inadver- tently forgot to turn it in. For the record, I would like to submit this signed petition at, this time. Also enclosed for the record is a letter I wrote to the Board of Education dated March 12, 1987 and a letter I wrote to Lois Svalya dated March 20, 1987. Sincerely yours, Ann Fitz immons PETITION THE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY PETITION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF $ARATOGA TO ADOPT THE FOLLOWING PROPOSED ORDINANCE (N0.71): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SUBSECTION 5- 20.020(a) TO INCLUDE BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE DEFINITION 'OF "HOTEL;" AMENDING SECTION- 15- 12.030 TO INCLUDE BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENTS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN R -1 ZONING DISTRICTS ADJACENT TO THE VILLAGE; AND AMENDING SUBSECTION 15- 35.030(e) PERTAINING TO REQUIRED PARKING FACILITIES FOR BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENTS The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Subsection 5- 20.020(a) in Article 5 -20 is amended to read as follows: "(a) Hotel means any structure, or any portion of any structure, which is occupied or intended or designed for occupancy by transients for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes, and includes any hotel, inn, tourist home or house, motel, studio hotel, bachelor hotel, bed and breakfast establishment, lodging house, rooming house, apartment house, dormitory, public or private club, mobile home or house trailer at a fixed location, or other similar structure or portion thereof." r i SECTION 2: A new Paragraph (n) is added to Section 15- 12.030 in Article 15 -12, to read as follows: "(n) Bed and breakfast establishments, where all of the following conditions and requirements are satisfied: (1) The bed and breakfast site must be located not more than five hundred feet from a boundary line of the Village. (2) The structure in which the bed and breakfast establishment is operated must be an historic landmark, designated as such by the City pursuant to Chapter 13 of this Code. (3) Not more than eight bedrooms may be rented within the bed and breakfast establishment and each rented bedroom shall be not less than one hundred square feet in size. (4) All bedroom rentals shall be for transient occupancy only, as defined in Subsection 5- 25.020(f) of Article 5 -25 in Chapter 5 of this Code. (5) No meal other than breakfast shall be served to the persons renting any rooms within the bed and breakfast establishment. (6) No cooking shall be allowed in any guest rooms. (7) The bed and breakfast establishment shall be owner occupied or owner operated with a resident manager. (8) No signs or exterior lighting shall be installed except as expressly authorized by the use permit. (9) No ancillary uses, including, but not limited to, receptions, parties or weddings, shall be allowed in conjunction with the bed and breakfast use. The foregoing conditions and requirements are not intended to be exclusive and the Planning Commission may impose any other conditions it deems necessary or appropriate for the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15 -55 of this Chapter." I -J t.. 1 v /W1/ tai V- X X I -1a-1-i 'yyaJ order s/- R R6 7-o/9 SECTION 3: Paragraph (e) of Section 15- 35.030 in Article 15 -35 is amended to read as follows: SECTION 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City: Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 5: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption. NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER "(c) Bed and breakfast establishments One space for each bedroom to be rented, and one space for the owner or resident manager." ADDRESS 67-.‘s7 9.071 TELEPHONE NUMBER 7 y' 1 l s.—.C9x 'g 7 'S I--a k a4-6 ?P7--/i 1 f7((', ai; 1;LA_ 2 035/ ge1172-Ave 9 --S 0/-ickhd g6 7 (9- 0 3 3 e-/ .12„,,,, L. g 7‘ r e.4 7-037: aL-Q.A. (113- 0- w mc c o Ls -q- Lt rz w zrz 7 Cgt. y /L., 1 76 7-..- 37/ c\- krYIGI-Ita.Aoe 1 S(07-1f F/976 /Af(), /zys-/ t J. I $6 -/c! K7 -4. lill I 141 h4 X. /44g ro-i 177 sc7-- 65( /4-719' A -54,-igv... iz fP f7-T4 1Y760 e Pi NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER 0 ANAL. 1 )71-40, 1 7- 1 A 1 7)A-/ 1_. Mkk v 1 J i 1 A /.17--- 1-07( C s A (u,:a ADDRESS TELEPHOt NUMBER oki s767-- Board of Education c/o Saratoga Union School District 20460 Forrest Hills Drive Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Dear Board Members: The above statement is blatantly false. March 12, 1987 Board Members: Mary Ellen Comport, Thomas Tisch, Casandra Houston, Gretchen Newby, Stephen Calebotta Enclosed is a copy of a letter I wrote to the City Council of the City of Saratoga dated March 2, 1987. The "flyer" attached to this letter was sent home in the Saratoga School newsletter-(the original flyer was a bright yellow color rather than whits). The purpose of this letter is to determine the propriety of inserting this flyer into the school newsletter regarding an issue, the bed and breakfast issue, which is not a school issue. Enclosed is a copy of the proposed amendment that would allow bed and breakfast establishments under certain conditions; nowhere in the amendment is the school mentioned. At best, the flyer is misleading; at worse, it is blatantly false and intended to create fear and anxiety in parents about a non -issue as far as the school is concerned. The flyer states in part the following: "Saratoga Council will consider the extension of the Saratoga Village 500 feet beyond its present boundaries." The actual wording of the proposed amendment is as follows: "...Amending section 15- 12.030 to include bed and break- fast establishments as a conditional use in R -1 zoning districts adjacent to the Village;..." (Emphasis added). There is a big difference between extending the Village boundry and allowing bed and breakfast establishments in a residential area. The amendment clearly states that bed and breakfast establishments would be a conditional use in R -1 zoning; there would be no zone change. When I confronted Lisa Akers, the principal of Saratoga School, about the flyer,she stated she could see nothing wrong with it since it was just a notice of a meeting. The flyer went beyond that. Parents reading this notice could certainly conclude that the school is -in some kind of jeopardy if bed and breakfast establishments were permitted. Board of Education Page 1 March 12, 1987 The notice did not just state time, place and subject matter. The flyer was not signed by anyone, giving the impression that the school itself was the bearer of the message. The very fact that the notice was nut signed, makes it suspect. I am sure if I or a parent of the school favoring bed and break- fast establishments wanted to place a notice in the school newsletter stating that the bed and breakfast issue is not a school issue, that there is no zone change threatening the school and that parents need have no concern, we would not have been allowed access to the school newsletter. I would appreciate it, if you would investigate this matter. I would like a written reply from the Board of your findings and con- clusions. In closing, I note that Thomas Tisch is a member of the Board of Education. I assume he is the same gentleman who wrote a letter to the City Council in opposition to the bed and breakfast amend- ment. Thank you for looking into this matter. Sincerely yours, Ann Fitz mmons 13480 Saratoga Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 867 -4231 TO THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF Monday, March 2, 1987 Late Friday, February 27,1987 I learned that a "flyer" had been inserted in the Saratoga School newsletter or newspaper that is sent home with all of the children attending the Oak Street School. I was able to obtain a copy of the "'flyer* over this past weekend. Enclosed is a copy for review by the City Council. The copy sent home was on deep yellow paper rather than the white. The "flyer" was not signed thereby giving the appearance of being authored and sanctioned by school officials. At 9:00 a.ra. Monday, March 2, 1987 I visited Saratoga School and spoke with the principal, Lisa Akers, about this matter. She said it was with her approval and the approval of the Superintendent of Schools, Michael Felice, that. the "flyer" could be sent home with the children in the school newspaper because, after all, it was jut a notice of an upcoming meeting. I asked her who the author of the notice was and she stated it was Jill Hunter. I would have.no objection if'parents talked directly to one another about the B and B "issue. What.I do object to is school officials per- mitting individuals,who are trying to advance a cause, to use the school, giving the impression that.the school sanctions their point of view. I think this is an improper use of the school. Had a parent signed the notice, we might have another situation. However, I do not believe private individuals are allowed to send messages in school newspapers. Since the school has now become involved, I can only assume that the message given to parents of the school is similar to #3 item of Mr. Raamat's letter to the City Council dated February 24, 1987 which .I have cut out and made a part of this letter: 0 3) The Oak Street school appears to be included in the 500 ft redefinition zone. Why? The change in the zoning would con- ceivably provide sort of "legitimacy" for eminent domain con- demnation and closing of the school with subsequent possibility of an hotel development on site!!!! We do not need to close schools to build hotels! I do Trot believe we have amateurs in opposition to the B B issue. From what I have observed, we have "professional agitators" who know how to side track people and create fear in their minds. Respectfully submitted, w Ann Fitz 4 morons S +'3/ I (Ai oz: 4 any 1 00 1/ps _T-No v Tral -vt-vt1-96U I -vim 5y19 v? DcrVij local /(74 pa ORDINANCE 110. 71. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SUBSECTION 5- 20.020(a) TO INCLUDE BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE DEFINITION •OF "HOTEL;" AMENDING SECTION- 15- 12.030 TO INCLUDE BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENTS AS A CONDPTIONAL USE IN R -1 ZONING DISTRICTS ADJACENT TO THE VILLAGE; AND AMENDING SUBSECTION 15- 35.030(e) PERTAINING TO REQUIRED PARKING FACILITIES FOR BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENTS The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Subsection 5- 20.020(a) in Article 5 -20 is amended to read as follows: "(a) Hotel means any structure, or any portion of any structure, which is occupied or intended or designed for occupancy by transients for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes, and includes any hotel, inn, tourist home or house, motel, studio hotel, bachelor hotel, bed and breakfast establishment, lodging house, rooming house, apartment house, dormitory, public or private club, mobile home or house trailer at a fjxed location, or other similar structure or portion thereof." SECTION 2: A new Paragraph (n) is added to Section 15- 12.030 in Article 15 -12, to read as follows: "(n) Bed and breakfast establishments, where all of the following conditions and requirements are satisfied: (1) The bed and breakfast site must be located not more than five hundred feet from a boundary line of the Village. (2) The structure in which the bed and breakfast establishment is operated must be an historic landmark, designated as such by the City pursuant to Chapter 13 of this Code. (3) Not more than eight bedrooms may be rented within the bed and breakfast establishment and each rented bedroom shall be not less than one hundred square feet in size. (4) All bedroom rentals shall be for transient occupancy only, as defined in Subsection 5- 25.020(f) of Article 5 in Chapter 5 of this Code. (5) No meal other than breakfast shall be served to the persons renting any rooms within the bed and breakfast establishment. (9) No ancillary uses, including, but not limited to, receptions, parties or weddings, shall be allowed in conjunction with the bed and breakfast use. The foregoing conditions and requirements are not intended to be exclusive and the Planning Commission may impose any other conditions it deems necessary or appropriate for the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15 -55 of this Chapter." SECTION 3: Paragraph (e) of Section 15- 35.030 in Article 15 -35 is amended to read as follows: SECTION 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 5: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed meeting of the City Council held on the day of following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: (6) (7) (8) No cooking shall be allowed in any guest rooms. The bed and breakfast establishment shall be owner occupied or owner operated with a resident manager. No signs or exterior lighting shall be installed except as expressly authorized by the use permit. "(e) Bed and breakfast establishments CITY CLERK -2- One space for each bedroom to be rented, and one space for the owner or resident manager." introduced and after the and adopted at a regular 1986, by the MAYOR Ms. Lois Svalya 14277 Elva Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 March 20, 1937 Re: March 4, 1987 Public Hearing on B B issue before the Saratoga City Council Dear Ms. Svalya: Enclosed is a copy of a summary of your comments at the March 4, 1987 hearing before the City Council (page 4). As a property owner on Oak Street (Lundblad's Lodge), I am interested in your remarks at the hearing with respect to "...an alliance between developers and individuals who favored the closure of Saratoga School..." and "...people who are working actively for the B B's were also working for the closure and replacement of Saratoga School with a commercial establishment of retail shops." These are remarkable comments. If there are individuals, whose intent it is to close Saratoga School on Oak Street to develop the school property commercially, I think all property owners should be privy to what you know. I personally oppose any effort to close Saratoga School for any type of development, including condo development. I emphasize condo development because all one has to do is look at the Village side of Oak Street and one can pretty well predict what type of development will take place on the school side of Oak Street as more and more of the old homes are demolished. A little over one year ago Lundblad's Lodge was up for grabs and there were developers who did look at it with the thought in mind of destroying the Lodge and replacing it with condos: I would appreciate it if you would let all of us know (including the City Council) what you know about efforts afoot to develop the school property. If you do not come forward with this information, I can only assume your statements at the March 4th hearing were without merit. cc: City Council Sincerely yours, Ann Fit immons MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 4 MARCH 4, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued In response to Councilmember Moyles' question, Mr. Heid stated that through the years, certain historic buildings have disappeared; currently, there were buildings in the City that should be restored. Citing a letter of Mr. Willys Peck, he stated that the unique flavor of these homes would be maintained only through preservation of these structures; the Heritage Commission encourages owners to preserve these structures. He noted inns and lodges in the community which had operated for many years without affecting the neighborhood. Mr. John Kahle, 20601 Brookwood Ln., Saratoga, noted that these homes required constant attention; he has owned the Julia Morgan House since 1955. He reviewed discussions regarding the B &B's which have occurred since 1982; the conclusion of which was that B &B's should be a part of Saratoga. He felt that B &B's would preserve houses worthy of such and allow visitors to experience the ambiance and history of the area the letter of Mr. Willys Peck was cited. He felt that B &B's could be best controlled through the Use Permit process. In response to Councilmember Peterson's question, Mr. Kahle stated that renovation of the Julia Morgan House would cost $50,000 $100,000; the house has 5 bedrooms, 5 baths and the lot size was 2 1/2 acres; parking would not be a problem. Ms. Ann Fitzsimmons, 13480 Saratoga Ave., Saratoga, stated she owned Lundblad's Lodge for the past year this lodge was a B &B for nearly 80 years. She supported the Ordinance amendment since it would again allow the lodge to be used as a B she plans to restore the lodge. In response to Councilmember Peterson's question, she stated that Lundblad's has 6 bedrooms, 5 baths and the property is 2/3 of an acre; renovation would cost a minimum of $300,000. Mrs. Betty Peck read a letter written by her husband, Mr. Willys Peck, in which he addressed the historical perspective of the inns and lodges. Ms. Lois Svalya, 14277 Elva Ave., Saratoga, stated she was puzzled by an alliance between people holding forth historical perspective and people holding commercial interests which sought to close one of the most significant historical landmarks in Saratoga Saratoga School. She stated there was an associations between developmental interests which wished to see Saratoga School replaced with commercial development, i.e., Old Town, and those who wished to displace the children for more noble reasons learning. Her primary reason for being at the hearing was that zoning ordinances, spot zoning changes, or moving Village boundaries, benefiting special interests of some individuals, was an unhealthy precedent. She did not agree with the argument that citizens could not preserve the beauty, history and ambiance of Saratoga without creating bed and breakfast establishments. In response to Councilmember Moyles' request regarding information to substantiate the conclusion that there was an alliance between developers and individuals who favored the closure of Saratoga School, she stated that she would reveal her sources in private; however, unofficial remarks of individuals in the real estate business were that people who would most like to see Saratoga School closed were those who believed they stood to gain an economic interest. The issue of closure of this school has come up again and again. In response to Councilmember Peterson's question, she had been told that the people who are working actively for the B &B's were also working for the closure and replacement of Saratoga School with a commercial establishment of retail shops. Councilmember Clevenger reiterated the position of the City Council during the past seven years regarding Saratoga School; the Council has never taken any position on the out come of Oak Street School. Mr. John Hurley, 1524 Madrone Hill Rd., Saratoga, reviewed the historical value of preservation of these establishments and stated he had known Mrs. Hazel Bargas of Lundblad's Lodge. Ms. Erma Jackman, 14515 Oak Street, Saratoga, was very much in favor of restoring and maintaining Lundblad's as a lodge. She conveyed testimony of Mr. Warren McLaughlin, who was unable to be present and introduced three Oak Street neighbors who were present. r., PETITION THE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY PETITION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA TO ADOPT THE FOLLOWING PROPOSED ORDINANCE (N0.71): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SUBSECTION 5- 20.020(a) TO INCLUDE BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE DEFINITION 'OF "HOTEL;" AMENDING SECTION- 15- 12.030 TO INCLUDE BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENTS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN R -1 ZONING DISTRICTS ADJACENT TO THE VILLAGE; AND AMENDING SUBSECTION 15- 35.030(e) PERTAINING TO REQUIRED PARKING FACILITIES FOR BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENTS The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Subsection 5- 20.020(a) in Article 5 -20 is amended to read as follows: "(a) Hotel means any structure, or any portion of any structure, which is occupied or intended or designed for occupancy by transients for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes, and includes any hotel, inn, tourist home or house, motel, studio hotel, bachelor hotel, bed and breakfast establishment, lodging house, rooming house, apartment house, dormitory, public or private club, mobile home or house trailer at a fixed location, or other similar structure or portion thereof." SECTION 2: A new Paragraph (n) is added to Section 15- 12.030 in Article 15 -12, to read as follows: "(n) Bed and breakfast establishments, where all of the following conditions and requirements are satisfied: (1) The bed and breakfast site must be located not more than five hundred feet from a boundary line of the Village. (2) The structure in which the bed and breakfast establishment is operated must be an historic landmark, designated as such by the City pursuant to Chapter 13 of this Code. (3) Not more than eight bedrooms may be rented within the bed and breakfast establishment and each rented bedroom shall be not less than one hundred square feet in size. (4) All bedroom rentals shall be for transient occupancy only, as defined in Subsection 5- 25.020(f) of Article 5 -25 in Chapter 5 of this Code. (5) No meal other than breakfast shall be served to the persons renting any rooms within the bed and breakfast establishment. (6) No cooking shall be allowed in any guest rooms. (7) The bed and breakfast establishment shall be owner occupied or owner operated with a resident manager. (8) No signs or exterior lighting shall be installed except as expressly authorized by the use permit. (9) No ancillary uses, including, but not limited to, receptions, parties or weddings, shall be allowed in conjunction with the bed and breakfast use. The foregoing conditions and requirements are not intended to be exclusive and the Planning Commission may impose any /other conditions it deems necessary or appropriate for the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15 -55 of this Chapter." /Wqe (Z4 ji. X7 .--/a..2- 'yy.5 o ms,__ s r .R6 7-G /9" CT/6". ati, 4G. s4,„ cola 7y/ -63i5 14 S31 OAk S i 54g406ii ii61-1 1 X 67 //i E‘7--/S 1 s q C-o g k Of I4-S /c /5/� vv aa„:", (7- ‘2 k67 4S3 E 6 7 i /4 io Co' /c/a 5 a-ie w c// /V v a 30 Sa 9,um -6G ,P4 I v a ti j/,4-.5 fi.' �f'' gerzi eZ OHO 1 1 C S /51Zo re A (N A SECTION 3: Paragraph (e) of Section 15 35.030 in Article 15 35 is amended to read as follows: "(e) Bed and breakfast establishments SECTION 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be Invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 5: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption. NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS 86 7 7 de I One space for each bedroom to be rented, and one space for the owner or resident manager." 9..0711 TELEPHONE NUMBER 3 3 e 2- C414.,7 (1 A'1 1 L I aaz cf 7 (7(Ve 351 Ve4(2—Ave 7-7/5" 0% di gC Zo 34L 1 a26 7:/,,:e_,,4/ ez 7-0372_ 09 0,0—(-Qi4 1 O 5 1--- q q q d- I ik6 ci 1 4-k- 72 la -7, 9 5'67-37k: c965 kry,(A:vv L ilt(\e ''(0 -151 7E e7,,,A__• A r s,7 /6,c7 f f 4 43- c'6-7 -,t,frC .1,1 4414 V, L Ai, /z-l/ (i4 c /4719 X• d, /7/-e., Sc7- c 7 i i /7 ,,va,,w fe yk7-c6-\, )Y760 zLfi /7/ li ie cz -7_, NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER k -ebiti4 Q(4 C 4 c- eatat4 es e_ kh 1 4a,AA, ADDRESS 0 s76- za6 igi5 1(2 60k, TELEPHONE NUMBER Iga-1-14 Board of Trustees Saratoga Union School District 20460 Forrest Hills Drive Saratoga, Ca. 95070 re: Bed and Breakfast Issue and Saratoga School Dear Board Members: April 2 '1987 This is a follow -up of a previous letter I wrote to the Board on March 12, 1987. Enclosed is a copy of an article that appeared in the Saratoga News dated March 25, 1987 regarding Saratoga School and the contro- versy surrounding the school and the Bed and Breakfast issue. Also enclosed is a copy of a letter I wrote to Lois Svalya dated March 20, 1987 relating to the same subject. The District Superintendent of Schools, Michael Filice, is quoted in the Saratoga News article as follows: "Unfortunately, the information in the flyer was erroneous,:.." The flyer Mr. Filice is referring to is the flyer that was in- serted into the Saratoga School newsletter and sent home with all of the children prior to the public hearing on the bed and breakfast issue on March 4, 1987. Lisa Akers, the principal of Saratoga School, told me that she permitted the flyer to go into the newsletter after getting the approval of Mr. Felice. I received a telephone call from Mr. Felice on March 26 stating that someone from the school should have had better communication with the City of Saratoga and that they should have obtained a copy of the Proposed Bed and Breakfast amendment before allowing anything to go into the school newsletter. Why Mr. Filice called me, I do not know. I assume it was done on behalf of the Board of Education. I told him that my letter of March 12 to the Board requested a written reply from the Board as to their findings and conclusions. He said he would see to it that I got a written reply. With respect to Mr. Tisch's letters dated March 21, 1987, addressed to the Board of Trustees and the City Council with copies to (copies enclosed), the purpose of my calling attention to the fact that Mr. Tisch wrote a letter in opposition to the bed and Board of Trustees April 2, 1987 Page 2 breakfast issue was to allow the Board to have any and all information before it relating to the issue at hand. Mr. Tisch, as a private individual, had an absolute right to write a letter in opposition to the proposed bed and breakfast or- dinance. I, likewise, have an absolute right to enlighten the Board as to all facts surrounding an issue. Had I known about the private or public statements of any other member of the school board relating to an issue the Board would be called upon to decide, I would also have called this to the attention of the Board. cc: City Council Thomas Tisch Sincerely yours, a. Ann Fi/'zsimmons fi n of their looming demise? i ,lv 7 Saratoga School as it appeared in 1898. This building. the third school house in the city's his- tory, was the first located at 14592 Oak St. It was By Cindy Cooper Saratoga schools have plenty of history but what is in store for the future? Saratoga School. dating back to the 18S0s, and Saratoga High School. established in the 1960s, have been targets of rumors suggesting closing of the schools. "Every few years," said Saratoga High Principal Tod Likins, "these rumors come up. the (Los Gatos Saratoga Joint Union High School) board has made it very clear it has no intention of dosing any schools (in the district)." 'Enormous resistance' "There is an ongoing fear in Saratoga News /March 25. 1987 /ppg 10 the valley about closing schools. Saratoga High is unique, be- cause it serves as the commu- nity school for Saratoga," Likins continued. "Campbell and Fremont dis- tricts could close one of their high schools easily because none is considered a community school. "There would be an enorm- ous resistance to closing Sara- toga High and even Los Gatos High," he said. In 1960, the first year the high school was open, 313 students graduated. The enrollment at the school peaked during the 1976 -77 school year at 2,049. This year the enrollment is 1,330, identical to the 1966 -67 school year. Likins said. replaced by the present Saratoga School building in 1923. Officials deny latest closure rumors Enrollment will continue to drop until the year 1990 -91, Lik- ins predicted. at which time it will bottom out with 1.000 stu- dents. Nevertheless, Likins assured that. "We will be around a long time." Saratoga School evolves Several changes have been made to the Saratoga Ele- mentary School on Oak Street through the years. The city's first school conducted a class on the same site in the 1850s in the Sons of Temperance Hall. When that was condemned in 1866. classes were held in a hall at the corner of Fourth and Lumber streets, Three years later, a two-room building was constructed at the former site of the Sons of Temperance Hall. Within 10 years, a bottom floor was added to the building. In 1895, an up- to-date wooden. schoolhouse complete with a bell tower. a (ire escape, a con► binatton library/office, four rooms and an auditorium were built with $5,000 raised by a bond issue. The first unit of today's school was built in 1923. It in- cluded a library. auditorium and cafeteria. Because of earthquake safety worries, the section built in 1922 was closed in 1971 at the sugges- tion of structural engineers. The library and office tad to be transferred into trailers. l u o third grade classes were t .....re`s SprI r Schor� Continued from page 10 School. The newer parts of the build- ing, including the Komina Ave- nue wing (added in the late 1940s), remained open. A media center was added during the 1973 -74 school year. Developers eyeing site? But at a March 4 City Council meeting, Saratoga resident Lois Svalya claimed that business interests have been planning with developers to convince the Saratoga Union School District to close Saratoga School and sell the property for use as a new "commercial development of shops." Svalya was asked by Council- man David Moyles to expand on her comments, but she declined. When contacted by the Sara- toga News, she said she feared reprisals if she gave any details about the purposed scheme. Councilman Don Peterson re- sponded to Svalya's allegation by saying Saratoga School will be "one of the last schools closed in Saratoga." The Heritage Preservation Commission voted at its Feb. 18 meeting to send a letter to the Saratoga Union School District urging board members to save Saratoga School as a school. The reasons the commission cited were these: "The school is architecturally significant: it is Saratoga News /March 25, 1987 /page 12 `The (school) board has never discussed closing a school.' Michael Filice, SUSD superintendent an educational advantage for children the building is "liv- ing history it has been made earthquake -safe without de- straying its architectural integ- rity; it contributes to the flavor of the community; and it is over 50 years old. like Council objects But at the March 18 meeting, City Council members were indignant over the commission's decision. "While we have always take n the position that we would the building to be saved, it is not our role to decide what to do with the school," Mayor Joy ce Hlava said. "That is the school board's decision. I'm very co n- cerned if .they Heritag e Preservation Commission) we nt ahead (and sent a •letter). Th is was not in line with the city 's policy., "For us to get involved in the closure of schools would be (political) dynamite," Peters on said. "1 haven't heard the ru- mors," said Saratoga Union's .ate7o Assistant Superintendent Mary Gardner. "As far as I know, they are merely rumors." People may be referring to a study done several years ago when the district had to close Congress Springs School, Gard- ner said. One report suggested that Saratoga School be the next school closed. The consensus, however, was to determine which school was to be closed if and when a closure was neces- sary. "I would be very sad to see Saratoga not be a school. I am speaking from a purely ro- mantic and historical point of view," Gardner said. B&B link raised District Superintendent Michael Filice said the rumors may be related to the bed and breakfast issue. An unsigned, handwritten flyer sent home with Saratoga School students early this month implied that Saratoga School may eventually be turned into a bed and breakfast inn. "Unfortunately,.the informa- tion in the flyer was erroneous," said Filice, who added that the flyer was sent with his knpwl- edge. The intention was to encour- age people to attend a March 4 City Council hearing on the B&B issue to get more information on it, Filice said. However, Filice conceded that he gets calls all the time from realtors asking if the dis- trict is going to close a school and if so, which one. "The (school) board has never discussed closing a school," he said. Speculation about combining Saratoga Nigh School with the elementary district is also idle rumor, Filice claimed_ Ms. Lois Svalya 14277 Elva Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 March 20, 1987 Re: March 4, 1987 Public Hearing on B B issue before the Saratoga City Council Dear Ms. Svalya: Enclosed is a copy of a summary of your comments at the March 4, 1987 hearing before the City Council (page 4). As a property owner on Oak Street (Lundblad's Lodge), I am interested in your remarks at the hearing with respect to "...an alliance between developers and individuals who favored the closure of Saratoga School..." and "...people who are working actively for the B B's were also working for the closure and replacement of Saratoga School with a commercial establishment of retail shops." These are remarkable comments. If there are individuals, whose,intent it is to close Saratoga School on Oak Street to develop the school property commercially, I think all property owners should be privy to what you know. I personally oppose any effort to close Saratoga School for any type of development, including condo development. I emphasize condo development because all one has to do is look at the Village side of Oak Street and one can pretty well predict what type of development will take place on the school side of Oak Street as more and more of the old homes are demolished. A little over one year ago Lundblad's Lodge was up for grabs and there were developers who did look at it with the thought in mind of destroying the Lodge and replacing it with condos! I would appreciate it if you would let all of us know (including the City Council) what you know about efforts afoot to develop the school property. If you do not come forward with this information, I can only assume your statements at the March 4th hearing were without merit. cc: City Council Sincerely yours, Ann Fit immons MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 4 MARCH 4, 1987 PUBLIC IIEARINGS Continued In response to Councilmember Moyles' question, Mr. Heid stated that through the years, certain historic buildings have disappeared; currently, there were buildings in the City that should be restored. Citing a letter of Mr. Willys Peck, he stated that the unique flavor of these homes would be maintained only through preservation of these structures; the Heritage Commission encourages owners to preserve these structures. He noted inns and lodges in the community which had operated for many years without affecting the neighborhood. Mr. John Kahle, 20601 Brookwood Ln., Saratoga, noted that these homes required constant attention; he has owned the Julia Morgan House since 1955. He reviewed discussions regarding the B &B's which have occurred since 1982; the conclusion of which was that B &B's should be a part of Saratoga. He felt that B &B's would preserve houses worthy of such and allow visitors to experience the ambiance and history of the area the letter of Mr. Willys Peck was cited. He felt that B &B's could be best controlled through the Use Permit process. In response to Councilmember Peterson's question, Mr. Kahle stated that renovation of the Julia Morgan House would cost $50,000 $100,000; the house has 5 bedrooms, 5 baths and the lot size was 2 1/2 acres; parking would not be a problem. Ms. Ann Fitzsimmons, 13480 Saratoga Ave., Saratoga, stated she owned Lundblad's Lodge for the past year this lodge was a B &B for nearly 80 years. She supported the Ordinance amendment since it would again allow the lodge to be used as a B she plans to restore the lodge. In response to Councilmember Peterson's question, she stated that Lundblad's has 6 bedrooms, 5 baths and the property is 2/3 of an acre; renovation would cost a minimum of $300,000. Mrs. Betty Peck read a letter written by her husband, Mr. Willys Peck, in which he addressed the historical perspective of the inns and lodges. Ms. Lois Svalya, 14277 Elva Ave., Saratoga, stated she was puzzled by an alliance between people holding forth historical perspective and people holding cotnmercialuiterests which sought to close one of the most significant historical landmarks in Saratoga Saratoga School. She stated there was an associations between developmental interests which wished to see Saratoga School replaced with commercial development, i.e., Old Town, and those who wished to displace the children for more noble reasons learning. Her primary reason for being at the hearing was that zoning ordinances, spot zoning changes, or moving Village boundaries, benefiting special interests of some individuals, was an unhealthy precedent. She did not agree with the argument that citizens could not preserve the beauty, history and ambiance of Saratoga without creating bed and breakfast establishments. In response to Councilmember Moyles' request regarding information to substantiate the conclusion that there was an alliance between developers and individuals who favored the closure of Saratoga School, she stated that she would reveal her sources in private; however, unofficial remarks of individuals in the real estate business were that people who would most like to see Saratoga School closed were those who believed they stood to gain an economic interest. The issue of closure of this school has come up again and again. In response to Councilmember Peterson's question, she had been told that the people who are working actively for the B &B's were also working for the closure and replacement of Saratoga School with a commercial establishment of retail shops. Counci tnember Clevenger reiterated the position of the City Council during the past seven years regarding Saratoga School; the Council has never taken any position on the out come of Oak Street School. Mr. John Hurley, 1524 Madrone Hill Rd., Saratoga, reviewed the historical value of preservation of these establishments and stated he had known Mrs. Hazel Bargas of Lundblad's Lodge. Ms. Enna Jackman, 14515 Oak Street, Saratoga, was very much in favor of restoring and maintaining Lundblad's as a lodge. She conveyed testimony of Mr. Warren McLaughlin, who was unable to be present and introduced three Oak Street neighbors who were present. Board of Trustees Saratoga Union School District 20460 Forrest Hills Dr. Saratoga, CA 95070 Geatlemens March 21, 1987 Recently you received a letter dated March 12, 1987, from Ann Fitzsimmons regarding the bed and breakfast issue currently being discussed by the City. The final paragraph of the letter contains an innuendo that I was acting directly or indirectly on behalf of the school district in cry capacity as a Trustee when I wrote a letter opposing the proposed Zoning ordinance. 1 wish to make it absolutely clear that I wrote the City council opposing the action an an individual citizen. As you are aware, I am a resident of the area, living at the corner of [omina and Aloha, some fev feet outside the boundary of the proposed zoning area, and have lived at that location since 1972. Enclosed is copy of the letter sent the City council. 1 resent the implications of Ms. Fitzsimmons and wish to make it clear that I an entitled, as is any citizen of this community, to speak out on issues which concern tae and my family. I have dons so in the past and will continue to do so. a t Copy: Ann Fitzsimmons Sincerely, Thomas A. Tisch Saratoga Resident Clerk, Board of Trustees of the Saratoga Union School District City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 March 21, 1987 Ladies and Gentlemen* Recently, in a letter to the Saratoga Union School District Board of Trustees, Ann Fitssimmona implied that I was acting acting directly or indirectly in my capacity as a Trustee of the Saratoga Union School District when I wrote ay letter of February 22nd opposing the proposed bed and breakfast zoning. I wish to make it absolutely clear that I wrote the City council opposing the action as an individual citizen. I am a resident of the area, living at the corner of Komina and Aloha, some few feet outside the boundary of the proposed zoning area, and have lived at 'that location since 1972. Enclosed is a copy of the letter sent you previously on thin matter, as well as my letter to the SUSD School Board on this same matter. I also wish to reiterate my opposition...as an individual...to any such allowed use in an RI area. I reseat the implications of Ms. Fitzsimmons and wish to make it clear that I am entitled, as is any citizen of this community, to speak out on issues which concern me and my family. I have done so in the past and will continua to do so. Thank you for considering my views. Sincerely, TAT :t t/Copyz Ann Fitzsimmons Thomas A. Tisch Saratoga Resident Print Name: Signature: Print Name: Signature: Print Name: LW Signature: Print Name /LarljV)O jL701 Addr: Signature: Print Name: �2 /c7J ?J A Addr Signature: G c�)�_ Print Name: f�6.(7✓ Signature: C9 r. Print Name: �oRr 1.)• I k• fry? 6Yl Signature: PETITION TO THE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Re: Commercial Uses in Residential Zones We the undersigned citizens and residents of the City of Saratoga, California, each being over the age of eighteen (18) years, hereby petition the honorable City Council of the City of Saratoga, and state our position on the above subject, as follows: We, and each of us, unequivocally oppose the enactment of any ordinance, or other legislative change which would have the effect of permitting any non residential or commercial uses whatsoever, in residential zones within the City. We specifically object to any ordinance or other legislative device which would permit applications to be made to the City Council or any other City Board or Commission, the granting of which could permit the establishment of bed and breakfast inns, rooming houses, hotels, art galleries, or any other non residential or commercial uses whatsoever in areas of the City presently zoned as single or multi family residential. We oppose commercial uses of any kind or description in our living areas and residential zones. Print Name: J'J7 ,,[O &YC-175 Addr: ,S 25jd /&pfL Y' Saratoga, CA 95070 Signature Telephone No.: ,3 Addr: Addr: Print Name 7Q6/1 42 ,a Add r: Signatur Addr: Addr: 2 �d t, 354 —e)4/6 CA 95070 35 Telephone No.: —e)4 l ,ab13n 1c r+,. -c Br,,c Saratoga, CA 95070 Telephone No.: B(o7 Oq(o Addr: 2 0)30 1 v, n-rcry Saratoga, CA 95070 Telephone No.: T(0 09 /0 1 I 9 022/ n' rn Asir 5 Saratoga, CA 95070 Telephone No.: 7',/i /9,21) Q:i Saratoga, CA 95070 Telephone No.: 77`1'c4 Z� /Z 20 Sd P /cam( Saratoga, CA 95070 Telephone No.: O 7 1 /Y /oy Ok' 6-,'/v Saratoga, CA 95070 Telephone No.: 7'7 1 7 OJ?c o i i) Saratoga, CA 95070 Telephone No.: '7'11 /57 Print Name: sic VAA)O1 o Addr: /4 L,I Saratoga, CA 95070 Print Name: Print Name: Signature: WA4t Signature: Print Name: f A -his 61 r/t Signature: Print Name: (cdL j I ;AIs12._ Signature: Signature: Signature: T• \a puv� PETITION TO THE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Re: Commercial Uses in Residential Zones We the undersigned citizens and residents of the City of Saratoga, California, each being over the age of eighteen (18) years, hereby petition the honorable City Council of the City of Saratoga, and state our position on the above subject, as follows: We, and each of us, unequivocally oppose the enactment of any ordinance, or other legislative change which would have the effect of permitting any non residential or commercial uses whatsoever, specifically residential zones within the City. We object to any ordinance or other legislative device which would permit applications to be made to the City Council or any other City Board or Commission, the granting of which could permit the establishment of bed and breakfast inns, rooming houses, hotels, art galleries, or any other non residential or commercial uses whatsoever in areas of the City presently zoned as single or multi family residential. We oppose commercial uses of any kind or description in our living areas and residential zones. -5 4/ ,0 1 1 lS Addr: i I 0 J A N D,eE J Saratoga, CA 95070 Print Name c)FT 9L7-5-63-6 Signature: Telephone No.: Sk'i1 J\ rtu OA. Saratoga, CA 95070 Addr: Addr: /ibis/,44, 4 Saraatoga,~CA 95070 Telephone Addr: /c/ S/ kS Telephone No.: 2 b 7 5 7 7 Addr: /3 /1 Br /te (ou`t Saratoga, CA 95070 35-1 l9 zG Telephone No. 110 Telephone No.: Saratoga, CA 95070 I r Addr: 2O5g) 0 )en 16",; Saratoga, CA 95070 Print Name: �(1'fP O, Telephone No.: RLo Signature: (L'• 1 •A (PI 6 Addr:�JD�QM�S�i��c Saratoga, CA 95070 Print Name:/ �n'� Signature• �,QA���. Telephone No.: r�b�1 'L( (4; r Saratoga, CA 95070 Print Name:L„at t Addr: �v Addr: Telephone No.: 74( 1 57 D Print Name:.,:,411 ✓d (t `f Addr: t l R Arw Telephone No.: 7W /17% Saratoga, CA 95070 i Ct-71) t\AOtAi V[44] ,(Saratoga, CA 95070 We the undersigned citizens and residents of the City of Saratoga, California, each being over the age of eighteen (18) years, hereby petition the honorable City Council of the City of Saratoga, and state our position on the above subject, as follows: Print Name //1 fmNK Lk Addr 1 3 0604 (9f 6( \I 'goA j Saraatoga,, CA 95070 Signature: �G «mar /�/l ��ZC Telephone No.: l!'-d) Or Print Name:/ L7// L JPP, 2 ddr: /904 /i /y3i ie._; Saratoga, CA 95070 Signature: />'4 `1P�t Telephone No.: Print Name s; c r r I s A d d r Saratoga, CA 95070 Signature: Print Name: Signature: Print Name: Signature: Print Name: Signature: Print Name Signature: Print Name: PETITION TO THE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Re: Commercial Uses in Residential Zones We, and each of us, unequivocally oppose the enactment of any ordinance, or other legislative change which would have the effect of permitting any non residential or commercial uses whatsoever, in residential zones within the City. We specifically object to any ordinance or other legislative device which would permit applications to be made to the City Council or any other City Board or Commission, the granting of which could permit the establishment of bed and breakfast inns, rooming houses, hotels, art galleries, or any other non residential or commercial uses whatsoever in areas of the City presently zoned as single or multi family residential. We oppose commercial uses of any kind or description in our living areas and residential zones. i ciw2g Addr: aL Zg li c4er�J Saratoga, CA 95070 1 fc L Telephone No.: Ff f .ta /k k l, ?Le A ddr: IL J, .m Addr: Telephone No.: Addr: 6 .1O(p 0 16 V IL/.ery Saratoga, CA 95070 Telephone No.: R2p 7- &.o 8 tae c/ Print Name: �ot3E,Z SN Addr: LO66,5" LDAn i Y Saratoga, CA 95070 Signature: Telephone No.: 7 577 Print Name: FR [J'/( IY PAL O r: 171f &R( WI)", Saratoga, CA 95070 I Signature: (f Ai' 4 JA.9.{ka -(a Telephone No.: 15 l h9GAPlit (11 A Saratoga, CA 95070 Telephone No.: X1�7� aoa f, 5 /W)W€4 1./Saratoga, CA 95070 Telephone No.: 81'7 2. l 20(o2.") Lowit-iri i 6 Q Saratoga, CA 95070 -1-20,000 lir LOCATION OF ,FORMER INNS/LODGING PLACES IN SARATOGA PRIOR TO 1945 11401 WM% 1 talligiiik 11 1 1111111MEn to um 1 !r ic. 4 41.1:2•4 F. 4 AP WA RREN B. 1--IM II) A IA A N D A S S O C I A T E S A RCHITECTS PLANNERS 14630 BIG BASIN WAY P.O. BOX 14 SARATOGA CALIFORNIA 95070 667 -9365 INFORMATION ON FORMER INNS, LODGES, AND LODGING HOUSES LOCATED IN SARATOGA AREA PRIOR TO 1945 The following information is presented by the Saratoga Historical Commission from information given to the commission by the Board of Trustees of the Saratoga Historical Foundation. Date: March 30, 1987 1. Name: "The Orchard Guest House" Original Owner of Property: Neil Carmichael Operator of Guest House: Charles Cunningham Address: 14051 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road Distance from Village Boundary: approx. 1,450' Size of Property: .46 acres Present Owner: Mr. and Mrs. Alan Peterson 2. Name "The Terrace'.' Original Owner of Property: Mr. and Mrs. B. Grant Taylor Operator of Inn: Mrs. Mary Grunsky (also property owner) Address: 14421 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road Distance from Village Boundary: approx. 410'. Size of Property: 2.5 acres Present Owner: Mr. and Mrs. John Kahle 3. Name: "Lundblad's Lodge" Original Owner of Property: Mr. and Mrs. Ludwig Lundblad Operators of Lodge: M /M. Ludwig Lundblad and M/M Joseph Bargas Address: 14534 Oak Street Distance from Village Boundary: adjacent to south Size of Property: .74 acres Present Owner: Ann Fitzsimmons etal 4. Name: "The Oriental House" Original Owner of Property: Erwin T. King Operator of Inn:, Unknown Address: 14605 Big Basin Way Distance from Village Boundary: within Village boundary Size of Property: .20 acres not including common area of condos Present Owner: Ann Fitzsimmons etal 5. Name: "The Lodge" Original Owner of Property: Unknown Operator of Lodge: Unknown Address :21171 Congress Springs Road Distance from Village Boundary: approx. 2,400':`. Size of Property: 7.59 acres Present Owners: Dr. Mrs. Thomas English Information on Former Inns /Lodges /Lodging Houses From Saratoga Heritage Commission Page 2 6. Name: "Toyon Lodge" Original Owner of Property: Pearl Guild Operator of Lodge: Pearl Guild Address: Vickery Lane Distance from Village Boundary: approx. 1,95o' Size of Property: 4.789 acres Present Owners: 7. Name: "Saratoga Inn" (Demolished) Original Owner of Property: Operator of Inn: Louisa N. Scott Address: 14363 Saratoga Avenue Distance from Village Boundary: approx. 200' Size of Property: approx. 2.5 acres Present Owners: Joseph Long and owners of adjacent Condos Warren B. Heid., Chairman Saratoga Heritage Commission q (.fie�Y.i '+P. —4T 1111111 1 1 1I11111111111111111 111IIIIIIth1111111 (iIliiiiii1111fl iIII (5 ORDINANCE NO. 71. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SUBSECTION 5- 20.020(a) TO INCLUDE BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE DEFINITION OF "HOTEL;" AMENDING SECTION 15- 12.030 TO INCLUDE BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENTS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN R -1 ZONING DISTRICTS ADJACENT TO THE VILLAGE; AND AMENDING SUBSECTION 15- 35.030(e) PERTAINING TO REQUIRED PARKING FACILITIES FOR BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENTS The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Subsection 5- 20.020(a) in Article 5 -20 is amended to read as follows: "(a) Hotel means any structure, or any portion of any structure, which is occupied or intended or designed for occupancy by transients for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes, and includes any hotel, inn, tourist home or house, motel, studio hotel, bachelor hotel, bed and breakfast establishment, lodging house, rooming house, apartment house, dormitory, public or private club, mobile home or house trailer at a fixed location, or other similar structure or portion thereof." SECTION 2: A new Paragraph (n) is added to Section 15- 12.030 in Article 15 -12, to read as follows: "(n) Bed and breakfast establishments, where all of the following conditions and requirements are satisfied: (1) The bed and breakfast site must be located not more than five hundred feet from a boundary line of the Village. (2) The structure in which the bed and breakfast establishment is operated must be an historic landmark, designated as such by the City pursuant to Chapter 13 of this Code. (3) Not more than eight bedrooms may be rented within the bed and breakfast establishment and each rented bedroom shall be not less than one hundred square feet in size. (4) All bedroom rentals shall be for transient occupancy only, as defined in Subsection 5- 25.020(f) of Article 5 -25 in Chapter 5 of this Code. The applicant must demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission, that the structure in which the bed and breakfast establishment is located was previously and lawfully utilized for the commercial operation of a tourist home, inn, or Rev. 3/27/87 -1- other similar form of transient occupancy open to the general public. (6) No meal other than breakfast shall be served to the persons renting any rooms within the bed and breakfast establishment. (7) No cooking shall be allowed in any guest rooms. (8) The bed and breakfast establishment shall be owner occupied or owner operated with a resident manager. (9) No signs or exterior lighting shall be installed except as expressly authorized by the use permit. (10) No ancillary uses, including, but not limited to, receptions, parties or weddings, shall be allowed in conjunction with the bed and breakfast use. The foregoing conditions and requirements are not intended to be exclusive and the Planning Commission may impose any other conditions it deems necessary or appropriate for the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15 -55 of this Chapter." SECTION 3: Paragraph (e) of Section 15- 35.030 in Article 15 -35 is amended to read as follows: "(e) Bed and breakfast establishments Rev. 3/27/87 -2- One space for each bedroom to be rented, and one space for the owner or resident manager." SECTION 4: If any section, subsect sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 5: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 1987, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: CITY CLERK Rev. 3/27/87 -3- MAYOR 'Y EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: March 4, 1987 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Fiscal Impacts: None Planning Motion and Vote: Continued_to..ApriL_15; 5 -0. /a SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL CITY MGR. APPROVAL Attachments: 1. Report to Mayor and City Council (with attachments list at end of report). AGENDA ITEM: tk Recommended Motion: The City Council should conduct the public hearing and, after consideration of the Planning Commission recommendation and public testimony, either approve or deny the amendment. SUBJECT: AZO -86 -003 Proposed Code amendments regarding bed and breakfast establishments. Report Summary: The proposed code amendments would permit bed and breakfast establishments in the R -1 zoning district within 500 feet of the Village boundary under certain circumstances. The Planning Commission and Heritage preservation Commission discussed the proposed amendments at a study session in September, 1986. The Planning Commission denied the amendment at its December 10, 1986 meeting. The City Council is now holding a. public hearing on this matter because it received three written request to do so. SUBJECT: Background UMW 04 0 'fR' o Eel Iron REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL AZO -86 -003 Proposed Code Amendments Regarding Bed and Breakfast Establishments DATE: 2/26/87 COUNCIL MEETING: 3/4/87 On September 16, 1986, the Planning Commisson and Heritage Preservation Commission held a joint study session to discuss possible code amendments regarding the City's bed and breakfast regulations. The Commissions reached a consensus to consider the proposed changes at a Planning Commission public hearing. The public hearing was held on December 10, 1986; after reviewing the proposed Code amendment and receiving public testimony, the Commission voted unanimously to deny the amendment. Code amendments initiated by the Commission and not recommended for adoption are not required to have a City Council public hearing unless the Council so desires or receives a written request to do so. Three requests (two from property owners and one from the Heritage Commission) were received, and the Council set the public hearing date for March 4, 1987. Public notices for this meeting have been sent to those who attended the Planning Commission hearing and posted in the Village area affected by the proposal. Correspondence received by the City regarding the issue are attached. Matter Before the Council In brief, the proposed code amendment would permit bed and breakfast establishments in the R -1 zoning districts within 500 feet of the Village boundary under certain circumstances. Such establishments would need to obtain a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission in order to operate and would have to net a variety of operational standards. In addition, the structure in which the bed and breakfast establishment is operated must be a designated heritage resource. Further details of the code amendments are described in the November 28, 1986, memo from the City Attorney to the Planning Commission. 1 Memo to Mayor and City Council Bed Breakfast Establishments Page 2 Bed and breakfast establishments are already permitted as a conditional use in the P -A, C -N, C-C and C -V districts. They are also permitted in the R- M -3,000 district under the definition of "hotel." With respect to these districts, the normal use permit requirements would still apply; no additional regulations are stipulated as a part of this code amendment. One of the proposed requirements is that the bed and breakfast establishment be located in a designated heritage resource. To date, there is only one (1) designated resource within the area defined by the 500 ft. boundary; it is the William King house located at 14672 Oak Street. The "Village Boundary" map (attached) was adopted as part of the new City Code in January, 1986. It is necessary to point out at this time that the Village map being considered by the City Council at this hearing is slightly different from the boundary map considered by the Planning and Heritage Commissions. The map reviewed by the Commissions inadvertently included two areas that are not actually a part of the Village parcels at the west end of Big Basin Way including the Saratoga Oaks condominiums, and some parcels at the east end of the Village, including the Saratoga Creekside development. The attached map is the correct one. Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council conduct the public hearing and, after consideration of the Planning Commission recommendation and public testimony, either approve or deny the amendment. Yuchuek Hsia Planning Director YH /vy /dsc Attachments 1. Village Map 2. Minutes of City Council meeting, 1/21/87 3. Minutes of Planning Commission meeting, 12/10/86 4. Staff report to Planning Commission, 12/10/86 this report includes the City Attorney's memo dated 11/28/86. 5: Correspondence received regarding this amendment MemoCC 2 MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 21, 1987 Page 4 NEW BUSINESS Continued In response to Councilmember Moyles' question, the City Attorney stated that a "hold harmless" agreement was not unusual on easement abandonments; the reason for the such an agreement on Resolution 2300 was that the easement in question was for a drainage area. While other arrangements have been made to accommodate the drainage, the agreement was suggested as a safety measure in case of overflow of water outside property boundaries. This is an exception due to the nature of the easement. 1. Resolution 2297 Vacating Private Storm Drain Easement and Ingress Egress Easement offered for dedication on the Lands of Duncan (Saratoga -Los Gatos Road at Glen Una) CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 2297, VACATING A PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT AND SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT. Passed 5 -0. 2. Resolution 2298 Vacating a Portion of a Public Service Easement on Lot 56 of Tr. 6528, Unit Two, Parker Ranch Subdivision. MOYLES/HLAVA MOVED ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 2298, VACATING A PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT ON LOT 56 OF TRACT 6528, UNIT TWO, PARKER RANCH SUBDIVISION.. Passed 5 -0. 3. Resolution 2299 Vacating a Portion of a Public Service Easement on Lot 55 of Tr. 6528, Unit Two, Parker Ranch Subdivision MOYLES/HLAVA MOVED ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 2299, VACATING A PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT ON LOT 55 OF TRACT 6528, UNIT TWO, PARKER RANCH SUBDIVISION. Passed 5 -0. 4. Resolution 2300 Vacating Public Service Easement on Lot 52 of Tr. 6528, Unit Two, Parker Ranch Subdivision MOYLES/I-ILAVA MOVED ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 2300, VACATING A PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT ON LOT 52 OF TRACT 6528, UNIT TWO, PARKER RANCH SUBDIVISION. Passed 5 -0. B. Report from Planning Comtission on Bed and Breakfast Ordinance Planning Director Hsia recommended that the City Council establish a date for a Public Hearing on the Bed and Breakfast Ordinance. In response to Councilmember Anderson's question, the City Attomey stated that the map presented was adopted when the Zoning Ordinance was adopted, defining what constituted Saratoga Village; the proposed Bed and Breakfa Ordinance would apply to any property within 500 ft. of the Village boundary. PETERSON/HLAVA MOVED TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED BED AND BREAKFAST ORDINANCE ON MARCH 4, 1987. Passed 5 -0. Councilmember Clevenger stated that the reason she voted in favor of the above motion was to allow individuals an opportunity to appeal the decision; her vote did not imply disagreement with the decision of the Planning Commission. Councilmember Anderson asked for a map, outlining both the old and the new boundaries by streets; Councilmember Clevenger asked that individuals affected by the proposed Ordinance be noticed; Mayor I-lava concurred. In response to the Mayor's question, the City Attorney stated that the General Plan language was disjunctive, stating either commercial or residential. As part of the latest adoption of the Zoning Ordinance, changes were made to bed and breakfast establishments in commercial districts as well as the P -A zone and the R -1; in this sense the change had already been made as mandated by the General Plan. The City Manager stated that posted notices would have a map of the area involved. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 10, 1986 PUBLIC HEARTNGS; Page 3 12. AZO- 86-003 City of Saratoga, consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Subsection 5- 20.020 (a) to include bed and breakfast establishments in the definition of "Hotel"; amending Section 15- 12.030 to include bed and breakfast establishments as a conditional use in R -1 zoning districts adjacent to the Village; and amending Subsection 15- 35.030 (e) pertaining to required parking facilities for bed and breakfast establishments. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this application. Planning Director Hsia reviewed the Memorandum of December 10, 1986, and called attention to a Memorandum prepared by City Attorney Toppel. Staff recommended approval of the Negative Declaration and asked the Commission to recommend approval of this proposal to the City Council. He noted the letter received by Mr. John R. Kahle, dated December 7, 1986. In response to Commissioner Harris' question, Planning Director Hsia stated that there are only two sites within the Village boundaries as shown on the Map; there are possibly eight or nine sites outside the boundary line. Commissioner Tucker asked the outcome of Bed and Breakfasts that are financially unsuccessful; City Attorney Toppel stated that the Use Permit would remain outstanding. He suggested that if of concern, the Commission could condition periodic reviews regarding continuous operation as a Bed and Breakfast, as done in Second Use Permits. Wording for such a condition suggested to the Commission. Commissioner Siegfried reviewed the history of this application and the three Ordinance provisions addressing the concerns of some citizens of Saratoga. The Commissioner noted that he was neither in favor of this Ordinance nor opposed to the individual application that prompted the introduction of this application for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:50 P.M. Mr. Richard Tyrrell, Heritage Preservation Commission, presented a written statement from the Heritage Preservation Commission. He called attention to the Memorandum of the City Attorney, dated November 18, 1986, (e), and reviewed the recommendation of the Heritage Preservation Commission; with the above considerations, the Heritage Preservation commission recommended approval. In response to Commissioner Harris' question, he stated that the buildings under consideration were built when there were no Codes; in the restoration of such buildings, non-conformity with Codes may arise. Sensitivity in the application of these Codes was requested and an example cited. Commissioner Harris noted that subjective nature of the term, sensitivity. Commissioner Pines suggested that alternative methods of achieving the goals of the Building Codes were possible; with the approval of the Building Inspector and the Fire Chief the intent of the Codes can be met. Commissioner Siegfried suggested a condition allowing City officials the ability to interpret and apply City Codes in a manner that does not lessen the safety nor the purposes of the Codes. Chairwoman Burger concurred with the term, alternative method; Commissioner Guch noted that buildings designated as historical sites, cannot have the exterior modified. Planning Director Hsia stated that the Housing Code, not the Building Code, was the Code that would be applied to historical buildings; however, he questioned the flexibility of a Building Inspector in applying Codes. City Attorney Toppel reviewed the three levels of regulation: Heritage Preservation Commission Review: he confirmed that the reference by Commissioner Guch regarding exterior modification was correct; however this restriction derives solely from the Heritage Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 13 of the City Code. Zoning Regulations: the City has flexibility is these regulations through the granting of variances. Housing and Fire Codes: these are uniform codes adopted by cities and a Planning Commission cannot grant variances from these Codes; however, as noted by Commissioner Pines, the Codes have a series of alternative methods. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 DECEMBER 10, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued City Attorney Toppel noted his concern regarding the conversion of single family residences to commercial operations; he expressed concern regarding even the suggestion of a reduction of life safety regulations. The City has never adopted the Heritage Preservation Building Code. In response to Commissioner Harris' question, Mr. Tyrrell stated that once the proposed Ordinance is passed, the Commission will see that an interest in bed and breakfasts exists; potentially, properties held by others will be sold for conversion privileges. He stated he did not know exact numbers; he was aware of two property owners who are prepared to initiate the process of being qualified as a historical property and will then approach the City for conversion into a bed and breakfast. The Historical Preservation Commission will present the Commission with a list of possible bed and breakfast facilities; Chairwoman Burger asked that a list of the maximum number of eligible homes be prepared. Commissioner Hams noted the Village atmosphere and questioned the number of potential bed and breakfast facilities within the Village. Commissioner Siegfried stated that the boundary of the Village does not include the Kahle property; the Kahle property is the former Julia Morgan home. Current property owners have petitioned for years to convert this home into a bed and breakfast inn. This is the history of the proposed Ordinance amendment. Mr. Greg Grodhaus, 20379 Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd., Saratoga, stated that he was not notified of the Hearing, even though the proposed amendment would significantly affect his property. He noted the cavalier attitude of the Planning Commission; after the investment he made in his home, the Commission is considering putting a Hotel next door. The Commission underestimated the reason individuals purchase property in Saratoga, paying the expensive premium required to buy into the community. He stated that a bed and breakfast is a hotel; it has been romanticized as a friendly inn with little activity. Tourists come to enjoy a community; individuals who use bed and breakfasts are not identified as "low users" of traffic or parking. He cited opposition to proposed rezoning during the previous year one of the options presented by the Council and the Commission would have the property in question included in the Village boundary; the City Attorney's statements regarding a non residential use in the Village through a Use Permit were cited. Now, the question of extending the village to include this property is being considered again. He asked the Commission to reconsider the term boundary. Ms. Betty Rowe, 20360 Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd., Saratoga, stated that this issue is very serious. She has been fighting commercialism in her neighborhood for a long time; now, the issue arises again. She noted that Saratoga is a beautiful place to live and she opposed bed and breakfasts in the City. She noted extensive renovation done by neighbors. She asked that if only one individual is asking for this privilege, the Use Permit process be used, allowing neighbors to oppose such a Use if they so wish. However, to extend the Village boundary is ridiculous. A request for a bed and breakfast is not an excuse for restoration. She reviewed the history and restoration completed on her home and urged the Commission to deny this proposal. Ms. Carol Machol, Ronnie Way, Saratoga, presented an article from the San Jose Mercury News. She noted surprise at the rapidity with which this item was being heard and suggested further consideration of the proposed Ordinance amendment. She suggested additional restrictions be placed on bed and breakfast inns: County suggestions be followed, including the seven day limit on stay a record of check in and check out be kept to monitor the length of stay no sale of other products or goods limit of four bedrooms, limit of number of beds in a room, keeping the bed and breakfast as close to a single family residence as possible potential parking problems be considered owner occupancy required PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 10, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Macol's concem was impact on the community. She noted the decision of Los Gatos which viewed bed and breakfasts as commercial ventures and were thus restricted to commercial zones. She read from an article describing one individuals negative experiences of living next to a bed and breakfast. She urged further consideration of the proposal before any decision was reached. SIEGFRIED/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:35 P.M. Passed 7 -0. Page 5 Commissioner Siegfried noted that the impetus for this amendment to the Ordinance was the desire of one property owner; he suggested that the Commission reject this proposal. Commissioner Harris concurred; however, she noted that this issue has been considered for the past several years and asked that the proposal be put to a vote to resolve the issue. She apologized for the lack of notice to residents and suggested there may have been others who also would have liked to address the issue. Commissioner Guch noted she was not favorable to this proposal, viewing it as an encroachment into residential areas. While she would consider allowing bed and breakfasts in the Village, she questioned the 500 ft. boundary and suggested that such a provision would, in fact, open up other areas in the City for bed and breakfast use. She noted that the concerns expressed by speakers were neighborhood concerns. Commissioner Tucker concurred and stated that questions addressed by the speakers required answers before a vote would be taken in support of the amendment to the Ordinance. Commissioner Pines noted the valuable information provided by speakers and stated that he would not vote favorably on the amendment at this time. Further consideration is required. Consensus reached among the Commission that better Noticing on an issue of this importance was necessary. Commissioner Callans noted that the 500 ft. boundary impacted some distinctive neighborhoods and commented that probably none of the Commissioners wished to live next door to a hotel. Consensus reached that the Commission wished to put this item to a vote; Commissioner Harris would accept a two week continuance to allow additional notice in the Saratoga News. Commissioner Guch noted that restricting bed and breakfasts to the Village did not seem to be contrary to the philosophy already stated; the problem seemed to be the extension of this use to a 500 ft. boundary. Commissioner Siegfried suggested that the Commission vote on whether or not to extend use beyond the Village and resolve the issue. He noted that a bed and breakfast use is already allowed in the Village. SIEGFRIED /GUCH MOVED TO DENY AZO -86 -003. Passed 7 -0. 13. LL -18 Robles, consideration of a proposed lot line adjustment and site SM -34 modification to allow relocation of the previously approved building site on DR -86 -044 the lot granting design review approval of plans to construct a new 3,944 sq. ft. two -story home on that site at 12906 Chiquita Ct., in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, December 10, 1986. Planner Caldwell noted in Resolution LL -18 -1, the elimination of Condition 1.; Condition 2. would become Condition 1. and a statement added stating "The applicant shall submit a Parcel Map to the City Engineer for recording prior to issuance of a permit. On Resolution DR -86 -044-1, Exhibit A, delete Condition 10. Commissioner Tucker reported on the Site Visit and responded to questions addressed by Commissioners. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:44 P.M. Mr. Bill Heiss, Engineer, presented information on the creek located on the property. BACKGROUND ISSUES RECOMMENDATION ATTACHMENTS DATE: 12/10/86 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: AZO -86 -003 AMENDMENT TO CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENTS. The Planning Commission and Heritage Preservation Commission held a joint study session on September 16, 1986 to discuss an amendment to the City's bed and breakfast regulations. The proposed changes were outlined in the September 12 Heritage Commission memo to the Planning Commission (attached). The two Commissions reached consensus on the proposed changes and directed staff to prepare an ordinance amending the City Code regarding bed and breakfast establishments. Attached is the draft ordinance and memo prepared by the City Attorney. If approved, the proposed amendment would permit bed and breakfast establishments in the R -1 zoning district adjacent to the Village. Because a conditional use permit would be required, any adverse impacts could be mitigated through the review process and conditions of approval. As the City Attorney's memo points out, bed and breakfast establishments are already allowed as conditional uses in the P -A and C (commercial) zoning districts. They are also permitted in the R -M district under the definition of "hotel The City Attorney advises that the operational and location restrictions proposed for the use in the R -1 district need not be imposed for the R -M, P -A and C districts because the use is already controlled by to conditional use permit process. 1. Approve Negative Declaration. 2. Recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed Code amendment. 1. Negative Declaration. 2. Memo from City Attorney. 3. Draft ordinance for proposed amendment. 4. Memo from Heritage Commission to Planning Commission, dated 9/12/86. AZO -86 -003 ILI:UT TO PLANNING COMMIS.SIOG Proposed amendment to City Code regarding bed and breakfast establishments. EIA-4 Saratoga I C The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15063 throug 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code,:and.Resolu- tion 653- of the'City of Saratoga, that the following'.described" project wi have no'significant effect (no substantial. adverse impact) on the•environm within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Amendment to City Code to allow bed and breakfast establishments in the R -1 district within 500 feet of the Village. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION No adverse environmental impacts associated with text amendment. All bed and breakfast establishments permitted under amendment will be required to obtain conditional use permit and undergo individual environmental review. Adverse impacts associated with individual applications will be addressed through use permit process. Executed at Saratoga, California this 10th day of December Yuchuek Hsia Planning Director File No: AZO 86 00: 19 PAUL B. SMITH ERIC L. FARASYN LEONARD J. SIEGAL HAROLD 5. TOPPEL GREGORY A. MANCHUK STEVEN G. BAIRD DATE: November 18, 1986 ATKINSON FARASYN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 660 WEST DANA STREET P.O. BOX 279 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94.042 1415) 967 -6941 MEMORANDUM TO: Saratoga Planning Commission FROM: Harold S. Toppel, Saratoga City Attorney RE: Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Adding Bed and Breakfast Establishments as a Conditional Use in the R -1 Zoning District Submitted herewith is a proposed ordinance concerning bed and breakfast establishments in the R -1 Zoning District. The ordinance basically incorporates the various suggestions made by the Heritage Commission to the Planning Commission in the memorandum dated September 12, 1986, as reviewed and modified by the Planning Commission during a subsequent study session. Section 1 of the proposed ordinance amends the definition of "hotel" as set forth in Article 5 -20 of the City Code (imposing a transient occupancy tax) to specifically include a reference to bed and breakfast establishments. The amendment is for clarification purposes only since it is my opinion that bed and breakfast establishments are already covered under the existing language of Subsection 5- 20.020(a) as being a structure "occupied or intended or designed for occupancy by transients for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes." A bed and breakfast establishment could fall within the meaning of the terms "inn," "tourist home or house," "lodging house," or "rooming house," all of which are contained within the existing ordinance. Section 2 of the proposed ordinance amends Section 15- 12.030 to include bed and breakfast establishments as a conditional use in the R -1 Zoning District. The list of conditions and requirements basically follows the list submitted by the Heritage Commission, with the following deletions or modifications: (a) The Commission suggested that a new use permit be required upon any change of ownership. The California courts have ruled that use permits must run with the land and such requirement would therefore be illegal. (b) I have not specifically stated that the use permit could be revoked if the bed and breakfast is not operated in accordance with the conditions of approval since this language is already contained in Section 15- 55.110 of the Zoning Ordinance and applies to all use permits. J. M. ATKINSON, 11892 -1982) L. M. FARASYN, (1915 -1979) (c) I have not included the suggestion by the heritage Commission that occupancy be limited to not more than two weeks. First of all, this restriction would be difficult if not impossible to enforce. Secondly. the restriction would have no effect upon the intensity of use since all rented rooms within the establishment could be fully occupied at all times through a regular rotation of guests. The intensity of use is more effectively regulated through control on the number of rooms which can be rented within the establishment. By definition (Section 15- 06.100) a bed and breakfast establishment is for transient occupancy only. Such occupancy is defined (Section 5- 25.020) as not exceeding 30 consecutive calendar days. If the purpose of the suggested restriction was to prohibit the rental of rooms on a long term or permanent basis, our existing ordinances should be sufficient to accomplish this objective. (d) The Heritage Commission suggested that the ordinance include a restriction against any structural changes to the exterior of the building. Since a bed and breakfast establishment within an R -1 Zoning District must necessarily be a designated heritage resource, this restriction would already be in force under Chapter 13 of the City Code (Heritage Preservation), Section 13- 20.010, which requires a permit to be issued in order to change any exterior architectural feature. (e) Any proposed bed and breakfast establishment must comply with all applicable building and fire codes and will also be subject to payment of a transient occupancy tax. Consequently, there is no need to specifically mention these subjects, as suggested by the Heritage Com mission. It should be emphasized that the proposed ordinance applies only to a bed and breakfast establishment within an R -1 Zoning District. The numerous restrictions contained in the ordinance are intended to mitigate the impact of this particular use being conducted within a single family neighborhood. On the other hand, bed and breakfast establishments are already allowed as conditional uses in the multi family (R -M), professional and administrative office (P -A) and commercial (C) zoning districts. With respect to these districts, the normal requirements for issuance of a use permit would apply but no additional regulations have been imposed. Finally, Section 3 of the proposed ordinance amends the parking requirements for bed and breakfast establishments as suggested by the Heritage Commission and approved by the Planning Commis r Aso arold S. pel Saratoga City Attorney ORDINANCE NO. 71. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SUBSECTION 5- 20.020(a) TO INCLUDE BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE DEFINITION OF "HOTEL;" AMENDING SECTION- 15- 12.030 TO INCLUDE BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENTS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN R -1 ZONING DISTRICTS ADJACENT TO THE VILLAGE; AND AMENDING SUBSECTION 15- 35.030(e) PERTAINING TO REQUIRED PARKING FACILITIES FOR BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENTS The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Subsection 5- 20.020(a) in Article 5 -20 is amended to read as follows: "(a) Hotel means any structure, or any portion of any structure, which is occupied or intended or designed for occupancy by transients for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes, and includes any hotel, inn, tourist home or house, motel, studio hotel, bachelor hotel, bed and breakfast establishment, lodging house, rooming house, apartment house, dormitory, public or private club, mobile home or house trailer at a fixed location, or other similar structure or portion thereof." SECTION 2: A new Paragraph (n) is added to Section 15- 12.030 in Article 15 -12, to read as follows: "(n) Bed and breakfast establishments, where all of the following conditions and requirements are satisfied: (1) The bed and breakfast site must be located not more than five hundred feet from a boundary line of the Village. (2) The structure in which the bed and breakfast establishment is operated must be an historic landmark, designated as such by the City pursuant to Chapter 13 of this. Code. (3) Not more than eight bedrooms may be rented within the bed and breakfast establishment and each rented bedroom shall be not less than one hundred square feet in size. (4) All bedroom rentals shall be for transient occupancy only, as defined in Subsection 5- 25.020(f) of Article 5 -25 in Chapter 5 of this Code. (5) No meal other than breakfast shall be served to the persons renting any rooms within the bed and breakfast establishment. -1- (6) No cooking shall be allowed in any guest rooms. (7) The bed and breakfast establishment shall be owner occupied or owner operated with a resident manager. (8) No signs or exterior lighting shall be installed except as expressly authorized by the use permit. (9) No ancillary uses, including, but not limited to, receptions, parties or weddings, shall be allowed in conjunction with the bed and breakfast use. The foregoing conditions and requirements are not intended to be exclusive and the Planning Commission may impose any other conditions it deems necessary or appropriate for the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15 -55 of this Chapter." SECTION 3: Paragraph (e) of Section 15- 35.030 in Article 15 -35 is amended to read as follows: SECTION 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 5: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty day$ after its passage and adoption. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: "(e) Bed and breakfast establishments CITY CLERK One space for each bedroom to be rented, and one space for the owner or resident manager." The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of by the following vote: y MAYOR t. C 1. Bed Breakfast Regulations MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Heritage Preservation Commission SUBJECT: September 16, 1986 meeting discussion items DATE: September 12, 1989 The Commission believes that bed breakfast regulations can provide an avenue for use and rehabilitation of the City's designated landmark structures. If such structures are permitted to be used as b &b inns, in accordance with specific locational and operational criteria, more property owners may seek landmark designation. The attached articles from the California Planner magazine discuss factors that affect the regulation of bed breakfast inns and community concerns in establishing bed breakfast regulations. After reviewing these articles and b &b regulations from other cities, the Commission recommends that the following items be considered' for inclusion in b &b regulations for the City of Saratoga: a) The property shall be a Designated Heritage Resource. There are currently 8 designated resources; the Commission believes more property owners would request heritage designation if b &b regulations were adopted. b.) A use permit shall be required. A new use permit should be required if the property changed owners. The permit could be revoked if the b &b is not operating according to code and conditions. c) The b &b shall be located in proximity (300' 500') to a commercial district or on a major thoroughfare. d) Off- street parking shall be provided at a ratio of one space per bedroom plus one space for the resident manager. e) No more than 8 rooms may be rented. f) There is a maximum length of stay of 2 weeks. g) No structural changes permitted to the outside of the structure. h) Size and type of signs shall be limited. i) Room size shall be a minimum of 100 sq. ft. j) No cooking permitted in rooms. k) The b8b o{� shall be subject to all 6..y"._.lding, fire, and licensing regulations. 1) The b8b operation shall be subject to a bed or room tax. m) The b8b shall be owner- occupied or operated, or there shall be a resident manager. n) Only one meal (breakfast) shall be served. o) There should be restrictions on ancillary uses such as receptions and parties. 2 Addition of Heritage Preservation Regulations to Zoning Code. Information regarding this item will be distributed at the meeting. Saratoga City Council City Offices Saratoga, California 95070 In reference to public hearing to be held March 4, 1987, concerning permits for bed and breakfast establishments in Saratoga: We have visited bed and breakfast inns in many areas of California, and have always thought that Saratoga was very well suited for this type of accommodation. A home or inn of this type, located within walking distance of the Village, would not engender much traffic; guests would be inclined to leave their cars parked at the home and walk through the Village to enjoy the interesting shops and fine dining available. In these days, when often every member of a family of driving age has his own car, there might actually be less traffic if the home were used for bed and breakfast guests. Another point to consider is that these older homes, a priceless part of our heritage, can unfortunately be very expensive to maintain, often out of reach for most people. Use of the home as a bed and breakfast inn could provide the income necessary to preserve these fine older residences. We wish to go on record as favoring the establishment of bed and breakfast homes /inns in Saratoga. February 23, 1987 Sinc -rely, Rout G. Cowie Virginia K. Cowie 19443 Melinda Circle Saratoga, California 2.5070 L it fr'' >o FEB 2;3 i° "7 lJ VY /dsc U 04 0 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council DATE: 3/4/87 FROM: Heritage Preservation Commission SUBJECT: Proposed Code Amendments Regarding Bed Breakfast Establishments (AZ0-86 -003) At its meeting of February 18, 1987, the Heritage Preservation Commission discussed the upcoming Council hearing on the proposed Code amendments regarding bed and break- fast establishments and decided to prepare this brief memo outlining some of their concerns to the Council. The origin of the bed and breakfast proposal lay in the fact that, although the City of Saratoga has adopted policies and ordinances supporting preservation activities, there are virtually no incentives for property owners to preserve historic structures and designate them as heritage resources. The proposal to allow bed and breakfast establishments in historic homes that may qualify as heritage resources and are immediately adjacent to the Village commercial area was identified as one possible incentive to encourage property owners in that area to participate in the preserva- tion of Saratoga's heritage. The Commission reviewed planning literature and ordinances on bed and breakfast uses from other communities to determine the most appropriate approach for Saratoga. Be- cause it was always the Commission's intent that the concept have a very limited application in Saratoga, the Commission recommended very strict regulations for bed and breakfast uses. For example, the use must be operated in a designated resource by the owner of the property, must obtain a use permit from the Planning Commission through the public hearing process, and must meet all building and other applicable City codes. The Commission believes that it is not the intent of the amendment to "commercialize" the residential neighborhoods around the Village. Many small communities in Califor- nia have successfully implemented bed and breakfast programs with minimal impacts because each application is carefully scrutinized during the public hearing process. The concept can serve many purposes it encourages visitors to stay within walking distance of the Village, provides needed revenue to the City through the hotel tax, and creates an incentive for property owners to restore their historic structures for the benefit of all Saratogans. We urge your favorable consideration of this amendment. 4. 5 .7&f. g -20et Aouie CEB 9 1987 Nu& Yanti lye Yu p;si Reed Yaratbiet, KR: Nom cs9 e r/lA C- 3. 7 7"/ a. /5 i /2/.,2-721--1--e4../.% CIA-2, C-0-- 1) /Le-et-e-eryz-a. ..eze z- i.. 1 4.7 ee, 1• 4 "54 'e. 24;7? 4 i 4 14 6e....e&I -1. j P";://4 PL /i tin/Pt-4-, att',62-.46/ „.----erZ,..-, .11...._-. 4, -(...A_L i f ,1-_,-.5-eZ/L/J--- ,i 1#1 .-',Zz..4/d 7 ...2._ ‘-:--p--z-c- i--e 4-1t1-- /6 ,-G kt.76/r:e•--- e A-a- /t 14-0 0 95 76 16 /987 24 February 1987 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga CA 95071 Respected City Council: In the referenced matter, I would like to go on record as being opposed to any changes, variations and modifications to our present zoning ordinance specifically to any changes allowing "hotel" or "bed-and-breakfast" (B/B) operations in an added 500 foot perimeter of the "Village". My objections are based on 1) We do not need any hotel or B/B space in Saratoga. Any commercialization of our present "bedroom community" environment is contrary to reasons why we came to live in Saratoga in the first place. This action will be detrimental to our environment. 2) I believe we presently have an unoccupied B/B establishment in the village. It would be wise for the Council to examine and evaluate the occupancy data for that establishment once it be- comes operational, before any "new" decisions are made. 3) The Oak Street school appears to be included in the 500 ft redefinition zone. Why? The change in the zoning would con- ceivably provide sort of "legitimacy" for eminent domain con- demnation and closing of the school with subsequent possibility of an hotel development on site!!!! We do not need to close schools to build hotels! 4) As to the modification of the remaining definitions, i.e. 4.1 Subsection 5-20.020(a) inclusion of B/B in the "hotel" definition. NO! we do not need hotels in the existing R-1 zoning areas. 4.2 Subsettion 15-35.030(e) parking let's eliminate this potential situation by not making any zoning changes in the first place. I DO NOT NEED A HOTEL, B/B OR A PARKING LOT NEXT TO MY PREMISES! Hillar L. Raamat 20491 Forrest Hills Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Matter of changing the Zoning Ordinance Section 15-12.03 Z.,t 1��� ,�r^ February 26, 1987 Honorable Mayor Joyce Hlava and Members of the Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor Hlava and Council Members: FEB 2 6 1387 Every Sunday, the business section of the Mercury News features the Average and Median price of homes in the Valley. Each week Saratoga vies with Los Altos Hills as the most expensive in the Valley....and Saratoga tops the list most weeks. Cost of homes is not the issue nor is it in any way a form of bravado or who can afford what. It is a issue of perceived value! The buying public perceives Saratoga as one of the premier places to live and the property values bear this out. What you get that differs from most communities is an ambiance, a feeling of comfort of the old and stable that has been well preserved. This has not happened by accident. It is the result of alot of careful planning by past generations in our community. And, of course, it has been facilitated by our City Government in the form of protecting our residential and commercial sectors by wise laws, zoning and planning. "Spot Commercial Zoning" has not been allowed in any form regardless of the name you call it. This clear separation of commercial and residential is a key factor in helping Saratoga become the desired Community it is today. Whether the Village Plans' Consultant proposes a "historic overlay" that extends outside of the Village with "special incentives" to promote preservation of designated historic structures, or the proposed Bed Breakfast plan of the Heritage Preservation Commission, or Conditional Use Process, or change in Village Boundaries, or change in zoning, or any other name one wishes to use if we Allow non residential use of homes in residential neighborhoods, we are destroying what is a vital part of Saratogas success. We destroy the co- operation, coexistance and proper balance of residential and commercial....and most importantly, we lose the trust that exists between the people and the government. This is the trust that you will protect the integrity of our residential neighborhoods. This is a bedroom community not a City of Commerce nor a City run by a tourist economy. Commercial use of homes does not belong in residential neighborhoods. This is not a novel idea. Most of the communities in the Valley (Cupertino, Los Gatos, Los Altos Hills, Los Altos, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Hillsborough, Saratoga) share a common characteristic they have a clear and undeniable separation of Commercial and Residential. They do not let B &B's in residential neighborhoods. It has worked well for years and it will serve us well for the future. Page -2- The suggestion that the preservation of our designated Historic homes in Saratoga is dependent on special incentives that should include allowing a home in a residential neighborhood to be changed to a B &B or other commercial use is simply not appropriate. It is a contradiction with the best of what Saratoga has to offer today the strength and stability of our neighborhoods, both old and new, residential commercial. To request that entire neighborhoods have their residential nature change, not to mention the value of the homes surrounding the B &B, to fund the cost of restoring a home is wrong. Saratoga and their residents can not afford such costs. Suggesting that I fund another persons restoration costs with the decreased value of my home and the loss of my residential lifestyle in my heretofore residential neighborhood is not an option that I desire nor the majority of people in Saratoga today or past. To discuss why anyone would object to a B &B next door to their home is not necessary. The issue is not to find "what" commercial uses are acceptable in residential neighborhoods rather it is to maintain our continued separation of Commercial and Residential. Living in a fine, old historic neighborhood adjacent to the village is worthwhile despite the endless "battles" we face from those who continually view the Village Boundary as a place to push further commercial growth rather than a point of demarkation. Regardless of the pressures, we will continue to promote our neighborhood as having the best of both worlds in Saratoga enjoying our Village as well as a fine old residential neighborhood....and this includes protecting both from infringement by the other. We are some of the most ardent supporters of preserving our heritage in ALL forms. For this reason, we oppose the B &B proposal. As well meaning as the Heritage Preservation Commission is on this matter, it simply is not the correct incentive /promotion of historic preservation. It merely promotes "Historic change" from residential to commercial use of a former home. We respectively ask each of you to deny this proposal. Further, we request that you specifically state in the General Plan that commercial use in residential neighborhoods be forbidden and limited to designated commercial areas. In this way, perhaps we can stop having to join the "Battle -of- the -Month Club" to continually fight against the then latest commercial encroachment proposal in our residential neighborhood since such proposals would require a change of the General Plan. Thank you for your just considerations. Greg and Betty Ann Grodhaus 20379 Saratoga Los Gatos Road Saratoga, CA 95070 j„cike cc: Members of the Saratoga Planning Commission TO THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA: Re: Bed and Breakfast Establishments Hearing March 4, 1987 On January 12, 1987 I, along with others, wrote letters to the City Council requesting a public hearing before the City Council with respect to bed and breakfast establishments. This hearing has been scheduled for March 4, 1987. The purpose of this communication is to respond to letters in opposition on file with the City as of February 25 and to articles appearing in the Saratoga News of February 25 (copies enclosed). I have also received one telephone call from a property owner on Lomita. The letters in opposition to B and B's and the newspaper articles contain such words as "hotel" and "commercial" which are misleading. I believe it is important for the City Attorney, at the March 4 hearing, to explain to the audience what this proposed amendment is and is not. The property owner on Lomita stated she and others in the neighborhood were concerned that this was an attempt by developers to commercialize Oak Street and surrounding areas. She stated she had no objection to the "Lodge" on Oak Street becoming a B and B because "It has always been a bed and breakfast." She remembers having had dinners there. She preferred that we go in on a use permit and not change the ordinance which might open the door to commercial zoning. In response to Mr. Grodhaus' statement about the number of cars that will be going in and out of a B and B and the safety of children playing, the number of carg would be about the same whether the property is a private residence or a B and B. It is the number of bedrooms that pretty much determines how many occupants live in a house. The "Lodge" has six bedrooms and five bathrooms. A property owner is more likely to rent to a family with older children (who probably drive) or to all adults The most revealing statement made by Mr. Grodhaus is "...what right to they have...(to) earn a lot of money...?" If one reads between the lines, one can often discern where the person is coming from. Of course, in this instance, one does not have to read between the lines- one need only to read the lines. Incidently, he has more optimism than I with respect to making a lot of money operating a B B. With respect to inns "...reduc(ing) the market value of nearby houses," Mr. Grodhaus and Mrs. Rowe need to get together. Mrs. Rowe states in her letter to the City dated February 10, 1987 that extending the boundaries 500 feet from the Village Boundries would increase the value of her property "2 or 3 times." Apparently, she and Mr. Grodhaus are not in agreement as to what would happen to property values. Enclosed is a copy of the Heritage Survey Index which was provided to me by the City. I have made a study of the historical designations on this index and to the right of each designation I have made comments Page .2 Bed and Breakfast E.s.tabli.shments as to my findings. The potential for B and B's outside of the Village, for the most part, is not great. There are just a few properties that would qualify and they are primarily on busy streets:, Oak Street, Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. The potential for B and B's within the Village is even less. Realistically, number 17, 19 and 20 on the Heritage Survey Index appear to be the only possibilities and #17 is a condominium situation with six different owners. In summary, we are not talking about any earth shaking impact on the City of Saratoga if B and B's were allowed outside of the Village. Betty Rowe states she has lived in Saratoga 34 years. The Kahles have lived in Saratoga 31. years and we have lived in Saratoga 30 years. We are not "fly -by- night" operators who want to swoop into the City, make a bundle and leave town. The Kahles have a large family and we have a large family; many of our children are property owners in Saratoga and are permanent residents of Saratoga. Our roots are here. We are concerned about what happens to Saratoga and its heritage. What does the City have to gain from all of this? A preservation of its heritage and therefore a promising future founded on its historic past. Respectfully submitted, 0 Dated: February 26, 1987 �iz� Ann Fitzs ons I AM BETTY LOU ROWE. I LIVE AT 20360 SARATOGA LOS GATOS ROAD ONE EPrTEIROD+n n=1 r y •BEAUTIFUL GATEWAYS INTO SARATOGA. ONE THAT DID NOT COST THE CITY A PENNY FOR TREES AND MEDIAN STRIPS. ONE THAT HAS IMMENCE HISTORICAL VALUE AND AMBIANCE ONE OP THE REASONS WE ALL MOVED TO SARATOGA. I HAVE FOUGHT 20 HARD YEARS TO KEEP THIS GATEWAY FROM BEING COMMERCIAL. KEPT THE OLD HOMES FROM BEING TURNED INTO A RESTURANT AND A STOCK BROKERAGE HOUSE. .NOW IN ONE FELL SWOOP YOU ARE GOING TO ERADICATE ALL OF MY EFFORTS AND WE WILL. HAVE TWO BED AND BREAKFAST DWELLINGS AT THE GATEWAY TO SARATCGA OF COURSE UIhTIL THAT BECOMES ECONOMICALLY UNSOUND THEN WE CAN LOOK TO OTHER LESS ROMANTIC .DEVELOPEMENTS IN THESE OLD HOMES."" NOW I CAN NOT DO THIS ALONE. IF YOU DO NOT SUPPORT ME YOU CAN BE SURE MY NEIGHBOR WILL BE A BED AND BREAKFAST LEAVING ME NO.CHOICE OTHER THAN TO BECOME YOU MUST QUESTION MY RATIONAL. WHY WOULDN'T SHE WANT HER PROPERTY WORTH 2 OR 3 :f. TIMES AS MUCH? EXTENDING THE BOUNDRIES 500 FEET FROM THE VILLAGE BOUNDRIES WOULD DO JUST THAT. N ANSWERS TO THE QUESTION THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL STRECHES OF ROADWAY. IN THE WORLD. THESE OLD HOMES GO BACK TO 1911 MINE 1904. TWO FAMILIES ACROSS FROM ME HAVE RESTORED THEIR HOMES, DR ABRUZZIA AND BREGMONS. THEY SEE THESE HOMES AS A WAY OF LIFE ALMOST FORGOTTEN. ALSO I'M A NATIVE OF SAN JOSE AND SECOND GENERATION CALIFORNIAN I'VE LIVED IN MY HOME FOR THE TOWN OF SARATOGA. I HAT}', TO S�, IT DIS T ROYA;). .41-7 riu-G 0 u.,4 1 F rt\::G it� FEB 10 1987 4 :YEARS AND HAVE A FEEL BETTY ROWE, 20360 SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD. SARATOGA 867-33 ?4 BEFORE THE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MARCH 4 IS A PROPOSAL TO EXTEND THE VILLAGE BOUPTDRIES 500 FT. TO ACCOMMODATE BED AND BREAKFAST. OUR LOCAL CITIES TO SEE THEIR VIEWS. HILLSBOROUGH NO COMMERCIAL AT ALL SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ONLY NONE rns xLTOS HILLS NO COMMERCIAL AT ALL SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ONLY NONE LOS ALTOS NOT IN RESIDENTIAL AREA ONLY ALLOWED ON THE EL CAMINO WHERE MOTELS AND HOTELS ARE ZONED MUST APPLY FOR A USE PERMIT NONE MENLO PARK NOT IN RESIDENTIAL AREA ALLOWED IN MULTI ZONED USE SIMILAR TO BOARDING HOUSE AND HOTEL MUST HAVE A CONDITIONAL USE AND USE PERMIT NONE LOS GATOS NOT IN RESIDENTIAL AREA ALLOWED IN DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL AREA WHERE ZONED HOTEL MOTEL NONE IF YCU LOOD CLOSELY AT MY REPORT ITS EASY TO SEE PRIME REAL ESTATE HAS THE MOST RESTRICTIONS. I ALWAYS THOUGHT SARATOGA WAS PRIME REAL ESTATE THERE IS DOCUMENTED RESTORATION OF HISTORIC HOMES IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD INCLUDING MINE BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR. I DO NOT AGREE AND ARE AGAINST THE PHILOSOPPHY THAT THE ONLY WAY TO PRESERVE HISTORIC HOMES IS TO MAKE THEM INTO BED AND BREAKFASTS ,,OR ANY OTHER COMMERCIAL :I DEVELOPEMENT PALO ALTO I HAVE MADE A STUDY OF NOT IN RESIDENTIAL OR DUPLES ZONIN O.K. IN COMMERCIAL, GENERAL MANUFACTURING AND MULTI FAMILY ZONED TWO 555 LITTEN COWPER FORREST SAN JOSE ALLOWED ONLY DOWNTOWN IN MULTI FAMILY ZONE BUILDING MUST BE HISTORIC AND HAVE ARCHETICURAL MERIT EXCEPTION ALLOWED BY PLANNED DEVELOPEMENT PROCEECURE. EXAMPLE OLD VICTORIAN AT 19 th JACKSO IT PASSED ALL THE RESTRICTIONS BUT HAS NOT AS YET APPLIED FOR A USE PERMIT NONE CUPERTINOTINO NO CODE. BRING PARCEL TO PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND PROCEED FROM THERE NONE Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Ladies and Gentlemen: 14735 Aloha Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 February 22, 1987 Re:AZO -86 -003 FEt3 2 19B7 I am opposed to any extension of the "hotel" ordinance to include bed and breakfast inns within 500 feet of the Village within existing R1 areas. I write as a homeowner and 15 year resident immediately adjacent to the proposed area who will have to live with changes produced by such zoning. Our home is located at the corner of Aloha and Komina avenues. Specifically, I am opposed to: (a) Zoning which would allow Bed and Breakfast inns within single family residential areas (R1, I think). (b) Bed and Breakfast inn zoning which would act as an incentive to higher density development or use of our surrounding neighborhood, which already gets too much traffic and too many strangers (My favorite Mustang car, a 20 year family "heirloom was stolen last month from the street in front of my house). (c) Any zoning change which clouds the value of surrounding property by creating uncertainty as to the character of use of property in the neighborhood due to (a) the wide latitude of approved uses (b) the conditional use nature of the permission which would subject all of us to a continuing stream of proposals, hearings and so forth. (d) Such an ill- defined area as "within 500 feet of the Village Even those of us who have lived here 15 years and who know the Village don't know where that boundary is. It should be possible to enumerate the streets, sides of ,streets, and affected addresses to eliminate any ambiguity whatsoever. TAT:t (e) It is contrary to previous City council action setting a precedent to limit commercial uses to the Village Area as recently in the Young Gallery issue involving the large house on Saratoga -Los Gatos road. I am not opposed to Bed and Breakfast inns within the existing commercial areas of the Village. Arguments that Bed and Breakfast inns be allowed within multiple family zoned areas may have more merit, such as along the Village side of Oak Street, or along 4th Street. But I would have to be convinced. Thank you for taking the above views into consideration. Mayor Hlava 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Calif. 95070 Dear Mayor Hlava: DONALD J. PROLO, M.D. 20471 FORREST HILLS DR. SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 February 15, 1987 FEB 2 19B7 Today we have learned of an effort by some Saratoga officials to extend the Village boundary 500 feet to permit com- mercial ventures in an area that includes our home. Now less than three weeks before the Council will decide, our knowledge of this radical de facto zoning change came not from the City but from other concerned neighbors. We are outraged by this proposal and object vehemently to the effort to allow commercial ventures in residential areas and to this specific boundary extension which would include our home. Sincerely, OD 42 k cj Donald J. Prolo, M. panne H. Prolo a 2 NEWS AMINIMMEMI B &B opponents gear up for council debate z S By Rob Vardon cn The controversy over wheth- er or not "bed and breakfast" inns should be allowed in resi- dential areas is heating up, as the Saratoga City Council pre- pares for a March 4 public hear- ing on the matter. The council meeting next Wednesday begins at 7 p.m. at the City Hall council chambers (13777 Fruitvale Ave. Opponents of a proposal by the Saratoga Heritage Preser- vation Commission to allow B &Bs in residential districts lo- cated within 500 feet of the Sara- toga Village commercial district plan to be oat in force when the topic goes before the council. "We're not against bed and breakfasts, but we're very much against allowing someone to open up a small hotel right next to us," said Greg Grodhaus, a resident of Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, who lives within 500 feet of the southern Village bound- ary. "You'll have nine or 10 cars coming in or out of the place and you have children outside play- ing," Grodhaus said. "Ask your- self, puld I want to live next to that Grodhaus said the auto traf- fic generated by a B &B would endanger neighborhood chil- dren. He also claimed the inns would reduce the market vague of nearby houses. "If you're moving into Saratoga and you're going to spend a half million dol- lars on a house, you want it to be in a residential neighborhood," he said. The owner of this 110 house on Oak Street wants to turn the "Your home is a place to relax. If you have a bed and breakfast next to you, it inter- rupts your privacy and wrecks you'll move into a condo in the your home value. If you want to city where you can be in com- live around hustle and bustle, Please tiro to pale ti Critics cite `negative' B &B impact Continued from page 2 mercial surroundings." Bed and breakfast inns like hotels offer rooms for short -term rent. B &Bs also serve breakfasts to guests. Saratoga law allows B &Bs in commercial districts— includ- ing the Village and in the pro- fessional/administrative office district. They are not now al- lowed in residential districts. The inns are allowed only in buildings that have been desig- nated by the City Council upon recommendation by the Heritage Preservation re- sources, or historic landmarks. The Heritage Commission views B&Bs as incentives for owners of historic houses to restore them and keep them in use, while recouping restoration costs through revenue from their B&Bs. On' Dec. 10, the Saratoga Planning Commission unani- mously rejected proposed amendments to the city zoning ordinance that would allow B &Bs to be opened in historic resources located in residential districts 500 feet from the Vil- lage boundaries. Only two building owners in Saratoga are known to be inter- ested in converting their old houses into B&Bs. Attorney John R. Kahle, who owns an 81- year -old house near Brookwood Lane, said bed and breakfast inns "would add sig- nificant charm and quaintness to our city." Kahle said the house he owns is deteriorating as a long term' rental. He said he wants to re- store the house and re -open it as a B &B. Ann Fitzsimmons, co -owner of an 80- year -old house at 14534 Oak St., said she wants to pre- serve the building, but added, "No owner of such a building will spend the kind of money it will take to make it a showplace unless that owner intends to live in the building or use it as a business. "We have no intention of liv- ing in the building." Fitzsimmons said if the building is required to remain a residence, "we would make only minimum necessary repairs to make it habitable, and we would have no compelling reason to have it designated as a his- torical landmark." "If somebody doesn't have the money to restore an old house, that's fine," Grodhaus said. "But what right do they have to say they're going to con vert it into a bed and breakfast inn and earn a lot of money, while causing a loss in value of the properties around them and taking away the rightful use of the neighborhood? "If this is just a plan to help a couple of homeowners who live within 500 feet of the Village, then next year, if they find a couple more houses that would qualify as B &Bs, will they extend it 500 feet more? This would be a precedent for any future attempts to do the same thing." PROPOSED BED Et BREAKFAST IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS In an effort to incent people to restore and preserve historic structures in Sara- toga, the Heritage Preservation Commission has introduced a proposal to allow designated Historic Residences to be used as Bed and Breakfasts. B &B's are allowed in the Village. However, this proposal would also allow the B &B's in an area within 500 feet of the Village boundaries. This includes residential neighbor- hoods for those designated Historic Homes via the Conditional Use Process. Everyone who purchases a home in Saratoga has a "stake" in preserving the charm and historic ambiance of our. community. After all, that is what makes a home in Saratoga cost much more than the same home in surrounding communi- ties. Those of us who disagree with the B &B proposal are not against preserving our heritage we are merely against using B&B's as an incentive for preservation. Heritage Preservation is more than restoring and preserving the facade of a home like a prop in a movie set. It is preserving the exterior, interior, gardens and grounds, and very importantly the neighborhood and the use for which the home was originally- intended. We believe that incenting Preservation by changing a home into a hotel with up to eight rooms is not promoting Preserva- tion. It merely fncents changing a home into a commercial establishment and it does so at the expense of the lifestyle of the residential neighborhood and the values of the neighbors homes. We do not want to live next door to a small hotel. Our home is in a residential neighborhood near the village. A commercial establishment belongs in a desig- nated commercial area not in a residential neighborhood as our or your next door neighbor. We do not want such an intrusion on our privacy and home life- style nor would we impose such on you and yours. In our immediate neighborhood there are 10 families that have invested over $2,000,000 in the past few years restoring their homes. Discuss this with your friends and neighbors who have also restored their property. As in the 10 homes in our neighborhood, you will probably find that their incentives were increased property value, joy of ownership and living in such a home as well as personal pride. Commercial development probably was NOT their motivation or incentive. Just as it also is not a necessary incentive for the future Preservation of Saratoga. We applaud the Heritage -Preservation Commission for their interest and dedica- tion to preserving our community character. We simply disagree with this form of incentive and hope you also disagree and make your feeling known. It is too easy to "shoot down" someone else's ideals) but it is often very diffi- cult to come up with something better. In this spirit, we will submit several ideas to the City of Saratoga that could offer extra incentive to restore designated his- toric residences if more incentives are needed than those previously men- tioned. We urge you to come up with your "win -win" solutions and communi- cate them to the City Council Planning Commission or the Heritage Preservation Commission. But above all participateiil This issue may only directly affect those homes within 500 feet of the Village "now," but what about next year's proposal? Why not another 500 feet or what- ever comes up in the future? This issue affects all of us. So whether you are for it or against it Participate! If not, we let the wishes of the minority rule the ma- jority and if we do not like the results, we can only blame ourselves. Greg Betty Ann Grodhaus The public hearing on the B &B issue comes before the City Council on March 4, 1987. Be there or let the City Council know your wishes. Preserving our Heritage is not the private domain of a few interested people. To work properly, it is a community project. It represents the spirit and character of the community. Consequently, we must find "win -win" solutions for everyone in Saratoga not solutions that win for some at the expense of others. Heritage Preservation it affects ALL of us in Saratoga. So get involved and let's make certain we ALL benefit by itl I I L1J HISTORIC NAME NUMBER STREET ADDRESS DESIGNATION AGE 1 1 MARY BROWN RANCH 16191 BOHL.MAN RD. LOCAL INTEREST 1881 2 RAWDON DELL 13631 SARATOGA AVE. LOCAL INTEREST 1916 3 WELCH -HURST 15808 SANBORN RD. NR OF HP 1912 -14 4 PAUL MASSON MOUNTAIN' WINERY PIERCE ROAD NR OF HP 1905 5 PAUL MASSON LODGE PIERCE ROAD LOCAL INTEREST 1936 6 GARROD RANCH 22600 MT. EDEN RD_ SCCHR 1890's 7 PIKE ESTATE 14684 PIKE ROAD LOCAL INTEREST 1926 8 HAKONE GARDENS 2100 BIG BASIN WAY SCCHR 1918 9 FABRETTI HOUSE 14669 BIG BASIN WAY SCCHR 1881 10 JOHN HENRY HOUSE 14630 BIG BASIN WAY SCCHR 1869 11 ST. JOHN'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH 14700 SIXTH STREET LOCAL INTEREST 1896 12 MADRONIA CEMETERY 14766 OAK STREET LOCAL INTEREST 1850's 13 HANNAH MC CARTHY'S VINEYARD HOUSE 20600 LOtITA AVE. SCCHR 1877 14 WILLIAM KING HOUSE 14672 OAK STREET SCCHR 1870 15 CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH PARSONAGE 14666 OAK STREET SCCHR 1886 16 MISSIONARY SETTLEMENT HOUSE 14683 OAK STREET SCCHR 1897 17 ERWIN T. KING 14605 BIG BASIN WAY SCCHR 1875 18 PETTIS LIVERY 14605 BIG BASIN WAY SCCHR 1899 19 MARSH METZGER HOUSE 14599 BIG BASIN WAY LOCAL INTEREST 1909 20 SPRINGER HOUSE 20770 WILDW00D WAY SCCHR 1851 21 NOT DESIGNATED 22 GROVER HOUSE 14521 BIG BASIN WAY SCCHR 1890's 23 GREEN STORE BUILDING 14519 BIG BASIN WAY SCCHR 1890 24 CLOUD -SMITH BUILDING 14503 BIG BASIN WAY SCCHR 1884 25 SAM CLOUD HOUSE 14501 BIG BASIN WAY SCCHR 1890's 26 SAM CLOUD HAY FEED WAREHOUSE 20640 THIRD STREET LOCAL INTEREST 1890's 27 HUTCHINSON BUILDING 14495 BIG BASIN WAY SCCHR 1890's 28 SARATOGA STATE BANK 14421 BIG BASIN WAY SCCHR 1913 29 KERR -HOGG BUILDING 14415 BIG BASIN WAY SCCHR 1910 30 SARATOGA DRUG STORE 14413 BIG BASIN WAY SCCHR 1910 31 HENRY JARBOE HOUSE 20611 BROOKWOOD LANE SCCHR 1860's 32 B. GRANT TAYLOR HOUSE 20601 BROOKW000 LANE LOCAL INTEREST 1916 33 B. GRANT TAYLOR HOUSE 14421 SAR- S'VALE ROAD SCCHR 1906 34 J. E. FOSTER HOUSE 20680 MARIAN AVE. SCCHR 1880's 35 POLLARD HOUSE 20731 MARIAN AVE. SCCHR 1880's HERITAGE SURVEY INDEX (Comments by Ann Fitzsimmons) Beyond 500' feet of Village 3eyond 500' feet of Vi11agE Beyond 500' feet of VillagE Beyond 500' feet of VillagE Beyond 500' feet of VillagE eyond 500' feet of Village 3eyond 500' feet of VillagE J o potential for B B o ne bedroom -no potential w arren Heid's office 7 nable to locate T o potential eyond 500' feet of Village otential for B B otential for B B otential for B B Potential for B B Barn Potential for B B Potential for B B Business in Village Business. in Village Business in Village Business in Village Unable to locate bldg. Business in Village Business in Village Business in Village Business in Village Potential for B B Potential for B B Potential for B B Moved into village- bus!ne0 Potential for B B r.sv 39 .40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 11.1 rx.+u1 i -cmi cuP$L CHURCH SARATOGA VILLAGE LIBRARY MC WILLIAMS HOUSE HOGG STORE SARATOGA VOL. FIRE DEPT. BELL LUNOB .AD' S LODGE "BELL GROVE" O. C. BELL HOUSE "WOODL,EIGH" G A W000 HOUSE SARATOGA FEDERATED CHURCH SARATOGA )OTHILL CLUB FRANCIS DRESSER HOUSE LUTHER- CUNNINGHAM STONE HOUSE NOT DESIGNATED THOMY'S HOUSE J. C. CUNNINGHAM HOUSE E. M. CUNNINGHAM HOUSE MEASON HOUSE MC GREW- ATKINSON HOUSE CROWELL HOUSE CARETAKER/GARAGE BLDG.- HAYFIELD HAYFIELD HOUSE WEBSTER -SUTRO HOUSE RANCHO BELLA VISTA STERNE- ANDRES HOUSE HALE ESTATE JAMES RICHARDS HOUSE VILLA MONTALVO TIBBETT HOUSE KONTANI -EN GARDEN AUSTIN SCHOOL NIPPON MURA INN MEAGHER- SMILEY HOUSE 000 FELLOWS HOME ELLIS HOUSE SAN TOMS GRAMMAR SCHOOL BRANDENBURG HOUSE ANDERSON HOUSE T.S. MO NTGOtERY STONE MALL 20490 SAR-LG ROAD 14410 OAK STREET 20460 SAR-LG ROAO 20450 SAR-LG ROAD 14488 OAK STREET(near) 14534 OAK STREET 20360 SAR-LG ROAD 20375 SAR -LG ROAD 20390 PARK PLACE 20399 PARK PLAT 14300 SARATOGA AVE. 14280 SARATOGA AVE. 14189 14120 14075 13991 13915 19855 14215 20235 14445 20021 20105 20252 20150 19221 15891 19010 18840 15231 14500 14711 14004 18490 12239 20400 SARATOGA AVE. SARATOGA AVE. SARATOGA AVE. SARATOGA AVE. SARATOGA AVE. DOUGLAS LANE DOUGLAS LANE LA PALO1IA AVE. DONNA LANE BELLA VISTA RANCHO BELLA HILL AVE. BONNIE BRAE MONTALVO ROAD SAR. L.G. ROAD RAVINE ROAO AUSTIN MAY SAR. L.G. ROAD QUITO ROAD FRUITVALE AVE. FRUITVALE AVE. QUITO ROAD RAVEN$000 DR. TITUS AVENUE L.G. SAR. ROAD SCCHR SCCHR SCCHR SCCHR LOCAL INTEREST SCCHR SCCHR SCCHR LOCAL INTEREST SCCHR SCCHR LOCAL INTEREST SCCHR SCCHR SCCHR SCCHR SCCHR SCCHR LOCAL INTEREST SCCHR LOCAL INTEREST SCCHR SCCHR LOCAL INTEREST LOCAL INTEREST NR OF HP LOCAL INTEREST NR OF HP Ni CA.LM SCCHR SCCHR SCCHR SCCHR SCCHR LOCAL INTEREST SCCHR (PENDING) LOCAL INTEREST 1 .4.010 1895 1927_ '1860's 1904 1903 1905 1904 1911 1924 1915 1880 1927 1870's 1889 1882 1870's 1880 1860's 1920 1920 1916 1917 1880's 1930's 1910 1912 1910 1918 1912 1902 1941 -3 1912 1885 UNKMN 1888 UN VN UNKMN Beyond Beyond Beyond Beyond Beyond Beyond Beyond Beyond Beyond Beyond Unable Beyond Beyond 500' feet 500' feet 500' feet 500' feet 500' feet 500' feet 500' feet 500' feet 500' feet No potential Beyond 500' Beyond 500' Beyond 500' Beyond 500' Beyond 500' No potential for Beyond 500' feet Beyond 500' feet Beyond 500' feet Beyond 500' feet No potential for ;memorial arch Business in Village !No potential for B B i Chamber of Commerce Bldg. Museum 'No potential for B B P' ©"men °tip =l= fog- -S Potential for B B Potential for B B No potential for B B No potential for B &.B Potential for .B B Potential for B B of Village of Village of Village of Village .I of Village of Village of Village of Village of Village 500' feet of Village to find street 500' feet of Village 500' feet of Village feet of Village feet of Village feet of Village feet of Village feet of Village B B of Village of Village of Village of Village B B Members of City Council Saratoga City Council Saratoga, CA 95070 2 Dear Members of the Saratoga City Council: 14711 Aloha Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 March 4, 1987 The zoning ordinance regarding bed and breakfasts has caused confusion in our neighborhood. A petition being circulated made it seem as if the ordinance was to preserve historical structures by allowing them to be bed and breakfasts. While we are not opposed to bed and breakfasts in general, we do oppose the ordinance which has more far reaching implications. It is in no way clear what the purpose of the ordinance is, and we would like to state our opposition to it in the present form. Sincerely, Gay Roy Crawford TO THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA: Monday, March 2, 1987 Late Friday, February 27, 1987 I learned that a "flyer" had been inserted in the Saratoga School newsletter or newspaper that is sent home with all of the children attending the Oak Street School. I was able to obtain a copy of the "flyer over this past weekend. Enclosed is a copy for review by the City Council. The copy sent home was on deep yellow paper rather than the white. The "flyer' was not signed thereby giving the appearance of being authored and sanctioned by school officials. At 9:00 a.m. Monday, March 2, 1987 I visited Saratoga School and spoke with the principal, Lisa Akers, about this matter. She said it was with her approval and the approval of the Superintendant of Schools, Michael Felice, that the "flyer" could be sent home .with the children in the school newspaper because, after all, it was just a notice of an upcoming meeting. I asked her who the author of the notice was and she stated it was Jill Hunter. I would have no objection if parents talked directly to one another about the B and B issue. What I do object to is school officials per- mitting indi.viduals,who are trying to advance a cause, to use the school, giving the impression that the school sanctions their point of view. think this is an improper use of the school. Had a parent signed the notice, we might have another situation. However, I do' not believe private individuals are allowed to send messages in school newspaper::. Since the school has now become involved, I can only_ assume that the message given to parents of the school is similar to #3 item of Mr. Raamat's letter to the City Council dated February 24, 1987 which I have cut out and made a part of this letter: 1\ 3) The. Oak Street school appears to, be included in. the 500 ft redefinition zone. Why? The change in the zoning would con- ceivably provide sort of "legitimacy" for eminent domain con- demnation and closing of the school with subsequent possibility of an hotel development on site!!!! We do not need to close schools to build hotels! 4 I do not believe we have amateurs in opposition to the B B issue. From what I have observed, we have "professional agitators" who know how to side -track people and create fear in their minds. Respectfully submitted, Ann Fitz mmons 4 s ion o 500 e b cici lA,r,s4cvi i eA Ilo lc) i ci1 cAl.,u4 I eA 76 0 kGO 15 t,ukcjaut ✓t cum, eviopt Mo i vu. 01,4A 6,I4_20 t t° QJ�� )1.4l GL/Lk.: qo /IA ectitax-s CUB(. Q.n Ga I I's I �tp6-c.4-a_..t Viite-en i ng 1A)zA, cu. )1,4,c )1, cu'i G..�c.► Co ur��� GC C0 �G�Pi1 t�1..2G; 6 7 A b-e- 1 l 4/1 GC.i,CJ, Bz.� Sc_ h O D 7 S '00 p I ✓1 Gu, �.L' �t/1 1 IR. -r 20 nt G b1 O 1 I O ifIe 1•t().0 I e S needA. at 7:30 ryl' thi■ cove s'►deiL, at ad- et_. 60 5 4 QG I S l o r) GO Lam. March 1, 1987 Saratoga City .Council Saratoga, California Dear Council Members: We wish to voice our strong objection to extending the business district boundries. We moved to Saratoga over twenty years ago.. As I grew up in San Jose, I always wanted to live here. It was a quiet small town with all the charms that entails. We've watched the various parts of our valley change over the years. It literally makes us sick to see progress as defined by business interests. We still remember the Alameda, Willow Glen, Hester and Burbank areas prior to development._ This was one of the most beautiful spots in California thirty years ago. We beleive there are more than enough beds in Saratoga and it's environs. We have La Hacienda, Toyon Lodge, our own motel, and a nice new hotel. We have two wonderful bakeries, several breakfast spots, and a coffee store; all inviting and charming, especially on weekedds. We don't need more and varied lodges, bed and breakfasts, stores or anything else. Ask visitors what they like about Saratoga! It's a small quaint Town: Personally, we moved from the golden triangle two years ago to within five hundred feet of the proposed new boundry. We didn't want to be in town. We certainly don't want to be in the business district in the near future. We don't want the noise and partying that is common late at night around most bed and breakfasts, lodges and hotels we've stayed in. We don't need strangers wandering through our yards invading our privacy. This is frequent enough already. We have been slowly renovating Seven Oaks for our personal satisfaction and, we hope, the pleasure of the community. It has been fun and interesting, sometimes quite challenging. We cannot imagine someone buying an older home without realizing the work and costs involved. We certainly don't beleive this an excuse to turn it into a business to help pay the costs. These homes should be preserved for future generations as homes, their origional purpose. Persons contemplating these changes should have the decency to consider: what effect these changes will have on their neighbor's property and lives. We should also note that these people.live in other areas of Saratoga, and not adjacent to the properties involved. Therefore, we would strongly urge, no beg, the Council to vote against this travesty on our neighborhoods and the city it- self. Keep Saratoga charmingly quaint and small 1,Q 97 a.Ve41?‹ ..et_e/L4 /42-(-(-t- Ao-f rtd March 2, 1987 Mayor Joyce Hiava 17333 Frui tvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Noel Kane 14611 Aloha Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Lear Mayor Hlava: 1 wish express my opposition to the Bed and Breakfast issue that is before you. Unfortunily business commitments make it impossible for me to attend the March 4th City Council meeting in person. Briefly, it is my opinion that introduction of obvious commercial ventures into residential areas detracts from the nearby property values; spot zoning has always rewarded special interest groups at the expense of the surrounding property owners. Arguments suggesting that historical properties would be lost without special favors fails the test of observation. Many historical properties lying within the proposed 500 foot extention area have been, or are being, restored for their intrinsic real property value, rather than a theoretical value, and have become great assets to all Saratoga. 1 urge you to vote against spot zoning. Please preserve Saratoga neighborhoods for Saratoga families. 3/4/87 TELEPHONE CALL FROM MARY DUTRO I am a Saratoga resident, and I think bed- and breakfasts are a nice idea for a town like Saratoga. I have heard that it would have some effect on Oak Street School, but I do not see how bed- and breakfasts would be a determining factor in connection with the school. To: Saratoga City Council, City of Saratoga. Dear Council Members, We are writing in support of the proposal by the Saratoga Heritage Preservation Commission to allow Bed Breakfast facilities in Saratoga. We have been residents of Saratoga since 1960, and remember the Lundquist Lodge justly famous for its hospitality and comfort and regretted its closing. We are delighted by the idea of B B's, which would do much to help restore the old small town welcoming atmok.ere which was such an attractive part of Saratoga's charm. Saratoga is now attracting so many more visitors than it used to; we have our programs at Montalvo, the Paul Masson Summer Season, Valley Institue for Theatre Arts Shakespear season, the Rotary Art Show and so many more events and places that out of town visitors need a lot more hotel accommodation than we can offer. One of the most pleasant things about B B's is that they are much more part of: a community than a large hotel and the best place they can be is in and around our Village, whether or not that includes residential areas such as Oak Street. Certainly the traffic would not be much increased, as there cannot be more than a few guests each night. We look forward to hearing that the proposal meets with your approval. Yours very truly, 15131 El Quito Way Saratoga, California, 95070 25 February 1987 Ian and Ursula Millett AREA CODE 408 867 -1655 POST OFFICE BOX 321 SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 14275 SARATOGA AVENUE Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Council Members: WILLYS I. PECK ATTORNEY AT LAW Feb. 27, 1987 Re: Bed and Breakfast I would like to add a little historical perspective to the current debate over bed and breakfast uses and to suggest that the idea of accepting paying guests in one's home is not as un-Saratog- an as some opponents are making it out to be. Dating back to before World War I, and into the 1940s, there have been at least a half -dozen such uses here, probably more, and this at a time when Saratoga could claim at the most no more than 2,000 residents in the mailing area. The term, bed and breakfast, had not yet worked its way into the local vocabulary. These were boardinghouses, pure and simple, only they weren't called that. They had names like The Terrace The Lodge, Orchard Guest House and Lundblad's. The best -known was the Saratoga Inn, a commercial enter- prise, but with the owners living on the property. To be sure, this was a different era. Saratoga was much favored by people from San Francisco who liked peace and quiet, a commodity that Saratoga could have exported if there had been a way. People would come here for a weekend, for weeks, or for the whole summer. They could walk country roads that led into the hills, or engage in a blood stirring game of croquet, or, if they were hell -bent on pleasure, could ride the streetcar into San Jose to see a moving picture. Two of these hostelries, The Terrace and Lundblad's, are up for current consideration. The former was run by Mrs. Mary Grunsky, a genteel and gracious widow who filled a significant niche in the town's social and cultural life. The latter became something of a legend in its on time through the ministrations of Mrs. Hazel Bargas, who, into her late eighties, was serving Sunday dinners there to the public. Feb. _27, 1.987 Saratoga Council Page 2 -So the question becomes, how can this concept from a gentler and less hurried era be applied today without sacrificing surrounding neighborhoods on the altar of property values? Perhaps: there is no way to reconcile two such divergent concepts. But I would submit that anyone who is going to accep.t payingguests in their home, or anywhere near their home, is going to be just as interested as the neighbors in seeing that decorum is maintained. Maybe more so. Given the degree of surveillance that the city is capable of maintaining, I don't see a bed and breakfast as a potential cancer in the body politic. I think the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. Once they served a useful function here. I think they could again. WIP /P ery truly yours, WILLYS/ I PECK r C C, 2. Cs SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 7 2.. AGENDA ITEM ge) MEETING DATE: 4/15/87 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: City Attorney SUBJECT: Regulation of Radio and Television Antennas Motion and Vote: Recommended Motion: Adoption of ordinance amending zoning regulations pertaining to radio and television antennas. Report Summary: The proposed ordinance is described in the memorandum from the City Attorney to the Planning Commission dated January 28, 1987. Written comments on the ordinance were received from Mr. Joseph Kennedy and from Mr. Rodney Stafford, on behalf of the American Radio Relay League. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the ordinance at its re:ular meeting. on March 25 1987. QnlVw esf;° Rvr waaei u rtorn Subsection 15- W080(a)(2) for the reason that CB radios are no longer licensed by the FCC, as noted by Mr. Kennedy. The other change was to increase the permitted height of a licensed amateur radio station antenna, as prescribed in Section 15- 80.080(e)(3), from 55 feet to 65 feet. This change was in response to testimony from Mr. Stafford that a 65 foot height was necessary for the proper operation of these antennas. A new section has been added to the ordinance which is purely a technical matter. Section 15- 95.030(b) of the City Code contains a list of violations which constitute an infraction offense. The list includes "Regulations Concerning Satellite Dish Antennas, as set forth in Section 15- 80.080." The ordinance would modify this language to read: "Regulations concerning radio and television antennas..." Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: (a) Memorandum from City Attorney to Planning Commission dated January 28, 1987; (b) Proposed ordinance; (c) Negative declaration; (d) Minutes of Planning Commission meeting on March 25, 1987; (e) Correspondence from Joseph Kennedy dated February 18, 1987; (f) Correspondence from Rodney Stafford dated February 24, 1987, together with copy of consent decree referred to therein. Referred to Planning Commission for further study; to be heard by Council at second meeting in June. PAUL B. SMITH ERIC L. FARASYN LEONARD J. SIEGAL HAROLD S. TOPPEL ROBERT K. BOOTH, JR. STEVEN G. BAIRD 1. BACKGROUND ATKINSON FARASYN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 660 WEST DANA STREET P.O. BOX 279 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94048 1415) 967 -6941 MEMORANDUM TO: Saratoga Planning Commission FROM: City Attorney RE: Regulation of Radio and Television Antennas DATE: January 28, 1987 During March of last year, an application was submitted to the City for variance approval to allow the installation of a 100 foot ham radio antenna on a large site located within the HC -RD District. Although the application was denied by the Planning ,Commission, in accordance with the staff recommendation, the matter served to illustrate the inadequacies of the City's zoning regulations pertaining to radio antennas. While the City has adopted some special rules applicable to satellite dish antennas, as now contained in Section 15- 80.080 of the City Code, such rules do not address the antennas commonly used by ham radio operators. Under the existing City Code, antennas would be subject to the provisions of Section 15- 80.020, which allow radio antennas to be erected "to a height not more than 15 feet above the height limit prescribed by the regulations for the district in which the site is located." Since all of our residential zoning districts impose a height limit of 30 feet (which may be reduced to 26 feet upon adoption of the new design review ordinance), no radio antenna can presently exceed 45 feet in height. The applicant for the variance has claimed this height is insufficient to conduct normal amateur radio communications. No regulation of amateur radio antennas can be imposed without reference to the Memorandum Decision issued by the Federal Communications Commission, commonly referred to as "PRB -1." This decision concluded that: "State and local regulations that operate to preclude amateur communications in their communities are in direct conflict with federal objectives and must be preempted." However, the FCC further stated that: "We will not, however, specify any particular height limitation below which a local government may not regulate, nor will we suggest the precise language that must be contained in local ordinances, such as mechanisms for special exceptions, variances, or conditional use permits. Nevertheless, local regulations which involve placement, screening, or height of antennas based on health, safety, or aesthetic considerations must be crafted to accommodate reasonably amateur communications, and to represent the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the local authority's legitimate purpose." J. M. ATKINSON, (1892 -1982) L. M. FARASYN, (1915 -1979) In order to preserve the status quo while the subject of new regulation was being studied, on May 21, 1986 the City adopted urgency ordinance 3E -21 imposing a moratorium upon the installation of any roof mounted antenna in excess of 15 feet in height or any ground mounted antenna in excess of 30 feet in height. A progress report was issued to the City Council on June 16, 1986 and on July 2, 1986, the Council adopted urgency ordinance 3E -22, extending the moratorium to May 20, 1987. During the period of the moratorium, the City staff reviewed materials furnished by the American Radio Relay League, an organization representing ham radio operators, together with various ordinances adopted by cities in California and elsewhere. We also conferred with persons involved in the emergency communications network among ham radio operators in Santa Clara County. We fully recognize that ham radio operators can serve an important role in times of public emergency. For example, during the Lexington fire, amateur radio operators were directly involved in the communications between public agencies at the scene. The proposed ordinance is intended to establish a balance between the limited preemption of local regulation under PRB -1 and the interest of the City in preserving the public health, safety and welfare by insuring that radio antennas are properly installed and subject to reasonable regulation upon placement and height to mitigate their visual impact upon the neighborhood. IL CONTENTS OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE Section 1 of the proposed ordinance deletes the reference to radio and television antennas which is now contained in Section 15- 80.020 relating to exceptions to height limitations. Section 2 of the proposed ordinance amends Section 15- 80.080 of the City Code (which now relates only to satellite dish antennas) to include new regulations pertaining to radio antennas. As indicated by the definitions in paragraph (a), a distinction is being drawn between radio operators who are licensed by the FCC and those who are not. The licensed operators will be allowed to install a higher antenna, which we believe is consistent with the mandate of PRB -1. The limitation on the number of antennas, as contained in paragraph (b), relates only to licensed amateur radio station antennas and satellite dish antennas (not more than one of each on a single site). This paragraph would not impose any numerical limitation upon the customary array type of television aerials typically mounted on the roof of a single family dwelling. It should be noted, however, that even the standard TV aerial would be subject to a height limitation of 15 feet under paragraph (e)(1), which represents a continuation of an existing restriction. Under paragraph (c) a building permit will be required for the installation of any satellite dish antenna (as presently) or any ground mounted antenna in excess of 30 feet in height. The ordinance now specifies in more detail the documents to be submitted with the application. The location requirements set forth in paragraph (d) prohibit installation of a radio or television antenna within any required yard, require a setback equal to the height of the antenna plus five feet, and basically relegate ground mounted antennas to the rear of the main structure on the site. This paragraph represents a change with respect to satellite dish antennas, which currently may be located within a required rear yard. The setback requirement has been imposed not only for reasons of safety, but also -2- serves as a self regulating device to insure that higher antennas will only be installed upon sites having sufficient size to accommodate them. Thus, a 55 foot antenna could not be placed upon a site having less than 60 feet of clearance to the adjacent property line or street line. The main controversy provoked by the regulation of antennas is the question of height. After reviewing the materials furnished by the American Radio Relay League and ordinances adopted by other cities, the City Manager and the City Attorney have concluded that 55 feet represents a reasonable height limitation which allows the normal operation of amateur radio stations while prohibiting the installation of obtrusive and highly visible antennas. Obviously, some amateur radio operators may not share this conclusion. The height restriction on satellite dish antennas has not been changed. Since the proposed ordinance is more restrictive in regulating satellite dish antennas, the existing procedure of giving notice to adjacent property owners of applications to install such antennas has been deleted. Similarly, no such procedure has been established for issuance of a building permit for an amateur radio antenna. If the standards and restrictions of the ordinance are satisfied, permits would be issued by staff. If the standards and restrictions of the ordinance are not satisfied, a variance would be required, with the usual notice to property owners within 500 feet and the conduct of a public hearing. When the City first adopted Section 15- 80.080 to regulate satellite dish antennas, all such antennas installed prior to the date of adoption (November 1, 1985) were grandfathered and exempted from the provisions of the ordinance. Similarly, all licensed amateur radio station antennas lawfully installed prior to the date on which the moratorium was imposed by the urgency ordinance (May 21, 1986) have been grandfathered and exempted from the proposed ordinance. Adoption of the proposed ordinance will constitute the establishment of a permanent regulation to replace the current moratorium on the installation of radio antennas. Consequently, Section 3 of the proposed ordinance expressly repeals urgency ordinances 3E -21 and 3E -22. ORDINANCE NO. 71. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SECTIONS 15- 80.020 AND 15- 80.080 OF THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO RADIO AND TELEVISION ANTENNAS AND REPEALING ORDINANCES 3E -21 AND 3E -22 The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Section 15- 80.020 in Article 15 -80 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "S15-80.020 Exceptions to height limitations Chimneys, flagpoles, spires and similar appurtenances may be erected to a height not more than fifteen feet above the height limit prescribed by the regulations for the district in which the site is located. Utility poles shall not be subject to the height limits prescribed in the district regulations." SECTION 2: Section 15- 80.080 in Article 15 -80 of the City code is amended to read as follows: "S15- 80.080 Radio and television antennas (a) Definitions. For the purposes of this Section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this Paragraph, unless the context or the provision clearly requires otherwise: (1) Antenna means any system of wires, poles, rods, reflecting discs or similar devices used for the reception or transmission of electromagnetic waves which system is external to or attached to the exterior of any building. The term includes devices having active elements extending in any direction, and directional beam type arrays having elements carried by and disposed from a generally horizontal boom which may be mounted upon and rotated through a vertical mast, tower or other support structure, all of which elements are deemed to be part of the antenna. (2) Licensed amateur radio station antenna means an antenna owned and utilized by a federally licensed amateur radio operator. (3) Satellite dish antenna means any dish shaped antenna designed to receive and /or send satellite signals for the purpose of television or radio reception, or other telemetry communication, having a diameter greater than three feet. (b) Limitation on number of antennas. Not more than one licensed amateur radio station antenna and not more than one satellite dish antenna shall be permitted on each site. (c) Building permit required. A building permit shall be required for the installation or construction of any satellite dish antenna or any ground- mounted antenna in excess of thirty feet in height. No such permit shall be issued unless the antenna complies with the regulations set forth in this Section. Applications for a building permit shall be made upon such form prescribed by the City and shall be accompanied by the following items: (1) Type and description of antenna, including size, shape and height. (2) Plot plan showing the location of the antenna on the site, including distance from structures, property lines, street lines, setback lines and exposed utility lines. (3) Construction drawings showing the proposed method of installation. (4) Manufacturer's specifications for the antenna support structure and installation requirements, including footings, guy wires and braces. (5) Copy of FCC license, if the application is for a licensed amateur radio station antenna. (d) Location requirements. Except as otherwise specified herein, antennas may be roof or ground- mounted, free standing or supported by guy wires, buildings or other structures. Ground mounted antennas shall be any antenna with its base mounted directly in the ground, even if such antenna is supported or attached to the wall of a building. All antennas shall be located on a site in compliance with the following standards: No antenna shall be located within any required yard, except that guy wires and antenna arrays may extend into a required side or rear yard but may not extend over property lines or street lines. (2) No antenna shall be located closer to any property line or street line than a distance equal to the height of the antenna plus five feet. (1) (3) No satellite dish antenna shall be roof mounted. (4) Ground mounted antennas shall be located to the rear of the main structure on the site, unless otherwise approved by the City based upon a finding that the alternative location will more effectively reduce the visual impact of the antenna upon adjacent properties and public rights -of -way. (e) Height restrictions. Antenna height shall mean the overall vertical length of the antenna, including arrays and any length to which the antenna is capable of being raised, as measured from the peak of the roof with respect to a roof mounted antenna, or from the natural grade or finished grade, whichever is lower, with respect to a ground mounted antenna. All antennas shall comply with the following height restrictions: (1) Roof mounted antennas shall not exceed fifteen feet in height above the peak of the roof, except that a single vertical pole or whip antenna may be erected to a height of twenty feet above the peak of the roof. -2- (2) Satellite dish antennas shall not exceed six feet in height plus one additional foot in height for each additional three feet of setback from the yard line or lines adjacent to the antenna, up to a maximum height of ten feet. (3) Ground- mounted antennas, other than satellite dish antennas, shall not exceed thirty feet in height, except that licensed amateur radio station antennas may be erected to a height of sixty -five feet. (f) Installation requirements. Every antenna shall be constructed, installed and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications and in compliance with the Uniform Building Code and National Electrical Code as adopted by the City, and in accordance with the following additional requirements: (1) The mast or tower shall be of noncombustible and corrosive resistant material. (2) Satellite dish antennas shall be self- supporting without guy wires. (3) Whenever it is necessary to install an antenna near exposed utility lines, or where any property damage would be caused by its falling, a separate guy wire must be attached to the antenna mast or tower and secured in a direction away from the hazard. Exposed antenna transmission lines and guy wires shall be kept at least six feet distant from any exposed utility lines. (4) The antenna shall be adequately grounded for protection against a direct strike of lightning. (g) Mitigation of visual impact. Antennas, including guy wires, supporting structures and accessory equipment, shall be located on the site and screened as much as possible by architectual features, fences or landscaping to minimize the visual impact of the antenna upon adjacent properties and public rights -of -way. The materials used in constructing the antenna shall not be unnecessarily bright, shiny or reflective. Conditions may be imposed upon the issuance of a building permit to mitigate the anticipated visual impact of the proposed antenna. (h) Existing antennas. This Section shall not apply to any satellite dish antenna lawfully installed prior to November 1, 1985, or any licensed amateur radio station antenna lawfully installed prior to May 21, 1986. Such antennas shall be allowed to remain as originally installed and shall not be considered nonconforming structures, but any relocation or increase in the size or height thereof shall be subject to the provisions of this Section. Any person claiming an exemption shall have the burden of proving that the antenna was lawfully installed prior to the applicable date specified herein. (i) Variances. The Planning Commission shall have authority to grant a variance from any of the regulations contained in this Section pursuant to Article 15 -70 of this Chapter. In addition to the findings prescribed in Section 15- 70.060, the Planning Commission shall also find that the variance is required by reason of physical obstructions which adversely affect proper reception or transmission by the antenna." SECTION 3: Paragraph (b)(8) of Section 15- 95.030 in Article 15 -95 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: SECTION 4: This Ordinance supersedes Ordinace 3E -21 adopted on May 21, 1986, entitled "An Urgency Ordinance of The City of Saratoga Imposing A Moratorium On The Installation Of Certain Radio Antennas Pending The Adoption Of New Regulations Pertaining Thereto," as extended by Ordinance 3E -22 adopted on July 2, 1986, and said Ordinances 3E -21 and 3E -22 are hereby repealed and declared to have no further force or effect. SECTION 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 6: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 1987, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: "(8) Regulations concerning radio and television antennas, as set forth in Section 15- 80.080." CITY CLERK MAYOR EIA -4 Saratoga NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code,:and.Resolu- tion 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following'•described" project will have no significant effect (no sub adverseiinpact) on the' environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Amendment to the zoning ordinance regulating radio and television antennas City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION The proposed ordinance is generally more restrictive than the current code. The additional 10 feet of allowable height for amateur radio antennas is mitigated by new regulations requiring larger sites for higher antennas. No adverse effects on the environment will occur as a result of the new regulations. Executed at Saratoga, California this day of Yuchuek Hsia Planning Director File No ;AZ087 -002 DIRECTOR' S AITTFDRIZED STAFF M EIER 19 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 MARCH 25, 1987 15. AZO- 86002 City of Saratoga. consideration of an ordinance amending Sections 15- 80.020 and 15- 80.080 of the City Code pertaining to radio and television antennas. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this application. Continued from February 25, 1987. The City.Attorney presented a draft Ordinance establishing new regulations for radio antenna and called attention to the Memorandum of January 28 ,1987. He noted correspondence received from Mr. Joe Kennedy and the American Radio Relay League, Inc. With respect to the comments tirade by Mr. Kennedy, the City Attorney stated that an antenna was defined as the "entire assembly;" this language differed from definition commonly used by ratio operators. Proposed Ordinance would apply to licensed ham radio operators only. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:00 P.M. Mr. Rod Staffond. Director of the Pacific Division, American Radio Relay League, Inc., called attention to the letter of February 24,1987 and made himself available for questions. He recapped the decision in the Themes vs. CSD' of Lakeside. Kentucky case, which allowed 73 R high antenna, which was required for effective communication by an amateur. In response to Chairwoman Burger's question, Mr. Stafford confirmed that emergency communications may not be as effective if a certain required antenna height was not reached. In response to the City Attorney, he stated that cotttmunications principles were similar between the case in Kentucky and the proposed Ordinance, namely, that a 65 ft height was required to communicate effectively. While there may not be a substantial difference between 65 ft. and 73 ft in height, effectiveness was reduced as height was decreased to 55 ft. He noted the role of ham radio operators in emergencies such as the Lexington fire. SIEGFRIEDIGUCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:09. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Siegfried was favorable to 65 ft. in height with the understanding of structure vs. antenna clearly defined In response to a question, Mr. Stafford stated that there were approximately 75 licensed amateur operators in the City. The City Attorney noted that the FCC was no longer issuing licenses to CB operators and suggested that CB operators be excluded 1 80. r in (nj Z, �irements. Deletion of words, "or citizens band radio" in Section SIEGFRIED/PINES MOVED APPROVAL OF AZO -86-002 WITH A CHANGE OF HEIGHT OF ANTENNA FROM 55 FT. TO 65 FT. AND MODIFICATION OF SECTION 15- 80.080, (A) 2. AS STATED. Passed 6-0. DATE: Wednesday, March 12, 1986 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Burger, Harris, Peterson and Siegfried Absent: la. ib. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioners Guch and Pines (attending Planning Commis- sioners Institute in San Diego) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR Sm a 3 Minutes The following changes were made to the minutes of February 26, 1986: On page 2, 'west of Comer" should be added to the second sentence of the tenth paragraph. On page 4, the first sentence in the fifth paragraph should read "Commissioner Burger stated that she was reluctant to accept the statement that it was impossible to modify the design of the home...'. Add "which is too high and vertically designed" to the sixth paragraph. In the last paragraph "main home site should read preferred higher home site On page 5, add "to clarify that water would continue to be pumped to the tank from the main water line if the sprinkler system was being operated" to the second paragraph. HARRIS /BURGER MOVED TO WAIVE READING AND APPROVE AS AMENDED. Passed 4- 0. Negative Declaration SM -23 Mauldin SM -23 Carol Mike Mauldin, request for site modification approval to allow construction of a pool, deck, ga- zebo, lawn and pathway where the slope exceeds 10% at 15435 Bohlman Road Staff suggested that Condition *2 reflect the City Geologist's report dated 3- 10 -86. SIEGFRIED /BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SM -23. Passed 4 -0. SIEGFRIED /BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE SM -23, with Condition #2 referencing the City Geologist's report. Passed 4 -0. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR 2. A -1171 C W Associates, request for design review approval for a new single story residence that exceeds the floor area standard for the zoning district at Tract No. 7798, Lot 8, Montpere Way 3a. Negative Declaration GPA -86 -2 Osterlund Enterprises 3b. C -230 Osterlund Enterprises, Jack Margaret Smith, request 3c. LL -12 General Plan amendment, zoning change and lot line adjustment to permit the addition of a 3,652 sq. ft. parcel presently zoned R -1- 12,500 with a General Plan designation of M -12.5 to a developed lot which is zoned R -1- 10,000 with a General Plan designation of M- 10; the 3,652 sq. ft. parcel will be taken from lot 1, Tr. 7499, Herriman Ave. and added to 13881 River Ranch Circle. Both parcels will not be zoned and General Planned R -1- 10,000 and M -10 4. SD -1356 Anthony Cocciardi, request for one year extension for a tentative building site approval for 23 lots on a 43.19 acre site in the NHR zoning district at Mt. Eden Road February 18; 1987 Mr. Harold S. Toppel Saratoga City Attorney 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Subj: Comments on amateur radio ordinance for the Planning Commission. Dear Harold:' Joseph S. Kennedy Post Office Box 2370 Saratoga, California 95070 Thanks for your letter of. January .30 Overall, I think you have made remarkable progress given the limited amount of interaction with the amateur community on this subject. While you are correct in assuming that the most controversial issue is one of height, there are a few other comments I would like to make. You correctly state that the FCC fell short of total preemption in the matter, deciding instead to suggest that local and state restrictions "...endeavor to legislate in such a manner that affords appropriate recognition to the important federal interest at stake here and thereby avoid unnecessary conflict with federal policy, as well as time consuming and expensive litigation in this area.i I believe that the intent of PRB -1 is more strongly demonstrated by another excerpt, "State and local regulations that operate to preclude amateur communications in their communities are in direct conflict with federal objectives and must be preempted." Incidentally, current case law does not seem to support a defense (of an existing restriction) based on limitations which restrict particular frequencies or modes of amateur communications. In other words, the restriction does not have to preclude all amateur communications, but rather cannot preclude any legitimate amateur communications. This is not as dramatic as it sounds, since there are usually alternatives when it comes to antennas (see below). In addition, I have some specific comments on the proposal: 15- 80.080(a)(2) A few years ago, the FCC ceased trying to manage citizen band operators and no longer requires a station or operator's license. Therefore, I assume the ordinance would offer no extra privilege to citizen's band operators. The limitation on the number of antennas as you have defined them precludes any combination of wire dipoles, wire whips, and tower supported antennas. I think your intent here is to limit the number of 1 PR.B Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 85- 506/36149, September 16, 1985. G119 tower supported antennas only. It is also unclear why you distinguish between satellite dishes and amateur antennas as defined. What about a satellite antenna that is used for amateur communications? Generally, I do not believe that it is defensible (relative to PRB -1) to place a limit on the total number of antennas (as you have defined them). A limit on the number of towers would be more consistent. 15- 80.080(e)(3) Of course, height is one of the main issues. I interpret PRB- 1 to require local ordinances to "accommodate reasonably" amateur requirements. Maybe a better way for the FCC to have worded this would have been to "accommodate reasonable" amateur requirements. Antenna efficiency is a function of many factors. While I do not think it is necessary to go into it in "detail, the most obvious is height relative to the local horizon. An antenna aimed dead into the side of a hill is not an effective radiator of electromagnetic energy. Likewise, there is a relationship between the height of the antenna above the electrical ground (generally close to the physical ground) and the operating frequency. The lower the frequency, the higher the antenna should be to allow a major portion of the radiated energy to be directed outward, rather than upward. Simply put, this means that a beam -type antenna (looks like a TV antenna) should be mounted at least one -half of the wavelength of the operating frequency. Such antennas are available from several sources for the common amateur bands of 10, 15, 20, 40, and 80 meters (wavelength). It is somewhat uncommon, to say the least, to -see 80 meter beams, which require mounting at 40 meter heights to be effective. On the other hand, it is quite common to utilize 40 meter beams, which require 20 meter mounting heights to be most effective, or approximately 67 feet. It is also the case that some of the amateur bands are affected by the ionized layer of our atmosphere formed during daylight hours. Thus, the 10,, 15, and 20 meter bands 3 r .rarely useful late in the evening, because the radiated energy tends to follow a straight path into space rather than be reflected back to earth by the ionized atmosphere present during the daylight hours. The point is that from an emergency communications perspective, denying the amateur the use of the 40 meter beam antenna effectively limits communications capability during the night hours. Therefore, I would recommend that the 55 foot limitation be raised to 67 feet. Perhaps a compromise might be reflected by a 55 foot limitation placed on the support structure (tower), with an overall limitation of 67 feet. 15- 80.080(i) It would be even more desirable if the Planning Commission had the authority to grant a variance by reason of accommodating positioning relative to neighboring scenic views, not at the expense of operating performance. In my particular case, for example, the most 6 20 effective location is on the uphill side of the site nearest my neighbors. If I would not have to suffer the loss of overall height related to placement further downhill, there exists a much better location several hundred feet away. The antenna would be at a higher level above ground at the lower (above sea level) site, but would be substantially farther away from neighboring views. For your information, there is some additional case law developing that may be relevant. In City of Lakeside Park vs. Themes, the US Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, remanded the case back to the lower court for reconsideration in light of PRB -1. (In this case, Thernes was denied a permit to erect a 70 -foot antenna tower.) The city offered the permit in December, 1986, but Thernes, backed by the ARRL acting as a friend of the court, rejected the offer on the grounds that they refused to compensate him for legal expenses. In the cities of Wooster, Pennsylvania, and Tucson, Arizona, amateurs have successfully challenged existing ordinances limiting communications tower heights and have obtained exemptions for amateur towers less than 100 feet in height. My observation is that the community would be best served by an ordinance that would not require expensive litigation to resolve. While I cannot speak for the entire amateur community, I believe the above suggestions are sufficient to offset sentiment opposing any restriction while providing for reasonable amateur capabilities and significantly enhancing the capabilities of the emergency communications service. Thank you very much for your efforts in this matter. If there is anything that I can do to help, please do not hesitate to ask. Sincerely, g, Joe Kennedy THE AMERICAN RADIO RELAY LEAGUE, INC. Harold S. Toppel City Attorney CITY OF SARATOGA P.O. Box 279 Mountain View, CA 94042 Planning Commission CITY OF SARATOGA Saratoga City Hall Saratoga, California INTERNATIONAL SECRETARIAT OF THE INTERNATIONAL AMATEUR RADIO UNION ADMINISTRATIVE HEADQUARTERS NEWINGTON, CONNECTICUT, U. S. A. 06111 February 24, 1987 Re: Proposed Ordinance for Radio and Television Antennas Dear Mr. Toppel and Members of the Planning Commission: SINCE 1914-0F. BY AND FOR THE RADIO AMATEUR LARRY E. PRICE W4RA. PRESIDENT JAY A. HOLLADAY WEEJJ, FIRST VICE PRESIDENT LEONARD M. NATHANSON WSRC, VICE PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. STEVENS WSZM, VICE PRESIDENT TOD OLSON KtTO. VICE PRESIDENT INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS DAVID SUMNER K1ZZ. EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT PERRY WILLIAMS W1UED. SECRETARY JAMES E. McCOBB K1LLU, TREASURER 203- 666 -1541 05 OFFICIAL JOURNAL I appreciate the opportunity to comment upon the proposed antenna ordinance that was prepared by Mr. Toppel for the City of Saratoga. I am the Pacific Division Director for the American Radio Relay League (ARRL). There are approximately 9,200 American Radio Relay League members within the Pacific Division, that is, Northern California, Nevada, Hawaii and the U.S. Possessions in the Pacific. Within that same area, there are approximately 15,000 other amateur radio operators who are non -ARRL members. The ARRL is the national organization representing the radio amateur population and as such, we are interested in any ordinances or 'local action which may have a restrictive effect on radio amateur operators exercising their communication privileges under FCC Rules and Regulations. In earlier meetings with Mr. Toppel, it was my understanding that there was some concern that multiple "antenna support structures" would be placed upon one site. It was for that reason that subparagraph (b) of Section 15- 80.080 was drafted to state that "not more than one licensed amateur radio station antenna" shall be permitted on each site. It is not unusual for an amateur radio operator to have more than one antenna on an antenna support structure due to the fact that there are many frequencies and radio bands that the FCC allows amateurs to use. It is technically impossible to have one antenna that would cover all of the amateur frequencies that radio amateurs are allowed to use. For this reason, one or two antennas may be placed upon a single antenna support structure. If the City is concerned about more than one antenna support structure being placed on a site, then I might suggest that the wording of subparagraph (b) be changed to prohibit more than one antenna support structure. As it stands right now, one antenna would not allow the amateur to communicate on the various amateur bands. Mr. Toppel Planning Commission February 24, 1987 Page 2 The other matter which is no doubt a concern to the Planning Commission is the matter of antenna height. I am sure that the concern is no doubt based upon aesthetics. Incredible as it may seem, an antenna that is close to the roof of the house is much more readily apparent than an antenna at a higher level. I certainly would not try to convince you of this fact with my very brief statements contained in this memorandum but I would ask that you consider the matter and make observations yourselves. For example, consider the PG &E power poles with their transformers, insulators, wires and incidental paraphernalia attached to each pole. If the PG &E pole were behind a home and near the roofline of the home, it would be much more visible because it is in the normal field of vision when viewing the home. Since the PG &E power pole is at such a height as to take all of the transformers, insulators, etc. out of the field of vision, they are much less apparent and much less noticeable. The same is true of any antenna that an amateur may put on the property. If the antenna is just above the roof line, it is very much more in the field of vision when looking at the house than if it is at a higher level and out of the field of vision. Additionally, I might suggest that you allow a 65 -foot antenna structure. There are several reasons for this: (1) Most all of the support structures in the range of 50 -60 feet for amateur antennas have a height of approximately 54 or 55 feet. When you add a rotator which is affixed to the support structure and enables the antenna to be rotated, and a short mast to connect the antenna to it, there is an additional 5 to 6 feet of height. The 65 foot height limitation would accomodate this necessary amount of height which may not have been considered in arriving at the 55 foot limit under the proposed ordinance. (2) There are many technical reasons which I shall not go into at this point why an amateur radio transmitted signal is very much degraded on the 40 -meter amateur band if the antenna is not at least 65 feet above ground. 65 feet is approximately one quarter wave length on the 40 -meter band and such a height provides for the antenna to work adequately, not well, but adequately. Below that height, adequate performance is quite difficult to obtain. It should be noted by the Planning Commission members that much of the "after dark" emergency communications traffic and public service communications traffic is handled on the 40 -meter amateur band. There is another matter that should be brought to the commission's attention. For the last three to four years, the City of Lakeside, Kentucky has been involved in litigation in the United States Federal Court in Kentucky regarding an ordinance that Lakeside, Kentucky had in effect which restricted the ability of Mr. Toppel Planning Commission February 24, 1987 Page 2 the radio amateur to communicate. That litigation is presently in the process of being terminated in favor of the amateur radio operator who was the plaintiff in that action. Although all of the details of the court's decision are as yet unknown, it is known that the City of Lakeside, Kentucky has agreed to a consent decree in the Federal Court case which will allow the amateur to have a 65 -foot antenna support structure along with an additional 8 -foot mast upon which to attach his antenna or a total of 73 feet. The City will also be paying all of the amateur's attorney's fees that have been incurred in prosecuting the lawsuit after the Federal Communications Commission Report and Order in PRB -1 dated September, 1985. I would suggest that prior to the Planning Commission acting on the proposed ordinance that the City Attorney obtain a copy of the decision in the Thernes vs. City of Lakeside, Kentucky case so as to review the implications on that decision on the proposed ordinance that the City of Saratoga is considering. My information is that the Federal Judge was to make a final decision in the case during the week of February 23, 1987. I will make every effort to obtain a copy of the Judge's decision as quickly as possible and to supply that to Mr. Toppel as soon as it is obtained. If I can be of further assistance or provide any further ',information in this matter, please do not hesitate to call upon me. Truly yours, AMERICAN RADIO RELAY LEAGUE Rodney J. for Director, cific Division 5155 Shadow Estates San Jose, California 95135 Bus. Phone: (408) 977 -1444 Home Phone: (408) 274 -0492 JOHN THERNES vs. CITY OF LAKESIDE PARK, KENTUCKY et al. Plaintiff Defendants UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT COVINGTON FILED- FEB 24 1987 AT COMM ITC cLZ U. St. Wurnicr" W111111 7204," Case No. 83 -218 CONSENT DECREE, ORDER, AND FINAL JUDGMENT This case is before the court on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Themes v. City of Lakeside Park, et al., 779 F.2d 1187, decided January 6, 1986) for consideration of a Federal Communications Commission "FCC Order issued during the pendency of the appeal and relating to the preemption of state and local land use regulations of amateur radio antennas, and the application of the FCC order to the ordinances of the defendant City of Lakeside Park, Kentucky "City This matter was before this court on cross motions for summary judgment which had been set for hearing on February 13, 1987. Following a preliminary decision of this court entered on January 15, 1987, and a settlement conference of the parties with the court on February 12, 1987, the parties hereto have agreed to final disposition of the merits of this action and the adoption of a consent decree in accordance with the provisions set forth below. Accordingly, it is hereby AGREED by the parties and ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by the court as follows: N\} The facts of this case-are set forth in the Statement of the Facts portion of the decision of this court entered October 10, 1984,. the stipulations of the parties entered prior thereto, and the opinion of the Court of Appeals of January 6, 1986. 2. Essentially, the plaintiff, John Thernes, is an amateur radio operator licensed by the FCC who is seeking a permit for the construction at his home in the defendant City of Lakeside Park, Kentucky, an antenna for use in amateur radio communications. 3. In his application for permit, plaintiff sought to erect an amateur radio support tower having two rotatable horizontal antennas of Yagi design mounted thereon, one at the top of the tower specifically designed for use in the 10, 15 and 20 meter amateur radio bands, and a second one above the first at the top of an eight foot mast and specifically designed for use in the 40 meter amateur radio band; the turning radius of the antenna system being approximately 24 feet. 4. The application of plaintiff for a building permit for his antenna system was denied by the defendant zoning administrator for the reason that radio antennas were not permitted in any zone of the City. Plaintiff appealed the denial to the defendant Lakeside Park Board of Adjustments which upheld the denial. 5. Plaintiff brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, on September 29, 1983, against the City, the Board of Adjustments and its members, the zoning administrator, and the Northern Kentucky Area Planning Commission "NKAPC Plaintiff challenged the 2 actions of the defendants on the bases that, as the laws of the City were written and applied, their action was inconsistent with the federal congressional and FCC policy and preempted by federal statute and regulation; that it violated plaintiff's First Amendment rights; that it denied plaintiff equal protection and was arbitrary in that television antennas were permitted in every zone of the City; that it denied plaintiff substantive due process through the exercise of the City's zoning power; that the ordinance unduly burdened interstate commerce; and therefore plaintiff should be entitled to an order permitting the construction of an effective amateur radio antenna system, which the defendants denied. 6. This court granted summary judgment to the defendants by Judgment, Opinion and Order filed October 10, 1984, and plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On the date of the oral argument on the appeal, the FCC issued an Order declaring a limited preemption over local regulation of amateur radio antenna facilities. [Amateur Radio Preemption, 101 FCC 2d 952 (1985), "PRB -1 The order, PRB -1, enunciated a federal regulatory policy in support of effective amateur radio communications, and preempted state and local land use regulations which unduly restrict amateur communications in communities. PRB -1 further declared that local regulations which involve placement, screening or height of antennas based on health, safety or aesthetic considerations must be crafted to accomodate reasonably amateur communications and to represent the minimum practical regulation to accomplish the local authority's legitimate purpose. 3 7. The Court of Appeals vacated this court's judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings in light of PRB-1 and its application to the Lakeside Park zoning ordinance. In doing so the Court of Appeals stated that the exercise by the FCC of its preemptive jurisdiction strongly suggests, that the Lakeside Park ban on antennas may violate federal law, but that an accommodation of both amateur radio operation and the legitimate planning needs of.communities was. possible. 8. Following oral argument in the Court of Appeals, but prior to the decision on appeal, Lakeside Park adopted a new ordinance No. 9-85 regulating radio antennas, which permitted radio antennas with other restrictions. limited to a single vertical rod not to exceed 50 feet in height, with horizontal elements not to exceed eight feet in length, and 9. The antenna proposed by plaintiff would have exceeded the dimensions set forth in the new ordinance 9-85. 10. As set forth by the evidence in therecord, which was submitted in part by plaintiff in part by the Amicus Curiae, the American Radio Relay League, plaintiff's interests in engaging in effective national and worldwide amateur radio communications require antennas supported at a height of sixty-five (65) feet. No ordinance of the defendants would literally accomodate such requirements. 11. On the motions for summary judgment, this court issued a preliminary order on January 15, 1987, the tentative conclusions of which are incorporated herein. 4- 12. As agreed by the parties and the court in conference on February 12, 1987, the plaintiff shall be permitted to erect a sixty -five (65) foot tower, and to support an antenna for use on the 10, 15 and 20 meter amateur radio bands on the top thereof; and, the incremental aesthetic difference between sixty -five (65) and seventy -three (73) feet being insubstantial, plaintiff shall be permitted to support an antenna for use on the 40 meter amateur radio band on a mast eight feet above the top of the tower at a height of seventy -three (73) feet. 13. Further, the parties agree (1) that the tower supporting the antennas may be erected by the plaintiff in the rear yard of his residence in Lakeside Park; (2) that the tower and the anchors for the guy wires supporting the tower shall be placed (unless the plaintiff and the City zoning administrator otherwise agree) at a distance of least 15 feet from the side yard lines of the plaintiff and at least 10 feet from the rear yard line of the plaintiff; (3) that no portion of the antennas or supporting structure shall extend beyond the boundaries of plaintiff's property; and (4) that the antennas, tower, and other supporting elements shall conform to or exceed all engineering standards for safety and structural integrity as set forth in plaintiff's original applications for zoning permits which are in the record and incorporated into the stipulations of facts. 14. Accordingly, the defendants shall allow plaintiff to erect, maintain and use an amateur radio antenna system as set forth in the provisions above unaffected by any present or future 5 •Is ordinances of the City to the contrary, and shall issue to plaintiff all permits necessary therefor. 15. Judgment shall be awarded for the plaintiff and against the defendants in the amount for compensation as damages, dismissed. with the terms of this consent decree AGREED: WHEREFORE, final judgment is hereby entered in accordance SO ORDERED. David A. Schneider Joseph L. Baker Zeigler Schneider 200 Covington Mutual Building 629 Madison Avenue Covington, Kentucky 41011 (606) 581 -4553 Attorneys for Defendants City of Lakeside Park, Kentucky, William J. Schutte, City of Lakeside Park George R. Roth, Jr., Ruth Higdon, David Hentz, Virginia Hiltz, and Dr. Warren Corbin of $13,800.00, and all further claims costs or attorneys' fees shall be Board of Adjustments, as set forth above. i/J William 0. Bertelsman United States District Judge /Jff e armon oS- h 2008 arew Tower Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 (513) 891 -4455 Attorneys for the Plaintiff John Thernes SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. VS AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: April 15. 1987 ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager SUBJECT: Resolution No. 85 -9. Amending Resolution No. 85 -9, as Amended, Adding to Basic Salary Classes and Employment Position Classifications for the Employees of the City of Saratoga Recommended Motion: Adopt Resolution No. 85.9 CITY MGR. APPROVAL 3 v L '3 i Report Summary: At the Council's Policy Development Conference in March, the decision was made to add three positions to the City's classifications. These positions, Accountant, Public Works Inspector, and Plans Examiner, have been filled on a contractu4i -I or temporary basis in the past. The Accountant position is to be filled at half time for FY 1987t88. By adopting the Resolution creating the classificationsat this time, the Council can direct staff to begin recruitment in order to have the positions filled by the beginning of the new fiscal year. Based on job requirements, survey data, and internal relationships, the new classifications are assigned salary ranges as follows: 1. Accountant, Range 102 (equivalent to Assistant Planner) 2. Public Works Inspector, Range 114 (equivalent to Associate Planner, Building Inspector, and Senior Engineering Technician) 3. Plans Examiner, -Range 117 (equivalent to Assistant Civil Engineer) Fiscal Impacts: It is anticipated that bringing the plan checking and public works inspection functions in house will result in cost savings over the) current contracted services. The salary for the accountant will be approximately twice that of the former Deputy City Treasurer who was a retired member of the community volunteering part of his time. Attachments: 1. Resolution No. 85 -9 2. Job descriptions for Accountant, Public Works Inspector, Plans Examiner Motion and Vote: Staff recarimendation 0. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION FURTHER AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 85 -9, AS AMENDED, ADDING TO BASIC SALARY CLASSES AND EMPLOYMENT POSITION CLASSIFICATIONS FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: Section 1: Section 2.1 of Resolution 85 -9 is amended as follows: Section 2.1: Employment Position Classifications Employment position classifications, typical duties and employment standards are amended to include the positions of Plans Examiner, Public Works Inspector, and Accountant, specifications attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Section 2: Applicability This Resolution amends Resolutions No. 85 -9.62 and 85 -9, of the City of Saratoga. This Resolution is an expression of existing policy of the City of Saratoga and is subject to modification and change by the City Council from time to time. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as creating or establishing any of the provisions hereof as terms of any contract of employment extending beyond any period other than such period as during which this Resolution is in full force and effect. This is to say, that any employee of the City of Saratoga during the effective period of this Resolution shall have such employment rights and duties set forth herein only during such period of time as this Resolution remains in effect, and not afterward. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga held on the 15th day of April, 1987, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR City of Saratoga July 1987 ACCOUNTANT DEFINITION The Accountant performs a variety of accounting, reporting functions and does related worknassrequired. Work is performed under the general administrative direction of the Finance Director. An incumbent may direct the work of lower level personnel on an intermittent basis. DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS This is a professional accounting classification, distinguished from the lower class of Account Clerk through the greater training and experience required and the greater independence with which work is performed. EXAMPLES OF WORK (The duties listed below represent examples of work performed and are not all- inclusive of duties which are or may be assigned this classification.) Performs reconciliation of monthly bank statements maintains the Treasurer's daily cash book. and Oversees the controls and records which are maintained on the receipt, deposit and disbursement of all monies in City custody. Manages the safekeeping of all monies deposited to the City treasury and invests same in accordance with City investment policy. Prepares a monthly investment report on the status and activity of all investments and deposits maintained by the City. Prepares the quarterly and annual Federal and State tax returns. payroll Prepares and distributes monthly financial reports. Performs other duties as required. QUALIFICATIONS Knowledge of: Principles of accountin g investment practices, data processing systems and office practicesand procedures ACCOUNTANT Page 2 JULY 1987 Ability to: Accurately perform financial analyses, research and reconciliations; accurately input, process, compute and reconcile financial data; acquire knowledge of applicable policies and regulations; utilize a personal computer for analysis and reporting; communicate effectively in writing and verbally; and work effectively with other staff. Education and. Experience: Possession of a bachelor's degree in accounting or a related field, and minimum of one year of experience, preferably in governmental accounting. Driver's License: Possession of a valid, appropriate State of California Driver's license. City of Saratoga July 1987 PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR DEFINITION The Public Works Inspector performs advanced technical paraprofessional office and field engineering work; serves as a construction inspector for public works construction and improvements projects; and does related work as required. Work is performed under general supervision. DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS This is a fully experienced, working level classification in the Engineering Department. It is distinguished from all other inspection and enforcement related City classes through the specialized knowledge and background required to perform the work. EXAMPLES OF WORK (The duties listed below represent examples of work performed and are not all- inclusive of duties which are or may be assigned this classification.) Reviews plans and specifications of assigned projects with construction supervisor, attends pre- construction conferences, inspects materials for identification as conforming to specifications. Performs routine field tests, observes work during progress and upon completion; monitors manpower reports for compliance with State and Federal regulations. Inspects various structures such as utilities, streets, sidewalks, gutters, and other offsite construction; checks line, grade, size, evaluation and location of structures for conformance with specifications and regulations; records amounts of materials used and work performed; prepares necessary reports for progress payments. Inspects adjacent properties for damage from construction activity; confers with property owners regarding project schedule, hazards and inconvenience; coordinates work with other City departments and utilities. Prepares daily activity 'records and reports; performs related duties as assigned. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR JULY 1987 Page 2 QUALIFICATIONS Knowledge of: Principles, methods, materials, equipment and safety hazards of construction and surveying; defects and faults in construction; basic mathematics including algebra, geometry, and trigonometry; basic soil mechanics and geology; materials sampling and testing procedures; engineering mechanics of structures; applicable laws, regulations, codes and departmental policies governing the construction of assigned projects; drafting techniques and surveying practices; real property legal descriptions; policies and regulations governing the construction and maintenance of systems and facilities associated with areas of assignment; methods and techniques of engineering design, investigation, drafting and estimating. Ability to: Apply knowledge and follow proper techniques when performing duties; enforce necessary regulations with firmness, fairness and tact; keep records and prepare oral and written reports; maintain cooperative working relationships with contractors, consultants, the general public, and other employees. Education and Experience: Sufficient education and experience to satisfactorily perform the duties of this classification. A typical qualifying background would be graduation from high school supplemented by college level courses in engineering, mathematics, surveying or related subjects, and substantial experience in one or more of the construction trades leading to knowledge and skills required. Driver's License: Possession of a valid, appropriate State of California Driver's license. City of Saratoga July, 1987 PLANS EXAMINER DEFINITION The Plans Examiner performs detailed examination of plans to insure compliance with applicable State regulations, technical codes, City ordinances and accepted engineering practices; assists field inspectors in resolving structural and other problems that arise in the field; performs some complex field inspection; assists in the plan review and permit process; and does related work as required. Work is performed under general supervision. DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS This is a fully experienced, working -level classification in the Building Inspection Division. It is distinguished from the position of Building Inspector through the specialized knowledge and background necessary to perform detailed examination of plans, calculations and specifications for construction /structure plans. It is distinguished from the higher level position of Chief Building Inspector by the lack of any regular supervisory or administrative responsibilities. EXAMPLES OF DUTIES The duties listed below represent examples of work performed and are not all- inclusive of duties which are or may be assigned this classification: Performs independent building and plan examination concerning the construction or alteration of commercial and residential structures to determine compliance with applicable codes, laws and regulations. Checks complex plans and calculations to determine loading on roofs, walls, and floors, size and spacing of beams, rafters and joists, amount and size of reinforcing in concrete members, type of structural connections and adequacy of design to meet earthquake, wind load, and material stress requirements, makes independent analysis as required. Checks plans for conformance of non structural items, i.e., building classification and occupancy, existing systems, etc., State Handicapped and Energy Conservation regulations. Answers questions and gives instructions to architects, engineers, contractors and owners regarding: building requirements, structural application of various codes and requirements; issues permits after plan review approval. Plans Examiner 7/87 awe 2 Advises Building Inspectors on structural and other problems arising in the field, makes field inspections. Prepares reports and correspondence; keeps informed regarding new building construction methods, materials and requirements; performs other duties as required. QUALIFICATIONS Knowledge of: Principles and practices of structural engineering design; building techniques and materials, accepted construction methods; codes and ordinances enforced by the City, specifically Uniform Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, Fire and Housing Codes, National Electric Code, Zoning Ordinances, and State Codes. Ability to: Apply knowledge and follow proper techniques when examining plans and specifications and detect deviations from regulations and standard practices; read and interpret building plans, specifications, and Building Codes; advise on accepted construction methods and requirements; enforce necessary regulations with firmness, fairness and tact; keep records and prepare oral and written reports; fully organize the plan check and permit issuing process; and maintain cooperative working relationships with builders, design professionals, the general public, and other employees. Education and Experience: Equivalent to a Bachelor's Degree from an accredited college or university with course work in civil, structural or architectural engineering, and two years of responsible experience performing plan checks or structural /architectural design work. Driver's License: Possession of a valid, appropriate State of California Driver's License. Certificates: ICBO Certification as a Building Inspector desirable. ICBO Plan Examiner Certification will be required within 18 months after employment. Certification as a registered professional engineer in the State of California is highly desirable. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: 4/15/87 ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering SUBJECT: Sale of Property to Caltrans (Highway 9) Fiscal Impacts: $500 revenue from Caltrans. Attachments: 1„- Right -of -Way Contract. 2 Contract deeds. Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 5 -0. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL /-7 cc7 AGENDA ITEM (0 CITY MGR. APPROVAL Recommended Motion: Authorize Mayor to execute right of way contract and grant deed to Caltrans for two small parcels. Report Summary Caltrans needs two small parcels of City owned property on State Route #9 near Tollgate Road to repair damage to road. /1O -o EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: 4 -9 -87 (4- 15 -87) CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 1p2 6 AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT: AWARD CONTRACT OVERLAY CERTAIN CITY STREETS T 1987 Recommended Motion: Award the contractor for Overlay Certain City Streets 1987 to the low bidder PIAZZA Construction Company. Report Summary: The City received five bids on. April 9, 1987 for above project. This project was approved in 1986 -1987 Capital Improvement Budget. The lowest bid was PIAZZA Construction Company of San Jose, with total bid of $370,058.86. The Engineer's estimate for this work was $417,022.25. Fiscal Impacts: $370,058.86 General Fund. This project was approved in the 1986 -87 Capital Improvement Budget and is part of the Street Management Program. Attachments: 1. Bid Summary. Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation i -0. S 30 DATE: 4 ,198 7 TIME: 2 00 p M. CITY OF SARATOGA Community Development Department BID SUMMARY PROJEQT OVERLAY CERTAIN. CITY STREETS. 1987 ENGINEER'S Unit price PIAZZA RAISCH CONSTR, O'GRADY PAVING GRADEWAY i Al Description Quantity Unit Amount iit Amount Uit na pr Amount Unit p Amount it Amount 1. Install 1' "A.C. Overlay 6,281.0 ton 32.50 200,992.00 30..91 194,082.90 30,60 192,198.60 33,8 212,297,80 34,0 213,554.00 2 Install Fabric Mat 69 582.0 S.Y. 0.75 52,186.50 0.51 34,791.00 0.47 32,703,54 0.45 31,311,90 "0.40 27,832.80 3 A u tnnn winder 19,135.0G 1.25 23,918.75 1.21 22,962.00 1.30 24,875.50 0..95 18,178.2 1.21 22,962.00 4 Repair'Failure Section of street 25,819.0 S.F. 1.8C 46,474./ 46,474.20 1.60 41,310.40 1.65 42,601.3' 1.80 0.55 46,474.20 17,095.10 5_ 6 Wedge Cut 31,082.0 L.F. 1.1( 34,190.20 0.55 17,095.10 0.57 17,716.74 0.60 18,649.21 Install 1" A.C. Overlay 296.0 ton, 35.0 10,360.00 30.91 9,146.40 40.0 11,840.00 35.0 10,360.01 34:1 10,064.00 7 Cnn 394.0 ton 40.0 15,760.00 30.91 10,784.10 64.0 22,336.00 45.0 15,705.01 34.0 11,866.00 Raise Manholes, 8 Watervalve Monument 160.0 Ea [50.0. 24,000.00 180.1 28,800.00 180.0 28,800.00 ?00.0 32,000.01200.1 32,000.00 9) Paint 4" Double Yellow '2,369.0 L.F. 0.50 1,18.4.50 0.31 710.70 0.30 710.70 0.33 781.7 0.31 710.70 0 Paint 6" So ide Bike Ln _2, 686.0 L.F. 2,106.0 L.F. 0.30 0.30 805.80 631.80 0.2 0.1. 644.64 252.72 0.25 0.15 671.50 315.90 0.26 0.13 698.3. 273.7:' 0.24 0.12 644.64 252.72 1 Paint 4" Broken White 2 Paint 8" White Solid 697.0 L.F. 0.50 348.50 0.31 209.10 0.30 209.10 0.33 230.0 0.30 209.10 3. Paint Pavement Marking_ L.S L.S.1000. 1,000.00 440.00 550.00 1 80.0 80.0 00 320.00 400.00 1000.1 100.0 100.0 1,.000.00 400.00 500.00 1111 90.0 90.0 0 111 11: 360.00 450.01 1 1 81.0 80.0 850.00 320.00 400.00 4 Paint Pedestri n osswalk 4.0 Ea Ea lin. 110.0 5 Paint Crosswalk 5.0 6 Install "D" Marker 571.0 Ea 5.00 5.00 2,855.00 1ur1._oc 4.0 1 2,284.00 ../1 4.0 6.0 2,284.00 156.00 4.40 7.0 2,512.41 182.01 4.0 6.0 2,284.00 156.00 7 Mar, -r 8 Install Red WRI.Et 11 ,j Fa 32.( Ea 150.( Ea 5.00 5.0 0.3 100.00 450.0 4.0 1 0.18 468.00 128.00, 27.00 4.0 4.0 0.20 468.00 128.00 30.00 4.40 514.80 4.0 468.00 9 Install White "G" Market 5.0 0.20 160.01 4.0 30.00 0.18 128.00 27.00 0 Paint -4" Solid Edge Line C1.17 f(199 95 370.058.86 378.653.98 388.296.62 388.298.26 DATE: 4 ,198 7 TIME: 2 00 p M. CITY OF SARATOGA Community Development Department BID SUMMARY PROJEQT OVERLAY CERTAIN. CITY STREETS. 1987 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 DATE 4 9 ,198 7 TIME: _2: 00 P .M. OP SARATOGA Community Development Department BID SUMMARY PROJECT OVERLAY CERTAIN. CITY STREETS. 1987. ENGINEER'S ��W�ATTIS Unit p CONST Unit Pri�P Description Quantity Unit Unit price Amount Amount Unit price Amount Amount it Amount 1. Install 11/2"A.C. Overlay 6,281.0 ton 32.50 200,992.00 33.64 211,2.92 ;84 2 Install Fabric Mat 69,582.0 S.Y. 0.75 52,186.50 0,43 29,920.26 A R &000 Rindpr 19,135.0 G g;1; 1.25 23,918.75 1.12 21,431.20 4_ Repair Failure Section of street 25,819.0 S.F; 1.8C 46,474.20 1.24 32,015.56 5_ 6 Wedge Cut 31,082.0 L.F. 1.1( 34,190.20 '0.57' 17,716.74 Install 1" A.C, Overlay 296.0 ton, 35.0 10,360.00 34.29 10,297.84 7 Cnnfnrm Asphalt 394.0 ton 40.0 15,760.00 55.0 19,195.00 Raise Manholes, 8 Watervalve Monument 160.0 Ea 150.0. 24,000.00 250.0 40,000.00 9) Paint 4" Double Yellow 2,369.0 L.F. 0.50 1,18.4.50 0.32 758.00 S 0 Paint 6" SoIitde Bike Ln 2� 686.0 2,106.0 L.F. L.F. 0.30 0.30 805.80 631.80 348.50 0.25 0.13 0.32 671.50 273.78 223.04 1 Paint 4" Broken White 2 Paint 8" White Solid 697.0 L.F. 0.50 3 Paint Pavement Marking L.S L.S.1000. 1.000.00 8.90 890.00 4 Paint PedestriW 4.0 Ea Ea ho. 440.00 1I0.0 550.00 84 336.00 5 Paint Crosswalk 5.0 84 420.00 6 Install "D" Marker. 571.0 Ea 5.00 2 855.00 4:20 2,398.20 7 Tnsrail R1uP Marker 26:1' R a 5.00 5.00I, 5.00 1In no 5R5 00 160.00'4.20 450.0 6..30 4 0.19 163.80 491.40 134.40, 28.50 8 a� Install Red ��C�� Wii e ker 11:7,5' 32.( p Ea 9 Install White "G" Marker Paint -4" Solid Edge Line 150.( Ea 0.3 Ch17 n99 9s '1RR_65R_14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 DATE 4 9 ,198 7 TIME: _2: 00 P .M. OP SARATOGA Community Development Department BID SUMMARY PROJECT OVERLAY CERTAIN. CITY STREETS. 1987. 'EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. /a..V AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: 4/15/87 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering SUBJECT: Urban Storm Water Runoff Management Program Recommended Motion: Authorize execution of cooperative agreement to fund the preparation of a proposal for evaluation of non -point source pollution. Report Summary: San Francisco Bay basin Water Quality Control Plan requires preparation of a proposal for evaluation of non -point source pollution by 6/15/87. It is proposed to hire a consultant to prepare this proposal and prorate the cost among the several jurisdictions in Santa Clara County whose storm water outfalls into the Bay. Saratoga's share would not exceed $1,650. Implementation of the proposal is not part of this agreement. Fiscal Impacts: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL $1,650 Maximum. Funds to come from budgeted consultant outside services in Division 2023, General Engineering Attachments: 1 Staff. Report: 2 Agreement. 3 Santa Clara Valley Water District Staff Report. Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 54. c) 3° 62c) UMW 04 0 REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Urban Storm Water Runoff Management Program DATE: 4 -3 -87 COUNCIL MEETING: 4 -15 -87 RECOMMENDATION: Enter into the agreement, with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and all other jurisdictions within Santa Clara County whose storm waters outfall into the bay, to participate in the cost of preparation of a detailed proposal for evaluation of non -point source pollution. City's share not to exceed 1.1% of $150,000 or $1,650. BACKGROUND: The San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board requires that local agencies in the County of Santa Clara shall prepare for review by said Regional Board a detailed proposal for evaluation of non -point source pollution by June 15, 1987. A task force made up of staff representatives of. the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the County of Santa Clara, City of San Jose, City of Sunnyvale, and the Town of Los Gatos was established. This task force has been deliberating the most efficient means of accomplishing this requirement. They have concluded that retaining a consultant with all jurisdictions participating in their prorata cost rather than each jurisdiction acting individually would be the most expeditious method. After reviewing several methods of proration they have recommended that the Water District pay one -half the cost and the other one -half be prorated on proportional storm water runoff as included in the Water District's Benefit Assessment Revenue Program. This task force has also prepared the RFP (Request for Proposal) for consultant services to perform this work. They will oversee the work performed by the consultant. It is obvious that the consultant will not be able to meet the June 15, 1987 completion date, however, it is felt that the Regional Board will grant an extension based on the degree of effort being expended. 4 Implementation of the program will be the subject of further delibera- tions. ANALYSIS: Page 2 4/3/ It is to Saratoga's benefit to join with other jurisdictions to study and develop the proposal for evaluation of non -point source pollution. The cost to Saratoga of $1,650 is far less than any individual study we might perform. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Council should agree to participate in this cooperative project and enter into the agreement to pay Saratoga's pro -rata share. Rob rt S. Shook City Engineer AGENDA MEMORANDUM AGENDA DATE 3/17/87 ITEM NO. cZlj UNIT Flood Control ZONE SUBJECT: Urban (Storm Water) Runoff Management Program San Francisco Bay Basin Water PROJECT NO. 9579. NAME Quality Control Plan EXPLANATION: On December 9, 1986, the Board of Directors was briefed by staff and representatives from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) on urban runoff management and proposed amendments to the San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan. The plan requires the development of an urban runoff management program for South San Francisco Bay by June 15, 1987. The amendments to the plan were adopted by the Regional Board on December 17, 1.986 and are expected to be adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board in May. (It can be assumed that compliance with the Basin Plan, as amended with respect to urban runoff management, will most likely also satisfy compliance with recent amendments to the federal Clean Water Act relating to storm water.) Toward that end, the Basin Plan amendments require local agencies in the South Bay (cities, County and this District) to develop a program consisting of the following elements: 1. Preparation of a detailed proposal for evaluation of non -point source pollution for consideration by the RWQCB. The basin plan requires that this be completed by June 15, 1987 and that a program be implementable by September 15, 1987. 2. Identification of all existing non -point source pollution control measures in Santa Clara County and development of a program to evaluate their effectiveness by June 15, 1987. 3. Preparation of a program to identify and evaluate the effectiveness of additional non -point source control measures by September 15, 1987. 4. Preparation of a program for implementation of additional non -point source control measures and an ongoing monitoring program to evaluate their effectiveness by June 15, 1989. Following the Board's briefing, the Board directed staff to work with the cities and the County to better define program requirements including costs and possible sources of funding to implement the program. The Board also acknowledged concurrence with the amendments to the plan including the expectation that this District play a lead role in coordination of the program requirements with the RWQCB. Continued RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Chairman to execute an agreement with the cities of Santa Clara County and the County to share in the development costs of the program. 05R627S 1 of 3 Urban (Storm Water) Runoff Management Program 3/17/87 On January 7, 1987, a meeting was held with representatives from the cities of Santa Clara County, the County and the RWQCB to further discuss the amendments to the basin plan and the respective roles of each agency in implementing requirements of the plan. At that meeting a task force was formed to work with the Regional Board to better define program requirements, costs, and sources of funding. The task force has been meeting on a weekly basis since that time and includes representation from the following agencies: San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Clara Valley Water District, the County of Santa Clara, the City of San Jose, the City of Sunnyvale, and the Town of Los Gatos. The task force has concluded that the most prudent way to proceed with development of an urban runoff management plan (elements 1, 2 and 3) would be to retain a consultant to develop such a plan for implementation by the District, the County and the cities. It is the opinion of the task force that such consultant services will not exceed $125,000. A request for proposals (RFP) was prepared by the task force and distributed to a number of qualified Bay area consultants on February 11, 1987. Proposals were received until March 5th. The task force is now reviewing the proposals and will recommend three firms for further consideration. Since the District has been designated to be lead agency with respect to program coordination and implementation, the consultant agreement for the above work will be with this District and final selection and negotiation of a fee for services will be in accordance with this District's consultant selection procedures. A consultant contract for Board consideration is anticipated in late April. The attached tentative schedule reflects the timetable of events necessary to comply with the basin plan requirements. The task force has recommended that cost sharing of the consultant fee be done on the basis of proportionate stormwater runoff (identical to that used now for purposes of benefit assessment) but that the District pick up one -half of these anticipated program development costs. This is based on the assumption that approximately one -half of the consultant's time will be utilized in development of a stream monitoring program in which the District has a vested interest and is probably most qualified to implement. If, then, the cost of such services were $125,000, the District's share would be $62,500 and the remaining $62,500 would be spread among the cities and county on the basis of runoff. It is possible that this cost to develop the program may be partially offset by State funds that have been requested by the RWQCB from the State Board ($50,000). Reference the District's attached letter of support for such funds. The District has had a limited surface water quality monitoring program since 1979 as part of its groundwater recharge program. (Reference the attached list of locations.) This was started following local studies conducted with federal funding made available to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) through Section 208 of the Clean Water Act. These studies which analyzed non -point sources of pollution concluded that there are in fact pollutants entering our streams from urban storm water systems. Because of this potential source of pollution to the groundwater basin, we continue to be concerned and are encouraged that all local agencies are now being asked to participate in a much broader study to mitigate this potential impact. Following acceptance of the consultant's work (by the task force, the cities, the County, this District, and the Regional Board), the plan must be implementable by September 15, 1987. Initial phases of implementation will include monitoring at several locations within key watersheds of the County (probably Coyote, Guadalupe, Matadero, Stevens, and 05R6275 2 of 3 Urban (Storm Water) Runoff Management Program 3/17/87 Calabazas Creeks) as well as within several storm drain systems. As stated previously, watershed monitoring would best be performed by the District, since some sampling and analysis is already being done in conjunction with our groundwater recharge program. As reported to the Board on December 9, RWQCB staff indicated that watershed sampling and analysis for up to four streams in the South Bay could run as high as $120,000 a year plus the cost to administer the program. Such administrative costs would be on the order of $50,000 to $60,000 a year. The larger more expensive task of sampling and analysis relative to the storm drain systems throughout the County would be a responsibility of the cities and the County. One of the direct benefits of storm drain system water quality monitoring will be the determination of where pollution is entering the natural channels. About one -half of the groundwater recharge conducted by the District occurs in natural channels and when this water becomes contaminated, it has been difficult to determine the origin of such contamination. On numerous occasions the District has attempted to determine the source of surface water contamination by following the contamination upstream and through the storm drain systems by inspecting manholes. This has proven to be a costly and often fruitless effort. The urban runoff management requirements of the Basin Plan will raise the level of awareness of surface contamination by all the cities and the County, will require mitigation and, hence, should reduce the amount of contamination that enters the natural channels. During the winter months, the District often diverts storm water runoff, treats that water to reduce turbidity and recharges it. The proposed program will also provide the District with additional knowledge relative to the quality of that water and perhaps allow us to be more selective when necessary. In summary, the District's estimated cost to help develop and implement an urban runoff management program in Santa Clara County would include the following elements: 1. 50% of the program development cost 2. Annual Watershed Monitoring Costs 3. Annual Administrative Management Costs 62,500 120,000 60,000 The development cost would be a one time cost this fiscal year. The monitoring and administrative costs would be annual costs beginning in 1987 -38 through at least 1989 -90 (two years). The aggregate costs to the cities and County to monitor runoff quality as a function of land use and storm drain water quality could be on the order of five to ten times the District's projected monitoring costs (reference the attached Program Cost table). There is a possibility that both State and federal (EPA Clean Water Act) funding may be available to offset some of these implementation costs. It is recommended that the District continue to work closely with the cities, the County, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board as the lead agency in coordinating the urban runoff management requirements of the Bay Basin Plan for South San Francisco Bay. It is further recommended that the District agree to cost -share up to 50% of the program development costs and assume the responsibility for continued but expanded watershed monitoring including sampling and analysis in conjunction with initial implementation of the plan. Since 50% of the program development costs would be paid for by the cities and the County, an agreement between the District and these agencies would have to be executed to provide the District with these funds. 05R6275 3 of 3 16 Days 6 Days 1 Day 14 Days 7 Days 21 Days 11 Days 45 Days 14 Days 14 Days 5 Days 154 Days Wednesday, February 1 1, 1987 Friday, February 27 Q/A session at Sunnyvale for consultants (mandatory) Thurs., March 5 Proposals due Friday, March 6 Friday, March 20 Friday, March 27 Friday, April 17 Task Force approves Scope of Services Tues., April 28 District awards contract Fri., June 12 Fri., June 26 Fri., July 10 SOUTH BAY URBAN RUNOFF MONITORING PLAN TENTATIVE CONSULTANT SCHEDULE RFP mai lout SCVWD distributes proposals to Task Force Task Force short -lists propoasls and schedules interview board Interview Board; selection Draft plan submitted by consultant; Task Force notifies cities Final Task Force review comments to consultant Final report Wednesday, July 15 Task Force submits final plan to RWOCB Note: This schedule presumes that the RWOCB will grant an extension to their June 15 due date for submitting an evaluation plan. February 3, 1987 Mr. James Easton Executive Director State Water Resources Control Board Post Office Box 100 Sacramento, California 95801 Dear Mr. Easton: This letter is to support the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board's request for Cleanup and Abatement funds for evaluation and control of urban runoff. We are acting as the coordinating agency for a major study of urban runoff in South San Francisco Bay as directed in the Regional Board's Basin Plan. The local agencies of Santa Clara County in cooperation with the Regional Board are actively preparing the work plan for the study, the goal of which is to develop a recommended plan of urban runoff control measures for the South Bay within three years. One of the significant problems we have faced in beginning this work is determining how costs should be shared by the various local agencies. Additionally, some agencies have expressed reservations about 'entering into the program without substantial State or Federal financial support. While we appreciate that most of the financial burden will likely fall to the local agencies, this cooperative program will have a better chance of success if State funds are provided to help start it. The Regional Board's proposal for $50,000 is the kind of State support which will truly make this a better, cooperative program. We anticipate that the cost of hiring consultants for developing the details of the initial investigation and evaluation plan will be approximately $150,000. We are currently asking each of the local agencies to commit to funding their share of the initial cost. We believe that your approval of the Regional Board's funding request will improve the quality of the initial investigation and evaluation, and it will make it easier for the local agencies in the South Bay to commit to supporting this program. Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY John T. O'Halloran General Manager bc: J. O'Halloran, R. Smith, S. Wolfe, D. Gill D. Kriege, R. Pardini, J. Sutcliffe JTO:scs fails Santa Clara Valley WaEer Dis 5750 ALMADEN EXPRESSWAY SAN JOSE. CALIFORNIA 95118 TELEPHONE (408) 265.2600 a. Streamflow b. Water Temperature c. Dissolved Oxygen d. pH e. Specific Conductance f. Alkalinity BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT'S SURFACE WATER QUALITY PROGRAM 1. Sampling Stations a. 11168000 -Los Gatos Creek at Los Gatos, CA b. 11168660- -Los Gatos Creek at Lark Avenue at Campbell, CA c. 11168800- -Los Gatos Creek at Lincoln Avenue in San Jose, CA d. 11167500 Guadalupe Creek at Guadalupe, CA e. 11167572 Guadalupe River at Alamitos Recharge Facility in San Jose, CA. f. 11169000 Guadalupe River at San Jose, CA g. 11169970 Coyote Creek below Leroy Anderson Dam near Madrone, CA h. 11171500 Coyote Creek near Edenvale, CA i. 11153500 Llagas Creek near Morgan Hill, CA j. 11153530 Llagas Creek at Machado School near Morgan Hill, CA k. 11153555 Llagas Creek at San Martin, CA 1. 11166900 Alamitos Creek at Graystone (SCVWD Gaging Station 1170) 2. Sampling Schedule Sampling consists of three prescheduled trips in the low flow season (about May, July and September) and four storm- related trips during the period December through April. 3. Water Quality Constituents Measured Or Analyzed g. Turbidity h. Dissolved Major Ions i. Total Dissolved Nutrients j. Suspended Organic Carbon k. Dissolved Organic Carbon 1. Chemical Oxygen Demand (Selected Stations) m. Dissolved Trace Elements (Twice Each Year) In addition, streambed samples will be collected and analyzed for: a. Trace Elements b. Grain -Size Distribution V 4 2/9/87 OF SCVWD SCVWD CITY /JURISDICTION BENEFIT BEN. CAMPBELL CUPERTINO LOS ALTOS LOS ALTOS HILLS LOS GATOS MILPITAS MONTE SERENO MOUNTAIN VIEW PALO ALTO SAN JOSE SANTA CLARA SARATOGA SUNNYVALE TOTAL CITIES SANTA CLARA COUNTY ASSESS. ASSESS. 1987 -88 $204,657 254,607 159,625 38,843 177,714 294,532 15,340 404,055 421,028 3,375,220 642,374 157,911 750,575 CITIES' SHARE OF COST BASED ON ESTIMATED C.S.J. PROGRAM COST 2.7% 3.4% 2.1% 0.5% 2.4% 3.9% 0.2% 5.4% 5.6% 8.5% 2.1% 10.0% 6,896,481 91.8% $18,797 23,385 14,661 3,568 16,322 27,052 1,409 37,111 38,670 58,999 14,503 68,937 PROGRAM COST 44.9% 310,000 430,000 1988 -89 1989 -90 $26,073 32,437 20,336 4,949 22,641 81,838 20,118 95,623 $52,146 64,873 40,672 9,897 45,281 37,523 75,046 1,954 3,909 51,476 102,952 53,639 107,277 860,000 163,676 40,235 191,245 633,413 878,605 1,757,211 619,255 8.2% 56,876 78,893 157,785 TOTAL $7,515,736 100.0% $690,289 $957,498 $1,914,996 RECITALS: AGREEMENT A0817 REGARDING EVALUATION OF NONPOINT SOURCE OF WATER POLLUTION Santa Clara Valley Water District, a local public agency of the State of California; County of Santa Clara, a subdivision of the State of California; City of Campbell, a municipality of the State of California; City of Cupertino, a municipality of the State of California; City of Los Altos, a municipality of the State of California; Town of Los Altos Hills, a municipality of the State California; Town of Los Gatos, a municipality of the State of California; City of Milpitas, a municipality of the State of California; City of Monte Sereno, a municipality of the State of California; City of Mountain View, a municipality of the State of California; City of Palo Alto, a municipality of the State of California; City of San Jose, a municipality of the State of California; City of Santa Clara, a municipality of the State of California; City of Saratoga, a municipality of the State of California; City of Sunnyvale, a municipality of the State of California; AGREE this day of 1987, as follows: A. The San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board requires that local agencies in the County of Santa Clara (viz, the parties to this agreement) ''shall prepare for review by said Regional Board a detailed proposal for evaluation of nonpoint source pollution by June 15, 1987. B. This agreement will provide for the allocation of responsibility for the work and for distribution of the cost thereof. TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS, a municipality APPROVED AS TO FORM: of the State of California By: Town Attorney Mayor ATTEST: TOWN OF LOS GATOS, a municipality APPROVED AS TO FORM: of the State of California By: Town Attorney Mayor ATTEST: CITY OF MILPITAS, a municipality APPROVED AS TO FORM: of the State of California By: City Attorney Mayor ATTEST:. CITY OF MONTE SERENO, a municipality APPROVED AS TO FORM: of the State of California By: City Attorney Mayor ATTEST: CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, a municipality APPROVED AS TO FORM: of the State of California By: City Attorney Mayor ATTEST: CITY OF PALO ALTO, a municipality APPROVED AS TO FORM: of the State of California By: City Attorney Mayor ATTEST: CITY OF SAN JOSE, a municipality APPROVED AS TO FORM: of the State of California By: City Attorney Mayor ATTEST: CITY OF SANTA CLARA, a municipality APPROVED AS TO FORM: of the State of California By: City Attorney Mayor ATTEST: EXHIBIT A TASK FORCE AGENCIES San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Clara Valley Water District County of Santa Clara City of San Jose City of Sunnyvale Town of Los Gatos 'EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. V AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: Report Summary: Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: 4/15/87 ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING SUBJECT: SDR -1259, Politi, Pike Road, Request for Extension of Improvement Agreement Recommended Motion: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Request from applicant dated February 17, 1987. Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 4 -0. $3- 3 s CITY MGR. APPROVAL Approve the one -year extension to the Improvement Agreement for SDR -1259. Applicant has requested a one -year extension to the Improvement Agreement. Applicant has Final Site Approval for a single lot on Pike Road. No work construction, either on the home or the improvements, has begun. Lack of these improvements being constructed does not adversely affect other properties. Robert S. Shook Director of Community Services City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave, Saratoga, Ca 95070 Dear Mr. Shook: Thank you for your consideration. 17 February 1987 14447 Deer Canyon Ln. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 LO FEB 241987 ow;INEERWWG The purpose of this letter is to request a one year extention to the Improvement Agreement for SDR -1259, Pike Road, 1 _1ot. We plan to start the requirements as soon as the grading mora- torium is over this Spring. Joe and Sandra Politi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY le l- ke Agenda Item MEETING DATE: April 8, 1987 City Mgr Approval ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Maintenance SUBJECT: Donation of Trees to El, Quito Park Recommended Motions Accept and acknowledge a donation of 5 24" box specimen White Alders from Mr. and Mrs. J. Root of Saratoga. Report Summary We received a donation of 5 24" box specimen White Alders (Alnus Rhombicolia) from Mr. and Mrs. Root of Saratoga in February, 1987. These trees were planted at El Quito Park to replace trees that have been vandalized this past year. They will add to the eventual shade and enjoyment of users of the park now and for many years to come. Fiscal Impact Attachments Letter of Acknowledgement to Mr. and Mrs. Root Motion Vote SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 1 A fir EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Fiscal Impact SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL .6 3 MEETING DATE: April 8, 1987 City Mgr Approval ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Maintenance SUBJECT: Donation of Koi to Hakone Gardens Recommended Motions Accept and acknowledge a donation of 8 Koi to Hakone Gardens by Mr. and Mrs. Robert B. Beers of Los Gatos. Report Summary Mr. and Mrs. Beers of Los Gatos donated 8 Koi to Hakone Gardens. One of the Koi is over 21 four are around 20" and three are 16" in length. Attachments Letter of Acknowledgement to Mr. and Mrs. Root Motion Vote Staff recommendation 0 1 Agenda Item 4 f 3-o Tsai . 714 _/Ak REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 4 -8 -87 COUNCIL MEETING: 4 -15 -87 SUBJECT: Landscaping Modification, Identification Sign and Flag Poles in Front of City Hall RECOMMENDED MOTION: 1. Approve plans for improvements of City Hall property. or 2. Modify and approve plans for improvements of City Hall property. BACKGROUND: It has been planned for a couple of years and budgeted for this fiscal year to eliminate the frontage road between the Civic Theater and Fruitvale Avenue. This was to be done by increasing the width of landscaping between Fruitvale and the frontage road and reducing the pavement width to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists only. Landscaped area will be widened by 10 feet and planted with Star Jasmine and annuals. While working on this additional modifications were suggested and have been incorporated into the attached plans as follows: - Widen landscaped area five feet between Fruitvale and parking lot. - Add City Hall identification sign (three alternative verbage attached for your selection). - Erect two additional flag poles for State and City flags. - Remove sidewalk between flag pole area and theater plaza area and extended landscaping over that area. ANALYSIS: Improvements have both a functional and aesthetic purpose. They serve to beautify the City Hall property while providing identification and direction. The elimination of the frontage road will stop those vehicles currently driving down this dead -end road and having to back up to the parking lot. r y Page 2 4/8/87 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: These improvements are consistent with prior City Council discussion and direction and you should authorize staff to proceed. V,>--� Rob Shook City Engineer Attachments 9WV01P--- +: CITY HALL � � SARATOGA,,' C I TY OF CIVIC SARATOGA THEATER,, SAPATOGA,,.: 1 CENTEP -7 a t-