Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-14-1982 CITY COUNCIL AGENDACITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO.. 2 D 3 DA'L'E: January 14, 1982 DEPARTMENT: City Manager Initial: Dept. Hd. C. At C. Mgr. SUBJECT: Appointment to Advisory Committee of the Council on Aging Issue SunTory The Santa Clara County Council on Aging has recently established an Advisory Council. The City of Saratoga has been requested to designate a representative to serve on the Advisory Council. At direction of the C IT-1 Council, the City has advertised for persons interested in serving on this body. Only one person has responded to the ad, Mrs. Mildred Gordon, who had previously made known her interest. Recommendation Appoint sirs. Mildred Gordon as your representative.to the Advisory Council. Fiscal Impacts None, this is a volunteer position Exhibits /Attachments 1. Report of Joan Pisani, 1/13/82 2. Information sheet for Mrs. Gordon 3. Letter of Recommendation from SASCC, 12/30/81 4. Letter from Council on Aging,.11/20/81 Council Action 1120: Watson /Clevenger moved to appoint Mildred Gordon. Passed 5 -0. .NJ MAZI O MORI D t! 1 I 097T o:T O&UUMDO& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 TO: City Councilmember FROM: Community Center Director /Management Assistant SUBJECT: Council on Aging Advisory Board DATE: 1/13/82 In November, 1981, the Council on Aging /Area Agency on Aging underwent a major reorganization due to legislative mandates of the Older Californians Act. Part of this legislation was a provision that each Area Agency must create an Advisory Council that is separate from its Board of Directors. Peggy Corr is the City of Saratoga's representative on the Council on Aging's Board of Directors. She will remain on the Board until her term expires. In December, the City of Saratoga advertised and accepted applications for the new position of representative on the Council on Aging Advisory Council. One person applied. Attached please find Mildred Gordon's completed application form. I recommend that Mildred Gordon be appointed to the Council on Aging's Advisory Council as the City off Saratoga's representative. -a' 1=, -P, " L Joan Pisani JP:pe OMf Saratoga Area 311881 1 SA SENIOR COORDINATING COUNCIL SCC P. O. Box 123 • Saratoga, California 95070 December 30, 1981 Mayor Linda Callon City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Dear Mayor Callon: The SASCC understands that Saratoga has a vacancy for a representative from the City to the Advisory Committee of the Council on Aging. We would like to recommend Mildred Gordon for hhis position. Not only because of her past experience as President of SASCC but also because of her experience with a county -wide senior advocacy group (SKAT), we feel she is eminently qualified to serve the seniors of Saratoga in this role. Thank you for your consideration of this recommendation. Cordially yours, �2 66 Mary a Van Peborgh President, SASCC COUNCIL ON AGING of Santa Clara County, Inc. 277 WEST HEDDING ST., SAN JOSE, CALIF. 95110 (408) 287 -7111 November 20, 1981 Mayor Linda Callon City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor Callon: CL n� NOV 4V 2 3 1981 Recently the Council on Aging /Area Agency on Aging has undergone a major reorganization due to legislative man- dates of the Older Californians Act {AB 27951. An im- portant part of this legislation was a provision that each Area Agency must create an Advisory Council that is clearly and entirely separate from its governing body. Additionally, the Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended, also calls for an Advisory Council that is clear and separate from the governing body. Traditionally, our COA Board of Directors {governing body} has concentrated its efforts primarily on activities of public advocacy and service development - now mandated areas of concern for the Advisory Council. Thus the role of the Board of Directors becomes that of decision makers in areas of administrative and fiscal management, resource development and other matters of corporate responsibility. To implement the intent of the legislation, the Board of Directors of the Council on Aging voted to concentrate on the current members of the Board who were, in essence, advisory and, in reality, those members who are appointees of elected officals and municipalities. The Board felt it was only logical that those members, because of their status, knowledge and experience form the core of the new Advisory Council. This approach is intended to assure continuity and in -put from you and your constituency on matters relevant to services for older persons. As a result of these changes, the role and responsibilities of the COA Board of Directors will be significantly different and appointment from public officals and bodies will no longer be appropriate. Q -)A United Way Agency PLANNING, COORDINATION, AND ADVOCACY FOR SENIOR CITIZENS Mayor Callon November 20, 1981 Page 2 The purpose of this letter is to request a letter from you appointing your representative. Your former representative, Peggy Corr, wishes to remain on the Board until her term expires. I have included for your information and review materials of relevant.legislation and By -Laws of the Advisory Council. I apologize, in advance, for any confusion this reorgan- ization may have caused for you and your representative. However, I do feel that this current direction will increase your representatives effectiveness for the older constituents of Saratoga. Thank you for your consideration and patience in this matter. We are looking forward to your reply at your earliest op- portunity. Should you have any questions in regards to this matter, please contact either myself or Ms. Donna Elsner of my staff. Most sincerely, Rex C. Painter Executive Director cc= Bill Baird, Chair Advisory Council Robert M. Rowland, President Board of Directors Peggy Corr RCP /mg CITY OF SARATOGA INFORMATION SHEET DEC 2 91981 For Commissions, Boards or Committees f — — — — — — — — — Date December 28, 1981 Name Mra_ Mi dr d M. ,ordon Address 20299 Blauer Dr. Residence Telephone No. 867 -3763 Nearest Cross Street Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. Office Telephone No. - Personal History I graduated from University of Southern California and took graduate work in student counseling at Stanford University. I am married, have five children and four of them attended Saratoga schools. My profession is secondary teaching of business subjects. I have also been a highschool counselor and Dean of Girls. I am now retired,.but active in community affairs. Education see ahnpa Former Employers Los Angeles & Santa Clara SchooldVklress Type of Business Year You Became A Saratoga Resident 1957 Now retired Specific Work You Perform Are You a Registered Voter of the City of Saratoga? x Would you be able to attend daytime meetings? Yes Evening Meetings? Yes No Yes List Civic Activities, Clubs, Associations, and neighborhood -level activities Sar. Parks /Rec.Con Sar. Task Force on Sr. Citizen Housing Needs/ also T.F. on Social Needs Assessment, AAUW, League of Women Voters, Foothill Club, Past Pres. Saratoga Area Sr.-Coordinating Council, Vice Pres. 1980 of S.C.A.T. (Seniors Can Act Together), a county organization. Earlier- P.T.A. Scouting. Additional information and qualifications and /or references. (If additional space is required, use other Side.) Ref. Mary Jean Van Peborgh, President, SASCC My interest in Saratoga as a taxpayer and resident is long standing and broad in scope. I have basic understanding of city relationships with county, Bay Region and state. I am idealistic but realistic and practical. I -work well with people and listen well. To which Ccnrnission or Board would you prefer appointment? COA Advisory Council Signature�Q��}(. Please complete and return to the City Clerk, 13777 FYuitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 5AR , ti� • nego � , 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 January 25, 1982 Mrs. Aldred M. Gordon 20299 Blauer Drive Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mrs. Gordon: I am pleased to inform you that at their meeting of January 20, 1982, the Saratoga City Council appointed you as their representative on the Advisory Council of the Santa Clara County Council on Aging. On behalf of the Council, I'd like to offer congratulations. We are grateful that Saratoga's citizens are willing to give up their time for matters of civic importance. Thank you for taking on this responsibility. Sincerely, y f Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk cc: Rex C. Painter, Executive Director, Council on Aging. of BAR . 0 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 January 25, 1982 Dr. Dwight M. Bissell P.O. Box 122 Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Dr. Bissell: At the City Council meeting of January 20, 1982, the Council considered the matter of appointing a representative to the Advisory Camlittee of the Council on Aging. After deliberating over all applications, they appointed Mildred Gordon to that position. On behalf of the City Council, I would like to thank you for taking the time to submit your apblicaticn. Saratoga needs citizen participation, and I hope you will continue to be active in civic affairs. Sincerely, Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 January 25, 1982 Mr. Rex C. Painter Exeuctive Director, Council on Aging 277 West Heading Street San Jose, California 95110 Dear Mr. Painter: Enclosed is a letter of appointment for Mildrdd Gordcn as Saratoga's representative to the Advisory Camd ttee of the Council on Aging. Please let us know if there is a specific term of office to which she has been appointed. Sincerely, Grace E. Cory Deputy City Cler CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. MY DATE: January 15, 1982 DEPARTMENT: Administrative Services Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. SUBJECT: Memorandum of-Understanding with Saratoga Employees Association Issue &mrury Attached is Resolution No. 85 -9.54 which adopts the Memorandum of Understanding negotiated with the Saratoga Employees Association. The current Memorandum of Understanding expired on December 31, 1981. The Memorandum of Understanding attached revises salaries and benefits for all non - managment personnel during the period of January 1, 1982 - August 31, 1983. Reccmnendation Adopt Resolution No. 85 -9. 54 Revising Salary Ranges, Personnel Policies and Fringe Benefits for Non- Management Employees of the City of Saratoga. Adopt Resolution No. 1052 appropriating Reserve Funds Set Aside for Purposes of Salary and Benefit Increasek in 1981 -82 Operating Budget. Fiscal Impacts The attached Memorandum of Understanding involves the additional cost of $48,762 for salaries and benefits during fiscal year 1981 -82. Ample.fupds were set aside in the Reserve to cover the costs of the attached agreement. Council action is needed to appropriate $48,762 from Reserves to the appropriate program operating budget accounts. Exhibits /Attachments A. Resolution No. 85-9. 54 B. Memorandum of Understanding C. Resolution No. 1052 (not prepared as of 1/15/82) Council Action 1120: Mallory /Jensen moved to adopt resolution 85 -9.54. Passed 5 -0. Mallory /Jensen moved to adopt resolution 1052. Passed 5 -0. A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTIONS NO. 85 -9, AS AMENDED, NO. 85 -9.50, NO. 85 -9.49, REVIS- ING SALARY RANGES, PERSONNEL, POLICY AND FRINGE BENEFITS FOR NON - MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES i OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: Section 1 of Resolution 85 -9.49 is amended as follows: Exhibit "A" (Schedule of Salary Classes Effective January 1, 1982), attached hereto and incorporated by reference, provides the basis for rates of compensation to be paid the different positions in the City service. (A) Effective January 1, 1982, the following positions in the City service are assigned to the following ranges, and shall be paid at the rate of compensation shown: RANGE POSITION STEP P STEP A STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP E - - 60 Account Clerk 1200 1261 1323 1389 1458 1532 85 Administrative Secretary 1537 1613 1693 1778 1866 1958 117 Assistant Civil Engineer 2112 2219 2329 2445 2567 2696 110 Building Inspector I 1977 2072 2176 2235 2398 2519 114 Building Inspector II 2052 2156 2263 2377 2497 2619 114 Civil Engineering Tech II 2052 2156 2263 2377 2497 2619 45 Clerk Typist I 1030 1082 1136 1192 1254 1315 54 Clerk Typist II 1129 1185 1244 1308 1372 1441 60 Clerk Typist III 1200 1261 1323 1389 1458 1532 82 Code Technician 1493 1567 1644 1728 1815 1904 - 60 Custodian 1200 1261 1323 1389 1458 1532 90 Deputy City Clerk 1615 1695 1781 1871 1966 2062 90 Government Build. Foreman 1615 1695 1781 1871 1966 2062 95 Hous. & Comm. Dev. Coord. 1697 1783 1872 1967 2063 2166 94 Japanese Garden Special. 1682 1765 1853 1946 2043 2145 103 Junior Civil Engineer 1840 1931 2028 2129 2235 2348 70 Maintenance Clerk 1324 1390 1461 1533 1609 1690 69 Maintenance ;Ian I 1312 1377 1446 1519 1596 1675 84 Maintenance Man II 1523 1599 1680 1764 1851 1945 ;..:.•;.;; 69 Parks & Landscp. Mtc. I 1312 1377 1446 1519 1596 1675 84 Parks & Landscp. Mtc. II 1523 1599 1680 1764 1851 1945 107 Parks & Landscp. Super. 1914 2009 2110 2215 2327 2443 96 Planner I 1717 1800 1891 1986 2084 2189 82 Planning Aide 1493 1567 1644 1728 1815 1904 103 Planning Assistant 1933 2031 2132 2237 2350 2468 74 Recreation Supervisor 1378 1447 1520 1597 1676 1761 69 Secretary I 1312 1377 1446 1519 1596 1675 74 Secretary II 1378 1447 1520 1597 1676 1761 107 Street Supervisor 1914 2009 2110 2215 2327 2443 47 Switchboard Operator P 1054 1106 1161 1219 1281 1344 /! lwL���k�n��r�„Cy, k a �Q ySfyC'•�54] y�� jt i (B) Effective September 1, 1982, all classifications specified above shall receive a salary adjustment equivalent to the mean salary increase for the period July 1, 1982 - June 30, 1983, granted by Campbell, Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale. Settlements for public safety shall be excluded from calculating the mean. SECTIO14 2: Section 5 of Resolution 85 -9.36, as amended, is further amended to read as follows: Section 1.8: Fringe Benefits INSURANCE POLICIES Health: Effective January 1, 1982, an increase in the �Z"ty contribution for health insurance of $20 per month per employee for a maximum of $125 per month for health insurance coverage. City and Employees Association agree to examine alter - native health plans to Blue Cross in order to maximize coverage and minimize costs. t SECTION 3: Section 5 of Resolution 85 -9.25, as amended, is further amended to read as follows: Section 1.8: Fringe Benefits INSURANCE POLICIES (2) Dental: Effective January 1, 1982, an increase in ttRCity contribution to the self- insured dental plan of $7.40 per month per employee for a maximum of $25.00 per month. The above change amends the Dental Reimbursement Plan to provide for a guarantee that each employee shall receive 100% coverage of the first $150 of dental bills submitted in each six month period. SECTION 4: Section 5 of Resolution 85 -9.49, as amended, is further amended to read as follows: UNIFORM ALLOWANCE City shall provide for maintenance employees uniforms, on a per year basis, as follows: 1. Three shirts per employee (at an approximate cost of $33 per employee, per year) for Streets Supervisor, Maintenance Man I, II, Parks and Landscape Supervisor, Japanese Garden Specialist, Parks and Landscape Main- tenance I, II, Government Buildings Foreman, and Custodians. 2. Payment of $200 per fiscal year for purchase of safety boots, pants, and for employee uniform cleaning allowance. City shall pay employee, by check separate from payroll check, for boots, pants and cleaning allowance. Payment shall be made during July of each fiscal year. Payment tam s �f s -2- r-r ?ir: - 3- rI w � k•a <,r�w ''`'.�;;y- zcr, � .:�o rte, �2�YL'1` t"fij -L �✓ . � },r - for shirts shall be made directly by City to company from which purchased. Remainder of uniform policy adopted in Resolution 85 -9.49 will remain in effect. SECTION 5: Section 4 of Resolution 85 -9.36, as amended, is : ;.,;,.;�.,;.�.,;;,.., :,.,,.,• ......,.. ;. further amended to read as follows: Section 1.7: Leave of Absence and Leave without Pay As provided in Resolution 85 -9.36, all requests for leave of absence or leave without pay shall be submitted to the City Manager. In cases of sickness, hardship, or other good and sufficient causes, the City Manager may grant leaves of absence from a period of one day to no more than 90 days. In cases of medical leave, an employee may request extension of City paid benefits during the leave period. Extension of benefits is subject to the discretion of the City Manager. SECTION 6: Resolution 85 -9.49, as amended, is further amended ,..�:�- :�:,;_:_.,.i.; =• .. ..., .. :.,:._.; to read as follows: Longevity Incentive Adjustment In addition to the foregoing adjustments in salaries and tis�:► -- benefits and as a one -time consideration relating solely to the terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Understanding attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, the City shall provide permanent employees of record, as of ^?=. January 31, 1982, a one -time longevity incentive adjustment of $300. Permanent part -time employees shall receive a pro -rated share based upon the number of hours worked. The payment shall be paid separate from the normal payroll check and shall be subject to the required withholdings. In addition, permanent employees of record as of December 1, 12 1982, shall receive a one -time longevity incentive adjust- ment of $200, pro -rated based upon the length of employment from January 31, 1982 - December 1, 1982. Permanent part- time employees shall receive a, pro -rated share based u on the number of hours worked. Interest will be paid on the 200 between February 1, 1982, and December 1, 1982, (pro -rated based upon the length of employment during the above time period,) at the average rate of return on City investments, less a 1% administrative fee. SECTION 7: The modifications contained in this resolution incor- porate the changes agreed to in the Memorandum of Understanding, Exhibit "B ", attached hereto and in- corporated herein by reference, entered into by the Management Negotiating, Committee and representatives of the City of Saratoga Employee's Association and subsequently ratified by a majority vote of the members of said Association. Unless otherwise indi- cated on the resolution, all changes shall be effective as of the first day of January, 1982. r-r ?ir: - 3- rI w � k•a <,r�w ''`'.�;;y- zcr, � .:�o rte, �2�YL'1` t"fij -L �✓ . � },r - ZF SECTION 8: AoDlicabilit This resolution amends Resolution 85 -9, as amended, and 85 -9.50, 85 -9.49 and 85 -9.36 of the City of Saratoga. This resolution is an expression of exisitng 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 the resolution is in full force and effect. That is to say, that any employee of the City of Saratoga during the effective period of the resolution shall have such employment rights and duties as are setforth 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 the City of Saratoga held on the day of , 1982, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: j ABSENT: ATTEST CITY CLERK -4- MAYOR SlALUULE ur SHLAKY UL "iLiL5 Effective January 1, 1982 ..Po ..A.. ..B.. ..C.. ..D.. ..E.. ..P.. ..A.. ..B.. ..C.. ..D.. ..E.. RANG STEP STEP STEP STEP STEP STEP RANGE STEP STEP STEP STEP STEP STEP 1 666 701 734 772 811 852 76 1406 1475 1548 1627 1709 1794 2 673 709 744 780 819 861 * 77 1418 1490 1565 1642 1723 1812 3 681 714 750 787 826 868 x 78 1433 1503 1579 1658 1740 1827 4 686 721 757 795 835 876 * 79 1448 1521 1598 1678 1762 1850 5 693 728 764 802 843 884 * 80 1464 1537 1613 1693 1778 1866 6 701 734 772 811 852 894 * 81 1477 1550 1629 1712 1796 1887 " 7 709 744 780 819 861 904 * 82 1493 1567 1644 1728 1815 1904 8 714 750 787 826 868 912 83 1506 1581 1662 1744 1830 1922 9 721 757 795 835 876 920 * 84 1523 1599 1680 1764 1851 1945 10 728 764 802 843 884 929 * 85 1537 1613 1693 1778 1866 1958 11 733 771 810 850 893 938 * * 86 1550 1629 1712 1796 1887 1980 12 742 778 817 858 902 947 87 1567 1644 1728 1815 1904 1999 v:..__. 13 749 786 825 866 911 955 * 88 1584 1664 1747 1834 1926 2022 14 757 795 835 876 920 967 * 89 1600 1682 1765 1853 1946 2043 15 764 802 843 884 929 976 * 90 1615 1695 1781 1871 1966 2062 16 773 812 853 897 940 986 * 91 1632 1714 1798 1889 1984 2054 17 782 820 862 905 949 999 * * 92 1650 1732 1819 1909 2005 2104 18 789 828 871 914 960 1007 93 1665 1748 1835 1927 2023 2126 19 797 837 878 922 969 1018 * 94 1682 1765 1853 1946 2043 2145 20 807 847 887 933 979 1028 * * 95 1697 1783 1872 1967 2063 2166 21 814 854 897 941 989 1037 96 1717 1800 1891 1986 2084 2189 22 820 862 905 950 999 1048 * 97 1733 1821 1911 2007 2107 2213 23 828 871 914 960 1007 1070 98 1750 1838 1928 2027 2128 2234 24 837 878 922 969 1018 1070 * 99 1768 1855 1948 2046 2148 2256 25 847 887 933 979 1028 1079 * * 100 1786 1876 1970 2069 2164 2279 26 854 897 941 989 1037 1090 101 1802 1892 1987 2085 2191 2299 27 862 905 950 999 1048 1101 * 102 1821 1911 2007 2107 2213 2323 28 871 914 960 1007 1057 1110 * 103 1840 1931 2028 2129 2235 2348 29 877 921 968 1016 1068 1122 104 1859 1951 2050 2154 2261 2375 30 886 932 978 1027 1077 1132 * * 105 1877 1971 2071 2173 2283 2396 31 897 941 989 1037 1090 1142 * 106 1894 1990 2091 2194 2303 2419 - ._• -.• 32 905 950 999 1048 1101 1157 107 1914 2009 2110 2215 2327 2443 ` 33 916 963 1010 1062 1113 1169 * 108 1933 2031 2132 2237 2350 2468 -- - 34 924 971 1021 1072 1126 1182 * * 109 1951 2050 2154 2261 2375 2492 35 934 980 1029 1080 1134 1191 110 1977 2072 2176 2285 2398 2519 _ 36 944 991 1042 1094 1151 1207 * * 111 1994 2093 2197 2308 2423 2545 37 952 1001 1050 1104 1159 1217 112 2011 2111 2217 2328 2444 2566 ' 38 963 1010 1062 1113 1169 1227 * * 113 2032 2133 2240 2351 2469 2593 39 971 1021 1072 1126 1182 1242 * 114 2052 2156 2263 2377 2497 2619 40 981 1030 1082 1136 1192 1254 * 115 2073 2177 2287 2399 2520 2646 41 991 1042 1094 1151 1207 1267 * 116 2092 2196 2304 2420 2542 2668 42 1001 1050 1104 1159 1217 1277 * 117 2112 2219 2329 2445 2567 2696 43 1009 1061 1112 1168 1226 1288 118 2136 2242 2354 2471 2595 2724 44 1021 1072 1128 1182 1242 1304 * 119 2157 2264 2378 2498 2621 2753 45 1030 1082 1136 1192 1254 1315 120 2178 2288 2402 2521 2648 2780 46 1043 1095 1152 1209 1268 1332 121 2199 2310 2425 2547 2673 2807 47 1054 1106 1161 1219 1281 1344 * 122 2222 2331 2448 2571 2699 2834 48 1064 1116 1171 1229 1291 1356 * 123 2243 2355 2472 2597 2726 2863 49 1074 1129 1185 1244 1308 1372 124 2267 2380 2500 2625 2757 2895 50 1085 1138 1195 1256 1318 1385 * * 125 2290 2404 2525 2651 2784 2924 ` 51 1095 1152 1209 1268 1332 1399 126 2312 2427 2549 2678 2812 2953 52 1106 1161 1219 1281 1344 1413 127 2336 2453 2576 2705 2842 2984 53 1118 1173 1233 1293 1359 1427 * 128 2357 2476 2600 2730 2867 3011 54 1129 1185 1244 1308 1372 1441 * 129 2382 2501 2627 2758 2896 3041 55 1138 1195 1256 1319 1385 1454 130 2406 2528 2654 2787 2926 3072 56 1152 1209 1268 1332 1399 1471 * 131 2430 2551 2680 2814 2955 3104 57 1162 1220 1282 1346 1414 1483 * 132 2455 2578 2707 2844 2985 3134 58 1175 1234 1361 1361 1429 1500 * 133 2480 2604 2735 2870 3014 3165 ..a_..° = µ -;•. - 59 1187 1246 1310 1375 1443 1517 * 134 2503 2630 2760 2898 3043 3195 60 1200 1261 1323 1389 1458 1532 * 135 2530 2657 2789 2928 3076 3230 61 1213 1272 1336 1404 1473 1546 * 136 2554 2682 2817 2957 3106 3261 62 1223 1284 1348 1416 1485 1561 * 137 2579 2708 2845 2986 3135 3293 63 1235 1296 1362 1430 1501 1577 * 138 2606 2737 2873 3016 3167 3325 64 1247 1311 1376 1444 1518 1593 * 139 2632 2763 2900 3047 3199 3358 65 1261 1323 1389 1458 1532 1608 * 140 2659 2792 2930 3078 3232 3394 66 1272 1336 1404 1473 1546 1625 * 141 2686 2820 2959 3108 3263 3427 67 1284 1348 1416 1486 1561 1639 * 142 2711 2847 2989 3139 3296 3460 68 1296 1362 1430 1501 1577 1655 * 143 2739 2876 3020 3171 3328 3496 69 1312 1377 1446 1519 1596 1675 * 144 2765 2905 3049 3201 3362 3529 70 1324 1390 1461 1533 1609 1690 * 145 2793 2934 3080 3234 3397 3567 71 1339 1406 1475 1548 1627 1709 * 146 2822 2962 3110 3267 3429 3602 72 1350 1418 1490 1565 1642 1725 * 147 2850 2993 3143 3299 3463 3637 73 1365 1433 1503 1579 1658 1740 * 148 2878 3022 3173 3332 3498 3672 74 1378 1447 1520 1597 1676 1761 * 149 2907 3051 3205 3365 3534 3710 75 1391 1462 1534 1610 1691 1776 * 150 2937 3082 3237 3400 3570 3746 r ' MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON WAGES, EMPLOYEE BENEFITS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT 1. INTRODUCTION This Memorandum of Understanding is between the Management Negotiating Committee of the City of Saratoga, hereinafter referred to as "Management" and the authorized representatives of the City of Saratoga Employees' Association, hereinafter referred to as "Association." The Memorandum of Understanding complies with the provi- sions of the Meyers - Milias -Brown Act of California, as contained in Section 3500, et seq, of the Government Code of the State in that the employer- employee representatives noted herein did meet and confer in good faith and did reach agreement on those matters within the scope of representation. This Memorandum of Understanding also complies with Resolution No. 509 -2 relating to employer- employee relations, and Resolution No. 489 -2, establishing the procedure for meeting and conferring with recognized employee organizations. II. GENERAL CONDITIONS A. Personnel Rules and Reizulations This Memorandum of Understanding does not propose any modifi- cations or change in the provisions of Resolution No. 85 -9 of the City, as amended, unless a specific reference is made herein to a modification or addition to the conditions of these regulations. B. Terms of Understanding This Memorandum of Understanding covers those classifications herein..noted. This Memorandum of Understanding embodies all modifications to salaries, hours, employee benefits and other terms and condi- tions of employment for the period beginning January 1, 1982, and continuing through August 31, 1983, at which time the Memorandum of Understanding terminates. C. Existing Benefits Continued This Memorandum of Understanding does not propose any modi- fication to existing benefits contained in Resolution No. 85 -9, as amended, except as herein noted. D. City Council Approval City Council approval of the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding is incorporated in Resolution No. 85- which becomes effective on passage by the City Council. III. SALARIES Association and Management agree the following adjustments should be made in the salary compensation for employee classes covered by this Memorandum of Understanding: A. January 1, 1982, all classifications shall receive an across the board salary increase of 27.. B. Additional special �a.djustments effective January 1, 1982, shall be made for the following classifications in the percentages listed below. Maintenance 1% - Maintenance Man I, II Parks and Landscape Maintenance I, II Government Buildings Foreman Custodian Streets Supervisor Parks and Landscape Supervisor Japanese Garden Specialist Maintenance Clerk Professional 3% - Assistant Civil Engineer Civil Engineering Tech II HCD Coordinator -2- Clerical and Administrative 5% - Deputy City Clerk Administrative Secretary Secretary I, II Recreation Supervisor Clerk Typist I, II, III Account Clerk Switchboard Operator C. Effective September 1, 1982, all classifications shall receive a further salary adjustment equivalent to the mean salary increase for the period July 1, 1982 - June 30, 1983, granted by Campbell, Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale. Settlements for public safety shall be excluded from cal- culating the mean. IV. EMPLOYEE BENEFITS Association and Management should be made in the benefits management employee classes in A. Health Coverage agree the following adjustments the City provides the non - City service. Effective January 1, 1982, an increase in the City contri- bution for health insurance of $20 per month per employee for a maximum of $125 per month for health insurance coverage. City and Employees Association agree to examine alternative health plans to Blue Cross in order to maximize coverage and minimize costs. B. Dental Coverage Effective January 1, 1982, an increase in the City contribu- tion to the self- insured dental plan of $7.40 per month per employee for a maximum of $25.00 per month. The above change amends the Dental Reimbursement Plan to provide for a guarantee that each employee shall receive 100% coverage of the first $150 of dental bills submitted in each six month period. -3- C. Uniform Allowance City shall provide for maintenance employees uniforms, on a per year basis as follows: 1. 3 shirts per employee (at an approximate cost of $33 per employee per year) for Streets Supervisor, Maint� -. enance I, II, Parks and Landscape Supervisor, Japanese Garden Specialist, Parks and Landscape Maintenance I, II, Government Buildings Foreman, and Custodians. 2. Payment of $200 per fiscal year for purchase of safety boots and pants, and for employee uniform cleaning allowance. City shall pay employee, by check separate from payroll check, for boots, pants, and cleaning allowance. Payment shall be made during July of each fiscal year. Payment for shirts shall be made directly by City to company from which purchased. Remainder of uniform policy adopted in Resolution 85 -9.49 will remain in effect. V. OTHER A. Leave of Absence and Leave Without P As provided in Resolution No. 85 -9.36, all requests for leave of absence or leave without pay shall be submitted to the City Manager. In cases of sickness, hardship or other good and sufficient causes, the City Manager may grant leaves of absence from a period of one day to no more than 90 days. In cases of medical leave, an employee may request extension of City paid benefits during the leave period. Extension of benefits is sub- ject, to the discretion of the City Manager. B. Longevity Incentive Adjustment In addition to the foregoing adjustments in salaries and benefits and as a one -time consideration relating solely to the terms and conditions of this Memorandum of Understanding, the City shall provide permanent employees of record, as of January 31, 1982, a one -time longevity incentive adjustment of $300. Permanent part -time employees shall receive a pro -rated share based upon the S41 number of hours worked. The payment shall be paid separate from the normal payroll check and shall be subject to required withholdings. In addition, permanent employees of record as of December 1, 1982, shall receive a one -time longevity incentive adjustment of $200, pro -rated based upon the length of employment from January 31, 1982 - December 1, 1982. Permanent part -time employees shall receive a pro -rated share based upon the number of hours worked. Interest will be paid on the $200 between February 1, 1982, and December 1, 1982, (pro -rated based upon the length of employment during the above time period) at the average rate of return on City investments, less a 1% administra- tive fee. VI. CLASSIFICATION Positions covered by.this Memorandum of Understanding are as follows: Account Clerk, Administrative Secretary, Assistant Civil Engineer, Building Inspector I, II, Civil Engineer, Civil Engineering Tech II, Clerk Typist I, II, III, Code Technician, Custodian, Deputy City"Clerk, Government Buildings Foreman, Housing and Community Development Coordinator, Japanese Garden Specialist, Junior Civil Engineer, Maintenance Clerk, Maintenance Man I, II, Parks and Landscape Maintenance I, II, Parks and Landscape Supervisor, Planner I, Planning Aide, Planning Assis- tant, Recreation Supervisor, Secretary I, II, Streets Supervisor, Switchboard Operator. VII. RATIFICATION This Memorandum of Understanding is subject to ratification by a majority vote of the members of the Association. City Council adoption of Resolution No. 85- and ratification by Association will put the terms of the Memorandum into effect. City of Saratoga Management Negoti io Tea "Patricia M. Mu ens nie .rin a Saratoga Employees Association NegotKC� ng Te rz- MichaelF ore t54" n rnekie -5- e CITY OF SARATOGA ACE DA BILL NO. a,0 Of DATE: 1/18/82 DEPARTMENT: Planning & Policy Analysis SUBJECT: Saratoga Union School District GPA 82 -1 -A and C -198 Initial: Dept. Hd . C. Atty C. Mgr. Issue Summary During a joint meeting in September between the City Council and the Saratoga Union School Board, the City Council stated that if the School District within the City wish to proceed with the General Plan changes for their school sites that are closing, that they would pay the appropriate fees and go through the processes of a normal applicant. The Planning Commission at their January 13th meeting approved resolution reconraending approval of the General Plan Amendment and rezoning. The City Council has indicated that they want to separate the school General Plan changes from the major 1982 General Plan changes in order to get maximum citizen input. Zhey did indicate however, that in order to minimize the number of General Plan changes which is controlled by the State, that they would pass the final resolution for the General Plan changes in concert with the overall General Plan change. Recommendation 1. Direct staff to set the General Plan FziZendment and the Resolution for public hearing. . 2. Conduct the necessary public hearings for both the General Plan change and the rezoning C -198 application but defer any decision on both items until such time as the City Council is prepared to approve the overall General Plan changes for 1982. By doing this, the City Council will not utilize one of the amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element. 3. After conducting the appropriate public hearings, continue the matter to a specific date. Fiscal Impacts Exhibits /Attachments Council Action Staff Report - Exhibit A Minutes - Exhibit B Negative Declaration - Exhibit C Resolution - Exhibit D Correspondence received on project 2/3: Watson/Mallory moved to accept retort and set public hearing 3/3. Passed 4 -1 (Jensen opposed). 3/3: Watson /Clevenger moved to express intention to grant GEneral Plan Amendment and rezoning to R -1- 12,500, and to direct Manager to prepare necessary documents. Passed 5 -0. f, �k t�� , • REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 1/ 7/82 Commission Meeting: 1/13/82 SUBJECT GPA 82 -1 -A, Saratoga Union School District, Northwest Corner of Via Escuela and Glen Brae Drive (Congress Springs ------ - - - - -S ch-aal�-------------- - - - - -- -------------------- - - - - -- Request: Amend the subject property's General Plan Designation changing it from Community Facility- School Site to Medium Density Residential. Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. Public Noticing: This project has been noticed by advertising in the newspaper and by mailing notices to 135 property owners in the vicinity. Zoning: A- Agricultural Surrounding Land Uses: Single Family Residential to east, south, and west; P.G. &E. and S.P.R.R. right -of -way, P.G. &E. substation, and park to the north. Site Size: 10.588 acres (gross) Site Slope: Gentle (less than 5 %) Staff Analysis: The Saratoga Union School District has indicated that the Congress Springs Elementary School will be closed in June of 1982 due to declining enrollment, and in an effort to reduce school costs. Once the school is closed it will become a surplus site which the district would probably sell to eliminate maintenance costs and create revenue for the District. Knowing there were surplus school sites, in October 1981 the Planning Director sent out a letter to the various school districts within the City to give them the opportunity of requesting General Plan Amendments during one of the three times the General Plan can be amended. The Saratoga Union School District and the GPA 82-1-A • January 7, 1982 Page 2 • Moreland School District both took that opportunity so that their hearings could be conducted at the same time as the revisions to the 1974 General Plan were heard. To allow single family residential development of the property, the school district must amend the General Plan Designation of the site and rezone it from A- Agricultural to R -1- 12,500 (see C -198 also on this agenda). It should be noted that the existing use of the site need not be abandoned if the proposed General Plan and Zoning Changes are allowed by the City Council since public schools are conditional uses in both A and R -1 Districts. If the site were not sold in the near future, the site could still be used for elementary school purposes or uses compatible with the existing buildings. Perhaps the most significant issue in changing the potential use of the site is the loss of open space and recreational opportunities associated with new development of the site. School sites are part of the City's open space inventory and provide needed recre- ation. This can be mitigated by requiring a portion of the site to be preserved in open space /recreation or by requiring increased fees to develop existing park sites. The remainder of this report will be devoted to the potential impacts of the applicant's request on adjacent properties and th-e potential impacts of alternative proposals. The comments and desires of the representatives of Planning Area E in which this site is located and citizen's comments from the General Plan Citizens Advisory Committee questionnaire are also incorporated in the following section. Options: 1. Applicant's Request. Medium Density Residential This proposed Designation is consistent with the General Plan Designations of .adjacent residential properties. The citizens responding to the General Plan questionnaire indicated they would support residential use of school sites if it were consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods and the school site could not remain in public ownership. Approximately 30 detached single family units could be built on the site. (after deducting 20% of site area for streets). This number of units would generate about the same or a little less traffic than the school generated at its peak. enrollment. No significant extension of urban services would be required since this would be an infill project. 2. No Change. Community Facility /Sch.00l Site It is possible that the school district could continue to own the property or that some other public agency might purchase the site. The existing buildings could then be leased to private GPA 82 -1 -A • January 7, 1982 Page 3 or public schools in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. However, the types of uses currently allowed and the potential for controversy among nearby residents reduces the viability of this option. This means the site could remain underutilized for an extended period of time. One advantage to this option is that open space and recreation space would be preserved. However, the school district probably would not be able to maintain the open space because of cost. The City would be the most likely agency to consider purchasing the site or a portion of it. But considering the City's budgetary and personnel constraints, the City is not likely to take on additional maintenance responsibilities. 3. Multi - Family Housing /P -D (Planned Development) Item number 3 of the proposed Action Plan for Planning Area E developed by the residents indicates that the Congress Springs site should be reviewed as a "possible site for first class multiple housing units ". A secondary option expressed as a minority view in Area E is that the existing school buildings could be converted to senior citizen rental housing. The first option could considerably increase the density of the property. A maximum of 114 -152 dwelling units could be constructed on the site depending on the Zoning Designation given the site (R -M -4,000 vs. R -M- 3,0.00). This would create roughly double the traffic impact of a single family subdivision on the same site. (Note: A single family detached dwelling generates about 12 trips /day. A multi - family unit generates 5.6 to 6.1 trips /day. Source: City of Saratoga, Division of Engineering Services and, Trip Generation, an Institute of Transportation Engineers Informational Report, 1976.) However, a maximum density of 1 unit /7,500 square feet would allow a multi - family development of about 60 units which would have the same traffic impact as a 30 lot subdivision. This option would allow the preservation of a significant amount of open space with clustered units and buffering from adjacent properties. A (P -D) Planned Development Designation with specific density limits incorporated in the General Plan would allow the City greater flexibility and control in developing the site through the use permit process. The second option of converting the existing school buildings to senior citizen rental housing would probably have less traffic impact than the option above but it could also be accommodated under a P -D Designation. It is not certain that any developer would consider such a project economically viable. Open space would also be preserved under this option. 4. Commercial /Industrial These options would create traffic, noise and other impacts that would not be compatible with adjacent R -1 uses, although more GPA 82 -1 -A • January 7, 1982 Page 4 sales tax revenues could be generated. Therefore, this option is not viable. However, certain specific professional - administrative uses that have low traffic impacts (engineers, lawyers, etc.) might be able to make use of the existing buildings with minimal impact on adjacent properties. These types of uses could also be allowed in an R -1 District if the list of conditional uses for school sites is amended by the City. Thus, a commercial designation would not be necessary. Conclusions: In terms of acceptability to the residents, the statements elicited through the General Plan questionnaire, and maintenance of open space, the most desirable option would be to keep the school site in public ownership and used for public purposes particularly open space and recreation use. Considering the financial state of both the school district and the City, this option is not viable. The next most acceptable option is the applicant's request which would allow residential development at densities equivalent to those of surrounding subdivisions. The open space reduction can be mitigated by park dedication fees or by requiring maintenance of open space on a portion of the site. However, serious consideration should be given to allowing multi - family housing (as indicated by the Action Program for Area E) but not at maximum densities which could create traffic impacts at levels incompatible with surrounding single family neighborhoods. However, a P -D Designation with specific density limits could be appropriate for the site. Recommended Action: .Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a resolution to the City Council recommending approval of the Medium Density Residential Designation change from Community Facility - School Site. However, serious consideration should be given to determine if multi - family housing under a P -D Designation would be appropriate for the site particularly since the representative from Area E asked for that consideration in the Action Program. Mike Flores, Assistant Planner MF /mgr • Findings: EXHIBIT "A" • GPA 82 -1 -A 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment will maintain the residen- tial character of the neighborhood and will have no adverse impact on the surrounding area. 2. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the policies recommended by the GPCAC to place a residential designation, consistent with the.surrounding neighborhood, on vacant school property. 3. The proposed G.P. Amendment will not adversely affect the public safety, health and welfare or be materially injurious to adjacent properties or improvements. 0 0 o SA,I��9 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 1/6/82 Commission Meeting: 1/13/82 -SUBJECT: C -198, Saratoga Union School District, Northwest Corner of Via Escuela and Glen Brae Drive (Congress Springs School) Request: Rezone the subject property from A- Agricultural to R -1- 12,500 Environmental Assessment: The Negative Declaration prepared for GPA 82 -1 -A (also on this agenda) covers the environmental impacts associated with this project. Public Noticing: This project has been noticed by advertising in the newspaper and by mailing notices to 135 property owners in the vicinity. Current Zoning: A- Agricultural General Plan Designation: See GPA 82 -1 -A Surrounding Land Uses: See GPA 82 -1 -A Site Size: 10.588 acres (gross) Site Slope Gentle (less than 50) Staff Analysis: The purpose of this application is to bring the zoning of the site into conformance with the proposed General Plan Amendment of the site from Community Facility - School Site to Medium Density Residential. The R -1- 12,000 zoning would also be compatible with a P -D (Planned Development) designation if the Commission and Council felt that'they were the most appro- priate designation forthe site. If the Commission determines that neither one of the above men- tioned General Plan Designations is appropriate, then it should recommend to the Council that the zoning request be denied. If the General Plan is amended as requested, then Section 65860 of the Government Code requires that the zoning be brought into conformance with the General Plan. The issues of this rezoning are covered in the Staff Report for GPA 82 -1 -A to which the Commission should refer to for further information. .. , C-198 � • January 5, 1982 Page 2 Findings: If the Commission determines that this rezoning should be recommended for approval by the City Council, the following findings should be made: 1. The proposed rezoning will bring the zoning of the site into conformance with the Land Use Element of the General Plan of Saratoga. 2. The rezoning is required to achieve the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance as prescribed in Section 1.1 of said Ordinance. 3. The proposed rezoning will not have a significant impact on the environment.(Negative Declaration determined to be an appropriate document.,) Recommended Action: If the Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Council for a Medium Densitv Residential or P -D (Planned Development) General Plan Designation then it should also forward a resolution recommending approval of the requested R -1- 12,500 rezoning. Mike Flores Assistant Planner MF /mgr VVTJTnTT A Findings: If the Commission determines that this rezoning should be recommended for approval by the City Council, the following findings should be made: 1. The proposed rezoning will bring the zoning of the site into conformance with the Land Use Element of the General Plan of Saratoga. 2. The rezoning is required to achieve the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance as prescribed in Section 1.1 of said Ordinance. 3. The proposed rezoning will not have a significant impact on the environment.(Negative Declaration determined to be an appropriate document.) L5x Planning Commission Page 3 Meeting Minutes 1/13/82 GF -334 (cont.) area, and he feels this would be consistent by initially starting off and seeing what the impact might be. The vote was taken on the motion to approve GF -334, limiting it to R -1- 10,000 zoning districts. The motion failed, with Commissioners Zambetti, Schaefer, Laden and King dissenting. Commissioner Laden moved to recommend to the City Council that they adopt the ordinance w- - to allow manufactured homes in all residential districts within the City of Saratoga. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was cairie th Commissioners Bolger, Crowther and Monia dissenting. 9. GPA 82 -1 -A - Saratoga Union School District, Consideration of Changing the General Plan Designation from Community Facilities - Elementary School to medium Density Residential on the 10.588 acres designated in the Santa Clara County Assessor's Book as APN 391- 04 -11, located at the northwestern corner of Via Escuela and Glen Brae Drive The Director of Community Planning and Policy Analysis described the proposed change. He indicated that the Staff Report mentions various options which can be considered and that Staff is recommending Medium Density, which is R -1- 12,500 zoning for the site. The public hearing was opened at 8:29 p.m. - -� Glenn McNicholas, Superintendent of the Saratoga Union School District, x. spoke on behalf of the district and stated that they support the Staff's ' recommendation. Paul Friedl, 13240 Via Blanc, indicated that he felt this site should be reserved for open space and recreation for the children of Saratoga. `-- = He suggested leasing the building to pay for the upkeep of this land. Dr. McNicholas discussed the issue of alternate financial considerations. He indicated that, without the sale of some of the district's property, it is very possible that in the near future the district will be com- pletely bankrupt. He commented that if they cannot get the site rezoned and they have to abandon it, they will have to board up the windows. Dr. McNicholas commented that they needed revenue from the site, and if they could lease it for approximately $500,000 to $600,000 a year, they would never sell it; however, that has not been feasible. He discussed the declining enrollment and indicated that probably within eight years there will only be one school in this district. He added that young people are not moving into Saratoga because of the cost. P +t.`y�,iyi�'k•.a�;r��,rvnr� .. airy S_n1'td ?�• �'. >:^f Commissioner Crowther suggested that possibly the financial pro- blems of the district could be solved by the citizens, since Saratoga presently has the lowest open space of any city in the County. He added that the general consensus at the General Plan review meetings was that the citizens wanted these sites kept in their present status with use of the buildings permitted for various uses to gain some financial income. Dr. McNicholas commented that that was not being realistic; very little income would be made by doing that. He noted that, under the new laws and regulations, the City could buy the site for 25� on the dollar at todays' market value, if they wished. William Wolf, Via Escuela asked for clarification on the zoning proposed. Staff clarified that they were recommending R -1- 12,500, which is the present zoning of the area. They added that multiple housing is not being recommended; there will not be a condominium type project. Mr. Wolf stated that he was concerned about the statement regarding the PD designation in the Staff Report. Bert Toevs, of the General Plan Advisory Committee, stated that their area had come up with a minority recommendation that at least a por- tion of the Congress Springs School site be considered for multiple development because of its location. Marlene Duffin, 21241 Canyon View, stated that she had the feeling that possibly the Commission felt that the trustees of the Elementary - 3 - k-, n Page 4 - Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - 1/13/82 G(cont.) are not really seriously concerned about long tern planning of school facilities. She commented that over the years they certainly have studied this subject and they support Staff's recommendation. Carl Sullinger, 19721 Via Escuela, stated that he had no objection to the zoning Proposed by Staff. George Rishell, 13010 Glen Brae Drive, expressed his opposition to multiple family housing and stated that he felt R- 1- 12,500 zoning would be consistent with the current zoning. Doug Crice, 19623 Via Escuela, stated that he supports a park on that site. He indicated that he also would support R -1- 12,500 zoning, but would be opposed to leasing the building since it would change the character of the neighborhood. .Leo Hasbrook, 13076 Glen Brae, discussed the dust storms and fire bombing they get in his area from the fact that the school is there. He also stated that the Park on the street is a problem; the traffic is heavy, and another park would make the traffic situation intolera- ble. He added that he would recommend single family homes consistent with the neighborhood. A '4: •,,..yt -ti.. •_. y„ = tire. >�'.s:r r:..•�td.r. �•,±;ae: Commissioner Monia stated he seconded the motion because he feels this is probably the best utilization of the site. However, he does have a problem with the fact that the school district hasn't tried to offer something to the City for all of the years of service that the City has given it. He indicated that he had hoped to see the school dis- tricts at least offer some reasonable amount of property for open space as a contingency to get the rezoning, and he feels that the City is losing some cultural benefit by giving up all of that open space. Discussion followed on the possibility of having any of the laid considered for open space. The Deputy City Attorney stated that the Commission could,at a later date, as Dart of a development proposal, recommend a policy statement, that during the course of development of this property, portions should be allocated for open space; that is Commissioner Laden commented that shehad sat on a committee that had _ J' been formed by the Board of Trustees of the School District to discuss the use of school sites in the City. She indicated that their recommen- dation at that time had been to have the school maintain all of the sites and that they not sell any of them. However, the realism of today's financial world has changed that, and she feels the school '....:.' district has a financial obligation to its children. She added that hopefully, if there is a surge of public interest and the citizens want to get a tax or bond issue to buy that property, that will be done; however, she feels the Commission must deal with the problem at this time. Commissioner Crowther expressed his concern that R -1- 12,500 zoning may be too dense; perhaps R -1- 20,000 zoning would alleviate some of the problems that will result because of residential development. He commented that he feels the Commission does not have enough information to evaluate the proposal; there is no Environmental Impact Report and the traffic impacts have not been evaluated. Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Laden moved to adopt the Staff Report and Resolution GPA 82 -1 -A, recommending to the Council Council the proposed change in the General Plan designation. Commissioner Monia seconded the �,.,,;_• 6,,,;.{: motion. Commissioner Crowther indicated a problem with the sentence in the Staff Report that states that Staff would recommend to the City Council that serious consideration be given to determine if multiple housing under a PD designation would be appropriate for the site. There was a consensus to strike that sentence from the Staff Report. A '4: •,,..yt -ti.. •_. y„ = tire. >�'.s:r r:..•�td.r. �•,±;ae: Commissioner Monia stated he seconded the motion because he feels this is probably the best utilization of the site. However, he does have a problem with the fact that the school district hasn't tried to offer something to the City for all of the years of service that the City has given it. He indicated that he had hoped to see the school dis- tricts at least offer some reasonable amount of property for open space as a contingency to get the rezoning, and he feels that the City is losing some cultural benefit by giving up all of that open space. Discussion followed on the possibility of having any of the laid considered for open space. The Deputy City Attorney stated that the Commission could,at a later date, as Dart of a development proposal, recommend a policy statement, that during the course of development of this property, portions should be allocated for open space; that is Planning_ Commissioi` Page 5 Meeting Minutes - 1/13/8.2 GPA 82 -1 -A (cont.) contained in fact in the Staff Report. The vote was taken on the motion to adopt the Staff Report, amended to delete the sentence referring to the PD designation, and Resolution GPA 82 -1 -A, recommending approval to the Council of the proposed change. The motion was carried, with Commissioner Crowther dissenting. 10. C -198 - Saratoga Union School District, Consideration of Rezoning from A- Agriculture to R -1- 12,500 on the 10.588 acre parcel designa- tion in the Santa Clara County Assessor's Book ook as APN 391- 04 -11, located at the 'northwe'ster'n corner of Via Escuel and Glen Brae The public hearing was opened at 9:25 p.m. William Wolf, Via Escuela, again asked about the planned development designation, and it was clarified by Staff that it will not be a planned development. Commissioner Laden moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Zambetti moved to adopt Resolution C -198, recommending to the City Council that the property be rezoned from Agriculture to R- 1- 12,500; making the findings in the Staff Report and deleting any reference to Planned Development. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion. Commissioner Laden suggested that it might be appropriate to forward, along with the resolution to the City Council, a letter requesting that open space land be dedicated, if appropriate. Staff suggested that a better solution would be to wait until an application comes in on the property. Commissioner Crowther stated that he would vote against the motion for two reasons: (1) he believes that R- 1- 12,500 is too dense; he thinks it should be R- 1- 20,000, and (2) he could not agree with the Negative Declaration. He added that in this case he feels it is inappropriate because of the public concerns that have been expressed. The vote was taken on the motion. It was carried, with Commissioner Crowther dissenting. Discussion followed on the letter to be sent to the City Council regard- ing open sp ace. It was determined that more guidance should be given to the Council as to the amount of open space the Commission is con- sidering. It was determined that, as part of the discussion on the General Plan and the various action programs that will be held by the Commission within the next six weeks, the Commission could clearly state at that time that some open space be included in this project at the time of development. It was determined that the Commission will then have time to study this subject further and make a recommendation to the City Council. Break - 9:35 p.m. - 9:50 p.m. 11. GPA 82 -1 -B Moreland School District, Consideration of Changing the General Plan Designation from Community Facilities-El.e- mentary School to Medium Density Residential on the 11.57 acre parcel designated in the Santa Clara County Assessor's Book as APN 386- 10 -60, and known as Brookview School at 12301 Radoyka Drive The Director of Community Planning and Policy Analysis described the proposed change. He indicated that there is no necessity to rezone the property since it is already zoned R -1- 1.0,000. He added that Staff is recommending Medium Density, R-1-10,000, for this change. A letter in opposition to the change, from the Saratoga Park ;Moods Home- owners Association, was noted. Commissioner Crowther stated that the General Plan now shows this as an open space site and inventories it as open space; according to State 5 E.T.A- 4 (C /.� I'i le 1Jo : GPA 82 -1 -A + Sr�ratoya l C -19 8 DECLARATIOII T11AT ENV7R0 ?11;ENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED � (Negative • Declaration) 1 � r l I ( T Environincntal Quality Act of 1970. Tlia undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOSA, a Municipal Corporation', after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby dcterminc,,pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmcntal. Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15030 through 15083 of the California'Administrative Code, and Resolution 653 - of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terns and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION General Plan Amendment to change the.designation of an existing elementary school to be closed-from Community Facility - School Site' to Medium Density Residential. Rezoning of this same site from A- Agriculture• to R -1- 12,500 (Single Family Residential). The site is 10.588 acres in size and is located at the northwest corner of Via Escuela Drive and Glen Brae Drive. A maximum of about 30 dwelling units could be constructed on.;;the site which would eliminate the open space and recreation provided by the site.. NAME A ?STD ADDRESS OF A ?PLICANT Saratoga Union School 14675 Aloha Avenue Saratoga, California District 95070 Rr-]�SON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Although the .proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment it will not because of the mitigation measures that will be applied to the project during tentative subdivision approval and by enforcement of existing City codes-and ordinances. The project is..an infill project which would not require any significant extension of urban services. The open space /recreation value provided by the site can be maintained by preserving a portion of it in open space or by requiring an in lieu fee to improve other existing open space resources. Executed at Saratoga, California this 4th day of ' January 1982 R. S.. Robinson,-Jr. - Director of Planning and Policv Analysis DIRECTOIV S AUT:IO;;IZLD sm= J•5 omi=. i • 1 - .� ��;J „� 3i! vr� � { `NC �5;i C •s`_. �. r ,r;: "��.Ynv H .'S <(- ATp!���•c �?�, t,��i+?.� ;, 143:yt � �..': m.. .L�, /1 K' S � i iw r� h .^`�.'`}sy,.. \�' .', ! L:. � RESOLUTION NO. C -198 YS ti A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE PROPOSED A14ENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA WHEREAS, the Commission held a public hearing on said proposed amendment, which public hearing was held at the following a... time and lace towit; at the hour of 7:30 m on :the 13th da P p... y of January, 1982 at the City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California; and thereafter said hearing was closed, and • WHEREAS, after consideration of the proposed amendment as it would affect the zoning regulation plan of the City of Saratoga, - and after consideration of a Negative Declaration prepared for the project and brought before the Commission, this Commission has • made certain findings and is of the opinion that the proposed amendment attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A "should be affirmatively recommended to the City Council. sNa rr,r er,u�? Sva -krrr NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga: That the proposed amendment attached hereto be and the same is hereby affirmatively recommended to the City Council of the City of Saratoga for adoption as part of the Zoning Ordinance of said City, and that the Report of Findings of this Commission, a copy of which report is attached hereto and marked Exhibit be and the same is hereby approved, and Be it further resolved that the Secretary is directed to send a copy of this Resolution of Recommendation with attached proposed amendment and Report of Findings and a summary of hearings held by this Commission to the City Council for further action in accordance with State law. The above and foregoing Resolution.was passed and adopted . by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California this 13th day of January, 1982 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Bolger, King, Laden, Monia, Schaefer and :.?i rrassa:�us ¢c:;ar r l d „•r ws: Z amb e t t i NOES: Commissioner Crowther ABSENT: None ABSTAINED• None hai man, Planning Commi ion • ATTEST: rel (C� S -e t. J � �i">'�i�fSPrSZr�cY•'i'��s yi'��"�'�ie �.rr •, '� i;t *;!. ? „i�,” -nvL v,.".�•'y .1 -ice. ;A RESOLUTION NO. G.P.A. 82 -1 -A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING THE 1974 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT FOR A 10.58 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE CONGRESS SPRINGS SCHOOL SITE (APN 391- 4 -11). WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga received an application from the Saratoga Union School District to amend the 1974 General Plan Land Use Element Designation of this parcel from "Community Facilities School Site" to "Medium Density Residential" and WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission at a regular meeting in accord with Government Code Section 65351, held a public hearing on January 13, 1982 and reviewed the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element; and, WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission reviewed the Draft Negative Declaration and the Findings; attached as Exhibit "At..; jp NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga: That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council amend the 1974 Land Use Element from Community Facilities - School Site to Medium Density Residential for a 10.58 acre parcel, commonly known as Congress Spring School and as shown on Exhibit "B "; based on the ability to make the findings as stated in Exhibit "A ". The above and foregoing resolution was regularly introduced and thereafter passed and adopted by the Saratoga Planning Commission on the 13th day of January, 1982 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Bolger, King, Laden, Monia, Schaefer and Zambetti NOES: Commissioner Crowther ABSENT:None ABSTAINED: None ATTEST: S eta - airman, F1anning mmis n February 25, 1982 Saratoga City Council Y dv OWE FEB 2 4 1982 Lo v,i RE: Rezoning of Congress Springs School to v&d±= density residential Dear Council Members: Although we are in favor of the rezoning of the Congress Springs School to residential, we do however, have reason for a great deal of concern regarding the grading of the subject property when developement does occur. Vie border the North - Northwest corner of the subject property and one of the most important features of our homes is the open view of the Saratoga Foothills. This view is so important that we have planned and developed our entire landscapes to emphasize the view of the foothills. In various appraisals of our property, realtors have stated that the view represents real value to our homes. We would suffer devaluation if that view was impaired. Currently, the level of the school property is three to four feet higher than the Loomis property, and four to six feet higher than the Wood property. If houses are built on that existing level, the foothill view would be completely eliminated. We request that the Saratoga City Council place a condition of sale on subject property. That condition should provide that the grading of the property be sloped away from our property lines and the developer build houses an ample distance away from the fence so as not to impair our foothill view and subsequent property values. Your consideration in this matter is deeply appreciated and we thank you in advance for your understanding and hoped -for action. Sincerely, Ralph H." Wood (H�D. ),,�,,/ Francis Wood 19661 Junipero Way Saratoga, California David J. Loomis Nancy Loom's 19681 Junipero Way Saratoga, California STiD NOTICE OF HEARING Before City Council NOTICE IS IEREBY GIVEN that the Deputy City Clerk of the Saratoga City Council, State of California, has set the hour of 8:00 p.m., on Wednesday the 3rd day of March , 19821 in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, as the time and place for public hearing on: U30 ;U kS Application ­­of_ Blackwell Homes requesting the City Council to approve the reversion to acreage of 7 approved lots (Tract 6526, Lot 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12 8.13) into 3 parcels, corner of.Prospect Road, Parker Ranch, and Burnett Drive. X09 s,ra Z � SITE - a QQON. SIT £ t q D N Consideration of change in General Plan Designation from Community Facilities - Elementary School to Medium Density Residential and rezoning from A- Agriculture .to R -1- 12,500 on a 10.588 acre parcel (APN 391- 04 -11) located at the northwestern corner of Via Escuela and Glen Brae, public hearings having been held by the Planning Commission. (Site indicated below.) pp Uv- vc� A copy of which documents is on file at the office of the Saratoga City Council at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California. All interested persons may appear and be heard at said time and place. Written ccnTnunications should be filed on or before February 25 CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL �w ed y Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk /v ^ -, iii �I''! i AGE'N'DA BILLT NO. DA'L'E: January 20,1982 CiTY Ot•' :itll��llX�[1 Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. DEP,tVM,1aM: Community Development C. Mgr. --------------------- ----- - - - - -- SUBJWr: Findl Map Approval, Tract 6996 Galeb's Property - -�- Ted Ave /Wilson Lane (9 Lots) Issue Sucmury The Tract 6996 is ready for final approval. 2. All Bonds, Fees and Agreements have been submitted to the city. 3. Requirements of City Departments and other agencies have been met. 4. Negative Declaration was approved with'-the project dated 8/15./80. Recomrendation Adopt resolution 1468 -2 attached, approving final map of tract 6996 and authorize execution of contract for improvement agreement. Fiscal Impacts NONE Exhibits /Attachments 1. Copy of tentative map 2. Resolution No 1468 -2 3. Report to Planning Commission 4. Location Map Council Action 1120: Clevenger /Mallory moved acceptance and approval on Consent Calendar. Passed 5 -0. . 1�• EXHIBIT "A" REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City Cf Eorc`onq *Amended 8/27/80 A"P::OVED iv: J/ C�J DATE: 8/21/80 Commission Meeting: 8/27/80 INITIALS: SUBJECT: SD.. -1468 Slobodan Galeb, Southern end of Ted Avenue, Tentative Subdivision Approval - 9 Lots PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting tentative subdivision approval for 9 lots on a 3.7 acre site at the southern terminus of Ted Avenue in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district. The site has an average slope of about 2% and is covered with weeds and grasses. Two mature walnut trees and one mature oak also occupy the site. Both walnut trees could be removed during construction. North and east of the site are areas in the R -1- 10,000 district. The site to the northwest of the project is zoned "C -N" (Neighborhood Commercial). To the southwest is the Southern Pacific Railroad line and a P. G. & E. utility easement. A chainlink fence already separates the site from the railroad right -of -way. The pads of the future dwellings that will occupy the subdivision will be within one foot of the height of the pads of adjacent residences. The Committee -of- the -Whole reviewed the project on August 5, 1980. The applicant has modified the plan by placing a cul -de -sac at the end of De Sanka Avenue and will record a non - access provision with the map to prevent Lot 2 from taking assess on be Sanka and becoming a double front- age lot. A landscape maintenance agreement shall be required for the landscaped strip between the Ted Avenue extension and the railroad right - of -way. Lot 2 will not be able to be further subdivided, even though it is 21,200 sq. ft. in size, since the minimum width requirements of the ordinance could not be complied with. PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974 General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga.. A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the County of Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this project, if approved under this application. Said determination date: August 12, 1980. Report to Planning AMIsison g 8/21/80 SD -1468 Page 2 The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1468 (Exhibit "B -1" filed August 13, 1980) subject to the following conditions: I. GENERAL CONDITIONS: Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60, including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or Parcel Map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the time of final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department regulations and appli- ..cable Flood Control. regulations and requirements of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60. II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT A. Standard Engineering Conditions, dated April 11, 1977. B.' Street improvements on 50 foot right -of -way to be 33 feet. .C. Construct storm line as per'Master Drainage Plan and as directed by the Director of Public Works. D. Improvement to be shifted within right -of -way to allow for landscaping along rail road right -of -way. * E. The applicant shall dedicate and improve a cul -de -sac at the end of De Sanka Avenue which will comply with City Standards. III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTION SERVICES A. All existing above ground and underground structures to be removed, except as approved by City. B. Provide storm drainage as necessary to adjacent properties. C. Finished floor elevations and finished pad elevations subject to City Approval. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CUPERTINO SANITATION DISTRICT A. Sanitary sewer service can be provided to this - project upon com- pliance with the standard requirements of the Cupertino Sanitary District. V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT A. Developer to install 1 hydrant that meets Central Fire Protection District's specifications. Hydrant to be installed and accepted Prior to issuance of building permits. Submit two (2) sets of plans for hydrant location. Coordinate hydrant location with San Jose Water Works. The developer is responsible for all hydrant and main installation costs. c Report to Planning COC'ission �=' 8/21/80 SD - 1468 Page 3 VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and connected by the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers of the Cupertino Sanitary District. Prior to final approval, an adequate bond shall be posted with said district to assure completion of sewers as planned. B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS — SANTA OT.ARA VAT,T.FY WATER TITSTRTC'T A. No foundations or footings shall be placed within 15' of the centerline of the 72" Rodeo Creek pipe. B. Improvement plans shall be submitted to Santa Clara Valley Water District for review and issuance of a permit. C. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the Santa Clara Valley Water District for review and certification. VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PLANNING DEPARTMENT A. Building and grading plans to be approved by Planning Department prior to issuance of permits. Individual house designs to be evaluated on the basis of compatibility with the physical environ- ment. Complete plans for all on -site grading to be included in evaluation. House foundations to be stepped or otherwise designed to minimize external grading. All grading to be contoured so as to form smooth transitions between natural and man -made slopes. (NOTE: 1. Project determinations are appealable through the Design Review Process. 2. Building pads shall be within l' of the elevation of the pads of adjacent dwellings.) B. A 6' high masonry soundwall shall be installed along the south- western property line of the site adjacent to the Southern Pacific Rail Road right -of -way. Design and materials of this wall shall be approved by the Planning Department. The wall shall be installed prior to issuance of any building permits for the individual lots. C. The applicant shall landscape all portions of the Ted Avenue right - of -way that are to remain unimproved. Landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. Landscaping and irrigation improvements shall be installed and established within 90 days of completion of the improvements of Ted Avenue. D. The applicant shall enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with the City for those landscaped areas within the Ted Avenue right -of -way. Applicant shall maintain these landscaped areas Report to Planning Con7ssion 8/21/80 SD -1468 Page 4 for a minimum of one year after which the homeowners association shall be responsible for the landscaped.areas. E. All individual lot owners shall be required to become members of a homeowners association for the express purpose of maintaining all landscaped areas within the public right -of -way of the subdivision. The CC &R's of the homeowners association shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department, prior to Final Map Approval. * F. Prior to issuance of building permits, individual structures shall be reviewed by the Planning Department to evaluate the potential for solar accessibility. The developer shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or - natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision. IX. COMMENTS A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances. Approved: Michael Flores, Planner I MF /clh P. C. Agenda: 8/27/80 * As amended by the'Planning Commission at their meeting of 8/27/80. SD April 11, 1977 CITY OF SARATOGA STANDARD ENGINEERING CONDITIONS FOR SUBDIVISIONS 1. Complete improvement plans and specifications prepared by a profes- sional engineer to be submitted and approved by the City Engineer before recording of the final map. The street improvements shall consist of concrete vertical curbs, gutters, 'driveway approaches, 2k inches minimum of plant mix on local streets, 4 inches minimum on major collectors and a minimum of 6 inches of base material. Additional section required as determined from soil tests; or as specified by the City Engineer. •2. Design of the geometric sections and other construction of all proposed and existing streets shall conform to the prevailing standards of the Department of Public Works for street construction, driveway design, lot grading, etc. 3. Submit lot grading plan for approval by the City Engineer, Planning; Director, and Chief Building Official. This plan must be approved prior to approval of the final map. Not cuts or fill permitted on lots along boundaries adjacent to existing developments unless specifically approved on the grading plan to provide for adequate storm drainage. 4. Submit evidence that all lots can be positively drained. S. Provide two foot for title reservations, PUEs and relocate exist- ing public and private utilities,-as required by the City Engineer. 6. Public Utility and /or Public Service easements to be included at the rear of the lots on the final.map.or as required by the City Engineer. 7. Abandon all existing easements and rights -of -way as required by the City Engineer. 8. Provide positive storm water disposal including rights -of -way, sewers, channels and appurtenances as required by the City Engineer, 9. Watercourses shall be dedicated and improved as required by the Flood Control District. The design of such improvements and all structure ,,; affecting the watercourse or Flood Control rights -of -way must be approved by the District. Deeds to the Flood Control District must be prepared on District forms and submitted and accepted by the District Board prior to recording the final map. 10. Pay Storm Drainage Fee as required by Ordinance in effect at time of recording of final map. 11. Provide fire hydrants as required by the Fire District. 12. Final map not to be recorded until a) adequate sanitary sewer bond . is posted b) plans and specifications for sanitary sewers are approved by appropriate District, or another means of sewage disposal has been approved. 13. Existing wells to be sealed to the satisfaction of the Health Depart- ment prior to recording of final map. 0 STANDARD ENGINEERING CONDITIONS FOR SUBDIVISIONS - Continued 14. No occupancy of otherwise completed houses permitted until a) usable sanitary sewage disposal system is available b) public water system approved by Health Department is available. 15. Existing dwellings to be connected to sanitary sewer or other approved means-of sewage. 16. Septic tank systems to be pumped and filled as required by the Health Department. 17. Comply with all other reasonable requirements of Health Department, and Flood Control District. 18. Comply with all applicable Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. 19. Street names to be chosen from recommended list of Street -Name Committee. 20. Variety, type, and number of trees planted on each lot or street right -of -way to be selected from recommended tree list established by resolution of the Planning Commission and in accord with Ordinance 60, Table III. 21. All utilities shall be underground. 22. File with City Clerk a certified copy of .proposed Deed Restrictions for this subdivision. 23. No grading permitted prior to issuance of Grading and Excavation Permit by City. 24. Submit preliminary Soil Report before final approval. 25. Pay Park and Recreation Fee or otherwise comply with alternatives .in accord with Ordinance 60, Section 13.8. 26. Provide pedestrian walkways as required by the Director of Public Works. 27. Comply with reasonable requirements of applicable Fire District. 28. Tree removal is prohibited unless in accord with ordinances. 29. Enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement and provide Performance Bond to insure continued maintenance of all public and private com- mon landscaped areas. LOCATION G�RAET� 7 II NQTOM R O MA P. OF v� NOA ♦.yyrtpv C T 6 __ 96 - - - -- -__ � y�o a 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 �s , .. (408) 887 -3438 �. January 26, 1982 Mr. Slobodan Galeb 12378 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Tract 6996, Ted Avenue, 9 Lots Dear Mr. Galeb: At its regular meeting of January 20, 1982, the Saratoga City Council approved the final map for Tract 6996, by passing Resolution No. 1468 -2. A certified copy of that resolution is enclosed. A -copy of the executed Contract for Improvement Agreement will be forthcoming for your file. If you have any further questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely you , obert ho k Director of Community Development RSS:cd Enclosure cc: (Louis Bini Associates, 2785 Park Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95050 cJ Deputy City Clerk CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA •BILL NO. 2J 00 Initial: Dept. Hd. DATE: January 20, 1982 C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr. SUBJECT: CONSTRUCTION ACCEPTANCE FOR SDR -1311, FOX, BOHLMAN ROAD Issue Summary The public improvements required for the subject Tract or Building Site have been satisfactorily completed. This "Construction Acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance period. Recommendation Grant "Construction Acceptance" to the subject Tract or Building Site. Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachments 1. Memo describing development and bond. Council Action 1/20: Clevenger /Mallory moved acceptance and approval on Consent Calendar. Passed 5 -0. ^{ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager . DATE: December 31, 1981 FROM: Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Final Acceptance for SDR -1311 Location: Bohlman Road The one (1) year maintenance period for SDR -1311 has expired and all deficiencies of the improvements have been corrected. Therefore, I recommend the streets and other public facilities be accepted into the City system. Since the developer has fulfilled his obligation described in the improve- ment contract, I also recommend the improvement securities listed below be released. The following information is included for your information and use: 1. Developer: Gregory T. Fox Address: 14340 Saratoga Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 2. Date of Construction Acceptance: September 17, 1980 3. Improvement Security: Type: Maintenance Bond Amount: $10,600.00 Issuing Co: Insurance Co. of North America Address: One Embarcadero Center. Suite 1100 San Francisco, CA 94120 Receipt, Bond or Certificate No.: KO 07 15 104 4. Miles of public Street: 0 5. Special Remarks: Robert S. Shook RSS /dsm �s Ei OTTE Qq 0&iRZUQ)(5& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 p (408) 887 -3438 January 26, 1982 Mr. Gregory Fox 14340 Saratoga Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Fox: We reported to the City Council at its regular meeting of January 20, 1982, that the improvements for SDR -1311 have been satisfactorily completed and the Council accepted the improvements for construction only. When all deficiencies have been corrected at the end of the one -year maintenance period, we will be in a position to recommend acceptance of the streets and release the bond. Very truly yours, obert 4S. hook Director of Community Development RSS /clh cc: Insurance Co. of North America Deputy City Clerk CITY OF SARATOGA +' Initial: 9,1NDA BILL NO. 1z 0/ Dept. Hd. (JyY DATE: January 20, 1982 C. Atty. DEPAR`ITf=: Community Development C. Mgr. ------------------------------------------------------------------------K---------- SUBJECT: CONSTRUCTION ACCEPTANCE AND APPROVAL OF INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT FOR SDR -1401, TATE, SOBEY ROAD ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- Issue Surnnary The public improvements required for the subject Building Site have been completed. This "Construction Acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance period. The construction of the driveway approach does not.. conform to City Standards and may allow water from the street to flow into the--driveway. The Indemnification Agreement would indemnify and hold the City harmless in the case of any such flow. Recommendation 1. Grant "Construction Acceptance" to the subject Building Site. 2. Approve Indemnification Agreement. Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachments 1. Memo describing development and bond. 2. Indemnification Agreement (Prepared by City Attorney) Council Action 1120: Clevenger /Mallory moved acceptance and approval on Consent Calendar. Passed 5 -0. Z1FM�ANDl111 uguw o2 O&ULEUOOZ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 TO: City Manager DATE: 1/7/82 FROM: Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Construction Acceptance for SDR -1401 Name & Location: Ronald Tate - Sobey Road Public Improvements required for SDR -1401 have been satisfactorily completed. I, therefore, recommend the City Council accept the improvements for construction only. This "construction acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance period. During that year, the improvement contract, insurance and improvement security will remain in full force. The following information is included for your use: 1. Developer: Ronald Tate a.2 Address: 15250 Sobey Road Saratoga, CA 95070 2. Improvement Security: Type: Assignment of Investment Certificate Amount: $14,000.00 Issuing Company: Security Pacific National Bank Address: 195 Almaden Avenue, San Jose, CA Receipt, Bond or Certificate No.: 445209 3. Special Remarks: Indemnification Agreement to be approved by City Council con- currently with this acceptance. RSS /dsm Ro rt S. Shook ► xt-ll INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT PUBLIC WORMS DEPT CITY OF SARATOGA THIS AGREEMENT by and between R014ALD TATE and LINDA TATE, hereinafter referred to as "TATES ", and the CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "SARATOGA ", is entered into with reference to the following facts: 1. TATES are the present owners in fee of that certain real property and residential structure located thereon, commonly known as 15250 Sobey Road, Saratoga, California. 2. TATES caused to be constructed certain road improve- ments and one driveway to said residence, and in connection with said construction, posted bond with SARATOGA guaranteeing the proper construction of said driveway and road in the amount of Fourteen Thousand Dollars ($14,000.00). 3. SARATOGA has certain driveway standards set by its ordinances which must be complied with prior to the approval of any road or driveway construction and prior to the release of bond covering said construction. 4. TATES' driveway does not comply with SARATOGA's construction standards, in that there is a lack of sufficient raised area or hump in the line where the driveway and road intersect, and SARATOGA is therefore unwilling to approve the construction of said driveway and release the bond unless and until TATES agree to execute this Indemnification Agreement. WHEREFORE, in consideration of the above, the parties hereto mutually agree as .follows: 1. TATES agree to indemnify and hold SARATOGA harmless -1- from any and all claims, damages, demands or causes of action from any and all person or persons which may result from or be due to the above - mentioned driveway failing to comply with the driveway standards as set .forth in the Code of the City of Saratoga, and specifically, TATES agree to indemnify and hold SARATOGA harmless from any and all claims, demand, damages or causes of action brought by any person or persons caused or alleged to be caused by flowing in a manner or direction other than the direction it would have flowed had construction of the driveway intersection with the street been in compliance with the SARATOGA driveway standards. 2. SARATOGA agrees to approve the driveway and road construction on the date of the last signature affixed hereto. Thereafter, construction of road improvements will be submitted to the City Council for acceptance. 3. This Indemnification Agreement is binding on the parties hereto, their heirs, assigns, beneficiaries, transferees, and successors in interest, and shall be a covenant running with the land. 4. The parties shall execute this Agreement in a form capable of recordation, and after execution, SARATOGA will cause the same to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Santa Clara County. Dated: / -A 0 -�'� CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation -2- Dated: Rt9� TATE j Dated: DA TATE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA On /_ A 0 -S,' . , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared � � known to me to be the of the CITY OF SARATOGA, the municipal corporation des ibed in and that executed the within Agreement, and also known to me to be the person who executed the written Agreement on behalf of said municipal corporation, and acknowledged to me that such P3�pa�aa,oex cuted the same. 0HICIAL SFIAL GRACE E. Coyly' 6 � NOTARY F Uun LIC - CAI_IF(XiNv, a SANTA CLARA COUNTY My Comm. Expires Oct. 11, 1985 NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA On August 27, 1981 , before me, a Notary Public for California, personally appeared RONALD TATE and LINDA TATE, known to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within Agreement and acknowledged to me that they executed the same. uca, c�vcuc�,cuwucucx�cuc�cucuGUC�c C __4� I,��Orma L. Alt OFFICIAL SEAL NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF CALIFORNIA NOR" L. ALT NOTARY PUBLIC -CALIFORNIA SANTA CLARA COUNTY My Commission' Expioes ;Apri1,;R7r X19$4 , -3- �f f P Q0 0&MZUQ)(rV& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 ' o .(408) 887 -3438 January 24, 1982 Mr. Ronald Tate 15250 Sobey Road Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Tate: We reported to the City Council at its regular meeting of January 20, 1982, that the improvements for SDR -1401 have been satisfactorily completed and the Council accepted the improvements for construction only. When all deficiencies have been corrected at the end of the one -year maintenance period, we will be in a position to recommend acceptance of the streets and release the bond. The Indemnification Agreement was also approved. A copy of the agreement will be forwarded to you after recordation. Ve y truly yours, Bert Ph ��o Director of Community Development RSS /clh CC: Security Pacific - National Bank Deputy City Clerk CITY OF SiUUMIOGA AGENDA BILL NO. _ 2j 021 DATE: January 20, 1982 DEPARTMENT: Community Development Initial: Dept. lid. C. Atty. C. Mgr. Smmcr: Ordinance Adding Article 11A to the City of Saratoga Zoning Ordi- ---------- nance,- Relating to Adult Entertainment Facilities --------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Issue Su mnary In December 19801 Supervisor Diridon transmitted a copy of a model ordi- nance adopted by the County on November 17, 1980, placing zoning restric- tions on adult entertainment facilities. At that time he requested the. City to consider adoption of a similar ordinance. The City Council received a report from the Planning Department at its February 18, 1981 Council meeting and referred the ordinance to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on December 9, 1981. Recommendation The .Planning Commission recommends that the City Council not adopt such an ordinance. If Council wishes to consider adopting such an ordinance, it must set it for -public hearing. Fiscal Imoacts None Exhibits /AttachTents 1. Memo from Director of Community Development dated 12 -16 -81 2. Ordinance 3. Report to City Council dated 2 -12 -81 4. Letter from Rod Diridon dated 2 -26 -81 S. Letter from Rod Diridon dated 12 -23 -80 6. Ordinance Adopted by Santa Clara County Council Action 1120: Watson/ moved to accept staff recommendation that ordinance should not be adopted. Passed 4 -1 (Mallory opposed). W N -wry 3 ��a �� ilJM�G sgd & F � , E rF� r n q sg i ?&\ z1. ➢i.i«$nF:?3�aiaE �BawEi: «,,,.:ae R E ,,.s, 3 ",y? u .r£➢ REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 12-16-81 COUNCIL MEETING: SUBJECT: GF -335 Consideration of an Ordinance Adding Article 11A to the City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance, Relating to Control of Adult Entertainment Facilities ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- At their meeting on December 9, 1981, the Planning Commission considered the above ordinance relative to Control of Adult Entertainment Facilities. The public hearing was opened and closed, with no one appearing to address this matter. The Commission moved unanimously to express their feeling to the Co.uncil that this ordinance is inappropriate and is not needed in the City of Saratoga, and to institute such an ordinance may be more detrimental than not having an ordinance. Therefore, the Commission recommends that the City Council not adopt such an ordinance. i Robert S o Director of Community Development RSS:cd .:mss:: ;•s�= =.., _ - O� ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ADDING ARTICLE 11A TO THE CITY OF SARATOGA ZONING ORDINANCE, RELATING TO ADULT ENTERTAINMENT FACILITIES The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1: Article 11A is hereby added to the Zoning Ordinance of the Saratoga City Code, to read as follows: Article 11A. Adult Entertainment Facility Sec. 11A. 1 Purposes The City,Council finds that "adult entertainment" facilities because of their very nature, are recognized as having objectionable operational characteristics, particularly when several of them are concentrated under certain circumstances, thereby having a deleterious effect upon the adjacent areas. Special regulation of these businesses is necessary to insure that these adverse effects will not contribute to the blighting or down- grading of the surrounding neighborhoods. The primary purpose of the regulation is to prevent the concentra- tion or clustering of these business in any one area. Sec. 11A. 2 Definitions 1. For purposes of this Article, "adult entertainment" facilities shall be defined as follows: (A) "Adult Bookstore" - A building or portion thereof used by an establishment having as a substantial or significant portion of its stock in trade books, magazines and other publications which are distin- guished or characterized by their emphasis on matter depicting, describing or relating to "specified sexual activities" or "specified ana- tomical areas ". (B) "Adult Motion Picture Theater " - A building or portion thereof, or an area, whether enclosed or open, used for presenting material distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on matter depicting, describing or relating to "specified sexual activi- ties" or "specified anatomical areas" for observation by patrons or customers. (C) "Adult Motion Picture Arcade " - Any place to which the public is permitted or invited wherein coin or slug - operated or electronically, electrically or mechanically controlled still or motion picture machines, projectors or other image- producing devices are maintained to show images to five or fewer per- sons per machine at any one tine, and where the images so displayed are distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on depicting or describing "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas ". -1- � l (D) "Adult Cabaret " - A building or portion thereof, or area, used for the presentation or exhibition of performances by topless and /or bottomless dancers, strippers, exotic dancers, or similar entertainers, where such performances are distinguishable or characterized by an emphasis on "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas." (E) Any other business or establishment which offers its patrons services or entertainment characterized by an emphasis on matter depicting, describing or relating to "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas." 2. For purposes of this Article, "specified sexual activities" shall be defined as follows: (A) Actual or simulated acts of sexual intercourse, oral copulation, sodomy, masturbation or bestiality, or erotic or sexually oriented torture, beating or infliction of pain; or (B) Human genitals in a state of sexual stimulation, arousal or tumescence; or (C) Fondling or touching of nude human genitals, public region, buttocks, or female breast, 3. For the purposes of this Article, "specified anatomical areas" shall be defined as follows: (A) Less than completely and opaquely covered human genitals, pubic region; buttock, or female breast below a point immediately above the top of the areola; and (B) Human male genitals in a discernibly turgid state, even if completely and opaquely covered. Sec. 11A. 3 Use Prohibited No "adult entertainment" facility shall be permitted in any A, R -1, HC -RD, Planned Residential Development, PC, R -M, P -A, P or M zoning district or within 1,000 feet of such districts. Sec. 11A. 4 Use Permitted Subject-to-Permit An "adult entertainment" facility may be established in any CN, CC, or CV zoning district subject to securing a use permit as provided in Article 16 of this ordinance and subject to the following limitations: (A) No "adult entertainment" facility shall be located within 1,000 feet of any other adult enter- tainment facility. (B) No "adult entertainment" facility shall be located within 1,000 feet of any public or private school, park, playground, public building, church, any -2- non- commercial establishment.,operated by a bona fide religious organization, or any establishment likely to be used by minors. The "establishment" of any "adult entertainment" business shall include the opening of such a business as a new business, the relocation of such business, or the conversion of an existing business location to any "adult entertainment" business use. Sec. 11A. 5 Waiver of Locational Provisions ' 1. Any property owner or his authorized agent may apply to the Planning Commission for a waiver of any locational provisions contained in this Article. The Planning Commission, after a hearing, may waive any locational provision, if the following findings are made: (A) That the proposed use will not be contrary to the public interest or injurious to nearby properties, and that the spirit and intent of this Article will be observed; (B) That the proposed use will not enlarge or en- courage the development of a "skid row" area; }l6N'•'rti'a,«'Mi 'A�j 1-2r K"� "k;1n{1. S - ?!,:J (C) That the establishment of an additional regulated use in the area will not be contrary to any program of neighborhood conservation nor will it interfere with any program of urban renewal; (D) That all applicable regulations of this Code will be observed. 2. The procedure for this hearing shall be the same as that provided in Article 16 of the ordinance with the same application and notice requirements, the same right of appeal to the City Council, and the same fees payable by the applicant. Section 2: 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, 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, sub- section, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any vile Or more sections, subsections, sentences, �'�`�� ••�,r.• clauses or phrases be held invalid or unconstitutional. Section 3: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after the date of its-passage and adoption. The above and foregoing ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter _ s J, passed and adopted this day of the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK -4- 1981, by Report to City Council RE: Adult Entertainment Facilities 4.5ubmitted by Pa ricia M. Mullens Acting City Manager Date: February 11, 1981 Preparation Cost: RSR /MF:cd February 11, 1981 Page 2 Michael Flores Assistant Planner ?VII,YI }K. S. obinson, Jr Planning Director 1z Staff hours $18.00 Total Cost f C C REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 2/12/81 COUNCIL MEETING: 2/18/81 SUBJECT: Adult Entertainment Facilities (Referral from County) Currently, there are no specific regulations related to Adult Entertainment Facilities as defined under Section 37 -9.1 of the Model Ordinance submitted by.the County Board of Supervisors. However, Section 1.3 of the City's Zoning Ordinance does state that if a use is not specifically listed as a permitted use in the ordinance, then it is automatically prohibited. The City does not specifically permit Adult Entertainment Facilities, however bookstores and theaters are permitted in general and these could be used as Adult Entertainment Facilities. It should be noted that Section 10 -9 of Chapter 10 (Offenses - Miscellaneous) of the Municipal Code prohibits the sale, posses- sion, etc. of obscene and criminal.publications. Sections 10 -10 through 10 -13 also relate to the materials described in Section 10 -9. Adult movie houses or cabarets are not specifically men- tioned in Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code. The Model Ordinance defines adult bookstores, adult movie houses, and adult cabarets, as well as specified sexual activities and specified anatomical areas that should be subject to control. Specific zoning districts where Adult Entertainment Facilities are to be prohibited are listed as well as those districts where a use permit would be required to operate such a facility. Option 1: The prohibition could be made more specific by defining Adult Entertainment Facilities and stating that these uses are expressly prohibited in the City. Option 2: There is also the option of prohibiting those uses only in specific districts and allowing them as conditional uses in other specific districts. If this option is utilized, then specific districts would have to be selected for these uses. Only Commercial districts would appear to be suitable for such a use. Specific operating conditions would also have to be outlined. County of Santa Clara California February 26, 1981 Hon. Linda Callon Mayor, City of Saratoga City Hall 13777 FruitvaZe Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Linda: Office of the Board of supervisors County Government Center, East Wing 70 West Hedding Street San Jose, California 95110 299 -2323 Area Code 408 Rod Dirldon Supervisor, Fourth District In December, I forwarded to your office a copy of the County's recently adopted zoning ordinance for adult entertainment facilities. The ordinance is designed to regulate the time, place, and manner of such use because it is unfortunately unconstitutional to prohibit such use altogether. It is my hope that the City of Saratoga will adopt the same ordinance to ensure consistency throughout the County. One aspect of the County ordinance requires each adult entertainment facility to secure a use permit for their operation. A recent test case in the California Appeals Court has revealed that this provision is of doubtful constitutionality. Therefore, as Saratoga evaluates the ordinance on March 4, 1981, you may wish to eliminate this one section. This section is 37 -9.3 of the County ordinance, titled "Use Permitted Subject to Permit," and reads: An adult bookstore, adult movie house, or adult cabaret may be established in any CG, CT, ML, or MH zoning dis- trict subject to the securing of a use permit as provided in Article 47 of this ordinance and subject to the foZ- Zowing limitations: (a) no adult bookstore, adult movie house, or adult cabaret shall be located within 1000 ft. of any other adult bookstore, adult movie house, or adult cabaret; and (b) no adult bookstore, adult movie house, or adult cabaret shall be located within 1000 feet of any nursery school, elementary school, junior high school, or public playground. The cause is still a viable one of great concern to residents of the community, and the remaining provisions of the ordinance are constitutionally valid. I hope your City Council will continue to seriously consider its adoption. Very sincerely, ROD RIDON, Supervisor Fourth District 6) An Equal Opportunity Employer M v I! h BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF SANTA. CLARA COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, EAST WING 70 WEST HEDDING ST. / SAN JOSE,CALIFORNIA 95110 / 299-2323 December 23, 1980 Hon. Linda Callon Mayor, City of Saratoga City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Linda: ROD DIRIDON SUPERVISOR FOURTH DISTRICT In early November, IGC considered a model ordinance placing zoning restrictions on adult entertainment faci- lities. In a rare aP-tion by that body, the members voted unanimously to endorse in concept the model ordinance which became County law. I believe that vote of confidence is well placed. Community concern regarding the potential negative influence of pornography is reaching its peak. The Board of Supervisors' unanimous adoption of the ordinance, IGC's unanimous support, and the genuine com- munity concern should impress upon all of us the need for each of our cities to adopt similar codes. Without broad support, the legislation will have virtually no impact on our environment. I respectfully request that the Saratoga City Council consider that ordinance (a copy of which is enclosed) at your meeting of Wednesday, February 4, 1981. If this is convenient for your calendar, I would be happy to play an active role in helping you deal effectively with this legislation. There are also many concerned citizens who would like to address the issue. If this date is not convenient, please let me know when you will be able to hear the ordinance. If I can be a source of further information, please give me a call. ME= Very sincerely, DIRIDON, Supervisor Fourth District URIIINANCL NO. NS- AN 0IZDINAXC1: ADDING SIXTIUN 37 -9 TO THE COUNTY 01' SANTA CLARA ZU\IN(; Ultl)INANCIi, itl:Lr1TI\G TO ADULT BOOKSTORES, ADULT MOVI G IIUUSl:S AND ADULT CABARETS The Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara do ordain as follol,s: SECTION 1. Section 37 -9 is aided to the Santa Clara County Zoning Ordinance to read: Sec. -37 -9. Adult bookstores, adult movie houses and adult ca areas. 37 -9 1 lleFi1 lit' ions. Adult Bookstore. A building or portion thereof used by an establishment having as a substantial or significant portion of.itq stock'in trade for sale to the public books, magazines or other publica- tions which are distinguished or characterized by their emphasis on matter depicting, describing, or relating to specified sexual . activities or specified anatomical areas. Adult Movie house. A building or portion thereof, or area, whether open or enclosed, regularly used for the presentation of motion pictures distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on matter depicting;, describing or relating to specified sexual activities or specified anatomical areas fur observation by patrons or custolllcrs. Adult Cabaret. A building or portion thereof, or area, regularly used for the Mrescntation or cxhibi- Lion or featuring; of topless or bottomless dancers, strippers, or an)' entertainers regularly disMlayillg specified anatomical, areas for observation by Matrons or custonlcl-s. Si_ecificd Sexual Activities. (a) 1111111:111 gellltals ill a state Of sexual stimula- tion or arousal; (b) Acts of human masturbation, sexual intercuurse, . sodomy or bestiality; ur - 1 - I 1 \ • . (c) Fondling or other erotic handling of human genitals, pubic region, buttock, or female breast. Specified Anatomical Areas. (a) Less than completely and opaquely covered human genitals, pubic region, buttock and female breast below a point immediately above the top of the areola. (b) Human male genitals in a discernably turgid state. 37-9.2. Use prohibited. No adult bookstore, adult movie house, or adult cabaret shall be Permitted.in. any R, A, Al, S, 55, OA, CN or NIP zoning district or within 1,000 feet of such districts. 37_9.3• Use permitted subject to r -- Permit. An adult bookstore, adult movie house, or adult cabaret may be established in any CC, CT, .ML or MII zoning district subject to the securing *of a use permit as provided in Article 47 of this ordinance and subject to the following limitations: (a) No adult bookstore, adult movie house, or adult cabaret shall be located within 1,000 feet of any other adult bookstore, adult movie house, or adult cabaret. (b) No adult bookstore, adult.movie house, or adult cabaret shall be located within 1,000 feet of any nursery school, elementary school, junior high school, high school or public playground. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County - 2 - of Santa Clara, State of California, on by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors NOES: Supervisors ABSENT: Supervisors • J;"' Mcf-ol-quodale • Chairperson, Board of Supervisors ATTEST: DONALD M. RAINS, Clerk Board of Supervisors APPROVED AS TO FOW-1: Robert J\ Mvnitce Deputy County Counsel RJ M: m o 10/24/80 3 I i l:iTY Ul' Sl1,ii-UC -A AGENDA BILL NO. Initial: Dept. Hd. DATE: January 20, 1982 C. Atty. DEPT. Community Development C. Mgr. SUBJECT: Final Building Site approval SDR 1473 Dr. Norman Baker, Marion Rd. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Issue Summary 1. The SDR 1473 is ready for final approval 2. All Bonds and Agreement have been submitted to the city. 3. All requirements for city departments and other agencies have beer, met. 4._ A Negative Declaration was approved with the project dated 9/26/80.. Recom-nendation Adopt resolution 1473 -2 attached. Approving the final map of SDR 1473 and authorized execution of contract of Improvement Agreement. Fiscal Impacts NONE Exhibits /Attachments 1. Copy of Approved Tentative Man 2. Resolution. No 1473 -02 3. Location Map _.4. Status report for building site approval 5. Report to Planning Commission. Council Action 1120: Clevenger /Mallory moved acceptance and approval on Consent Calendar. Passed 5 -0. �� wU•6[L'� LN I I � �Z� U_ N[LMP ! 3 a � r wANn. V !L wADO ^ �p aoR AT OOP T a 0 � W � • [ ° u [ u > i z 0 VERDE VISTP ANF O n MERR CK DR < Z H O D ) W> y Z• ! Z ^ u c i > 0�� [ > r E D W TPCU•P N I z 80119 IN WOODWPR CT C � D • ! O F � N[w•i1MI�ti [ M LCOL.M AVE ! AVE. CAt O~ 1 ID•lLtt- .�..�� -4- ESTU�IE! L._„j � 9 _ �� � L•' ss-�� a J� �E. Y � Z % v GERALD ZAopa LLl "1 cT /I',- ll-� ) I Ll �-J-� -j - tl�� '�P r NV SDF? 1473 .a i 4 J 4 _ O � 3 MEMORANDUM CITY OF SARATOGA TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: Status Report for Building Site Approval- All conditions for Building Site Approval SDR- 1473, Dr. Norman Baker (have) (have -not) been met as approved by the Planning Commission on 9/20/80 Listed below are the amounts, dates and City receipt numbers for all required items: Offer of Dedication Yes Record of Survey or Parcel Map Yes Storm Drainage Fee $1,300.00 Date Subm All Required Improvement Bonds$13,000 All Required Inspection Fees $1695.00 Building Site Approval Agreement Yes Park and Recreation Fee $2600.00 fitted Date Date Date Date Date Submitted Date Submitted 12/11/81 Receipt Submitted 1/4/82 Submitted 12/11/81 Signed 1/4/82 Submitted 12/11/81 1/4/82 l- 4/82 # 00202 Receipt# Receipt# 00202 Receipt# 00202 It is, therefore, the Community Development Department recommendation that (Caadi_tinn.al) (Final) Building Site Approval for Dr. Norman Baker SDR -1473 be granted. If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it shall become un- conditional upon compliance with the following conditions: Condition(s) Reason for Non - Compliance KOzeTt 5. bnooK Director of Community Development REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION *aTV $e� 9 /24/80 DATE: y // 11 Commission Meeting: 9/24/80 SUBJECT SDR -1473 Dr. Norman Baker, 20680 Marion Road, Tentative Building Site Approval - 2 Lots SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting tentative subdivision approval for two lots at the ends of Marion and Springer Roads in the R -1- 12,500 zoning district.. Both Marion and Springer are single - access street systems with 15 or more lots taking access onto them. Creating additional lots on either street, on a parcel which has a potential for through access, is inconsistent with the General Plan and Subdivision,Ordinance. The two lots proposed will conform to ordinance requirements for both size and minimum dimensions. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the proposal, finding (a) that the proposed map is not consistent with the general plan, and (b) that the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the general plan. BACKGROUND: On July 23, 1980, the Planning Commission.denied, without prejudice, a variance request (V -535) and a Tentative Building Site Approval (SDR -1466) which would have allowed the creation of three lots on this 1.15 acre parcel. The variance request for a substandard size lot,which was 7,000 sq. ft. short of the minimum area for a lot with its sole access from a minimum access road,was denied on the basis that the necessary findings could not be made and the Commissions' policy of not using the variance process to create non- conforming lots. Without variance approval, Tentative Building Site Approval could not be granted. Two residences and a "garage" that may have been used as a residence are presently located on the site. A drainage swale or creek runs along the southwestern boundary of the property (including between the flat p:ostion of this parcel and Springer). Several significant trees exist on the site which may be removed with the construction of access through the property if that is required by the Planning Commission. Recent subdivision approvals on Marion Avenue that relate to this proposal include: Report to Planning CJ?.-_ssion \L1 9/18/80 SDR -1473 Baker Page 2 SDR -1357 Dave Wilson - A subdivision map was approved, after appeal to the Council, which allowed 4 lots to take access off of Elvira thus creating no new lots on Marion and no through access between Elvira and Marion. SDR -1408 Brad Renn - On appeal to the Council, the applicant was allowed to split a 1 acre parcel on Marion since the parcel had no possibility of providing through access and was located near a fire station. Additionally, the Planning Commission has approved a revised Circulation Element for Council review which reaffirms the concept of allowing only 15 lots on a cul -de -sac but also recommends an action program to develop criteria for exceptions to this requirement. This item has not been approved by the Council. It should be noted that the Land Development Committee denied a request by the applicant for a three lot subdivision (SDR -1451) on the same parcel since it did not comply with General Plan requirements. That proposal had two lots fronting on Marion Road and one lot accessing onto Springer Avenue. (The applicant has indicated that the existing house on Parcel A may be saved. The location of the proposed subdividing line will allow the existing structure to conform to ordinance setback requirements. Melitta Oden, City.Historian, has indicated that there may be some historic value to the dwelling since it was originally the house of J. E. Foster, Justice of the Peace and county roadmaster in the 1880's and 1890's.) BODY OF THE REPORT: Staff has the following concerns about the tentative map: Access for the proposed lots will be onto Marion Road which has 15 or more lots and no secondary access. Thus the subdivision would not be in conformance with all the objectives of the 1974 General Plan nor all requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. Specifically the General Plan under circulation states: "For safety, every new or developing residential area in the City with more than 15 housing units should have a primary and secondary (or emergency) access." Additionally, the Subdivision Ordinance states (Page 200): "Not as mandate, but as a statement of future policy on all matters concerning the design and improvement of site and subdivisions the following shall generally not be approved: c) Cul -de -sac, dead -end, or other streets not having a means of secondary access, where such street services more than fifteen lots or building sites." However, if the Planning Commission finds the project in conformance with the General Plan, then approval should be per Exhibit "B" filed August 12, 'Report to Planning Cote' :ssion 9/18/80 SDR -1473 Baker Page 3 1980 and the following findings and conditions: DRAFT FINDING: Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974 General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga particularly as it relates to Section 16 of Ordinance NS -60. A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the County of Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this project, if approved under this application. Said determination date: September 17, 1980. I., GENERAL CONDITIONS: II. Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60, including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey of Parcel Map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the time of final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department regulations and applicable Flood Control regulations and requirements of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinance, nor with any other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval. B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for Checking and Recordation (Pay required Checking and Recordation Fees). (If Parcel is shown on existing map of record, submit three (3) to -scale prints.) C. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 42 ft. turnaround on Marion Road. D. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easements as required. E. Improve Marion Road and turnaround on Marion Road to City Standards, including the following: 1. Designed Structural Section 32 ft. radius. 2. Designed Structural Section 18 ft. between centerline & flowline. 3. P. C. Concrete Curb and Gutter (V -24). 4. Undergrounding Existing Overhead Utilities. F. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Drainage Plan" and as directed by the Director of Public Works, as needed to 'Report to Planning Co�'lssion SDR -1473 9/18/80 Page 4 convey storm runoff to Street, Storm or Watercourse, including the following: 1. Storm Drain Inlets, Outlets, Channels, etc. G. Construct Access Roads 18 ft. wide plus 1 ft. shoulders using double seal coat oil and screening or better on 6 in. aggregate base from Marion Road to within 100 ft. of dwelling on Parcel C. Slope of access road shall not exceed 12k% without adhering to the following: 1. Access roads having slopes between 122% and 15% shall be surfaced using 22" Asphalt Concrete on 6 in. Aggregate Base. 2. Access roads having slopes between 15% and 17k/. shall be surfaced using 4 in. of P.C. Concrete rough surfaced using 4 in. of Aggregate Base. Slopes in excess of 15% shall not exceed 50 ft. in length. 3. Access roads having slopes in excess of 17k/. are not permitted. NOTE: The minimum inside curve radius shall be 42 ft. The minimum vertical clearance above road surface shall be 15 ft. Bridges and other roadway structures shall be" designed to sustain 35,000 lbs. dynamic loading. Storm runoff shall be controlled through the use of culverts and roadside ditches. H. Provide turnaround having 32 ft. radius or approved equal using double seal oil coat and screenings or better on 6" aggregate base within 100 ft. of the proposed dwelling. I. Construct standard driveway. J. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. K. Engineered Improvement Plans required for: 1. Street Improvements 2. Storm Drainage Construction 3. Access Road Construction L. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined. from Improvement Plans. M. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval. N. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements. 0. Pay prorata share of the cost of improving Marion Road to Access Road Standards to easterly boundary to Hwy. 85. 'Report to Planning Coc'- 'ssion SDR -1473 Baker III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTION SERVICES 9/18/80 Page 5 A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional 1. Soils ) Soils evaluation for foundation design 2. Foundation ) including setbacks from creek bank. B'. Plans to be reviewed by geotechnical consultant prior to building permit being issued if required by soils engineer. C. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross - sections, existing and proposed elevations, earthwork; quantities). D. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.). Drainage easements to adjacent properties may be required at final approval. E. All existing structures, with notes as to remain.or be removed. (See Concition I. below). F. All retaining walls over 3 ft. in height shall be designed by R.C.E. or licensed architect. G. Erosion control measures. H... Bonds required for structure improvements per Condition I (below). I. All remaining structures to be evaluated for code conformance by licensed engineer or architect. Report of findings to be provided to City. Structures shall be brought to code or removed. J. Erosion and condition of adjacent creek (swale) shall be evaluated by a Registered Civil Engineer and a report provided to the City. Measures to reduce channel erosion shall be included. Existing drop structure shall be removed and a proper facility, designed by a Registered Civil Engineer, shall be constructed. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT N0. 4 A. Sanitary sewer and easement to be provided and fees paid in accordance with requirements of Sanitation District No. 4. B. Provide necessary easements for sanitary sewers to be jointly constructed with James Day (SDR- 1362). V, SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DEPARTMENT A. Driveway shall have a minimum inside curve radius of 42 ft. B. Provide a parking area for two (2) emergency vehicles at proposed building site, or as required by the Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on building plans. • " 'Report to Planning Co( ,`ssion �+ 9/18/80 SDR -1473 Page 6 C. Provide 15 ft. clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to building site. Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles. D. Developer shall install one hydrant that meets Saratoga District specifications. E. Construct driveway 14 ft. minimum width, plus one foot shoulders using double seal coat 0 & S or better on 6" aggregate base from public street or access road to proposed dwelling. Slope of drive- way shall not exceed 122% without adhering to the following: 1. Driveways having slopes between 12k% to 15% shall be surfaced using 22" of A. C. on 6" aggregate base., F. Extension of existing water system adjacent to site is required. Plans to show location of water mains and fire hydrants. G. Construct.a turnaround at the proposed dwelling site having a 32' inside radius. Other approved type turnaround must meet requirements of Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on plans. VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and connected by the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers of Sanitation District No. 4. Prior to final approval, an adequate bond shall be posted with said district to assure completion of sewers as planned. B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. C. The existing septic tank serving the two residences on this property must be dumped and filled to county standards. A bond in the amount of 400 dollars should be posted with the City of Saratoga to ensure completion of work as planned. 'II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the Santa Clara Valley Water District for review and certification. =II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PLANNING DEPARTMENT * A. All structures shall receive Design Review Approval prior to issuance of building permits, and all the homes shall be compatible with other homes in the neighborhood. .`' % Report to Planning Cd, m'ssion 9/18/80 SDR -1473 Baker Page 7 IX. COMMENTS A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances. Approved: MF /clh 6 - i i Michael F ores, Planner I P. C. Agenda: 9/24/80 *as amended at the Planning Commission meeting 9/24/80, where the Commission approved the Tentative Map, subject to the conditions in this Staff Report, based on the ability to make the findings that the proposed development provides a benefit to both the City and the applicant; the benefits to the City.being 1) the elimination of legal nonconforming uses, and 2) the resolution of the cul -de- sacing of the street. d y � �. . © F 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 January 26, 1982 Mr. Eugene Zambetti P. 0. Box 34 Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: SDR -1473 - Marion Avenue, 2 lots Dear Mr. Zambetti: At its regular meeting of January 20, 1982, the Saratoga City Council approved the final map for SDR -1473 by passing Resolu- tion No. 1473 -2. A certified copy of that resolution is enclosed. If you have any further questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office. incerely, i Robert S. Shook Director of Community Development RSS:cd Enclosure cc: Bill Heiss, Suite 200,,92S Regent St., San Jose, CA 95110 Dr. Norman Baker, 20680 Marion Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 Deputy City Clerk LZ CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO: DATE: January 20, 1982 DEPARTMENT: Maintenance Services SUBJECT: Claim of Jack A. Camou Issue Summary Initial: Dept. Head: City Atty : C i ty Mgr On December 29, 1981 the City received a claim from Jack A. Camou regarding alleged injury to Catherine Camou which occurred on approximately September 1, 1981. The claim alleges the person was injured when she tripped on a patch in the street between her house and the mailbox on Easton Place. Easton Place is approximately 12 blocks long and the entire street has areas where crack sealing, oil and screens have been added to the surface to prevent further damage. The last series of crack sealing was done approximately July 9, 1981. Recommendation Deny claim. Fiscal Impact None Exhibits /Attachments Claim form from Jack Camou Council Action 1120: Clevenger /Mallory moved to deny claim on Consent Calendar. Passed 5 -0. r ri WARNING: While claims following form, if the or duties, or pertaini should consult his own against the City of Saratoga may be submitted on clairant has any questions regarding his legal qights ng to the manner or time of submitting such a cl im,� t 2 attorney. 1981 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES Pursuant to Section 910 of the Government Code of California, the following claim for daiiiages is respectfully submitted: 1. Name and post office address of claimant: 2. The post office address to which claimant wishes notices to be sent: 0. The date, place and other circumstances giving rise to the claim: 4. 7 5. A general description of the indebtedness, obligation, injury, damage or loss incurred, �so far as known to claimant: r `I' � =— ' e- V The name or names of the public employee(s) causing the injury, damage or loss, as far as known to claimant: �S rPv7� r.J 6. Amount Claimed as of date of 'presentation of claim, and basis of computation: Dated : _a `? % 9- 1 ��- 5ignature Note: Claim must be signed by claimant or by some person on his behalf. (Government Code Section 910.2) E 6u,x Z-�� JA-;- /�, 1,ju2 0 'y r' CITY OF SARATOGA F.Co NDA P olil NO. DAZE: January 20, 1982 DEPART` : Community Development Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UP -511 J. A. Teresi (Hagan Construction), 32 Condominium Units SUBJECT: on 1a site designated PD at the southern corner _of Saratoga Ave. and Issue Summary On December 9, 1981 the Planning Commission approved UP -511 allowing the con- struction of 32 residential condominium units at the above location. A total of 6 residents on Paseo Cerro have appealed this decision because they feel the traffic impacts on the surrounding neighborhood have:.not been adequately studied or addressed. They do not object to the development of the property itself, but have listed three recommendations regarding vehicular and pedestrian traffic, as outlined in the attached letter. Recommendation I. Conduct a public hearing on the appeal. 2. Determine the merits of the appeal and approve or deny. 3. Staff recommended approval of the proposal subject to thb conditions of the report. Fiscal Imoacts None anticipated. Exhibits /AttachTents 1. Letter of Appeal, dated December 15, 1981 -with subsequent letter of February 15, 1982. 2. Staff Report dated November 12, 1981 (modified December 9, 1981). 3. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting December 9, 1981 and November 17, 1981. 4. Staff Report for UP -410. (including Exh. "A ", "B" and "C" and Addendums) S. Exhibit "B" 6. Resolution UP -511 -1 7. Correspondence Received on Project. Council Action 1120: Jensen /Ma-N ory moved to continue to de novo hearing at 8:00 p.m., March 3, 1982. Passed 5 -0. 3/3: Mallory /Clevenger moved to grant appeal, denying application without prejudice with finding that traffic impact and appearance of two -story houses not properly considered. Passed 5 -0. REPORT I TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL I � DATE: 1 -15 -82 COUNCIL MEETING: 1-20-82 SUBJECT' UP-511 - J. A. Teresi (Hagan Construction) Several letters have been received supporting the appeal of the granting of the use permit, and in some instances I believe there is confusion relative to the amount of traffic to be generated on Bucknall Avenue. For your information I would like to clarify this matter. The project contains 32 units, 10 of which have access only to Saratoga Avenue, and 22 of which have access only to Bucknall. We typically use 10 -12 trips per day per residence, which would mean an additional 220 -264, utilizing those numbers. However, one could expect somewhat fewer trips because of the senior citi- zen residents. There is an emergency access connection between this -project and the Saratoga Foothills project immediately south. However, it is only an emergency access and is not open for general circula- tion. Therefore, no traffic from the Saratoga Foothills project would access Bucknall directly. Ro r S. S c Director of Community Development RSS:cd v p December 15, 1981 1 City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Re: Building Permit Hagen Const. Co. Teresi Property Parc .#r 386 14 02 Members of the Council: We, the undersinge d, do hereby appeal the renewal decision granting a building permit for the Teresi Property. We feel that the Bucknall vehicular access impact upon neighborhood traffic flow has not been studied nor addressed. E1 Ouito Park (at this site) consists of a pie shaped area, flanked on one side by four laned Saratoga Avenue and on the other side by Quito Road, which is also four lanes. Under the proposed building permit, entrances will be on both Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road for the planned eighty two parking spaces. (sixty covered and twenty two guest spaces.) South bound traffic to the development from Lawrence Expressway or Saratoga Avenue must make a time consuming U turn at C.ox Avenue to use the Saratoga Avenue entrance. Thus, we feel, most of the traffic will utilize the access -on Bucknall Road, as access will be easily accomplished by Saratoga Avenue and Laurence Expressway traffic turning right on Paseo Cerro before entering Quito Road proper. At the present time, we have serious traffic problems on Paseo Cerro and Paseo Flores: 1. Excess traffic from the service station on the corner of Bucknall and Saratoga. 2. Diversion of commute traffic from Quito Road. 3. Excess traffic on Bucknall from Quito Shopping Center, after daytime operating hours. The neighborhood is composed of single family dwellings. No sidewalks have been installed in keeping with the rural effect desired by the city. The residents, both children and adults, use the roadsides to travel to and from school bus stops and to the sidewalks on Bucknall and thus to E1 Quito Park. As parents and concerned residents,,--we-object to the inattention given to „ _2_ Appeal: Teresi r , the traffic flow problems. We feel that the Bucknall entrance to the Teresi Property will invite potential accidents and perhaps physical harm for some of our residents. We do not object to the development of the Teresi Property. Our recommendations are: 1. All vehicular entrances and exits for any development be placed solely on Saratoga Avenue. This would not only free space for more desirable quiet units backed on Bucknall, but would also create continuance of appearance of Saratoga Avenue itself. 2. Provisions.for direct access by southbound traffic on on Saratoga Avenue to Teresi Property. 3. A pedestrian gate should be installed on Bucknall. Thank you for your consideration on this matter of importance. Sincerely, Brett E. Cross Mi ao os . Cross 2601 Paseo Cerro Saratoga, Ca. Judv L Fa orito i Tom Favorito 12591 Paseo Cerro Saratoga, Ca. � - Mark L. Gaubatz 12610 Paseo Cerro Saratoga, Ca. Anne C. Schnedler Charles L. Schnedler 12611 Paseo Cerro Saratoga, Ca. �- w 1-3 ' Mr. Hagen DO Hagen Construction Co. Fr```y 1 81982 227 Bay Road Redwood City, California Feb. 15, 1982 I have received your phone message indicating that due to the economic conditions of the building industry you may postpone indefinatly your proposed developement of the Teresi property. Those of us filing the appeal of the use permit were sorry to hear this as we have consis- tantly supported the developement of this property and believe that with specific modifications your project would be an asset to our community. Since you have not indicated to either us or to the city planning department your specific intent at this time, we would like to propose the following project changes which are acceptable to those of us filing the appeal. We have met with Kathy Curtis of the planning department staff to review our proposals. Our concerns and recommendations are as follows: CONCERN A: The access on Bucknall Rd. will mean an additional 220- 264 trips per day through our neighborhood roads in need of repair and lacking sidewalks for safe passage for our children. Option 1: Locate all access roads onto Saratoga Ave. Option 2: Change the Saratoga to Bucknall Rd. access ratio so that 11 units have access on Bucknall and 21 access on Saratoga. Option 3: Reduce the project density by constructing single story units on the east border facing E1 Quito Park School (this would mean buildings 4,5,6,7 adjacent to R -1- 10,000 property) Also construct building 1 as a one story structure on the north border facing the single family residential area. 2 CONCERN B: The future of E1 Quito Park School is uncertain however it is highly propable that the school site will be sold and developed R -1- 10,000 wick is consistant with the general plan. Two story condominiums adjacent to R -1- 10,000 homes are not acceptable. Option 1: Reduce the visual, noise and inconsistant design with the rural nature of R -1- 10,000 zoning by constructing only single'story residential"Units on 10,000 sq. ft. lots'• adjacent to the school property. Option 2: Reduce the project density by constructing only single story units on the east border facing El Quito Park School property (building 4,5,6,7) ' CONCERN C: The visual impact of the proposed sound wall on Bucknall Rd. immediatly across from single family residential is unacceptable. Option 1: By installing double -paned windows on the north side of building 1 and by landscaping with moderatly sized trees the impact will be acceptable. CONCERN D: The -two story design of building 1 on Bucknall Rd. is not consistant with the single family residential R -1- 10,000 on the north border. Option 1: Building 1 can be constructed as a one story structure. Myself and my neighbors look forward to meeting with you to discuss these proposals. We are confident that a suitable project plan can be developed which will provide an excellent addition to ou neighborhood. cc:Saratoga City Council, Saratoga Planning Commission C REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City of 5crcc�� APPROVED 5"1' v DATE: 11/12/81 Commission Meeting: 11/17/81 *Modified 12/9/81 SUBJECT UP -511 J. A. Teresi, Southern corner of Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road REQUEST: Allow the construction of 32 condominium units on a site designated "P -D" on the Saratoga General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A Negative Declaration was prepared and recorded for this project when it was originally proposed under,UP -410. PUBLIC NOTICING: This project has been advertised by posting, publication in the newspaper, and by mailings to 66 nearby property owners. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: "P -D" (Planned Development); the text of the General Plan states that this site is for planned residential development only. ZONING: R -1- 10,000 SURROUNDING LAND USES: CTTF CT7F- SITE SLOPE: 2.53 acres 1 %+ 0 Gas station to the north; E1 Quito School to the east; senior citizen condominiums to the south; single family residential to the west. HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES: 22' SIZE OF STRUCTURES: Varies with clustering of units, Unit A is about 1550 sq. ft. and Unit B is about 1415 sq. ft. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: 310 of site covered by buildings 210 of site covered by paving „ Report to Planning. ommission UP -511 MINIMUM SETBACKS: East side: 4” for 16 car garage South side: 14' for 16 car garage West side: 10' for 14 car garage North side: 10' for 6 car garage 11/17/81 Page 2 Minimum setback for any dwelling unit is 14'. These were the setbacks originally approved by the Planning Commission and reviewed by the City Council on appeal. BACKGROUND: On September 26, 1979 the Planning Commission approved UP -410 which would have allowed the applic- ant to construct 32 condominium units 400 of which were to be set aside for senior citizens (those over age 55). This decision was appealed to the City Council on November 7, 1979 at which time the Council upheld the Commissions decision subject to two additional conditions: 1. That 60% of the units be set aside for senior citizens (55 years of age). 2. That there would be apre -sale to seniors of 60 days rather than 30 days. Also, on September 26, 1979 the Commission granted Design Review Approval (A -688) which is still valid. The Commission granted Tentative Building Site Approval for the project on November 14, 1979. On August 20, 1980 the City Council granted Final Building Site Approval. A one year extension for the use permit was granted by the Commission since the applicant was not able to move ahead. The applicant asked for another one year extension in July of this year because of the difficulty with financing the project but was informed that only one, one -year extension is permitted by ordinance. Thus, this application has been filed to reinstate the project. STAFF ANALYSIS: The issues associated with this project have already been addressed in past Staff Reports. These reports have been attached for the Commission's information. It should be noted that the site plan proposed under this new use permit is substantially the same as the original site plan approved by the Commission. However, some minor modifications have been proposed on the new site plan. The Fire District turnaround on the rear driveway would be moved about 95' further south than the original location. The southernmost garage has been increased from 5 to 6 covered parking spaces and moved from 55' to 23' from the southern property line. One of the two northern garages has been reduced from a 6 to 5 car garage. Also, some guest parking spaces have been rearranged. These changes do not change the total number of covered and Report to Plannin�i ommission 11/12/81 UP -511 Page 3 uncovered parking spaces to.be provided on site. The location of the dwelling units is substantially the same as originally proposed under UP -410. An 8' high masonry wall is proposed between the site and the gas station. This is two feet higher than normally allowed by ordinance but it would provide a buffer between the residences and the commercial use. The Commission can approve this variation in height with this use permit if it determines such a buffer is warranted. * FINDINGS: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the findings as listed under Exhibit "C" of - -.UP -410. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve per this Staff Report, the Staff Reports for UP -410, the conditions per Exhibit "A" of UP -410, Exhibit "B" of UP -511, and the following conditions: 1. The landscaping plan shall be amended to provide mature box size evergreen trees to screen the garages along Bucknall Road and Saratoga Avenue. Revised landscaping plans shall be submitted for Staff review and approval. 2. Details on the design of the masonry wall shall be sub- mitted for Staff review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 3. The fire hydrants required by Central Fire District shall be installed, tested and accepted by the District prior to construction of any buildings. 4. The emergency access road to the adjacent Saratoga Parkside project shall be at the same elevation and without physical barriers. 5. The applicant shall submit revised plans indicating a 25' setback from the property line can Saratoga and Bucknall Avenues. COMMENTS: The Planning Commission discussed this application at its Committee -of- the -Whole meeting on November 3, 1981. At that time several of the Commissioners expressed concern about the setbacks originally approved for the garage structures and the landscaping used to screen these structures. The applicant indicated that landscaping plans will be submitted showing the. screening to be provided. Landscaping plans were approved under A -688 for the project. The applicant stated that if the garage structures had to be setback, the open space provided in the middle of the project would be lost. One of the Commissioner's indicated that the density of the project may be too great. Report to Planning Commission UP -511 Approved: MF /clh P. C. Agenda: 11/17/81 C 11/12/81 Page 4 Michael Flores, Asst. Planner * Modified by Planning Commission 12/9/81 t r s'.•' -• ••, • -: `° Commissioner Crowther requested th\ City Attorney to supply wording for Planning Commission Page 4 Meeting Minutes - 12/9/81 say that no home or- other structure hall be -built on an area with an 4. °`: = " ?"' GF -333 (c'nt.) Com?nissionncr Bolger stated that basically he feels the Commission is trying to achieve consistency and move expeditiously. He added that he thinks all of the information that is necessary to move forward on this ordinance sho readily at hand. _ `•,`' -- J. Teresi (Hagan), Request for a Use Permit to allow the con - truction of 32 condominium units on a 2.53 acre site designated Chairman Ladessed her concern that she feels the Commission is only dealing part of the area, which is the density, and is not dealing with the other issues that go along with making it con - ''-�+�+» -+ `sue sistent with sure 'A' area. She indicated that she would like to \san* { consider it oQer scope and resolve some of the other problems such 0 as circulatioation needs, water needs, etc. She added that Measure 'A' was studitotal picture, and she is very concerned that that will not be tth this ordinance. Commissioner Crowther commented that he feels the Commission will have to consider those other pro�lems, but that may take at least a year. He s stated that the intent now was to just bring one of the most important �'1"`' "'t "' `•• things into compliance asarly as possible: so the City won't.get into the `. kind of troubles that occu ed related to density issues associated with 'Measure 'A'. Further discussion followed, nd the'vote was taken on the motion to close the public hearing. The motio failed, with Commissioners King, Laden, T..Y ; .,..,,;;.,. ..: .:...:.:......:..:' Schaefer and Zambetti dissentin . It was directed that the public hearing will be continued to the meetin of January 13, 1981 and to a study session •` ".4':ir ;',.._.,..�< .__... ...., on January 5, 1982. s'.•' -• ••, • -: `° Commissioner Crowther requested th\ City Attorney to supply wording for the area of retroactivity. He added that he feels that the Commission should be consistent with the words \that are in the Specific Plan which say that no home or- other structure hall be -built on an area with an 4. °`: = " ?"' average natural slope that exceeds 30 He indicated that he feels that wording on the slope limitation should be incorporated to be consistent with what the Staff consultant is preparing for implementation of the S„PC- ;-iti-r- plan. 1 that she feels Saratoga Avenue is overloaded at this point. She added that she feels there is spot zoning along that street, and since it is _ `•,`' -- J. Teresi (Hagan), Request for a Use Permit to allow the con - truction of 32 condominium units on a 2.53 acre site designated for Planned Development in the 1974 General Plan south of the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road; continued from November 17, 1981 ;3:`;;:•. »,,,Y;�y; „;,,.,•„ Staff described the proposal and explained that a use permit had been { approved in 1979 and appealed to the City Council, who added conditions to the project. They added that the applicant was not able to proceed with the project and has now reapplied for a new use permit. The correspondence received on the project in opposition was noted. The public hearing was opened at 9:12 p.m. Bernard Hagan, of Hagan Construction Company, gave a presentation on the project. He introduced Mr. Andy Beverett, Chairman of the Housing �'1"`' "'t "' `•• Committee of the Senior Citizens Coordinating Council. Mr. Beverett discussed the merits of the project and the community support for it. He also discussed the status of the real estate market for the current year and the foreseeable future. He encouraged the Com- mission to give the applicant a chance to do some of the things the pro - ject was originally intended to do. Margaret Russell, Saratoga Glen Place, stated that she feels the zoning should remain the R -1- 10,000 as it is now on this property. She indicated that she feels Saratoga Avenue is overloaded at this point. She added that she feels there is spot zoning along that street, and since it is the gateway to the City, she feels there should be a definite and unified plan. Jim Russell, 12776 Saratoga Glen Court, asked the Chairman to read the letter from the Park Woods Homeowners Association into the record, stating ;3:`;;:•. »,,,Y;�y; „;,,.,•„ their concern regarding the project. { Planning Commission ( Page 7 Meeting Minutes 11/17/81 Rcvis'on to HCRD (cont.) having foresight to think ahead, and she feels it would be very beneficial. Chairman laden stated that she would like Commissioner Crowther's questions about the Specific Plan and its final form verified in further detail. It was dot rmined that this matter should be continued in order to clarify that point. The Deputy Ci y Attorney indicated that he had concerns about the language in the revisi0 and would like to clarify this with the Commission and Staff. He sta d that he would then have a revised draft available at the next meeting. It was directed t \at this matter be continued to the December 9, 1981 meet- ing. \ 10. GF -326 - Amendment Zoning Ordinance (Signs) - By Providing Open House Signs. Sai application requests the Planning Commission to take action to ma e permanent th.e temporary amendments to Article 10 Signs), whic allowed open house signs in residential districts Staff indicated that th \y had received no complaints during this one -year trial period. They comm nted that the action tonight is to recommend deletion of that provisiop that made this a one -year ordinance. The public hearing was ope�ed at 10:25 p.m. Pat Krause, rev resenting th Los Gatos - Saratoga Board of Realtors, dis- cussed the monitoring system that they have been using. She stated that they feel this should be mad a permanent ordinance. Pat Pone, of the Lo' Gatos -Sar toga Board of Realtors, stated that she had been policing the area. Di cussion followed on the open house signs and also on "For Sale By Owner" signs. Commissioner King moved to close.\the public hearing. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was ca ried unanimously. Commissioner King moved to approve\Resolution GF- 326 -1A, recommending tlie- modification to the City Counci\. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the m which was carried unanimously`. 11•. UP -511 - Teresi, Request for a Use Permit to allow the construction of \ 2 condominium units on a 2.53 acre site designated for Planned Development in the 1974 General Plan south of the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road Chairman Laden noted that the applicant has requested .a continuance until December 9, 1981. The public hearing was opened at 10:20 p.m. Margaret Russell, 12776 Saratoga Glen Place, stated that she feels that •:: i ,= ir.::: %r�:w:i,e:�w- ;:.»,:x -r, the zoning on this property should revert to its original zoning of R -1- 10,000. She commented that the excessively high density development along Saratoga Avenue should not set a precedent. She added that, since the seniors would take no position on the Lohr request for lowering the age limit for ownership on the condominiums for seniors, she assumes that they have no further need for housing. She commented that Saratoga Avenue should have a unified plan which will enhance the area, since it is the gateway to the City. It was directed that this -item be continued to the December 9, 1981 meet- ing. 12a.UP -513 Imperial Savings, Request for a Use Permit to allow a financial 12b.A -762 - institution to locate in the "C -C" (Community- Commercial) Dis- trict at 20473 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, and Design Review Approval Staff gave the history of the project and the current proposal. They stated that they were recommending approval of the use permit and design review. - 7 - I Planning Commission Page 5 Meeting Minutes 12/9/81 • � C 1 (contssioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The setbacks and parking spaces were discussed. There was a consensus that larger setbacks were needed on Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road. Commissioner Crowther expressed his concern regarding the consistency with the General Plan and the fact that the General Plan Advisory Committee is doing planning in this area, which he feels should be taken into con - tideration. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve UP -511, per the conditions of the original UP -410 and the Staff Report dated November 12, 1981, amended to state that the setbacks on Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road will be 25 ft from the property line; making the findings. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioners Bolger and Crowther dissenting. 4a. V -564 - M. Oudelaal, Request for a Variance, Building Site Approval, and 4b. SDR -1510 - Design eview Approval of an addition to an existing office 4c. A -801 - building to maintain a 7' side yard where 17.2' is required and to allow front property line adjustment to maintain a 4' front yard whey 25' is required, at 14375 Saratoga Avenue; continued from Novem er 17, 1981 Staff described the pr sal. The setbacks and parking spaces were dis- cussed. The public hearing was red \ae at 10:30 p.m. Warren Reid, the architecte a presentation on the project. When asked six'= „�Vt1x,ti how the project affects thblems with stabilizing the creek bank, Mr. Heid stated that there is ils engineering report and they have worked with the Flood Control. Hmented that all of the geological require - �,<..•,,,..r_.;?t-:;s {; ments will be met, and it e opinion of their structural engineer that a the building will not affe creek. The Santa Clara Valley Water District conditions were d ed. Commissioner Crowther commented that the General Plan specifies t he creek banks are to be kept in their natural state and should n 1 ned with concrete. The use of alterna- tive methods of dealing wie rosion were discussed. There was a con - sensus to change Condition to read: "Creek bank should be stabilized. Alternative materials .othean co creee sack, such as turfstone or other aesthetic materials, shall consi ered. Placement to be approved by the District.” Staff pointed out tha the last sentence of that condition had stated that if sack concrete is n t used, the District will not take responsibility for damages. Staff was requested to confer with the Water District to confirm that other materia s can be used. It was determined that "bank stabilization" should replac "sack riprap" in Condition VI -G. Mr. Heid questioned Condition V -B relati to the 42 ft. radius required by the Fire District. He indicated that e felt it would be difficult to meet that requirement when the applicant h s no control over the property next door. It was determined that the condition should be changed to read: �;zrLxtnof.;ay, u<<: u "Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius of 42 feet or other radius as approved by the Fire District." Commissioner Bolger moved to close the public earing. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carrie unanimously. Parking spaces were discussed, and it was noted hat space #1 and H2 may not be accessible. Mr. Heid stated that the ocation of a dumpster for garbage will be in back of space I+1. It was etermined that con- ditions should be added to the Building Site Appro al and Design Review as follows: "The size of the building will be dependent upon sufficient parking in compliance with ordinance standards ", ands "The applicant shall submit a revised Site Development Plan showing location of garbage dumpster for Staff Review and Approval." Commissioner King moved to approve V -564 per the Staff Report dated November 12, 1981 and Exhibits "B" and "C ", making the indings. Commis- sioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve SDR -1510, per Exhibits "B" and "C" 5 \ \\ �f REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 6/1/79 Commission Meeting: 6/13/79 SUBJECT: UP -410 Hagan Construction and Development Co., Inc./ Joseph Teresi ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- LOCATION: South of the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road ZONING: R -1- 10,000 SITE SIZE: 2.53 Acres PROJECT PROPOSAL: Construction of 30 housing units in an area designated for Planned Development in the Saratoga General Plan (1974). APPLICABLE ZONING ORDINANCE: NS -3, Section 3.3, Article 14, and Article 16 STAFF ANALYSIS: A. Environmental Considerations: A negative declaration has been prepared for this project. A list of mitigation measures has been prepared and attached to this report. These measures shoulc ameliorate any potential significant impacts associated with the project. If the negative declaration is approved the listed mitigation measures will be -. come conditions of the Use Permit. One change should be made to the mitigation measures. Measure #5 should be modified to delete the reference to constructing a wall or berm and wall to attenuate noise impacts. Noise can be reduced signigicantly by the install- ation of double pane insulated windows that are un- openable on the buildings nearest to Saratoga Avenue. This measure would be more aesthetically pleasin( than a soundwall along Saratoga Avenue and should be used instead of a sou wall. B. Description of Site: The total area of the site, commonly known as the Teresi Property, is approximately 2.89 acres. A .36 acre portion of the site located in the southwestern corner would be se} aside for the existing residence. The remaining 2.53 acres are the subject: of this Use Permit application. Site topography is characterized by a gentle slope (less than 2 %) from the l '•Repo'rt to Planning Commission UP =410 southwestern corner to the will be a serious concern. currently supports remnants vegetation consists mainly orchard trees of ordinance the lot to be set aside for to preserve these trees. -2- 6/1/79 6/13/79 northeastern corner which indicates that drainage Soil on the site appears to be fertile and of a productive cherry orchard. Other existing of herbs and grasses but there are several non - size (12" and 18" caliper redwoods) just east of the existing residence. Efforts should be made The site is bordered by: the Jiffy Gas Station to the north; Bucknall Road and single family residences (R -1- 10,000) to the northeast; El Quito School and park to the southeast; a declining orchard to the southwest slated for a senior citizen housing project (UP -353, Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation); and, to the northwest Saratoga Avenue and single family resi- dential lands (R -1- 10,000). Quito Shopping Center, medical facilities, and public transportation facilities are all near the site. C. Project Description: General: The applicant is proposing the construc- tion of 30 two -story townhouse dwelling units for owner occupation by persons 50 years of age and older. Project density would be 1 dwelling unit per 3,690 sq. ft. of site area which is within the 1 d.u. /3,500 sq. ft. ratio allowed by the-PRD (Planned Residential Development) Ordinance. The three basic.unit types proposed are described on the table below. TOWNHOUSE FEATURES UNIT NO. OF NO. OF ROOMS GARAGE TYPE UNITS BDRMS BA TH 'SIZE A 16 2 or 3 2 or 2� 2 car B 7 2 2 2 car C .7... .. .. .. ..2 1- or. 2 1 or 2 car NOTE: The two bedroom "A" units would probably have a den as will some of the "B" units. Only three "C" units are proposed to have 1 car garages. The "A" units would be approximately 1,550 sq. ft. in size. The "B" units would range in size from 1,400 to 1,500 sq. ft. and the "C" units would range in size from 1,050 to 1,000 sq. ft. No purchase prices have been determined by the applicant. DESIGN: Approximately 31.3% of the 2.53 acre site would be covered by structures which is within the 35% coverage maximum allowed by the PRD Ordinance. Paving would cover 35.8% which exceeds the 25% maximum allowed. This leaves 32.9% of the site in open space which is 7.1% short of the 40% open space minimum required. The site would be subdivided into 30 lots ranging in size from 1,459 sq. ft. to 2,877 sq. ft. Each lot would contain a private, fence enclosed rear yard. The remainder of the site (open space, parking, and private driveway) would be held in common ownership. Report to Planning Comm- _.ision -3- \., 6/1/79 UP -410 6/13/79 All structures will be two -story in design. Height of structures will be 25' at peak of roof and 21' in height at mid -point of roof (within Ordinan standards). Exterior materials are likely to be stucco siding and wood shingles on the roof. Windows will be wood wrapped. The units are proposed to be grouped in five linear blocks ranging in size from four units in the center of the site to eight units on the eastern side of the site. The proposed building footprints meet all Zoning Ordinance set- back requirements with a few exceptions. The 14' eastern side yard for the northern building group should be increased to 15'. Also, the 14' western and eastern side yards of the southern building group should be increased to 15'. (These requirements are stated in Section 4.5 item 2 of the PRD Ordinance.) PARKING AND CIRCULATION: According to the PRD Ordinance owner- occupied units -shall have two covered spaces. Fifty -seven spaces will be garage enclosed and three spaces will be.contained beneath a carport, thus meeting Ordinance requirements. An additional 10 open parking spaces will also be provided. These stalls will have to be designed to meet the minimum 10' x 20' stall dimensions required. The applicant has indicated that 12 parking spaces could be provided on driveway aprons. However, these spaces can not be counted as legitimate parking areas since they would block access to other required parking spaces. Project circulation consists of a loop surrounding the centr building group connected by a driveway accessing from Bucknall Road (the sole access to the proposed project). Since only one access drive is prop d for 30 units, an emergency access should be provided to ensure that emergency vehicles can serve the site if the Bucknall Road access were blocked for some reason. (Such access must be provided from Saratoga Avenue.) In discussions with the Public Works Department it was determined that vehicles would have difficulty in negotiating the turns created by the corners of the central building group. These corners must be redesigned so that each corner has a 30' radius which would enable vehicles to negotiate the turns without diffi- culty. Also, the island extending from the northern building group would have to be reduced in size to allow left hand turns to the northern building group. All driveways must be 26' in width as a minimum,not 24' as shown on the proposed plan. ALTERNATE DESIGN: The preceding sections have indicated several design problems that have not been adequately addressed in the proposed site plan. The first problem is the excessive amount of paving that is proposed. This problem is also related to the circulation difficult- ies mentioned. Staff is currently devising an alternate circulation plan which proposes that the units be arranged about a minimum 26' wide cul -de- sac. The cul -de -sac would access onto Bucknall Road and would be centered. on the property line adjacent to this road. The cul de -sac would then "do�, leg" towards Saratoga Avenue when it reaches the center of the site. Some of the open parking spaces proposed in this plan might be lost but paving would be reduced considerably This alternate site plan would also provide solutions for the problems of ((• creating more open space and providing a common area for passive conaregatc.1 or perhaps active recreation. (It is realized that the adjacency of Quito Park would encourage its use by the residents of the project. However, it ,Repor.t to Planning Commission -4- 6/1/79 UP -•410 6/13/79 �• is advisable to maintain an quiet open space area solely for use by the residents.) Using the alternate site plan, an open space area could be maintained at the southeastern corner of the site. Fewer units would be located adjacent to Saratoga Avenue in the alternate plan. The cul -de -sac can be designed to meander through the site to create some variation in building location. Care will have to be taken to avoid the "closed in" feeling created by buildingstoo close to the private drive. NOTE: A schematic site plan illustrating this design alternative is currently being prepared by Staff. LANDSCAPING: A rough landscaping plan for the project has been submitted by the applicant. This plan is not specific enough, nor are certain of its elements satisfactory enough, for Commission approval. More specific plant- ing plans showing specific location and size of all plant materials will be necessary. In addition, an irrigation plan must also be submitted (a drip irrigation system is recommended). As an alternate site development plan should be utilized; so should the landscaping plan be modified to create inviting usable spaces for the residents rather than just perimeter screening which is the primary feature of the proposed plan. Many of the landscaping materials proposed are acceptable and should do well on the site. However, the following trees proposed by the applicant should be replaced by species that are less of a maintenance problem: .Retula verrulossa (birch), Prunus blieriana (flowering plum), Alnus rhombifolia (white alder), Ulmus parvifolia (chinese elm), and Salix babylonica (weeping willow). Trees such as the liquidamber will have to be carefully irrigated (deep root irrigation) so as nct to damage improvements. Platanus aaerifolia (london plane tree) will need annual pruning. (A Landscape Maintenance Agreement will.be necessary with any approved landscaping plan.) Revised landscaping plans should use deciduous trees in the southern portions of the site to allow free entry of the winter sun. Attention should be'given to selecting new species which would introduce more color into the setting. D. Consistency with the Housing Element: The intent of the PRD Ordinance is to allow "....certain design- ated lands the priority, flexibility and minimum standards necessary to efficiently provide for well - designed housing alternatives consistent with the housing needs of the community as identified in the Housing Element of the General Plan." The Housing Element indicates in Objective #2 (Pg. 52) that suitable housing alternatives for Saratoga senior citizens should be provided. Also, Policy #4, indicates that senior citizen housing alternatives should be encouraged. The Action Program for Planning Area F (which contains the project site) under Item #2 states: "The two parcels on the east side of Saratoga Avenue generally between Bucknall and Cox Avenues should be developed in P -D Residential." The Basic Data Report (also part of the General Plan) noted that the availi- bility of affordable senior citizen housing for Saratoga retirees, and the convinient location of such housing in areas near shopping, medical services, transportation, and public facilities, were issues of concern (Pg. 55). Further, the Basic.Data Report recommended (Pg. 56): Report to Planning Comr ,sion -5- 6/1/79 UP -410 6/13/79 1. That additional units of retirement housing be encouraged. 2. Once suitable sites are identified, the City should take an active role in encouraging development of needed housing on one or more of the potential sites. The statements above clearly indicate the City's desire to locate housing alternatives for Saratoga senior citizens on this site and the adjacent property to the south (formerly Campbell Cage Company property). Both of those sites were identified as desireable for senior citizen housing in the Senior Citizen Housing Needs Analysis (Task Force Report) since both met the locational criteria established by the Task Force (Pg. 80). The Task Force went on to recommend that both sites be landbanked by the City with HCDA funds. That would have been an optimal solution but that option never materialized. Development of these properties has fallen to the private sector but the City still retains considerable control over the character of the development of these sites. The City has approved 62 units of senior citizen housing on the property south of the project site to be developed by Saratoga Foot- hills Development Corporation. The only limitation proposed by this new project on the sale of the units is that the minimum age of the purchaser be 50 years. This obviously does not set aside these units for Saratoga's Senior Citizens since the minimum age of 50 does not meet the definition of elderly used by H.U.D. (62) or the Saratoga Task Force (60). The Planning Commission has entertained a minim age limit of 55 (for the oldest occupant on the adjacent project) but only during the first year the project would be ready for occupancy (and under certain other specific conditions). The minimum age then rises one year for every year thereafter until after 5 years the minimum age becomes 60. Thus, the 50 year minimum proposal does not meet the Housing Element's goal of providing alternate housing for senior citizens. The project does not meet any of the City's needs as identified in the Community Development Plan (H.C.D. Application) 1979 -1982. These needs were expressed as: 1. Increased availability of rental units and other housing alternatives predominantly for low to moderate income elderly. 2. Expansion of the availability of affordable housing alternatives for low to moderate income families and individuals. Since the project is slated only for ownership units it obviously does not meet the City's need for more rental housing. The size of most of the units (1,500 sq. ft.) suggests they will be oriented, in terms of cost, to high income families rather than the low to moderate income group targeted for assistance. The minimum age of 50 assures an "adults only" complex, which will not meet expressed countywide need for multi - family units to house families with children. Further, the project will not correct deficiencies in Saratoga's housing stock, in terms of meeting needs, which will be amplified in the new Housing Element to be considered in the near future. E. Alternatives to the Proposed Project: According to the PRD Ordinance the specific plan must be in substantial compliance with the housing needs'of the community as identified Report to Planning Commission UP -•410 -6- �' 6/l/79 6/13/79 1P in the Action Program of the Housing Element before Use Permit approval can be granted. Since it is apparent that the project, as proposed, and goals expressed in the Housing element and other documents, it is appropriate to discuss alternatives to the City. Alternate #1. would be between does not meet the needs supporting policy that might be acceptable At a minimum, a proportion of the proposed project must be set aside for senior citizen housing. A suitable proportion 33% - 50%. Alternate #2. In addition to setting aside a proportion of the project units for senior citizen housing many of the units could be reduced in size from 1,500 sq. ft. to 1,000 sq. ft. which would make them more affordable to lower and moderate income people. A suitable housing mix would be to have a minimum of 15, and perhaps 20, units in the 1,000 - 1,100 sq. ft. range. The remainder of the units would be of the larger 1,500 sq. ft. size. Alternate #3. In addition to the units set aside for senior citizen housing and the increased number of 1,000 sq. ft. units a proportion of those units could be set aside for rental housing. Seven or eight units could.be set aside for this purpose... Alternate #4. If the applicant were willing to commit the project to primarily serve senior citizen housing needs the density of the project could be increased from one unit /3,690 sq. ft. to one unit /2,825 sq. ft. (total of 39 units). Such a plan would necessarily utilize smaller, more compact units in order to provide maximum open space and lower cost units. F. Findings: 1. The proposed conditional use, as proposed, is not in accord with the purposes or objectives of the Zoning Ordinance as specified in the PRD Ordinance since it does not provide housing alternatives consistent with the housing needs of the community as identified in the Housing Element of the General Plan. 2. The proposed conditional use will not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare; nor, be injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. The proposed conditional use does not conform to the applicable provisions of this Ordinance in that 14' sideyards are provided where 15' sideyards are required. G. Recommended Action: Since the proposed project does not meet the housinc 1 needs identified in the Housing Element of the General Plan, this application for a Use Permit must be denied. However, if the applicant is willing to utilize one of the alternatives mentioned above, or some other alternative acceptable to the Planning Commission, then a revised proposal must be submitted for Planning Commission review and approva] At that time the following conditions shall be attached to the Use Permit: Report to Planning Commission -7 UP -410 1. Tentative and final map approval required. 2. Design Review approval required. 6/1/79 6/13/79 3. The mitigation measures listed in the Negative Declaration shall become conditions of approval. 4. Specific dwelling units in a proportion established by the Commission shall be set aside for senior citizen housing. Said units shall be designated in the C,C, and R's, Deed Restrictions and Conditions of Tentative Map of the project. 5. The C, C, and R's shall also designate units, in a proportion established by the Commission, to be set aside as permanant senior citizen rentals. These units shall be indicated in the Deed Restrictions. 6. A revised site plan shall be submitted reflecting the concerns mentioned in the Project Description section of this report. It is expected that the applicant will utilize a plan similar to the plan described in the Alternate Design subsection of this report. 7. A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted, at the Design Review stage of the project, which reflects 'the concerns outlined in the Landscaping subsection of this report. 40 8. Minimum age for the oldest occupants of those units designated for( senior citizen housing shall be 60 years. 9. One year from the date of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy on the project and on a yearly basis thereafter, the applicant shall prepare and present to the City a written report containing, but not limited to, the following information: 1. Population Characteristics a) Median age b) Sex ratio c) Number and percentage of residents that maintain a vehicle on the premises. 2. Project Characteristics a) Number of vacant units b) Median rent (market rent /subsidized rent) c) Number of new occupants and place of previous residence d) Number of occupants terminating project residency and reason for termination e) Number and percentage of project population that were Saratoga residents prior to move into project 10. The applicant is to prepare and maintain a list of available medica. services (:emergency phone numbers, list of doctors in area, etc.) for the occupants. This arrangement shall be outlined in writing and submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval prior to Final Map Approval. Report to Planning Comry sion -8 ( 6/1/79 UP -410 6/13/79 • 11.. Detailed grading and drainage plans shall be submitted to the Department of Inspection Services for review and approval prior to �. submission for project Design Review. Michael Floret, Planner I Approved by: Planning Commission Agenda: 6/13/79 MF /clh attachments CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR UP -410 Page 2 8. One year from the date of issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project and on a yearly basis thereafter, the applicant or his successor shall prepare and present to the City a written report containing, but not limited to, the following infor- mation on those units set aside for senior citizens: a. Certification that each of these units has been and presently is occupied by senior citizens; b. The number of these units that are rented or owned; c. As to rental units, the monthly rental charge for these units. 9. Detailed drainage and grading plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Inspection Services prior to submission of the project to Design Review. - 10. Pedestrian access shall be provided, by common easement, between the subject property and the property immediately to the south (also slated for some senior citizen housing) to facilitate resident travel to E1 Quito Park. Said easement shall be shown on the site develop- ment plan to be reviewed and approved by the advisory agency. * 11. Senior citizens will be given a 60 -day preference for purchase of all units. *as modified at the City Council meeting on 11/7/79. One -Year extension granted by Planning Commission on April 9, 1980, with added condition: "That the sanitary sewer easement, which is a requirement of the Tentative Map Approval, be recorded with the County of Santa Clara within a 60 -day period of time." (Extension valid until 9/80.) i ._ *(amended) �. I n�riJ Exhibit "A" 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR UP -410 1. The applicant shall submit a site development plan to the advisory agency for approval showing the location and size (in square footage) of each of the condominium units as part of the tentative map process and all development shall be in accord with such approved site development plan. 2. Design Review Approval required. 3. Comply with those mitigation measures numbered 1 -6 which are listed as part of the Negative Declaration dated the 17th day of May, 1979, and prepared for this project. (see Exhibit "B" attached) * 4• Sixty percent of the dwelling units shall be set aside for senior citizen housing, all of said units to be limited to the ground floor units of the project. To aid in enforceing this condition, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC &R's) shall be prepared, executed and recorded by the applicant which shall contain, inter alia, the follow- ing provisions to relate only to those dwelling units which constitute the 60; set aside for senior citizens housing: * a. No unit shall be occupied as a dwelling unit for any period of `T7 time unless at least one family member is' at least 55 years or more of age. This restriction on use shall be for a period of not less than twenty (20) years from the date of recordation of the CC &R's; b. The original deed -out for each restricted unit shall make special reference on the face thereof to the CC &R's, and to the particular provision thereof setting forth these restrictions; c. Any violation of these-provisions shall: 1. Be a substantial and material violation of the conditions of the within Use Permit, subjecting the same to revocation, and 2. Shall be enforceable by the City of Saratoga in the event that, after thirty (30) days notice, the Homeowners Association or other entity legally required to enforce such provisions, fails or refuses to so enforce the same. * It is understood that the within condition is not intended as a prohibition against.sale or conveyance of any such unit or units to persons of less than 55 years of age, or otherwise not complying with the above conditions, but relate solely to the age of persons in occupancy of the units, regardless of ownership. 5. The projects CC &R's shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Department prior to Final Map Approval. 6. Applicant shall prepare and at all times maintain a list of available medical services (emergency phone numbers), list of doctors in the area, etc., for the occupants. This arrangement shall be outlined in writing and submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval prior to Final Map Approval. 7. All advertising of the project shall indicate that a number of the units are specifically available to senior citizens. �.. May 17, 1979 Exhibit "B" MITIGATION MEASURES UP -410 A specific and detailed geology and soils report shall be submitted. Said report shall address all potential seismic and foundation hazards and address specific mitigation measures. (The EIR on the property to the south indicates potential seismic hazards that would likely impact the project site.) Also, these specific mitigation measures shall be included: a. Firm anchorage to the structures involved of all light fixtures and /or decorative work; b. Reinforcement of the masonary chimneys with steel tie rod; c. Attachment to the frame of the building of all water heaters so that they cannot be thrown off their foundations or overturned; d. Provision within the proposed structure of flexible joints at pipe and conduit corners so that they can move with the building; _..__...__,...._._.... e. Provision of flexible joints where details will allow flexibility wherever utility lines enter structures; f. Firm attachment of all planned structures to their foundations; g. Installation of a manual shutoff in the main gas line where it enters the site; h. Avoidance of the use of heavy tile roofing materials or design of such roofs so that they will remain in place during a major seismic event. 2. Utilize native species and landscaping and street tree planting (i.e., coast redwood and california live oak). Street trees to be planted as required by City Subdivision Ordinance. 3. Control dust by good construction practice, which includes moistening the soil with water sprays. 4. Construction hours shall be limited to between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. All construction vehicles shall conform to State Noise Standards. 5. To minimize energy consumption the following mitigation measures should be utilized: a. Utilize solar collectors for heating of swimming pool water; b. Maximize the use of natural lighting in the houses by careful placement of windows and use of properly insulated skylights; C. Install accurate clock operated thermostats with day and night settings to facilitate conservation of energy by homeowners; d. Provide water heaters with thermostats which show temperature readings in degrees and which have clear directions for total shutdown and start up to encourage homeowners to turn them off during prolonged absences from home. 6. If any archeological remains are uncovered in grading and construc- tion activities, work should be halted and a qualified archeologist consulted to evaluate the find and to recommend further mitigation measures. C •EXHIBIT "C" File No. UP -410 FINDINGS: 1. The proposed conditional use is in accord with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, as specified in the PRD Ordinance, since it provides some housing alternatives, (i.e., 400 of the units set aside for senior citizens), consistent with the housing needs of the community as identified in the Housing Element of the General Plan. 2. The proposed conditional use will not be detrimental to ,public health, safety, or welfare; nor be injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. * 3. The proposed conditional use does not conform to the applica- ble provisions of this Ordinance in that some of the side yards and rear yards will not meet minimum setback require- ments as described in the design section of this report. Also, the density of the project exceeds the maximum allowable (by a very small margin) for a planned development. It is recommended that these variations be approved since, per Section 4.5 (6), they would have no adverse impacts on public health, safety, and welfare and would further the purposes and objectives of the Housing Element of the General Plan. *The finding is modified from the standpoint that the Planning required that the proposed structures conform to the setback scribed in the ordinance (See' Condition 5 of the Staff Report 11 -12 -81 on UP -511). The proposed use will still comply with the provisions of NS -3 and will have no adverse impact on the property. Commission as pre- dated each of adj oinin,g \ei Qq REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 8/2/79 Commission Meeting: 8/8/"79 SUBJECT UP -410 J. A. Teresi (Hagan Construction Company) Saratoga and Bucknall ADDENDUM TO UP -410 --------- ----------- ----------------------------------------------- - - - - -- A. INTRODUCTION: At its last Committee -of- the -Whole meeting on July 17, 1979 the Planning Commission reviewed three alternate development plans including a 28 unit Planned Development Project revision that was proposed at the regular Planning Commission meeting of June 13, 1979. he two new proposals were a 30 unit Planned Development of mixed townhouses Ind stacked condominium type units, and a 32 unit condiminium complex of only stacked units (one unit on the first floor and one unit on the second floor). The Commission indicated a preference for the 32 stacked unit proposal and directed the applicant to submit final plans for this proposal. B. ANALYSIS OF NEW PROPOSAL: site area. The PRD Ordinance allow 31.5 units on the site. density bonus of 1.6% which i approvo with this Use Permit. The density of the proposed development would be 1 dwelling unit per 3,444 sq. ft. of the normally allows 1 d.u. /3,500 sq. ft. which would Thirty -two units on the site would constitute a s a minor variation which the Commission can In reviewing the proposed site development plan, all units would be apparently the same size (approximately 1,500 sq. ft.). Fort; percent of the units (12.8 rounded to 13) would be set aside for senior citizens. This ratio was agreed to by both the applicant the the Commission. All of these would be lower level units easy accessible to senior citizens. (; ?ote: The parking analysis provided by the applicant show; only 12 units .set aside for senior citizens. This will have to be corrected to 13 as indicated above. The remaining units would not be under any City imposed age restrictions. All of the units would be sold by the developer. None of the units would be �et aside by the developer as permanent rental units. C. DESIGN: Approximately 310 of the site will be covered by buildings and 21% would be covered by paving. Forty -eight percent of the site would remain in common open space that will be extensively landscaped. Report to P. C. 8/2/79 UP -410 Page 2 The units will be clustered around a central open space contain a common swimming pool. Units will be grouped in size from four to eight units. All structures will as indicated in the introduction. corridor which into structures be two -story in will rangi -, design Covered parking spaces will be contained in five seperate garage structures. Most of the covered parking (20 spaces) is contained in two seperate structures to be located in the southern corner of the site. The next largest block of covered parking (15 spaces) would be located on the Saratoga Avenue side of the property. This clustering of parking will make it inconvenient for residents of unit pairs (a unit pair consists of a stacked lower level and upper level unit) 12 through 15 to travel from their unit to their covered parking space. The proposed setbacks for the main structures meet ordinance requirements with the exception of the 12' sideyard (15' required) provided along the site's northwestern property line adjacent to the Jiffy Gas Station. One of the garage structures in the southern corner of the site will provide a four inch rear yard where a 25' rear yard would be required. However, since this portion of the project is adjacent to El Quito School and Park no adverse impacts are anticipated from this proposed absence of a rear yard. The garage along Saratoga Avenue would provide only a 10' rear yard where a 25' rear yard is required. However, the proposed garage will be low enough and screened by sufficient landscaping so as not to create.an adverse visual impact. The six space -garage proposed along Bucknall Road would provide a 10' rear yard whey a 25' rear yard would be required. Again, with sufficient landscaping, the low profile of the garage should create no adverse visual impacts. Approval this Use Permit constitutes approval of these variations in setbacks. The elevations submitted by the applicant tend to make the units appear box like. However, the exterior of the unit will be staggered and "notched" so as to provide visual relief. The facade of the unit will utilize cedar shingle siding, resawn plywood, and redwood trim. This utilization of natural materials will further soften the appearance of the structures. Approval of this Use Permit also constitutes approval of the pool and cabana (100 sq. ft.) shown on the Site Development Plan. D. PARKING AND CIRCULATION: The proposed Site Development indicates that sufficient covered parking spaces would be provided for each unit. The applicant has utilized the .75 space /unit ratio for the units to be set aside for senior citizens. (Note: the applicant has utilized only 12 units for the senior citizen parking ratio. As indicated above, 13 units is closer to the 40o indicated by the applicant than 12 units. Therefore, there would be more covered parking than required.) Circulation consists of two (minimum 26' width) separate accesses leading to linear driveways. One driveway will parallel Saratoga Avenue and the other will parallel the southeastern property line adjacent to the El Quito School and Park. An emergency vehicle path would be provided, along with the main - access, for the Saratoga Avenue driveway. MW 77 One problem with the proposed circulation system is that the eastern and portions of the project are not linked together. This might create some confusion for emergency vehicles which could take the wrong access to the westerr site Repgrt to P. C. l g�2�79 up-410 Page 3 nd then find it difficult to get to the correct access, especially during rush hour traffic. All turnarounds will need to be approved by the Saratoga Fire District to ensure adequate manuvering space for emergency vehicles. E. LANDSCAPING: A new preliminary landscaping plan has been submitted by the application.. Redwoods and London Plane Trees will be utilized on the perimeter of the site for screening purposes. The remainder of the landscaping would be for screening and accenting for the site's interior. A 3.5' wide series of meandering walkways traverse the central open space corridor. This open space corridor also contains a series of fountains and shallow pools as major landscape elements. The plant materials proposed are, for the most part, acceptable in terms of their adaptibility to the climate and ease of .maintenance. However, the Aces palmatum (maple) will be difficult to maintain and should be replaced with a tree requiring less water. The liquidambar will need deep root irrigation to prevent damage to paving and the London Plane Trees will•have to be pruned annually. Additionally, detailed landscaping plans showing the location and size of shrubbery and other plant material placement will have to be submitted at the Design Review stage of this project.,-These plans must also show specific details for planting and mounding the land strips between the garages parallel with Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road. An automatic irrigation system will be used on the site. Specific details of :that system will also be reviewed at the Design Review stage of the project. A Landscape Maintenance Agreement will be necessary with any approved land- scaping plan. F. FINDINGS: 1. The proposed conditional use is in accord with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, as specified in the PRD Ordinance, since it provides some housing alternatives, (i.e., 40% of the units set aside for senior citizens), consistent with the housing needs of the community as identified in the Housing Element of the General Plan. 2. The proposed conditional use will not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare; nor be injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. The proposed conditional use does not conform to the applicable provisions of this Ordinance in that some of the side yards and rear yards will not meet minimum setback requirements as described in the design section of this report. Also, the density of the project exceeds the maximum allowable (by a very small margin) for a planned development. It is recommended that these variations be approved since, per'Section 4.5(6), they would have no adverse impacts on public health, safety, and welfare and would further the purposes and objectives of the Housing Element of the General Plan. �. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve per this addendum dated August 2, 1979 and Exhibits `1-11', "C 71" and "D -1 subject to the following conditions: Report to,P. C. ( 8/2/79, UP -410 Page 4 1. Tentative and final map approval required. • 2. Design Review approval required. 3. The mitigation measures listed in the Negative Declaration shall become conditions of approval. 4. Specific dwelling units, using the proportion established by the Planning Commission (400), shall be set aside for senior citizen housing. Said un: shall be _limited to the ground floor units of the project and shall be designated in the C, C, & R's, Deed Restrictions and Conditions of the tentative map or the project, and enforced by the City. The Homeowners Association shall be required to assure that the units set aside will continue to be resold to senior citizens. Further: a. If a unit designated for senior citizen occupancy is sold to someone other than a senior citizen the sale would be declared void. b. The individual deed to each of the units set aside for senior citizen! shall include the resale restriction: 5. The projects C, C, & R's shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Department. 6. Minimum age for the oldest occupants of those units designated for sel citizen housing shall be 60 years. 7. Other than the units set aside for senior citizens, there shall be no restrictions on occupancy of units by families with children. 8. The applicant is to prepare and maintain a list of available medical services (emergency phone numbers, list of doctors in the area, etc., for the occupants. This arrangement shall be outlined in writing and submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval prior to final map approval. 9. All advertisement of the project shall indicate that a number of the. unit: are specifically available to senior citizens. 10. One year from the date of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy on the project and on a yearly basis thereafter, the applicant, or his successor shall prepare and present to the City a written report containing, but no' limited to, the following information on those units set aside for senior citizens: a. Yearly assurance that each of these units is occupied by senior citiz; b. How many of those units are rented or owned.. C. If the units are rented, indicate their monthly cost. 11. Detailed drainage and grading plans shall be reviewed and approved by Department of Inspection Services prior to submission for project Design_ Review. Repott to P. C. 8/2/79 'UP-410 Page 5 All conditions of the Negative Declaration shall be adhered to (copy attached). Michael Flores, Planner I Approved: "V\ P. C. Agenda: 8/8/79 Attachments An. U11 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 8/3/79 Commission Meeting: 8/8/79 SUBJECT ' ADDENDUM II to UP -410 Teresi (Hagan) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- This addendum is an effort to further clarify Staff's position regarding this Use Permit and emphasize some housing needs that have been identified since the Housing Element was 4dopted in 1974. The purpose of the PRD Ordinance, as expressed before, ii's to provide housir. alternatives which would be consistent with the housing needs identified in the Housing Element. The only group identified as needing housing alternatives in the Housing Element are senior citizens. However, Staff has been gathering information for the upcoming Housing Element revision which indicates other groups with housing needs in Saratoga. The Planning Commission has identified one other group as young, people . needing starter homes. There are other groups such as renters, especially those with families, that need housing alternatives. It is toward the two groups mentioned above that the remaining uncommitted project units (600) should be oriented. This means that a variety of unit sizes should be constructed on the site. Fifteen hundred square foot units would be appropriate for families but there should also be smaller units for young singles and senior citizens. Therefore, the following additional condition would be appropriate: 13. The applicant shall submit a unit size plan indicating a mix of unit sizes appropriate to .accowodate families, young couples and singles, and senior citizens. This unit size plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. Michael Flores, Planner I Approved: P. C. Agenda: 8/8/79 d ^- � � / u ] U _ ^"^ "~~.. =^ LL [8H| _. ~..../~.� ° | � nLE ^ � Lij V) CL USE r1:IJ -91T TILT, w: UP-511 RESOLIMON NO.UP -- 511 -1 - CITY OF SARATOGA PT_&1,T NIt:G CMUSSION, STATE OF CALIFOMIA TMEPMAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Camnission has received the application of J. TERESI ' for a Use Permit to allow the construction of con ominium units on a 2.,53 acre site designated for Planned Development in the 1974 General Plan y and south of the intersec ion .Q -. a.ra oga Avenue an • WEERrAS, THE applicant (has) -(hnncmmx) met the burden of proof required to support his said application; IM, I, TIII;rEFOP.L, BE IT P.ESOLVED that after careful consideration of ,maps, facts,—exhibits and other evidence submitted iu this matter, the application for the Use Permitbe, and the same is hereby (granted) subj cct to the folluvring conditions-: Per the amended Staff Report .dated November 12, 1981, Exhibit "B ", the Staff Report and Exhibit "A" for UP -410. , BE IT FUt'fIlER 11FSOLVED that the Report of Findings attached hereto —be approved and adopted, and the Secretary be, and is hereby directed to noL-ify the parties affected by this decision. Pj %S ,Ell AM) ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Pl:uuliing Cc=,Iisslon, State y of Ca _- �fornia, this 9th day of December , 19 819 by the follo;aing roll c211 vote: ' AYES: Commissioners King, Laden, Schaefer and Zambetti h'OI:S: Commissioners-.Bolger and Crowther /lI3SL�'�I: Commissioner Monia f ATTEST: ' LIZ,- r l.l:a].17';�ijl� 1;:I;1111:�� (,O::J:11.SSLGl1 AAA "/ � ✓ S,'cretary, •Planning Commission c \ iXHIBIT "C" File No. UP -410 FINDINGS: 1. The proposed conditional use is in accord with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, as specified in the PRD Ordinance, since it provides some housing alternatives, (i.e., 400 of the units set aside for senior citizens), consistent with the housing needs of the community as identified in the Housing Element of the General Plan. 2. The proposed conditional use will not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare; nor be injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. *,3. The proposed conditional use does not conform to the applica- ble provisions of this Ordinance in that some of the side yards and rear yards will not meet minimum setback require- ments as described in the design section of this report. Also, the density of the project exceeds the maximum allowable (by a very small margin) for a planned development. It is recommended that these variations be approved since, per Section 4.5 (6), they would have no adverse impacts on public health, safety, and welfare and would further the purposes and objectives of the Housing Element of the General Plan. *The finding is modified from th.e standpoint that the Planning Commission required that the proposed structures conform to the setback as pre - scribed in the ordinance (See Condition 5 of the Staff Report dated 11- 12--81 on UP -511). The proposed use will still comply with each of the provisions of NS -3 and will have no adverse impact on the adjoining property. HAGAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY DEVELOPERS & GENERAL CONTRACTORS +✓ "� `��GZ/ 'lam State License #240064 2270 Bay Road, Redwood City, California 94063 • Phone: (415) 367 -8555 January 13, 1982 Ms. Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Ms. Corv: The purpose of this letter is to request a postponement of the appeal of the use permit for 32 condominium units south of the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road. The use permit number is UP -511 and refers to the Teresi property. I have spoken with appelant Mr. Brett E. Cross, and he has agreed to a postponement. We are to meet with him in an attempt to work out a solution to the questions raised by Mr. Cross. I am not sure to whom this request for postponement should be submitted to and will rely on you to follow up on this matter for us. I will telephone you early next week to determine whether or not the postponement has been granted since there is not enough time to hear from you by mail. Yours truly, Bernard P. Hagan BPH /mr enc January 114, 1982 I k JAN 14 1982 i Saratoga City Council Saratoga Planning Commission 13 777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Calif. 95070 Dear Council and Commission Members; The J.A. Teresi property is in a unique location in our neighbor- hood. The surrounding land usage is diverse and consists of a gas station and single family residential to trig north; El Quito School to the east; senior citizen condominiums to the south; single family residential to the west. The only high density developement that borders the property is located to the south The proposed developement is roughly 33' more dense than the senior housing to the south and 290% more dense than the single family residential located to the north and west. The homeowners associations surrounding the property have all expressed concern about the high density (including the senior citizen Saratoga Park 'floods Homeowners Association in a letter to the Planning Commission). Those of us filing the appeal contacted the developer, Mr. Hagen, through his office on Dec. 31, 1981 and invited him by phone on Jan. I +, 1982 to our neighborhood meetings. On Jan. 11, 1)82 he contacted me to request a postponement of the public hearing on the agenda for Jan. 20, 1)82. Although the Homeowners Associations surrounding the property and I share common concerns I cannot speak for them and thus I do not agree to a postponement of the public hearings on Jan. 20, 1)82. _1 r. Brett Cross �'`/ 12601 Paseo Cerro, Saratoga c-s ca- 1 P. , rt- JAN 1 11982 P. 0. Box.: 819 Saratoga, CA 95071 January 5, 1982 Saratoga. City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale AVenue Saratoga;, California 95070 Members of the Saratoga City Council, RE: U.P. #511 As a resident of El Quito Park, the time has come to bring these two items to your attention. 1;. The traffic that simply traverses the area is increasing. The speed that is used, especially on Bucknall Road is a danger to the neighborhood. The namben of stops at the two stop signs is ielit than half of the number of cars that go thru the intersection. Speed bumps or island curbs are needed. 2. The changing use of the vacant land that includes El Quito Park School needs some more extensive planning. Zn a residential neighborhood with scattered two story homes, it seems that when planning for development, single story dwellings could be placed so as to make the impact of higher density more acceptable. Single story buildings along the streets and set back as are the existing homes weuld improve the area. Also, a conscious effort to control traffic adjacent to this area needs to be a part of the planning. rrhe development of the Teresi property and the traffic patters as proposed has pronpted us to voice our concern for safety, and for the type of development in the heart of an established residential neighborhood. cerely,,p and Lionel Faunce 18644 Bucknall Road Saratoga, California �YED A .0 6 1982 To: The Saratoga City..Council From: The E1 Quito Park Homeowners Association Issue: Planning Commission's Reinstatement of the Teresi Property Permit The residents', of E1. Quito Park are very concerned about recent actions taken by the Planning Commission:. Reinstatement of the Teresi Property Permit was allowed—passage Without notification't.o the E1'Quito Park- Homeowners Association, its representatives or the residents surrounding the Teresi property.; 'The permit contains.inherent problems for.the residents pertaining to traffic flow. The.i proposed condominium development,. behind the Jiffy gas station will direct a possible sixty -two cars onto Bucknall Avenue, yet no traffic impact report was issued..' The roads in this, area do not have sidewalks= and.therefore,•the increased vehicular congestion .presents a clear danger.'to the children in this area. In ;a joint effort to protect our children the association and area residents have appealed the decision. We,hope you will consider our concerns. -This'is another example where we, the residents of E1 Quito Park, have felt, that policy was formed without .our input or approval. There' is no reason why Kathy McGoldrick, who is our representative on. the Citizens General Plan Committee, or myself, President of the. Homeowners, should not have been notif ied'. The association, is committed,.to the residents. in Quito.' .It'is our hope that in the future any and all matters concerning El Quito Park will be brought. to our• attention.. The residents in the•area'surrounding the Teresi property have creative suggestions pertaining to UP -511, `which . we hope you will find agreeable. ; Sincerely yours, Dan Guiterrez, .•President El Quito Park Homeowners Association r 18845 McFarland Avenue Saratoga., Ca 95070. UP- �// RECEIVED JAN 0 6 jc82 VitA " U-)W6,lb /T/O T-- ccmt CIO - cv cut-, CUL/\ d cuo Llzc,� Qk LA- A U C' -n a-k OLO CA U 11 - u cl C."i CC�; cLeA AA c, LAO Jan. 6,1982 Saratoga° City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga,CA. 95070 Dear Sirs: I have been told that the traffic from 62 future condominiums may be directed onto Bucknall Rd. As a home- owner,taxpayer and long time resident of this area,I wish to go on record as being highly opposed to this possibility. Bucknall Rd. has become a dangerous street without further com- plication.In the last few years traffic has definitely increased, and unfortunately seems to have attracted many erratic young speeders.We have no sidewalks and children who must walk in the streets to catch a bus or go to school are already endangered. In our particular case(we live on the corner of Bucknall and Passo Flores)just backing out of our own driveway has become hazardous. Fortunately,for us,we have a very heavy hedge in front of our home which has saved us from disaster at least three times, when cars have plowed into it.Obviously,increased traffic would compound the problem. I know there must be more housing to take care of a growing need. However,I think the developers and all persons involved should re- view the traffic situatio n carefully. Surely they must be humane enough to consider the increased danger in which they will be pla- cing children and adults alike in proposing to gear further traffic onto a narrow rural road.In fairness to the safety of all of us who live here,and also the future owners of your condominiums -this new traffic should be diverted to Saratoa Rd. which is equipped to han- dle it. �/ -Yours truly, Blanche Cronk 18707 Bucknall Rd. Saratoga,CA. 95070 r. RECEIVED J AEI ® 7 1022 18775 Afton Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 9",070 January 4th, 1982 The Members of the Saratoga City Council 13777 Frultvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Dear Council Members: I sincerely feel that the approval of the plans (U.P. 511) for the proposed Teresi property access via an entrance on Bucknall Road to be a poor choice in view of the obvious resultant increase in traffic flow through this neighborhood, and in consideration of an already very limited pedestrian access (roadside walking dana-er) to the Quito Village Center area along Pucknall and Paseo Presada. The "goal" of preservation of a low density neighborhood enviroment is slowly being upset and a closer examination of this area's traffic flow (due to wear and tear on our already neglected streets) is warrented. I feel a hasty decision on this issue, which has changed significantly since it's original proposal and without opportunity for any public input since could set a precedent and lead to further poorly thought out plans for development of the re-naining land in the El Quit,) Park area. Yours truly, Tty� IU4 Ron Freund, Homeowner. November 11, 1981 Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Commission Members: The Executive Board of the Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners Association wishes to compliment and thank you for your careful consideration of issues impacting our 357 home neighborhood. Because Saratoga Avenue is one of the major "gateways into our city" and our neigh- borhood lies on the northwest side of Saratoga Avenue as it enters our city, we, as you, are quite concerned about guaranteeing proper development along this already busy street. To this end our neighborhood actively supports development of a specific plan for Saratoga Avenue between Lawerence Expressway and Fruitvale Avenue. s Our board would encourage the Commission to reserve any action to modify, renew or grant use permits for development along Saratoga Avenue between Lawerence Expressway and Fruitvale until the new Master Plan is completed and a comprehensive, individualized plan for development along Saratoga Avenue is established. Hopefully, such an individualized plan for Saratoga Avenue, consistent with any limitations imposed under the new City Master Plan now being developed, would aim towards developing Saratoga Avenue into a park -like entry way into our city. Such a plan for example should include increased set -back requirements, density limitationsl, landscaped sound and visual barriers separating the development from the Avenue and certain other minimum landscaping requirements. Members of our Board would be glad to meet with Commission Members or Mr. Shoak at your convenience to share thoughts and ideas if you are interested. Yours truly, Executive Board Member S.P.W.H.A. 1We note that UP -511 on your November 17, 1981 agenda provides for a condominium development roughly 33% more dense then the Lohr property development. This is just an example of the need for a uniform plan for the Avenue. 1. 1� 1 .z I / I December 8 , 1.9:31 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Councilmen: I vrould like to express my OPPOSITION to the development of the Teressi property, because of the enviromental impact it will have on Paseo Cerro. If' it is developed using; the current nlans, traffic will be Greatly increased, creating •a hazardous situation for all residents. V1e do not want Paseo Cerro to become another Saratoga Avenue. If development is ;permitted, I would like to request that the entrance to the proposed develonment be constructed on Saratoga Avenue NOT Bucknall. Yours Truly, 1 Nr. / I{irs. Charles Schnedler 12 611 Paseo Cerro Sarato;7.a, Ca. 95070 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 March 30, 1982 Mr. and Mrs. Brett E. Cross 12601 Paseo Cerro Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Cross: The City Council, at their meeting on March 17, 1982, adopted Resolution No.'1065, which reverses a decision of the Planning Commission and denies Use Permit #UP -511 without prejudice. The Council made the requisite findings, and these are attached as Exhibit "A ". A copy of the resolution is enclosed for your files. If you have any further questions concerning this - matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, o b e r t S. Sh o Director of Community Development RSS:cd Enclosure cc: Deputy City Clerk Mr. Bernard Hagan, 2270 Bay Road, Redwood City, CA 94063 Mr. and Mrs. Tom Favorito, 12591 Paseo Cerro, Saratoga, CA Mr. Mark L. Gaubatz; 12610 Paseo Cerro, Saratoga, CA Mr. and Mrs. Charles L. Schnedler, 12611 Paseo Cerro, Saratoga, CA `aka , >l 0919W o1 0&M&1XQ)(5& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 March 312 1982 Mr. Bernard Hagan 2270 Bay Road Redwood City, CA 94063 Dear Mr. Hagan: The City Council, at their meeting on March 17, 1982, adopted Resolution No. 1065, which.reverses a decision of the Planning Commission and denies Use Permit #UP -511 without prejudice. The Council made the requisite findings, and these are attached as Exhibit "A ".' A copy of the resolution is enclosed for your files. If you have any further questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, kobert S. Shook Director of Community Development RSS:cd Enclosure cc: Deputy City Clerk CITY OF SARATOGA r . Initial: AGENDA BILL NO _ Dept. Hd. DATE: January 20, 19 81 C. Atty. - DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr. ------------- - - - - -- --------------------------- -- ------------- — ---- --- �.�----- - - - - -- SUBJECT: ORDINANCE 38.75 -4 - SETTING AND ESTABLISHING SPEED LIMITS Issue Sunmary In order to enforce speed limits using radar on City streets a traffic engineering survey has to have been conducted within five (5) years. The last such survey was completed in October of 1976. Recently the new survey has been completed, finding the existing speed limits are still in confor- mance, with one change - decreasing the speed limit on Quito Road from 35 MPH to 25 MPH from Allendale Ave. its intersection with the southerly city limits, due to accident history, roadway alignment, many driveways, fixed objects (trees, etc.) close to roadway and results of speed study. Recommendation Adopt Ordinance 38.75 -4. Fiscal Impacts The adoption of this ordinance based on the Engineering and traffic survey makes it possible to continue use of radar to enforce speed limits, there- fore generating revenue, through traffic citations. Exhibits /Attachments 1. Ordinance 38.75 -4 Council Action 1/20: Clevenger moved to read by title only and waive further reading. Passed 5 -0. Clevenger /Watson moved to introduce. Passed 5 -0. 2/3: Jensen/Mallory moved to read by title only, waiving further reading. Passed 5 -0. Jensen/Mallory moved to adopt. Passed 5 -0. ORDINANCE NO. 38.75 -4 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING THE SARATOGA CITY CODE, AND SPECIFICALLY SEC- TION 9 -51 THEREOF, SETTING AND ESTABLISHING PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES ON CERTAIN STREETS OF THIS CITY, BASED ON AN EN- GINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY CONDUCTED WITHIN THE LAST FIVE YEARS The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: WHEREAS, Vehicle Code Section 22352 (1) (b) establishes a prima facie speed limit of 25 m.p.h. on all city streets in a business or residential district unless a different speed is established by Ordinance of this City, and ;;s;;;;;,;;;;,;;;;;;, ,,•,:.:. ; •:;:;;.;.:,; WHEREAS, Vehicle Code Section 22357 permits this City, by Ordinance, and based upon an engineering and traffic survey, to increase such prima facie speed limit on streets or portions of -••. .. -�. -.- - .. - - streets where such increase would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and would be reasonable and safe, and WHEREAS, conversely Vehicle Code Section 22358 provides for the decrease of a maximum speed limit in other than a business or residence district where the maximum speed limit is found to be ='w = -- - - " -` -= >', •- more than reasonable or safe upon any street or portion of street - in this City, where such maximum limit is otherwise applicable, and WHEREAS, Vehicle Code Section 40802(b) requires that any prima facie speed limit as provided by Vehicle Code Section 22352 ' (1) (b), or as established pursuant to either Sections 22357 or 22358.3, would constitute a speed trap for the purposes of enforce - ment by the use of radar or other electronic devices, unless such speed limit is justified by an engineering and traffic survey con - ducted within five years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and WHEREAS, the City has on the 13th day of January 1982, con - ducted and completed an engineering and traffic survey relating to the speed, speed limits and prima facie speed limits of the here- inafter described streets or portions of streets, and it is the desire of this Council to up -date said prima facie speed limits in accord with said engineering and traffic survey, and WHEREAS, this Council hereby finds and determines that each of the prima facie speed limits hereinafter set forth as to each of the streets to which it or they are applicable, would and will facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and will be reasonable and safe; that where the prima facie speed limit of 25 m.p.h. is .found and established, in a business or residential district, that the prima facie limit of Vehicle Code Section 22352 (b) (1) is a correct and proper prima facie limit; that wherever a prima facie speed limit of 30, 35, 40 or 45 m.p.h. is hereafter established as a prima facie speed limit on any street or portion of street, if the same be an increase, then such increase is necessary to facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and will be reasonable and safe, and if such prima facie limit is a decrease, then the maximum limit is more than reasonable or safe upon the street or portion of street'to which the lower limit would apply, and such lower limit is - found most appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and is reasonable and safe; that each and every one of said prima facie limits hereafter established is based upon the hereinablve referred to engineering and traffic survey, which survey justifies the establishment and imposition of the herein- -2- after set forth prima facie limits on the streets and portions of streets to which each is made applicable. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1: The preambles to this Ordinance are hereby speci- fically referred to and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: Section 9 -51 of the Saratoga City Code, contained in Article IV of Chapter 9 thereof, be and the same is hereby amend- ed to read as follows: Section 9 -51. Establishment of Prima Facie Speed Limits. Based upon an engineering and traffic survey conducted by this City and completed on the 13th day of January, 1982, the following set forth prima facie speed limits are hereby set and established for the following described streets or portions of streets in the City of Saratoga: Name of Street (a) 25 m.p.h. Afton Avenue Alcott Way " Allendale Avenue " Aloha Avenue Alta Vista Avenue Ansley Place " Argonaut Drive Argonne Drive " Arroyo De Arguello " Ascension Drive " Ashley Way Aspesi Drive Bankmill Road " Baranga Lane Baylor Avenue Beaumont Avenue " Bellcourt Bellwood Drive " Berwick Street " Blauer Drive " Bohlman Road " Bonnie Ridge Way Braemar Drive Brandywine Drive " Brockton Lane Brookglen Drive " Brookhaven Drive Brook Lane Brookridge Drive " Brookview Drive " Bucknall Road " Burgundy Way " Calle Tacuba " Cambridge Drive Camino Rico Candy Lane " Canyon View Drive " Carniel Avenue " Carol Lane Carrick Street Casa Blanca Lane " Chalet Lane Chateau Drive Charters Avenue " Cherry Lane " Chester Avenue Description Its entire length From its intersection with Quito Rd. on the east to a point 150 ft. (plus or minus) westerly of Chester Avenue Its entire lenath From Via Roncole to 275 ft.+ northerly of Comer Drive Its entire length _ Quito Road to Villanova Road Its entire length -... y„ -3- Name of Street Description (a) 25 m.p.h. Clemson Avenue Quito Road to Villanova Road " Country Squire Ln. Its entire length " Cox Avenue From Saratoga Avenue to Quito Road ;�;k;�r. r ?•'M >i:;��;r� "; "`? Craigen Circle Its entire length " Crestbrook Drive " " Crisp Avenue " ' Cumberland Drive " " Dagmar Drive " " Debbie Lane From Thelma Avenue to Sevilla Lane " Dehavilland Dr. Its entire length " DeSanka Avenue " " Devon Avenue Dolphin Drive " " Dorchester Dr. " " Douglass Lane From Fruitvale Avenue to 250'+ westerly of Donna Lane and from Saratoga Avenue 1,000'+ southerly thereof " Dundee Avenue Its entire length Easton Drive Edina Lane " " Edinburgh Drive " " E1 Camino Grande " " Elisa Avenue " Elva Avenue Elvira Street " " Eric Drive " = `ass•: `: *ter Farwell Avenue " " Fortuna Court " " Fourth Street " " Franklin Avenue " " Fredericksburg Dr. " " Glasgow Drive " " Glen Brae Drive " " Glen Una From State Route #9 (Saratoga/ Los Gatos Road) to the southerly City limit line " Goleta Lane Its entire length " Granite Court " " Granite Way " " Hammons Avenue " Hargrove Way _.. Harleigh Drive " Heath Street " Herriman Avenue " " Hill Avenue From Montalvo Road to Mendelsohn Lane " Homes Drive Its entire length " Horseshoe Drive " ;. ... . •.., ,..,.; :,..,.. Howen Drive " Hume Drive " " Jerries Drive " " Jim's Way " " Juniper Lane " " Juniper Way " " Kane Drive " " Karn Circle " " Kevin Street " " Kilbride Drive " " Kirkbrook Drive " " Kirkdale Drive " Kirkmont Drive " " Knollwood Drive " " Komina Avenue " ... .. ,_ Kosich Drive " Kristy Lane " Lacey Avenue " Lanark Lane La Paloma Avenue " (a) 25 m.p.h. -4- Name of Street La Paz Way Larchmont Drive Lark Way LaVista Drive Lexington Court Lido Way Ljepava Drive Loma Rio Drive Lutheria Way Lynde Avenue Malcolm Avenue Mandarin Way Manteca Way Marilla Drive Marilyn Avenue Marshall Lane Martha Avenue Maureen Way McCoy Avenue McCulloch Avenue McDole Avenue McFarland Avenue Meadowoak Road Melinda Circle Mellon Drive Mellowood Drive Mendelsohn Lane Merida Drive Merribrook Drive Merrick Drive Michaels Drive Miljevich Drive Miller Avenue Montalvo Road " Monte Vista Drive " Montewood Drive Montpere Way Montrose Street Myren Drive Needham Lane " Northampton Drive Norton Road Oakhaven Drive Oak Place Oak Street " Obrad Drive " Old Oak Way Old Tree Way Old Wood Road " Palmtag Drive " Panorama Drive " Paramount Drive Park Drive " Paseo Cerro Paseo Flores Paseo Lado " Paseo Olivos Paseo Presada Paseo Pueblo " Paseo Tierra " Paul Avenue Peach Hill Road Pepper Lane Piedmont Road Pierce Road Description Its entire length Quito Road to Villanova Road Its entire length From State Route #9 (Saratoga/ Los Gatos Road) to 1,680'+ southerly of Hill Avenue Its entire length From Bohlman Road to 630'+ sourherly of Sigal Drive Its entire length From Piedmont Road to the southerly City limit line Its entire length From Mendelsohn Lane to Peach Hill Road From 150'+ westerly of Regan Lane to Pierce Court -5- Description Its entire length Along the entire frontage of Tract 3974 From Baylor Avenue to Villanova Road From Allendale Avenue inter- section to its intersection with the southerly City limits Its entire length r, „ r, r, rr From Pontiac Avenue to Reid Lane Its entire length „ „ ,r From Douglass Lane to 840'+ easterly of Woodview Lane Its entire length r, r, , From Clemson Avenue to Villanova Road Its entire length rr r, From State Route #9 to 600'+ westerly of Bank Mill Road Its entire length Clenson Avenue to Villanova Road Its entire length „ Name of Street (a) 25 m.p.h. Plymouth Drive " Pontiac Avenue " Portos Drive " Prospect Road " Purdue Drive :!„ = :; .::•• :,:.. ".;. .., ., ". „ Quito Road Puente Way " Radoyka Drive " Ranchero Drive " Rancho Las Cimas Wy. " Ranfre Lane Ravenwood Drive " Regan Lane " Reid Lane " Robin Way " Ronnie Way • ', " ." Russell Lane Saraglen Drive " Sarahills Drive " Saratoga Creek Drive " Saratoga Glen Place Saratoga Hills Rd. " Saratoga Vista Ave. " Saratoga Vista Ct. Saraview Drive " Scotland Drive " Scully Avenue " Sea Gull Way " Seaton Avenue " Sevilla Lane " Shadow Mountain Dr. " Shadow Oaks Way " Shubert Drive " Sixth Street " Solana Drive " Somerville Drive " Springer Avenue St. Charles Street " Surrey Lane " Sumner Drive " Swarthmore Drive Tamworth Avenue " Ted Avenue ::,•:. - ......:..,::,-•:,•,..,....,;, - _.:::..•.;,,.�.:;: Ten Acres Road " Ten Oaks Way " Terrence Avenue " Thelma Avenue " Third Street ' Three Oaks :day " Titus Avenue " Tollgate Road " Trinity Avenue Upper hill Drive " Valle Vista Drive " Vanderbilt Drive " Verde Vista Lane ;., ;:.i •....... „ Veronica Drive " Versailles Way Via Arriba Drive "zs� ;r F �. n 5#ri =xtiriy Via Colina Via Escuela Drive Description Its entire length Along the entire frontage of Tract 3974 From Baylor Avenue to Villanova Road From Allendale Avenue inter- section to its intersection with the southerly City limits Its entire length r, „ r, r, rr From Pontiac Avenue to Reid Lane Its entire length „ „ ,r From Douglass Lane to 840'+ easterly of Woodview Lane Its entire length r, r, , From Clemson Avenue to Villanova Road Its entire length rr r, From State Route #9 to 600'+ westerly of Bank Mill Road Its entire length Clenson Avenue to Villanova Road Its entire length „ -6- Name of Street Description (a) 25 m.p.h. Via Grande Drive Its entire length " Via Madronas Drive " " Via Monte Drive " " Via Real Drive " V Via Roncole " Vickery Avenue " Viewoak Drive " Viewridge Drive " " Villanova Road From Baylor Avenue to McCoy Avenue " Walbrook Drive Its entire length " Walnut Avenue " " Wardell Road " " Wendy Lane' " " Westview Drive " " Williams Avenue " = Williamsburg Lane " " Winter Lane " " Woodbank Way " " Woodmont Drive " Woodside Drive " " Zorka Avenue (b) 30 m.p.h. Mt. Eden Road Its entire length ��wx;.?swxviTp u., Kn; Pierce Road From State Route #85 (Saratoga/ Sunnyvale Road) to State Route #9 (c) 35 m.p.h. Allendale Avenue From its intersection with Fruitvale Avenue, easterly to a point 150'+ westerly of Chester Avenue - Cox Avenue Between State Route #85 (Saratoga /Sunnyvale Road) and Saratoga Avenue " Fruitvale Avenue Its entire length exclusive of that portion of said street contiguous to any school build - ing or grounds which shall still be subject to a 25 m.p.h. prima facie limit in accord with, and at the time specified by, and in the manner, as provided in California Vehicle Code Section 2 2 3 5 2 (b ) ( 2 ) " Johnson Avenue From its intersection on the south with Prospect Road, to 1,125'+ northerly thereof, including only those portions of highway within the City Prospect Road From its intersection with Stellina Road to its intersec- tion with Blaney Avenue and from its intersection with Lawrence Expressway to its intersection with the easterly City limits exclusive of that portion or said street contigu- ous to any school building or grounds which.shall still be subject to a 25 m:p.h. prima facie limit in accord with, and at the time specified by, and in the manner, as provided in California Vehicle Code Section 22352 (b) (2) Name of Street Description (c) 35 m.p.h. Quito Road From its intersection with the northerly City limit line to its intersection with Allendale Avenue exclusive of that portion of said street contiguous to any school building or grounds which shall still be subject to a 25 m.p.h. prima facie limit in '- accord with, and at the time specified by, and in the manner as provided in California Vehicle Code Section 22352 (b) (2) " Saratoga Avenue From Fruitvale Avenue to State Route #9 (Saratoga /Los Gatos Rd.) ,.'.• "a,:::.:....:':i.. '', exclusive of that portion of said street contiguous to any school building or grounds which shall still be subject to a 25 m.p.h. prima facie limit in - -- accord with, and at the time specified by, and in the manner, ' as provided in California Vehicle Code Section 22352 (b) (2) Sobey Road Its entire length exclusive of ^ that portion of said street con- tiguous to any school building or grounds which shall still be - .,.,._� .r,..�...- ..,,_._.._.._...... , subject to a 25 m.p.h prima facie limit in accord with, and �'` =---- at the time specified by, and _- in the manner, as provided in = California Vehicle Code Section - 22352 (b) (2) ..........:.. . (d) 40 m.p.h. Prospect Road From its intersection with Blaney Avenue to its intersec- tion with Lawrence Expressway exclusive of that portion of said street contiguous to any _ school building or grounds which shall still be subject to a ,- 25 m.p.h. prima facie limit in °:: accord with, and at the time a;; : ..:.... ......:.:.:,- ;.;...:'.`.'.. specified b p y, and in the manner as provided in California Vehicle Code Section 22352 (b) (2) . >aiisaiaririxa�iµ„ (e) 45 m.p.h. Saratoga Avenue From Fruitvale Avenue to its intersection with the easterly ,.., City limit line, exclusive of ,..., , . ..:.: ....... ... that portion of said street con - tiguous to any school building or grounds which shall still be subject to a'25 m.p.h. prima facie limit and in accord with, and at the time specified by, and in the manner, as provided in California Vehicle Code Section 22352 (b) (2) No person shall drive a vehicle on or along any of the streets or portions of streets hereinabove described in this section at a speed greater than the prima facie speed limit established for such street or portion of street. ,;":1;,•,;;` .:::: :.. ... .:: Section 3: 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, 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 y� fin•, 'x.� SG! RL�If+�'� -i. ^' ,2 WC passed this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be held invalid or unconstitutional. Section 4: This ordinance will take effect and be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after the date of 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 of the City of Saratoga held on the day of by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK 14AY O , 19 ,