HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-02-1982 CITY COUNCIL AGENDACITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA B ILL NO:
Initial: 7^
Dept. Head
DATE: June 2, 1982 City Atty
DEPARTMENT: Maintenance Services City Mgr .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
SUBJECT: Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1
Issue Summary
At the May 5, 1982 meeting, City Council adopted Resolution No. 1075 -C, a Resolution
of Intention setting time and place of the Public Hearing for the above district.
The Public Hearing for the District is scheduled for 8:00 p.m., Wednesday, June 2, 1982.
Recommendation
Upon closing the Public Hearing, adopt Resolution No. 1075 -D, ''A Resolution Overruling
Protests, Ordering Improvements and Confirming the Diagram and Assessments ''.
Fiscal Impact
The costs for the administration, maintenance and servicing and lighting costs are
charged to the various zones within the district based on benefit received. The
Santa Clara County Assessor's Office will collect the amounts through the taxes and,
in turn, send to the City.
Exhibits /Attachments
Engineer's Report
Resolution No. 1075 -D
Agenda for Public Hearing
Proof of Publication and Certificate of Posting
Council Action
6/2: Mallory/Watson moved to adopt Resolution 1075D overruling protests, ordering
improvements and confirming diagram and assessment. Passed 5 -0.
t,
9.789A -399a WMAM:JEB:om 05/24/82 12c
RESOLUTION NO. 1075 -D
A RESOLUTION OVERRULING PROTESTS AND ORDERING
THE IMPROVEMENTS AND CONFIRMING
THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT
FISCAL YEAR 1982 -1983
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga,
California, as follows:
WHEREAS, on the 21st day of April, 1982, said Council adopted
its Resolution No. 1075, Describing Improvements and Directing
Preparation of Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 1982 -1983 for the City
of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1 Pursuant to the
Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, and directed the City Engineer to
prepare and file with the Clerk of this City a written report called
for under said Act and by said Resolution No. 1075;
V1HEREAS, said report was duly made and filed with the Clerk of
said City, whereupon said Clerk presented it to the City Council for
its consideration;
WHEREAS, said Council thereupon duly considered said report and
each and every part thereof and found that it contained all the matters
and things called for by the provisions of said Act and said Resolution
No. 1075, including (1) plans and specifications of the existing
improvements and the proposed new improvements; (2) estimate of costs;
(3) diagram of the District; and (4) an assessment according to
benefits, all of which were done in the form and manner required by
said Act;
WHEREAS, said Council found that said report and each and every
part thereof was sufficient in every particular and determined that it
should stand as the report for all subsequent proceedings under said
Act, whereupon said Council pursuant to the requirements of said Act,
appointed Wednesday, the 2nd day of June, 1982, at the hour of 8:00
o'clock p.m. of said day in the regular meeting place of said Council,
City hall, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070, as the
time and place for hearing protests in relation to the levy and
collection of the proposed assessments for said improvements, including
the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, for Fiscal Year
1982 -1983, and directing said Clerk to give notice of said hearing as
required by said Act;
WHEREAS, it appears that notices of said hearing were duly and
regularly published and posted in the time, form and manner required by
said Act, as evidenced by the Affidavits and Certificates on file with
said Clerk, whereupon said hearing was duly and regularly held at the
time and place stated in said notice; and
WHEREAS, persons interested, objecting to said improvements,
including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, or to the
extent of the assessment district, or any zones therein, or to the
proposed assessment or diagram or to the Engineer's estimate of costs
thereof, filed written protests with the Clerk of said City at or
before the conclusion of said hearing, and all persons interested
desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard, and all
matters and things pertaining to the levy and collection of the
IWZ
assessments for said improvements, including the maintenance or
servi.cing, or both, thereof, were fully heard and considered by said
Council;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED and ORDERED, as
follows:
1. That protests against said improvements, including the
maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, or to the extent of the
assessment district or any zones therein, or to the proposed assessment
or diagram, or to the Engineer's estimate of costs thereof, for Fiscal
Year 1982 -1983 be, and each of them are hereby, overruled.
2. That the public interest, convenience and necessity require
and said Council does hereby order the levy and collection of
assessments pursuant to said Act, for the construction or installation
of the improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both,
thereof, more particularly described in said Engineer's Report and made
a part hereof by reference thereto.
3. That the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District
LLA -1 and the boundaries thereof benefited and to be assessed for said
costs for the construction or installation of the improvements,
including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, are situate
in Saratoga, California, and are more particularly described by
reference to a map thereof on file in the office of the Clerk of said
City. Said map indicates by a boundary line the extent of the
territory included in said District and of any zone thereof and the
general location of said District.
-3-
I
4. That the plans and specifications for the existing
improvements and for the proposed improvements to be made within the
assessment district or within any zone thereof contained in said
report, be, and they are hereby, finally adopted and approved.
5. That the Engineer's estimate of the itemized and total costs
and expenses of said improvements, maintenance and servicing thereof,
and of the incidental expenses in connection therewith, contained in
said report, be, and it is hereby, finally adopted and approved.
6. That the public interest and convenience require, and said
Council does hereby order the improvements to be made as described in
and in accordance with said Engineer's Report, reference to which is
hereby made for a more particular description of said improvements.
7. That the diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the
Assessment district referred to and described in said Resolution
No. 1075, and also the boundaries of any zones therein and the lines
and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within said District as
such lot or parcel of land is shown on the County Assessor's maps for
the fiscal year to which it applies, each of which lot or parcel of
land has been given a separate number upon said diagram, as contained
in.said report, be, and it is hereby, finally approved and confirmed.
8. That the assessment of the total amount of'the costs and
expenses of the said improvements upon the several lots or parcels of
land in said District in proportion to the estimated benefits to be
received by such lots or parcels, respectively, from said improvements,
and the,maintenance,or servicing, or both, thereof.
-4-
9. That said Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 1982 -1983 be, and
the same is hereby, finally adopted and approved as a whole.
10. That the Clerk shall forthwith file with the Auditor of Santa
Clara County the said assessment, together with said diagram thereto
attached and made a part thereof, as confirmed by the City Council,
with the certificate of such confirmation thereto attached and of the
date thereof.
11. That the order for the levy and collection of assessment for
the improvements and the final adoption and approval of the Engineer's
Report as a whole, and of the plans and specifications, estimate of the
costs and expenses, the diagram, and the assessment, as contained in
said Report, as hereinabove determined and ordered, is intended to and
shall refer and apply to said Report, or any portion thereof, as
amended, modified, revised or corrected by, or pursuant to and in
accordance with any resolution or order, if any, heretofore duly
adopted or made by this Council.
1•
C
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct
copy of a resolution duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the
City of Saratoga, California, at a meeting thereof held on the
day of , 19_, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES, and in favor thereof, Councilmen:
NOES, Councilmen:
ABSENT, Councilmen:
APPROVED:
Mayor
City Clerk of the City of Saratoga
(SEAL)
5038A -191a
AGENDA
CITY OF SARATOGA
PUBLIC HEARING JUNE 2, 1982
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
FISCAL YEAR 1982 -1983
A. PUBLIC HEARING
1. Mayor's statement and declaration that the Public Hearing
is open.
2. Statement of the Clerk of the City verifying Affidavit of
Publication and Certificate of Posting Resolution of
Intention are on file.
3. Statement of Engineer as to the nature of the Project.
4. Reading of written protests.
5. Hearing of oral testimony and comments.
6. Closing of Public Hearing.
B. POSSIBLE COUNCIL ACTION
1. A Resolution Overruling Protests and Ordering the
Improvements and Confirming the Diagram and Assessment.
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Countv of Santa Clara
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident
of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of
eighteen years, and not a part)' to or interested in
the above - entitled matter. I am the principal
clerk of the printer of the
SARATOGA NEWS
10950 N. Blaney Ave., Cupertino, California, a newspaper
of general circulation, printed every Wednesday in the
city of Cupertino, California, County of Santa Clara, and
published in city of Saratoga, California, County of Santa
Clara; and which newspaper has been adjudged a news-
paper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the
County of Santa Clara, State of California, under the date
of February 7, 1964, Case Number 328148 that the notice
of which the annexed is a printed copy (set iti type not
smaller than non- pareil), has been published in each
regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit:
May 19
all in the year 19— 82 �.
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury
that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at Cupertino, California, this
19th day of May 19 82
Signature
This space is for the County Clerk's
Filing Stamp
AD# 168 -SG
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF
NOTICE OF HEARING
and by reference incorporated
Callon i
herein. R.
NOES, Councilmembers: None
2. The cost and expenses of
ABSENT,
said improvements, including
_Councilmembers:
Mallory
the maintenance or servicing,
/s/ Grace E. Cory .
or both, thereof, are to be
.
• •City Clerk of the
made chargeable upon the
City of Saratoga
assessment district designated
- APPROVED:
as "City of Saratoga Landscap-
/s/ Linda Callon
ing and Lighting District LLA-
Mayor
1 ", the exterior boundaries of
EXHIBIT "A"
which district are the com
" • City of Saratoga
posite and consolidated area as
" Landscaping and
more particularly described on
Lighting District
a map thereof on file in the
LLA 1
office of the Clerk of said City,
a) The construction or
to which reference is hereby
installation, including the main -
made for further particulars.
tenance or servicing, or both,
Saki map indicates by a bound thereof, within Zonesa, 2 a d,3
Styllne the extent of'the tgm
z`
as hereinafter tlekribiy ofk'
toty included in the district and 4 landscaping
�,
of. any -zone '.thereof and the-:,
including trees,
; shrubs, grass or other 'orna3i
general location of said district.
mental vegetation, statuary,
3. Said Engineer's Report
fountains and other ornamental
prepared by the City Engineer
structures and facilities includ-
of said City, preliminarily
ing the cost of repair, removal
approved by this Council, and
or replacement of all or any'
on file with the Clerk of this
part thereof, providing for the •
City is hereby referred to for a
life, growth, health and beauty
full and detailed description of
of landscaping including culti- I
the improvements, the bound-
vation, irrigation, trimming,
aries of the assessment district
spraying, fertilizing or treating
and any zones therein, and the
for disease or injury, the
proposed assessments upon
removal of trimmings, rubbish,
assessable lots and parcels of
debris and other solid waste,
land within the district.
water for the irrigation of any
4. Notice is hereby given
landscaping, the operation of
that Wednesday, the 2nd day
any fountains or the mainten-
of June, 1962, at the hour of
ante of any other improve- ,
8:00 o'clock p.m., in. the
ments.
regular meeting place of said
b) The construction or
Council, City Hall, 13777 Fruit-
installation, including the main -
vale Avenue, Saratoga, Cali-
tenance or servicing, or both,
fornia 95070, be and the same
thereof, within Zones 4, 5, 6
are hereby appointed and fixed
and 7, as hereinafter described,
as the time and place for a
of public lighting facilities for
hearing by this Council on the
the lighting of any public
question of the levy and collet-
places, including ornamental
tion of the proposed assess -
standards, luminaries, pules,
ment for the construction or
sumorts, tunnels. manholes.
0• �,,,,fiy Intl nwnuen
ance and servicing, or both,
conductors, guys, stubs, plat -
forms, braces, transforriers,
thereof, and when and where it
insulators, contacts, switcoes,
NOTICE OF HEARING
will consider all oral statements
and all written protests made or
capacitors, meters, communi-
cation circuits, appliances,
RESOLUTION NO. 1075-C
filed by any interested person
attachments and appurten-
A Resolution of Intention to
Order the Levy and Collection
at or before the conclusion of
said hearing, against said
ances, including the cost of re-
of Assessments Pursuant to
improvements, the boundaries
pair, removal or replacement'of
`all or any part thereof, electric
the Landscaping and Lighting
Act 1977 " -- "" '
:'of the "proposed assessment
'district
current or energy,-gas or-other
of
Fiscal Year 1982 -1981
and any zone therein,
the proposed diagram "or" the
illuminating "agent for any
public lighting facilities or for
-City-of Saratoga Landscap -
' proposed assessment, to the
the lighting or operation of any
ing and Lighting District LLA -1
Engineer's estimate of the cost
other improvements.
Resolved, by . the City
Council of the City of Sara -
thereof, and when and where it
will consider and finally act
c) The construction or
installation, including the main -
toga, California, as follows:
Whereas, pursuant to
upon the Engineer's Report.
5. The Clerk of said City be,
tenance or servicing, or both,
thereof, within Zone 8 as here -
Resolution No. 1075, Describ-
ing Improvements and Direct-
' and is hereby, directed to give
notice of said hearing by caus -
' inafter described, of landscap-
ing,
ing Preparation of Engineer's
ing a copy of this Resolution to
including trees, shrubs,
grass or other ornamental
Report for Fiscal Year 1982 -
1983 for City of Saratoga Land-
be published once in the Sara-
toga News, a newspaper
vegetation, statuary, fountains
scaping and Lighting District
pub-
lished and' circulated in said
and other ornamental struc-
tures and facilities and public
LLA -1, adopted on April 21,
1982,- by the City Council of
City, and by conspicuously
posting a copy thereof upon
lighting facilities for the lighting
of any public places, including
said City, pursuant to the Land -
the official bulletin board cus-
ornamental standards, lum-
scaping and Lighting Act of
1972, the City Engineer of said
tomarily used by the City Coun-
cil for the posting of notices,
inaries,, poles, supports,
City has prepared and filed with
-Clerk
said posting and publication to
tunnels manholes, vaults, con -
duits,
the of this City the
written report called for under
be had an completed at least
ten (10) days prior to the date
pipes, wires, con -
ductors, guys, stubs, plat -
said Act and by said Resolution
of hearing specified herein.
forms, braces; transformers,
insulators, contacts, switches,
No. 1075, which said report has
been submitted and prelimina-
6. The office of Assistant
"Director of Maintenance of
capacitors, meters, communi-
rily approved by this Council in
said-
City be, and is hereby desig-
cation circuits, appliances,
attachments -, and appurten-
accordance with said Act;
Now, therefore, it is hereby
nated as the office to answer
inquiries regarding any protest
ances, including the cost of
found, determined and or-
proceedings to be had herein,
repair, removal or replacement
of all or any part thereof
dered, as follows:
1. In its opinion the public
and may be contacted during
regular office hours at the City
providing for the life, growth
interest and convenience re-
Hall, 13777. Fruitvale Avenue,
and beauty of landscaping,
including cultivation, irrigation,
quire and it is the intention of
this Council to order the levy
Saratoga, California 95070 or
by calling (408) 867 - 3438..
trimming, spraying, fertilizing
and collection of assessments
",,
I hereby certify that the
, or treating for disease or injury,
the removal of trimmings, rub -
for Fiscal Year 1982 -1983 pur-
foregoing is a full, true and
bish, debris and other solid
suant to the provisions of the
Landscaping and Lighting Act
correct copy of a resolution
duly passed and adopted by
waste, electric current or
other
of 1972, Part 2, Division 15 of
the City Council of the City of
energy, gas' or illum-
inating agent for any public
the Streets and Highways
Code of the State of California,
Saratoga, California, at a
meeting thereof held on the 5th
lighting facilities or for the
lighting or operation of any
for the construction or installa-
day of May, 1982, by the
other improvements, water for
tion of the improvements,
including the maintenance or
following .vote of the members
thereof: I I . • ... '
the irrigation of any landscap-
"ing,
servicing, or both, thereof,
AYES, and in favor thereof,
the operation of any foun-
twins, or the maintenance of
more particularly described in
Councilmembers: Clevenger,
any other improvements:
Exhibit "A" hereto attached
Jensen, Watson, and Mayor
Pub,: 5 -19-82 168-SG
I
:....?: <
,r 1
t.�rr �Yl':�R•';:?:.Sti`Y.J:.:;.Kt : ? ?:',[,�?` =�' '.``.•' `1fi�- Vr�'.:(1:-ti r!i ?.l J
:S
o970A -279a
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
RESOLUTION NO. 10/
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
� 2
under penalty of perjury,
certifies as follows:
That for and on behalf of the Clerk of the City of Saratoga,
California, he posted a.ful�, true and correct copy of Resolution
No. [p1 $G , "A Resolution of Intention to Order the Levy and
Collection of Assessments Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act
of 1972 for Fiscal Year 1981 - 1982," a copy of which is attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference, upon the official bulletin board
customarily used by the City Council for the posting of notices,
Oil 7 192, Said posting was completed at least ten
(10) days prior to the date of hearing.
Executed on the -7 day of
at California.
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. a %5y Dept. Hd.
DATE: June 2, 1982 C. At
DEPARTMERr: Community Development C. M
SUBJECT: SDR -1164 - Fencing in P -C Zone
Issue Summary
Requirements of site approval limit interior fencing to 15% excluding
swimming pool protective fencing. (Directed to include in CC$Rs)
Requirements of rezoning are design review for fencing.
Dr. and Mrs. Alan Joe applied for design review for fencing area greater
than 15 %.' The Planning Commission instructed them to obtain the approval
of the several subdivisions in the area if they wished to pursue this.
Instead the Joes have built the fence. Their immediate neighbors want to
know what the City intends to do about it.
Recommendation
Direct the Joes to remove fence or receive grant of Design Review Approval
for fencing on site within two months. (The Planning Commission indicated
they would be willing to grant Design Review Approval if the CC &Rs were
modified to allow additional fencing.)
Fiscal Impacts
1. Cost to enforce provisions
2. No cost if do not pursue.
Exhibits/Attachments
1. 5/26/81 letter Joes to City
2. 7/30/81 Staff Report to Planning Commission
3. 8/12/81 Planning Commission Minutes
4. 10/9/81 letter Kleins to City
S. 10/30/81 it it
6. 11/5/81 City it Kleins
7. 12/4/81 it Joes
8. 2/12/82 " it " "
9. 3/82 Joes City
Council Action
Watson /Mallory moved to follow Attorney's recommendation and ask Joes to obtain signatures of 750
of property owners in their subdivision to permit their OC &R's to be changed and then obtain the
recommendation of the Planning Commission through the normal process. Passed 5 -0.
G- X57
Dr. and \-trs. than Joe
14296 Taos Drive
i
Saratoga, CA 95070
May 26, 1991
Mr. Powan Robinson, Planning Director
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear fir.' Robinson
We would like to build a 6 feet high re0wood fence to enclose
the remainder of oitr backyard for the following reasons:
1. Neighbors+ dogs roam unleashed about our backyard and
leave excrement for us to pick up, and the owners of the
dogs deny it.-
2. Members of our family are highly allergic to clogs and
their excrement. These members would develop rives clue
to the clogs coming over to our backyard.
3. Neighbors+ chil0ren ride their bikes in our backyard
without permission or super -vision. They c4emage the ground
cover;, shrubs, and sprinkler heads in our backyard.
4. Some young chilOren particularly seem to like our pond
and play in arLd around it without permission or supervision,
that could be dangerous to their lives.
5. Numerous big dry weeds are blown to our bacicya.rd from
the ne.iohbors� unlandscaped portion of their yards.
6.' There are i.nei_c'ences of vandalism, and unlawful trespassing
in our backyard.
7. Wild anim<<ls came and rui.necl our vegetable garden.
We believe a redivo�ocl fence will eliminate all the above problems
and' minimize conflict between neinhbors.
Thant: you very much for your consic)eration.
`sincerely Yours
/V� �
l�
alan . nd Virl-inia Joe
F;A1 24)
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 7/30/81
Commission Meeting: 8/12/81
SUBJECT: Request of Dr. and Mrs. Alan Joe to build a 6' high fence
In a letter dated May 26, 1981, the Joe's requested permission to build a 6'
high redwood fence to enclose their backyard. Due to scheduling constraints
and absences by the Joe's, this item was scheduled for this meeting.
The Joe's property is part of a 4 -lot subdivision in an R -1- 40,000 P -C
district. Their subdivision (SDR -1164) has a condition that only 15% of the
site area may be enclosed by a fence. This same requirement is in theiz
C,C, & R's. When the Joe's contacted Staff, we indicated that their pro-
posed fence exceeded the 15% requirement and that the Commission would have
to amend Condition II.V. before the fence could be built. Also, the Joe's
would have to convince the other property owners in the subdivision to
amend the C,C, & R's to allow the fence.
On August 16, 1972, the area of the subdivision was rezoned from "A" to
R -1- 40,000 P -C. One of the conditions of approval of this rezoning (File
No. C -157) was that any fencing would require Design Review approval.
It should be noted that the Planning Commission denied a use permit for a
tennis court in this subdivision (Fong UP -364) in 1978 because it would have
enclosed more than 15% of the site and violated the concept of a Planned
Community in that it would not preserve open space. A similar request by
the Kleins for a tennis court was denied in April 1977.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Considering these past decisions of the Planning
Commission and the intent of the P -C District, it is
Staff's recommendations that this proposed modification not be granted. If
the Commission decides to grant the modification, it should specify the type
of fencing allowed:
Approved k
Michael Flore Assistant Planner
P.C. Agenda: 8/12/81
arr
:..'inS Commission Page 9
ing Minutes 8/12/81
MISCELLANEOUS
11. SDR -1164 - Alan Joe, 14296 Taos Drive, Request to Modify Condition to
Allow More Than IS% of Site to be Enclosed by Fence
Staff explained that this is a Planned Community zoned development, and
there were a number of specific conditions attached to the subdivision in
order to preserve the open space. Among these was the requirement that
no interior fencing should exceed ISo. Staff added that the Staff Report
indicates that there is precedence for denying such a request.
Dr. Alan Joe, the applicant, explained that there are a number of dogs
in the neighborhood running around. He stated that his family members
are allergic to the dogs and their excrement. Dr. Joe stated that his
back yard is fully landscaped, and they would like to keep the dogs and
also children's bicycles and wild animals from damaging their landscaping.
He also noted that there had been incidents of vandalism in his backyard.
He described the type of fence he was requesting, which he did not feel
would be obstructing. Dr. Joe added that he felt that a fence to enclose
the backyard would solve most of their•problems. He noted that he had
obtained signatures from 7Sa of the lot owners in the subdivision, in favor
of deleting the 1So fencing restriction from the CC &Rs. He submitted a
drawing showing his plan and also photographs.
Chairman Laden stated that the CC &Rs would have to be changed by the home -
ownerF. if the requirements of that Planned Community district were to be
changed. Dr. Joe indicated that it was his understanding th e6t, if 750 of
the lot owners signed, agreeing to have it changed, and the Planning Commis
sion also agrees, it can be- changed. He pointed out that he had received
signatures of 750 of the 4 lots in his subdivision.
Commissioner Zambetti stated that he would not be in favor of changing
this requirement for one lot. He suggested that the applicant take a
petition to the people within that zoning district•and the adjoining_
one in that Planned Community district and get the appropriate percentage
of signatures, and then the Commission would be willing to consider it.
He noted that there have been other requests before the Commission that
have been denied.
It was the consensus
considering changing
homes., but not Just
of the Commission that they would be in favor of
the restriction for the contiguous Planned-Community
one individual lot.
The Deputy City Attorney stated that the CC&Rs are a matter of public
record. Fie explained that if they were amended by the agreement of the
people whose lots are restricted by the CCFRs to remove this requirement,
then this could be considered by the Planning Commission. He.added that
to amend the CC &Rs there will have to be a formal document that is signed
notarized and recorded that puts everyone on record of the amendment.
Dr. Joe was instructed to contact the Planning Department to get the names
of the homeowners associations in the area and an explanation of the prope-
procedure.
12. V -S41 - R. A. Maddalena, Bi..Q Basin Way, 90 -day Review of Variance
Doug Adams, the attorney for the applicant, gave a status report on thi,
project. Fie stated that he has spent a substantial <1mount of time famil-
i.:,..,- of r- r - -i tinc. r)gr�-IT,f, .SS0SSme.Tlt diStrlCts
C;
1'13`?ti Tacos f)rive
SureLtoga, Cal i.l'. 95070
October, 9, 1981
Dear -Mr. Uhsort,
After our conversation of 10 -8 -81 1 still have it fear questions
unanswerc(.1. licfor•e 1 go into those questions I want you to tale note of
rty copy of our CC! R's , at least I believe these are them.
You w i 11 (rote on SI)1t — 1 164 number S al, 1 1 houses had to have final
approval by I)es,ign Review on fencing. Also on this document there are no
provisions for a Home Owners Association to govern our four lots. The
cou,;nun green mentioui:il on number U isl;.'t ..a common -reon. ~he property
owners oi.' Jot I Hold, title to that area. A.lso,ou tiie CC4),'t's C see no
1)l ace where a :ror;!corvnar cart fence their entire yaarl! on t)1e propert.y line.
isn't number V " Internal fencing on Wivi.elual lots...." rleant; to keel)
the , -rcu:; on tiie P.C. open, and not to have ev.:!',y yu.rd fence,l .i,-
My neighbors,Dr. and N-Irs. Joe on Taos Drive decide(1. to add more
fencing to their properity. They did it while we were away for 18 detys,
otherwise 1 would have called the city immediately.
The Joes aLn.1 us, have held discussions on fenc ug- They were told we
tii.dn' t want u., fence to 1 *o clown the. pro+ipe.rity line and besides they hall
used up the 150 limit.
They proceeded not to put the fence down the proper. i.ty l ixre, but on
their own properit'y, so therefore, they have gone over the 15% allowed.
(` l'
As the Law Ltafl)I'Cemertt Officer .ices 'for the city of'_icL.r.t},c;maa .0 %r,ant you to inl'orr.,.
the citiesCC - -?ri' 9 that you made. I do believe, that is your responsibility.
BeceLUSe of out- conversation I would. like some written answers Iron; you
to make sure we eornpletaly understand each other. [ hove you won't 111111,1
taking at few woments of your time to get down a few things on paper.
!L- -re are my (pie3ations.
!.. Doer; :.11e J.5% fencing res +,riction ,ii.'t1 ttP111•y in the P.C. (Planned
i
Community) area?
2. Do homeowners in the P.C. area need a permit to put in fencing;?
'it j..r e 2
3. 11, it It ome o %v i: r .in the 1) C area lhati lareadv 1'erice(t (10 thi,v
need It pe 1-111 i. it mi/o r vft r i an t-,e to add more I,* e it (.,, i Y i ty'?
1
4 11 lease iteriiie iiiterrial foricing for me.
5. Does the city have respori.sibitity to eti-•orce the CC.`-'Q, S?
If tile.V dolt' t Ilk.LVO the responsibilitY who does? ilou?
G. What action is the city (ro.ing, to take bec-huse D!-. and Mrs. Joe-
have violated. the CjtVIS
7. Where does it state in the CCOR's or the city ordianc-e on P.C.
areas that homeowners can fence on their properitY line and is
this incl,lded in their 15','(- 1 i-in; t.
alit ens 11 o's Lo a S tailipe d envelope 'or woul.0 certainly appreciate
having a prompt response from You.
Thank you %,Fr.v much for your time.
Sincerely,
A0. e X�-�!Id ra K 1 e i 7
0
: a.ra.to!yu, Ca. 950,70
Octoher 30, ! 98t
Dear Citv Manuver:
When m„Y husbaunl and t returned From an 18 day tr-io we noticed that
a nei,hbor had not only violated the City's CC 11's but had gone ahead
and fenced when deniged a permits for fencing.
I inlmediatelY contacted M..r.Upson, Saratoga's Code 'Enforcement
Officer on 10 —8— 81. After our brief conversation. I asked. him: if' he
would please answer in writing a .few written questions I hact so I
would be sure to have a complete understanding. ife said he 'vgould.
On 10 — 9 — 81, around noun, I de;...i(r vrced my letter anti questions
to the city offices. ( [ have inclosed a, tvpn:i copy fol. You.)
Oil 10 — 15 — 81 tit 2 :30 1 caller! to see if he htut any +tuesti_ons
or comments rennrcling my .letter. I aslted Slim Villen co " -X hl expect a
responcland lie told me next week.
On 10 — 23 — 81 1. call.etl 41r. Upson agre.zn t . encourarred him to r�et
a response to me next week.. C
Finally, on 10 — 30 — 81 t called. 'vlr•. Upson for the last time
askin- for an explanation. lie 1301(1 me late would be gottinrr a letter in the mail.
.It has now been v weeks. 1 told '.tr. Upson I was getting a letter
off to the Citv Mann.ger regarding matter to see if .1 could not
get some written ar swers to all my questions.
At this point 1 feel 7.'I`,"' IS OF Til.E ESSAi -'CE. would appreciate
full co— operation from you a.r_d expect to reciev , answers to ny ()uestions
within 7 days.
ThF -n'< You.
V1 P
C���� Qq
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
November 5, 1981
Mrs. Alexandra Klein
14328 Taos Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mrs. Klein:
In response to your questions of October 9, 1981, the following
actions apply:
C -157, A rezoning from A to R- 1- 40,000 PC for 4.6 acres
wTic Hi includes your parcel and that of Dr. and Mrs. Joe,
with the following condition: .
f
"Design Review Approval of all new homes, proposed
setbacks,
,Rerimeter and interior fencing, common
green and private landscape ar� area and all other
requirements of Section 13.3 -1 of NS -3 Saratoga
Zoning Ordinance."
SDR -1164, The subdivision approval,with the following
condition:
V. This condition to be incorporated in the Sub-
division's Deed Restrictions: "Internal fencing
on the individual lots shall be limited to
fifteen percent (150) of the area of the lot
in addition to protective fencing for the
immediate swimming pool area."
e
uestion No. 1: Does the 15o fencing restriction still apply in
the P.C. (Planned Community) area?
Answer: The 15% fencing restriction still applies in the
R -1- 40,000 P.C. area.
uestion No. 2: Do homeowners in the P.C. area need a permit to
put in fencing?
Answer: A building permit is not required for fencing of
6' or less in height; however, in the R -1- 40,000
P.C. district, Design Review Approval for fencing
is required.
y
Mrs. Alexandra Klein November 5, 1981
Page . 2
Question No. 3: If a homeowner in the P.C. area has already fenced
15 %, do they need a permit and /or variance to add
more fencing?
Answer: In order to legally construct more fencing than
allowed in the R -1- 40,000 P.C., the subdivision
condition must be deleted and the CC &Rs must be
amended by a majority of the property owners of
the R -1- 40,000 P.C. area.
Question No. 4: Please define internal fencing for me.
Answer: No ordinance definition of internal fencing exists
although it has been interpreted to mean fencing
anywhere within the boundaries of the site.
Question No. 5: Does the City have responsibility to enforce the
CC&Rs? If they don't have the responsibility who
does? How?
Answer: The City does not have to enforce the CC&Rs even
if they are named. Hom owners can enforce the
CC&Rs through a civil Mion.
Question No. 6: What action is the City going to take because °Dr.
and Mrs. Joe have violated the City's CC&Rs?
Answer: The City has no rights under the CC&Rs. They are
a private matter. However, we are drafting a
letter to the Joes.to require them to receive
Design Review for the new fencing.
Question No. 7: Where does it state in the CC&Rs or the City ordi-
nance on P.C. areas that homeowners can fence on
their property line and is this included in their
15% limit.
Answer: The CC&Rs and Section 3.4 of the Zoning Ordinance
do not limit the location of fencing, but rather
the area enclosed, as approved through Design
Review.
If you have any further questions concerning this matter, please do
not hesitate to contact our office.
S'ncerely,
�ob Shoo
Director of Community Development
RSS /KK:cd
cc: City Manager
C TITW o2 0&%ZUQX5&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
December 4, 1981
Dr. & Mrs. Alan Joe
14296 Taos Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Dr. & Mrs. Joe:
It has come to the City's attention that you have built
additicnal fencing on your property since the Planning
Commission meeting of August 12, .1981. Fencing in your
zoning district, R- 1- 40,OOOPC, requires design review
approval.
At the August 12th ieeting you requested permission to
build a 6 foot high redwood fence encl8 ing your backyard.
While the Planning Commission was in favor of considering
ahahging the restriction on fencing in your C.C. & RVs,
e
they would not do so unless the homeowners of the conttiguous
subdivisions, also zoned R- 1-40,000PC, agreed through a legal
process to so change the C.C. & R.'s. Since that meeting no
record of a vote to alter the deed restrictions has been
submitted to the City. Therefore your .fencing has been
constructed in noncompliance with City Ordinances and your
C.C. & R.'s and you are requested to apply for Design Review
Approval for the fencing recently constructed. In order to
do so, please contact Sharon Lester, at 867 -3438 ext. 35.
Sincerely,
ROBERT S. SHOOK
Director of Community Development
RS /db �. l c�.-1 C9r1. Al S - 3 , 0/
encl S)
�
cc : fir. & Mrs. Jolin Klein
14328 Taos Dr.
Saratoga, CA 95070
A
0919T o2 0&i"ZTT1Q)(5&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE - SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 887 -3438
February 12, 1982
Dr. & Mrs. Alan Joe
14296 Taos Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Dr. & Mrs. Joe:
We have not received any response from you regarding our letter of
December 4, 1981 which requested you to apply for Design Review
approval for the fencing you recently constructed. Since no ap-
plication has been received, this fencing is Aetermined to be
in noncompliance with City Ordinances and must be removed. If this
is not done within 30 days, the matter will be referred to the e
City Attorney.
Sincerely, ;
Robert S. Shook
Director of Community Development
KK:RSS:jd
cc; Mrs. Alexandra Klein
14328 Taos Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
cx
CEEIVED
MAR 0 8 1982
Jo-COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Tao:: 1)
r - I v
Dear ',Ir. *
I would 11'c:o to clarify to you that the C(-,iiee
ive built liCtI•eell the 'ClCillS 1110, 'OU.- !)rOf'E!T-tieS
s just a j:;If'titi011 X1110 ('OeS il') t ellCiOSC
ba c a r d t i S t 01115 fence .%, e 1; 1 i i
t!".arl that I i-,uired the city t^ enclose
Our pool. rile lleiic-c Cocreases, !.unuan anc an-
iiiial tress .a-z;.3ill" and prevents ciry weeds bloiv.*
i A
Ig Over i-o .j ",tr(! frnia the nolllall:!scapeo,
im,c!�yat-0 the I e i a s T WiSh t11C,3,(- C(';I-lr!.
be ,.,,.ccomplislied lby other hears t1l;an buil1i'll'-
a fence, 'imt coiuluiuni. cat i. Oil 1XIIIS, q,cfectivc',-v
S to ,ped by the TKILe-ins Ilan-ing 11 ,) the nhc.ne
Oil !IS. j
_ttell rnrp,,e,-
_,t IVaS jlcio i�iaoreC bv
the i n:4
It is re1'evant to point o-.,,t to you tl,, L t 11 11;:111•
of t1le Cc-rlti Iicus subdiviNL,ons of
t -lie sx.v, zcn.i r ve '6:.z L T I t Colice part ;1 t i oils
and even fence f a r ex c e 0 i n 15
ne rccli f t -',ie i r pro rt i es w i tho u ZA . i1V
,LtL('V;')t :.o apply for closig", review apf?::,-)val.
I f .re tre:lt O it Avouli,! be
4
I S 0 C t f U 1. 1
0
Alan & Virginia Joe
14296 Taos Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
May 26, 1982
,'/, l — / �-: -*r -' 'f
Dear Madam Mayor & Councilpersons
MAY 2 71
To our surprise and dismay, we received a notice of hearing
entitled " Nuisance Abatement : consideration of violation
of a rezoning. "
We would like to provide you some back ground information.
We had the following problem:
1. Neighbors' dogs roam unleashed about our backyard and
leave excrement for us to pick up, and the owners of the
dogs deny. it.
2. Members of our family are highly allergic to dogs and
their excrement. These members would develop hives due
to the dogs coming over to our backyard.
3. Neighbors' children ride their bikes in our backyard
without permission or supervision. They damage the ground
covers, shrubs, and sprinkler heads in our backyard.
4. Some young children particularly seem to like our pond
and play in and around it without permission or supervision,
that could be dangerous to their lives.
5. Numerous big dry weeds are blown to our backyard from
the neighbors' unlandscaped portion of their yards.
6. There are incidenr s of vandalism, and unlawful trespassing
in our backyard.
7. Wild animals came and ruined our vegetable garden.
To search for solution 6f some of the problems, we called
our neighbors, they urn on us. Written communication was
also ignored. We then applied to build a 6 feet high fence
to enclose our completely landscaped backyard. Our application
was turned down by the Planning Commision on the ground that
it would exceed the 15% limitation on fencing, even though
we had obtained 75% of the signatures of homeowners in our
subdivision in favor of deleting the 15% fencing limitation
from our CC &Rs. the Planning Commision would Like us to
obtain 75% of favorable signatures of homeowners of 3 adjacent
subdivisions. Next day we were given the names and address
of all the homeowners of these subdivisions. In addition,
we were told that we would have to have each signature notarized .
and each deed changed in orct.er to be valid. We were reasonably
sure that we could get 75% of favorable signatures from all
subdivisions but we were certain that no one would bother-
(1 )
to have ,-their signatures notarized. or their deeds changed,
We had to modify our,' goal: we. just. built a fence partition
between our.... property.,, and. the Kleins —,pr'operty' from where
_;'most of; the'`:•problems 'came It'; was our understanding that
a fence partition did not enclose our backyard-.any further
and therefore, would. satisfy the .15/ fencing limitation.
We calledi'the building department for a permit.to buIM the
fence partition; we were .told that, no'* permit was required
.'as long as th.e fence was. � 6 ,feet'. or less. Upon talking to
neighbors, who had.built.similar fence partitions or.even.
enclosed- the whole `backyard' Some had the same answer from':
the building.'department, the.rs did not even ask.
..We,' felt we-were s-irigled out and we felt we were discriminated
against,.when we received.a. notice of.hearing while others
1.were -let to"l "ive ;p.eacefully „with their. ,fence,
It was enlightening -to' talk to, Mr. Robert ; Sho.ok... He advised
us. that the proper .,approach. would be 'to' •obtain• 75% of signatures.
from homeowmers of . the- 4 subdivisions in •the P. C, distric- in
favor of .amending-: the' C:C &Rs 'to., :delete :the.. 15 %"fencing limitation,
The; city' would most -.l ke'ly.' approve it, ' -All -we would need to do.
then was,-to record the amendment. He assuredus that we would
not need to notarize .any s gilat, ure and' no individual deed
would need; to. be changed'.
After 3 . days of , leg work. . under., the ,hot ..sun, and many many
times driving back, and forth,:: we have:' obtained signatures
•r.eprese.nting more than 7.,5/ -' of ahe �3,_ :lots in all subdivisions,
in the .P.C, district' .in favor• of deTet•iig. tha' 1.5/ fencing
limita,,:o "iii' our CC &Rs We request the title of the hearing
to be changed from nuisance- abatement to amendment -of CCPs.,
Thank you for your kind consideration,,,
Very i3ancerely .yours
Alan 'Jae
g
V ' i is Joe.
. 1-x' ”
(2)
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, MOVE TO AMEND OUR CC&R TO DELETE THE
15Yo;LIMITATION ON FENCING, TO ALLOW THOSE HOMEOWNERS WHO
WISH TO ENCLOSE THEIR BACKYARD WITH FENCE NO MORE THAN
6 FEET HIGH:
NAME ADDRESS
/ 4ly-, Y2 - 7-/k, - , ' 1 x, r_-
lc-toz) Plt
74c. DiZ
/4M 7l e' l"Z-4 A')
—P
-eo
14,
c j)
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, MOVE TO AMEND OUR CC&R TO DELETE THE
15% LIMITATION ON FENCING, TO ALLOW THOSE HOMEOWNERS WHO
WISH TO ENCLOSE THEIR BACKYARD WITH FENCE NO MORE THAN
6 FEET HIGH:
NAME ADDRESS
-50 -ro
ct
C2)
till
-7 1"
Al
1=7
c.-
-50 -ro
ct
C2)
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, MOVE TO AMEND OUR CC &R TO DELETE THE
15% LIMITATION ON FENCING, TO ALLOW THOSE HOMEOWNERS WHO
WISH TO ENCLOSE THEIR BACKYARD WITH FENCE NO MORE THAN
6 FEET HIGH:
NAME ADDRESS
1 �
C�
��L� l ; fit'' D _ r.fG"�•. C_�' � � _ � .
I
1-7
'fir/ -�� /� ��'��,9� � �� .S �� /� -��•s i� ��.� -�� r�
(3�
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, MOVE TO AMEND OUR CC &R TO DELETE THE
15/ LIMITATION ON FENCING, TO ALLOW THOSE HOMEOWNERS WHO
WISH TO ENCLOSE THEIR BACKYARD WITH FENCE NO MORE THAN
6 FEET HIGH:
NAME; ADDRESS
�.
r
f �
Il 7.� `J l�) PI
?SQL _ °_z,1 ����i ;� rn'► t�� � "'f' < <--'.
(4)
/C!h h in tj ��. �n/�� /� /h�l (ill��1J - ,fit �Z �7^/
Gr�,i � /Dyv l�rc � �- �iorce6Z�h^� h�i�i -�
c��.�, yep .
Ile
Z, ha
14
Tact
5-15V
32 7
T;�cG
syo�
/9 Gad
It
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO: A-111
Initial:
Dept. Head:,
DATE: June
2, 1982
City
Atty
DEPARTMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance Services
City
Mgr
- - - - --
SUBJECT: Award of Contract for Purchase of Sweeper
Issue Summary
The 1981 -82 Capital Improvement Budget includes $25,000 for purchase of a self - propelled,
rider driven power sweeper to replace the currently owned 1971 model. The sweeper is
used mainly in bike lanes, parking lots and for clean -ups after street work. Bids were
requested in April the companies in northern California who deal with this type of
equipment and four bids were received by the advertised deadline. All specifications
required by the City were checked against the equipment offered by the companies to
assure compliance with specifications. The sweeper offered by the Tennant Company meets
all of the major requirements specified, the equipment offered by San Francisco Equipment
does not meet the requirement of a 66" sweeping path, the equipment offered by Ricker
Machinery does not meet the 60" hopper dump height requirement and the equipment offered
by Mar -Co Equipment does not meet the requirement of headlights, flashing lights or
enclosed cab. A bid summary is attached for your review.
Recommendation
Award contract for purchase of rider driven power sweeper to Tennant Company in the
amount of $17,500 with delivery to be within 30 days of authorization.
Fiscal Impact
The amount of $25,000 was allocated in the 1981 -82 Capital Improvement Budget for purchase
of this equipment. Accepting the bid of the Tennant Company for $17,500 will provide
a savings of $7,500.
Attachments /Exhibits
Bid summary.
Council Action
6/2: Mallory/Watson moved to award bid to Tennant Company in the arrount of $17,500 with
delivery to be within 30 days of authorization. Passed 5 -0.
CITY OF SARATOGA
SWEEPER BID FORM..
I rnrn rnCr CAI CC TAV TnTAi rncT IFSS TRADF IN TOTAL BID
w.
AO
SAN FRANCISCO EQUIPMENT CO.
.$18,410.00
$1,196.65
$19,606.65
$2,673.75
$16,932.90*
RICKER MACHINERY CO.
$17,335.00
$1,126.78
$18,461.78
$1,500.00
$16,961.78
TENNANT COMPANY
$20,971.50
$1,290.96
$22,262.46
$4,762.46
$17,500.00
MAR -CO EQUIPMENT CO.
$19,618.00
$1,275.00
$20,893.00
$1,080.00
$19,813.00 - - <:
San Francisco Equipment Company - Model Bid F.M.C. Corp. #67 - Does not meet City's specifications of 66"
sweeping path. Specs indicate only 54"
Ricker Machinery - Model Bid Hako 1800 Diesel - Does not meet City's specification of 60" hopper dump height.
Specs indicate only 52" height. Also City's specifications
call fora, asoline powered, bidder indicated diesel.
Mar -.Co Equipment Co. - Model American Lincoln Model 3000 - Does not meet the requirements of City specifications
for headlights, flashing lights or enclosed cab.
�L
R
V
AGENDA BILL NO. eZ % T
DATE: 6/2/82
DEpARTMENT: Community Development
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
SUBJEM RELEASE OF CASH BOND OF $25,000 - SDR -1465, KLAUS PACHE, BIG BASIN WAY
Issue Sutmary
The City Council at their regular meeting on August 19, 1981 approved Final Building
Site Approval of SDR -1465. Mr. Klaus Pache provided a cash bond in the amount of
$25,000 for a traffic signal at Big Basin & 4th Street in accordance with Condition
(II)L.' He has now replaced this bond with a Letter of Credit of $25,000 for five years.
Recommendation
Release cash bond of $25,000 which has been replaced by the Letter of Credit.
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Copy of Letter of Credit
Council Action
6/2: Approved on Consent Calendar 5 -0.
4
1
J
BAN KOFAMERICA O,i:L,) �.iNKINU DIVISIu'N,
:1 7 1 Fi
f'�, :Ja .;1J }� �J7��.;9 �ii:V i 'L:. :.L:Tv •9
;f VOC,A .Lc
-;AiwU Y LIETTiLR OF CLIEDIT
4VISIt;G BANK:
BlENEFICIARY:
TY OF SARATOGA
377�� FRUITVALE AV-MUf_
ARATDGA, CA 95075
ATE: ,APRIL 239 1982
=NTL EAEN:
ALL DRAFTS -�-IJSI :3 . iiA'.:KED:
r4 -1K
C tEI:IT Nt;0 106940"
------------------------------------
01A ACCOUNT OF:
KLAUS PA.CAt"'
C/o PLtJ�.11&0 !-0t %SE
14555 L;IC :ASINI WAY
SA=:ATJ:.Ap i;:A V5O"T0
------------------------------------
AMOUNT:
U S m 52'7y 0 0 0 o 0 ( T'r::i�!TY F I V
THOUS-AND UoSm CGLL +RS)
i_XP11ZATION' D1 TL: AP"',IL
-------- - - - - --
199 1933
HEREBY ESTABLISH C;UR IRREVOCABLE LETI-R OF `` : -01T 1f -j YGJ.'R FAVOR
%AILABLE 13Y YLIUR DRAFTS URAW. -4 AT STGAT' UN U- ANJ ACG!3i -!P ANIL j ':;Y (DDCUIMIEvT
'ECIFIED BELDro:
J!VERING REQUIREMENT BY `-ITY OF SARATC)t.�A THAT APPLICANT PROM' -= iFU,s1DS r-OR
:SSI f3LE FUTURE I NSTALLATIO'N OF ,A TRAFFIC SI€ NAL AT T!i'._ I NTE ?,SE ,TICS! . C!:�
[v BASIN WAY AND FOURTH STREET IN S1ARATOGA9 CA*
]CUMENTS REQUIRED:
CITY OF SArATOGAtS SIr"NED STATE 1Ei,J CE 3TIFYING THHAT TH;z AMOUNT DRA -4-IN
COVERS APPLICAAJTTS TOTAL LIABILITY FOR THL 11`iST:Ai_LATIG4v OF A TRAFFIC
SIGNAL AT THE INTERSECTION OF BIG BASIN WAY AND FOURTH ST%:EET IN
SARATOGA9 CAo
F IS A CONDITION OF THIS LETTER OF CREDIT THAT IT "SHALL DE tDEEME:1)
IJT941 ATICALLY EXT- i"JO -D WITHOUT A iEi` DMENT FOIR' 014E YEAR Ff!OM THE P cSENT OR
4Y FUTUIZ` EXPIRAT10i DATE }SE {E +_;2 =q {'��lfT IN NJ LVc:iAT rLATEf, THAN AP: ?,Ii_ 179
;87) 9 UNLESS AT LEAST 60 DAYS TO ANY SUCH DATE WE SHALL NOTIFY YOU
WRITIiv G BY CERTIFIED ;11AIL { i-= TU!:13 i�;_J:YIE °T REQIJESTci`J) THAT 's4E ELECT
IT TO CO;' SIDEi: THIS LcTTt i <'. JF 1; ; _i� i i EivEblieit FfJ< ANY SUCH AJL ITIO fAL
tZIiJD9 THC-1 IT "HALL EC!1►•'iE I.ft'?E?)lA i ELY OU AND PAYA'3Ls U:'�.�N 4.'i:1_SE'.+�1TATIO
Yt7llk DRAFT AT-- SIG-1T -s0A US9 ACC0,',iP-,' iIED i3Y "? CCt1I�I CS .`, LTFiLJ''A3%VEa
itERELIY ENI;AGE IIT l Yi1U l IJ A i ALL
?TH Tic: T - :1.,NS OF THIS C4.: =4:3I T °4!I LL
;I SAY 1_itiT AT Ti�C_ 0:t AWEE i vi J., :.0-
TleTHE IADV I'S1 16 itANK IS cE _IiJcS I = E:i
`J •!tJTIFY TN--' :3ENEFICI:A: Y JlfACU
�;01.11G THFi i CONF1', tNiTIONa°i'**
DRAFTS' GRA W;%4 UiI 3ER
B DULY HisAOR_ J IF
F;:3ZE 7l t� s�Srl��aT�I !if
1C1,'z
Authorized clwdmw signature
"EIAA
ANO IN
DRAIAN 4`010, PRES 4CEQ
Alm r`•t i S CC' "EDITa
Authorized signature T C t.
1'rM V, Nguyen
.se examine this instrument carefully. If you are unable to comply v:ith the terms or conditions, please communicate with your buyer to arrange
.:n amendment. This procedure will facilitate prompt handling when documents are presented.
OVISIONS APPLICABLE TO THIS CREDIT: "This credit is subject to the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (1974 Re-
on) International Chamber of Commerce, Publication No. 290."
:q 10 /81 Bank of America NTBSA
0-
r
AGENDA BILL NO. Z ZfD
DATE: 6/2/82
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
CITY OF SAI'UATOC N
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: GF -333, Revision to Slope Density Formula in the HC -RD
Ordinance, Negative Declaration
Issue Summary
Staff has discovered that a separate vote was not taken on the Negative
Declaration included in the package recommended by the Planning Commission
on the revision to the HC -RD Ordinance. The City Attorney's office
advises that a separate Negative Declaration vote be taken.
Recomnendation
Approve the Negative Declaration
Fiscal Impacts
None anticipated
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Negative Declaration dated October 6, 1981
Council Action
6/2: Clevenger /Jensen moved to approve negative declaration on Consent Calendar by minute
resolution. Passed 5 -0.
:�'7T. -d /( rile No: GF -333
Saratoga
DECLARATION TIIAT T:IdVTR0NMTNTAL
IIIPT,CT REPORT NOT REOU IRED
(Negativc'Dcclaration)
Environmental Quality Act of 1970.
The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the
CITY OF S11RATO�13A, a municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation
has determined, and does hereby determine pursuant to the applicable
provisions of the Environmental. Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15030
throuah 15023 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653 -
of the City of Saratoga, that the follo;aing described project will have
no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment
within the terms and meaning of said Act.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project involves the revision to the density standards
within the existing HC -RD Zoning District and makes
explicit the 1979 direction from the -City Council to Staff regarding the
definition'of gross land area. The project would reduce the.allowable
number of units in those areas - designated Slope Conservation on the General
Plan within the Urban Service Area (which includes those areas zoned HC -RD
within the City boundaries). •
1`AME AM ADDRESS OF A ?PLICANT
Department of Community. Development
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95&-70
REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION This proposed ordinance will not have a
significant impact on the environment and
in*fact may reduce the impact on the environment through a reduction in
density allowed in sensitive areas (with regard to '"slope, viewshed, vegeta-
tion, geology, services available and access).' Additionally, each project
to be evaluated under this.ordinance will go through a separate environmental
determination.
Executed at Saratoga, California this 16th day of October.
Robert S. Shook
Di ector of Community�D elopment
DIRECTOR' S AUT:IOItIZED STAFF MEMBER
, 19 81
CITY OF SARATOGA
Q Initial:
AGENDA DILL NO. �, 0 _ _ Dept. Hd.
DATE: June 4 , 1982 C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Policy_ Analysis C. Mgr.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: GPA 002 -1 -B, Moreland School District, Brookview School, Change
Plan Facill y
Residential
Issue Summary
1. On May 26, 1982 the Planning Commission approved changing the General
Plan Designation of the subject property from Community Facility - School
Site to Medium Density Residential consistent with adjacent residential
densities.
2. Members of the Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners Association opposed the
change while other residents of the Moreland School District supported
the change.
3. City Council must establish a date for public hearing•of this project and
direct staff to advertise said hearing.
Recomnendation
1. Review the attached material.
2. Establish a date for public hearing (the superintendent of Moreland
School District, Mr. Reasoner., has requested that -the date for the
hearing be July 21, 1982 so he would be available to answer questions).
3. Direct staff to advertise hearing.
Fiscal Impacts
None anticipated.
Exhibits /Attachments
Exhibit A - Negative Declaration dated 1/4/82
Exhibit B - Staff Reports dated 1/7/82 and 4/22/82
Exhibit C - Various letters from homeowners groups and school district
Exhibit D - Planning Commission minutes dated 1/13/82, 4/28/82, 5/18/82,
and 5/26/82
Council Action
6/16: Mallory/Watson moved to set public hearing for 7/21. Passed 5 -0.
7/21: Continued to 8/4.
3/4: tdoyles/Mallory moved approval of Res. 2003 making GPA. Passed 5 -0 .
ETA- $
Saratoga
�C File 110: GPA 82 -1 -B
DECLARATION THAT ENVIR01,414ENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED
(Negativc'Dcclaration)
Environmental Quality Act of 1970.
Tho undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the
CITY OF SARA TOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation
has determincd, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable
provisions of the Environmental. Quality net of 1970, Sections 15030
through 15023 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653 -
of the City of Saratoga, that the follo;ving described project will have
no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environrncnt
within the terns and meaning of said Act.
PROJECT' DESCRIPTION General Plan Amendment to change the Designation
of a site from Community Facility- School Site to Medium Density Residential.
The.site is 11.57 acres in size and is located at 12301 Radoyka Drive
(Brookview School). A maximum of about 40 dwelling units could be constructed
on the site which would eliminate the open space and recreation provided by
the site.
RAME ANTD ADDRESS OF APPLZCANIT Moreland School District
4710 Campbell Avenue
San Jose, California 95130
=MSON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION The proposed ,project will not have a signifi-
cant e ec on the environment ecause of the mitigation measures that will be
applied to new residential development during tentative subdivision-approval
and by enforcement of existing codes and ordinances. New development would
be considered an inTill project which would not require any significant extensic
of urban services.' The open space /recreation value provided by the site can be
maintained by preserving a* portion of it in open space /recreation use-.or by
requiring an in lieu fee to improve other existing open space resources. Any
proposal for tentative map will be evaluated at'the time of-submission for any
possible environmental impacts.
Executed at Saratoga, California this 4th day Of ,January 1912-
,
R. S. Robinson, Jr.
:Director of Planning and Policy Analysis
DIRECTOIR' S AUT1101iI ZED STAFF MEMBER
� C EX k � ( B
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 4/22/82
Commission Meeting: 4/28/82
SUBJECT = GPA 82 -1 -B and GPA 82 -1 -C, Moreland School District,
Brookview and E1 Quito School Sites
On January 27, 1982 the Moreland School District requested that
the above referenced items be continued until after their March
9, 1982 Board of Trustees meeting. On March 22, 1982 staff
received a letter dated March 18, 1982 from the school district
requesting reactivation of their requests. Since that time
staff has renoticed the public hearings for these sites. The
school district has not modified its original requests for the
designation changes on each site (please see attached staff
reports).
Although these requests have been readvertised for a public
hearing for the April 28, 1982 meeting, the Commission may wish
to continue both items to a study session to discuss the various
alternatives and issues that apply to these proposed amendments.
Some residents in the areas affected have indicated that a
study session would be appropriate and believe that was the
Commission's intent in allowing these requests to be continued.
If the Commission decides to continue these items to a study
session they should announce that intent at the beginning of
the meeting and only take general testimony at the time of the
public hearing.
Another option the Commission may consider is to continue these
items to a meeting where the area plans for Planning Areas D
and F are considered. Discussion of the school sites could then
be incorporated with the other problems and issues associated
with the planning areas.
MF /mgr
Michael Flores
Assistant Planner
•
•
1111100-TERn L ;01
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: l/ 7/82
Commission Meeting: 1/13/82
SUBJECT: GPA 82 -1 -B, Moreland School District, 12301 Radoyka Drive
( Brookview School)
Request: Amend the subject property's General Plan Designation
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 90 property owners in
the vicinity.
Zoning: R -1- 10,000
Surrounding Land Uses: Prospect High School to the north and west;
single family residential to the south and east.
Site Size: 11.57 acres (net)
Site Slope: Gentle,(less than 50)
Staff Analysis: The Moreland School District is the other school
district besides Saratoga Union School District to follow up on
the Planning Director's October 1981 letter giving school districts
the opportunity to amend the General Plan Designation of surplus
school sites. The District is also proposing an'amendment to
the Designation of the El Quito Park School site (GPA- 82 -1 -C also
on this agenda).
The Brookview Elementary School was closed in 1979 due to declining
enrollment. Since that time the district has leased the existing
buildings to private schools and a religious institution. The
recreational facilities have remained open to other users. The
district is now in the process of conducting hearings on how the
GPA 82 -1 -B •
January 7, 1981
Page 2
surplus school sites should be used in the future. The
Commission recently granted a use permit for this site which
allowed uses not listed as permitted under the Zoning Ordinance to
continue until June 1982.
If the District decides to sell the site to reduce maintenance
costs and create more revenue, the proposed change in the site's
General Plan Designation would allow single family residential
development on the site and thus make it easier to sell. It
should be noted that the school use of the site need not be
abandoned if the proposed change is adopted since public schools
would remain as conditional uses in R -1 Districts. So the site
can still be used as a school or other compatible use if it is not
sold in the near future.
As in the case of the Congress Springs proposal, the most
significant issue associated with the proposal is the loss of
open space and recreational opportunities that could follow new
residential development. School sites are a significant part of
the City's open space inventory and provide recreational oppor-
tunities. This problem can be mitigated by requiring dedication
of open space /recreation land or by requiring 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 the
potential impacts of alternative proposals. The comments and desires
of the representatives of Planning Area D in which the site is
located and citizen 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 residential development of existing neighborhoods.
This also conforms to Item 6 of the Area D Action Program which
restricts the Brookview and Hansen School Sites to Medium Density
Residential Development (R -1- 10,000 zoning) if sold.
Approximately 40 detached single family units could be
built on the site after deducting 20% of the site area for
streets. This number of units would generate about 49% more
traffic than the school had at its peak enrollment. Residents
in the area, however, have indicated during use permit hearings
conducted last year that they would rather see single- family
residential development on site than the uses currently occupying
the school building which they perceive as heavy traffic generators.
GPA 82 -1 -B e
January 7, 1981
Page 3
No significant extension of urban services would be required
since this would be an infill project.
2. No Change. Community Facility /School Site
It is possible that the School District could continue-to own
the property, or some other public agency might purchase the site,
and continue to lease the site to private or public schools.
However, the types of uses currently allowed and the potential
for controversy among nearby residents reduces the viabli.ty 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 recrea-
tion space would be preserved. However, the School District
eventually would not be able to maintain the open space because
of cost. Although the City would be the public agency most
likely to consider purchasing the site or a portion of it, this
is not likely to occur considering the City's budgetary and
personnel constraints.
3. Multi - Family Housing /P -D (Planned Development)
Under this option, a maximum of 125 -167 dwelling units could
be constructed on the site depending on the Zoning Designation
given the site (R -M -4,000 vs. R- M- 3,000). This would create
roughly double the traffic impact of a single family subdivision
on the same site. (Please see GPA 82 -1 -B for an example on how
this is determined.)
However, a maximum density of 1 unit /6,300 square feet
would allow a multi - family development of about 80 units which
would have the same traffic impact as a 40 lot subdivision. This
option would allow the preservation of open space by clustering
the units. A P -D (Planned Development) Designation with specific
(density limits. incorporated in the General Plan would accomplish
this and allows greater flexibility and control in developing
the site through the use permit process.
It should be noted that according to the responses to the
General Plan Questionnaire, a minority in Area D favored
condominiums for senior citizens on school sites. However, since
the Action Program for Area D is very specific as to the density
school sites should be developed at, it is unlikely that a multi-
family development would be accepted by the residents.
4. Commercial /Industrial
These options in general, would create traffic, noise, and
other impacts that would not be compatible with adjacent R -1
uses although more aales tax revenues could be generated.
Certain specific professional- administrative uses that have low
traffic impacts 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
GPA 82 -1 -B • •
January 7, 1982
Page 4
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 use of the site for
a Medium Density Residential subdivision would be more acceptable
than maintaining the school site with what are perceived to be
undesirable uses. Further, maintaining the open space may not
be financially viable for either the school district or the City.
The open space reduction can be mitigated by park dedication fees
or by dedication of a portion of the site to open space.
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.
Mike Flores,
Assistant Planner
MF /mgr
Findings:
EXHIBIT "A"
0A 82 -1 -B
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.
•
Cr.
--
PRO_ r
P�GT H1CN DDL
C -N
R-1-10 000
•
FA,
P.
r.
0
f F—.Y,*15rr a b 11
4PA-SZ'-1-is
QASEO OUVb::
GPA- 82 -1 -B
Change from Community
Facilities- School Site to
Medium Density Residential'
UCV.4l P
LAJ
SARATOGA PARK WOODS HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.
19001 Mellon Drive, Saratoga, CA 95070
E x h
May 18., 1982
Saratoga Planning Commission
1377 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: GPA 82 -1 -B Moreland School District, Brookview Site
Dear Commission Members:
Please be advised that the position of the Saratoga Park
Woods Homeowners Association and that of the residents of Saratoga
Woods regarding the application of Moreland School District to
rezone Brookview School Site is the same today as it was stated
in our letter of February 22, 1982 to Mr. Reasnor of Moreland,
a copy of which has been twice delivered to the Commission.
We remind the Commission that it denied Moreland's request
5 -2 on January 13, 1982 and we request the comm ission adopt the
same position at this time.
Marilyn Perna
Acting President
S.P.W.H.A.
Attachments
13oaraof Trustees R LAND SCH A L DISTRICT
Anna K. Kurze
President
Arthur A. Woods, Jr. CALIFORNIA'S OLDEST KNOWN RURAL SCHOOL DISTRICT • 1851
Clerk
John W. Anderson •ROBERT W. REASONER
Marilyn M. Ineardona March 18, 1982 Supertntendent
Damon G. Nalty RECEIVED
MAR 2 2 1982.
!COMMU.31TY. DEVELOPMENT.
Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Commissioners:
Representatives.of the district appeared before the Commission earlier
to request a change in the General Plan designation for Brookview and
El. Quito Park Schools sites (GPA 82 -1 -B and GPA 82 -1 -C). Because there
was a question about the nossibilit_v of maintaining those sites for
school use, it was felt best to continue this request until the Board
of Trustees made a,final decision regarding these two sites. At its
March 9 meeting the Board of Trustees decided that these sites would
not be needed as school sites and recommended the following action:
1. That the Brookview site be leased through June, 1983
but that immediate steps be taken to sell the site,
2. That negotiations begin with the City regarding the
purchase of a portion of the E1 Quito Park site for
use as a park, and
3. That the E1 Quito Park site be leased for another
three year period.
Accordingly, the Board would like to reactivate its request for change
in General Plan designation for Brookview and El Quito Park School sites,
✓GPA 82 -1 -B and GPA 82 -1 -C, and requests that such steps be taken as are
required to recalendar these requests.'
RWR:mab
Respectfully,
Robert W. Reasoner
Superintendent
4710 Campbell Avenue San Jose, Cakjorniq 95130 4081379 -1370
Our association represents.the 356 homes in Saratoga Woods,
the neighborhood in which Brookview is located. To date there have
been two neighborhood meetings to discuss what future use should
be made of the Brookview site. The first notice our neighborhood
recieved of a possible change,:in utilization at Brookview was when
the.Moreland Property Advisory Committee gave notice to the homes
immediately adjacent to Brookview of the PAC's January 12, 1982
public hearing at Brookview., As the P.A.C. minutes of that meeting
indicate: "The preference of. those present was for long -term lease
of site ... and that the lease be for educat:i.onal. or recreation
pw.,posrrS. 1?r.:i..v1..,1te school. ur.
to childres) ." Irl short, those attending on January 12, unanimously
voted not to sell the site,-but keep it leased for school purposes
or programing benefiting children.
Thereafter., our association held a neighborhood meeting where-
in only the future use of.Brookview was discussed. Every home in
our neighborhood received,written notice of the'meeting'and subject
matter. Prior to the meeting the executive board (9 persons), based
on the results of the January 12, P.A.C. public hearing and all other
.factors, had formulated a policy identical to the position stated
in the above quotation from the minutes of the January 12 hearing.
At our neighborhood meeting on February 18, 1.982, those attending
voted unanimously to ratify the position taken by our executive board.
Several factors influenced our neighborhood's decision to keep
Brookview leased (hopefully long -term) for school purposes or programs
benefiting children:
(1) The school site has,been an important part of our community
and a local recreation facility since 1960. Our neighborhood has
regular organized recreational activities at the site on Labor and
Memorial. Day in which parents and ch:i.ldren l:.r.ad..itional.l.y have par, -
t.i.c.i.pat(z<d
(2) Our homeowner's association has developed a dialogue with
,
' ,,,February
22, 1982
'
RECEIVE' ;`
FEB 2 51"_
Robert W. Reasoner
",•.:.
Superintendent
Moreland School District.
COMMUNf1�f
4710 Campbell Avenue
San Jose, CA 95130
Re: February 16, 1982 Board Agenda
Item 8.1, Property Advisory Committee Repor-:,(Information)
Brookview Site
Dear Mr. Reasoner:
Thank you for sending a copy of your board's February.l;6th
agenda to our homeowner's association. Unfortunately,
we received
it too late to send a representative to your February
16 meeting.
This letter, however, should suffice to convey our neighborhood's
position .regarding utilization of the firookv.i.ew School
site.
Our association represents.the 356 homes in Saratoga Woods,
the neighborhood in which Brookview is located. To date there have
been two neighborhood meetings to discuss what future use should
be made of the Brookview site. The first notice our neighborhood
recieved of a possible change,:in utilization at Brookview was when
the.Moreland Property Advisory Committee gave notice to the homes
immediately adjacent to Brookview of the PAC's January 12, 1982
public hearing at Brookview., As the P.A.C. minutes of that meeting
indicate: "The preference of. those present was for long -term lease
of site ... and that the lease be for educat:i.onal. or recreation
pw.,posrrS. 1?r.:i..v1..,1te school. ur.
to childres) ." Irl short, those attending on January 12, unanimously
voted not to sell the site,-but keep it leased for school purposes
or programing benefiting children.
Thereafter., our association held a neighborhood meeting where-
in only the future use of.Brookview was discussed. Every home in
our neighborhood received,written notice of the'meeting'and subject
matter. Prior to the meeting the executive board (9 persons), based
on the results of the January 12, P.A.C. public hearing and all other
.factors, had formulated a policy identical to the position stated
in the above quotation from the minutes of the January 12 hearing.
At our neighborhood meeting on February 18, 1.982, those attending
voted unanimously to ratify the position taken by our executive board.
Several factors influenced our neighborhood's decision to keep
Brookview leased (hopefully long -term) for school purposes or programs
benefiting children:
(1) The school site has,been an important part of our community
and a local recreation facility since 1960. Our neighborhood has
regular organized recreational activities at the site on Labor and
Memorial. Day in which parents and ch:i.ldren l:.r.ad..itional.l.y have par, -
t.i.c.i.pat(z<d
(2) Our homeowner's association has developed a dialogue with
Montessori School, the current lessee, and will develop communi-
cation with any future.lessees. Montessori prefers a long -term
lease for stability and has promised sensitivity to immediate
neighbors. In response, our association will support a variance
from the profit- making prohibition presently imposed by local
ordinance to the extent.such a variance would permit a developmental
learning program for children at the site. Several families in our
neighborhood use the schools and day care center currently at
Brookview.
.(3) We now realize that the property manager for the site,
School Property Managers, Inc., which receives a 10o commission based
on annual rents, has oversight responsibility if complaints about
lessees arise. In a February 6, 1981 letter Property Managers
vowed to "personally talk with. tenants" who are off"end:i.n,c� neighbors
or improperly maintaining the sites.
(4) Data comparing five -year deferred rrnaintenance :agai.nst
current annual rents reveals the Brookview site has the most favor-
able cost /rent ratio of`a of the 7 closed Moreland sites being
leased. An alternative to selling Brookview would be to sell one
of.the sites Moreland operates less efficiently in San Jose, and
San Joseans would still have several remaining closed Moreland
sites in their community. By selling Brookview and El Quito sites,
no further Moreland sites would exist in Saratoga. Unfortunately,
the Moreland Board charged the P.A.C. to hold meetings and advise
it only regarding the closed Saratoga sites, not the other 5 sites
outside Saratoga.
(5) If Brookview is sold for r..es:i.denti.al. devc.lopinent (i;-MV is
approximately $6,000,000.0.0), up to 75';ti of, th(:.! proceeds could go to
the district, but the funds would'be restricted to capital improve-
ment and maintenance. Because'of the drastic reduction in K -8
children from Saratoga attending Moreland Schools since the board
closed Brookview in June, 1979, few Saratoga children would benefit
from the multi- million dollar contribution our neighborhood would
be making to Moreland's deferred maintenance plan. The benefit
gained for the two or three.dozen Saratoga Woods children attending
Moreland schools in San Jose would be far outweighed by'the loss
of the open and recreation space at R.rookv.i ew which currently bene-
fits all.Saratoga Woods adults and children. ln.contract, lease
income under ECS 41003, may be allocated to any fund, and can go to
teachers and programing, not just buildings and deferred maintenance.
If. 'Moreland were to sell Brookview to a special. assessment district
or the City of Saratoga pursuant to Ed. Code Section 3939A at 25%
of FMV, the proceeds, likewise,. could go to Moreland's general fund
and be used for teachers and programing.
(6) Education Code Section 39384(b) states, "It is the intent
of the Legislature to have the community involved before decisions
are made about school closure or the use of surplus space, thus
avoiding community conflict and assuring building use that is com-
batible with the community's needs and desires." Despite this
mandate, the Moreland Board, without any notice at all to our
neighborhood, d.i..rected yoga, as Superintendent, on October 6, .1981,
to request the City of Saratoga to rezone Brookview site to R1- 10,000,
single family residential from community facility /school site to
facilitate sale of the site. This charge to you was made before the
Board activated the P.A.C. and before the Board gave the P.A.C. its
• - 3 - •
charge on November 17, 1981. Consequently, the Saratoga Planning
Commission staff report on your application to'rezone Brookview
was prepared before the P.A.C. held hearings "at E1 Quito and
Brookview to get neighborhood input. No one on Moreland staff
or on the P.A.C. mentioned to us at the January 12, 1982 hearing
'that the very next night, January 13, 1982 you were to appear
before the Saratoga Planning Commission seeking a rezoning for the
Brookview site. Fortunately,, one of our board members discovered
at'the last minute your request was on the Planning Commission agenda.
The staff report on your application to rezone Brookview in-
dicates 40 units could be built on the site which "would generate
about 49% more traffic than the school had at its peak enrollment."
Because no new ingress and egress is possible, severe negative
environmental impact could be anticipated if your appplication were
approved as requested. Lessees can be changed or made to conform
to use permit requirements, but a development with approximately
100 automobiles for 40 dwellings and the accompanying loss of open
space would be permanent.
As we indicated to you earlier, we look forward to working
with you, Mr. Reasoner, to develop a mutually satisfactory resolu-
tion that accommodates the basic needs of your district and our
neighborhood and children. We renew our offer to meet with you
personally to discuss the Brookview site. If we do not have such
a meeting we will no doubt meet at the March 16th study session
with the Saratoga Planning Commission.
Yours truly,
Marilyn Perna
Acting President )�, A
cc: Saratoga Planning Commission
Board of Trustees VORELAND SCH
L DISTRICT
Anna K. Kurze
President
Arthur A. Woods, Jr.
Clerk
John W. Anderson
Marilyn M. Incardona
Damon G. Nalty
CALIFORNIA'S OLDEST KNOWN RURAL SCHOOL DISTRICT • 1851
January 27, 1982
Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Commissioners:
ROBERT W. REASONER
Superintendent
RECEIVED JAS' 2 7 198?
It does not appear, after last night's Board of Trustees meeting,
that the Board will reach a decision regarding its proposed
actions concerning Brookview and El Quito Park schools until its
meeting of March 9, 1982.
The Board requests a continuance of its request for change in
General Plan designation for these two sites, GPA 82 -1 -B and
GPA 82 -1 -C, to be renoticed for hearing later in the year follow-
ing the Board's determination of its plans for these sites.
Respectfully,
TGer4ardl.HaZuck
Assistant Superintendent- Business
GWH:ch
4710 Campbell Avenue San Jose, California 95130 4081379 -1370
,.y RECEIVED JAN 2 5 1982
January 21, 1982
Robert Reasoner, Superintendent
Moreland School. District
4710 Campbell Ave.
San Jose, CA 95130
Re PAC Revised Charge of 11/17/81 and PAC Report on
Brookview School Site
Dear Sir:
Our organization represents .the 356 homes located in Saratoga Woods,
the`neighborhood'immediately surrounding Brookview School which the Board
ordered closed in June.of 1979.
You, of course, are aware of the results of the PAC public hearing at
Brookview on January 12, 1982. With the exception of one person (who we
are advised has'now changed his position), those in attendance uniformly
agreed that.their preference was to have Brookview kept zoned for school
site /community facility and that the Board enter into a long -term (excess
of '3 years) lease with a private school Day care and other services for
children should also receive priority as lessees.
Our.organization is willing to work with you and the Saratoga Plan -
.ning,.Gommission to develop workable use restrictions which would enable
.your,Board to continue leasing Brookview to organizations providing services
to children and youth and to maintain the recreational facility and open
space Brookview now provides. We will have a representative at the
February 2, 1982.Study Session.with.the Planning Commission.
Some of.our homeowners, however, have. noted that your Board may have
put..the cart before the horse with regard to its intentions for Brookview.
.Tn'October, 1981, the Board asked you.to request a change in zoning to a
non,schopl.use, apparently as a first step to selling Brookview. When,
the public hearing was held by the'PAC at Brookview on January 12, 1982,
:the announced purpose was to receive community input so that the PAC and
Moreland Board,would know how the-neighborhood felt about future use of
Brookview.. Neither. the. Board member present nor the PAC (if they knew)
inc.titioned that the _very next night Moreland was seeking a zoning change
as a first step to selling the school. When you addressed the Pl.ann:i.ng
Commission on the lath, you stated you thought you know the conmmini.ty
feelings about Brookview when you applied for the zoning change and
you were surprised to see neighborhood representatives inform the
Commission they believed the neighborhood as a whole preferred leas-
ing for school purposes to selling the site. however, the first
meaningful chance our community had to give input directly to Moreland
was at the January 12 PAC public hearing at Brookview.
It is our intention to conduct a poll of our entire neighborhood
in the near future so that heretofore community preference regarding
future use of the Brookview site can be clearly known and understood.
We apologize for not having done so earlier.
Our association looks forward to working; with you ill file future.
Yours truly,
�f Yf Q
cc: Saratoga Planning Commission
1377 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
1'
•
SARATOGA PARK WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
19001 Mellon Drive, Saratoga, CA 95070
January 13, 1982
Saratoga Planning Commission
1377 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Opposition of Saratoga Woods to Application by Moreland Board
of Trustees to Rezone Brookview School Site.
Dear Commission Members:
I am a resident of Saratoga Woods and an Executive Board Member of
the'Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners Association. It is within our
neighborhood of 356 homes that Brookview School is located.
On January 1.2, 1982, the Moreland Advisory Committee held a public
hearing on the future use of the Brookview site. With virtual
unanimity (one person felt otherwise) our neighbors at the hearing
�.: stated they wished Brookview to be leased long term to a private
f.:...
school(s) or day care Centers) or for park and recreation purposes,
and that Brookview not be sold in the foreseeable future.. We
also prefer Brookview be kept as open space and for.school usage..
We strongly oppose Moreland's request that Brookview be rezoned
at this time.
The Commission may be unaware of events of recent years involving
Brookview. In the late seventies the Moreland Board of Trustees
adopted a plan to close Brookview in June, 1979. In November,
1977, 250 students attended Brookview. Despite intense community
opposition, the decision to close Brookview, the last Saratoga
site Moreland had, was finalized by the Moreland Board.
In January, 1979, over 300 residents of Saratoga Woods signed a
petition to transfer Saratoga Woods out of Moreland into Saratoga
Union School District, thus prolonging the life of Congress Springs
school and allowing Saratoga children to go to school in their
own community. This boundary transfer petition was approved by
the Saratoga Union Board, but bitterly fought by the Moreland
Board of Trustees, both collectively and individually.
ll Although only 1.9% of Moreland students were in Saratoga Woods,
J the Moreland Board used district money and lawyers to force the issue
to an election in the entire Moreland District containing over
19,000 registered voters. Ir a near miracle, Measure F lost by a
suing vote of only 241. In Saratoga Woods the vote was over 70%
SARATOGA PARK WOODS HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC. -
19001 Mellon Drive, Saratoga, CA 95070
in favor of the boundary transfer. Over 500 votes were cast in our
neighborhood in favor of the transfer.
The Moreland Board delayed selling Brookview in 1979 because under
their existing law it would have had to give back 97% of the money
from pre sale of the $6,000,000 site to the State which paid that
percentage of the cost to build Brookview. The law has now changed
and 75% of the sale proceeds can now be kept by Moreland.
Moreland no longer significantly serves Saratogans. In September,
1981, only 89 students from the entire former Brookview attendance
area attended Moreland schools. When Brookview was closed in
1979, 62 students from Saratoga Woods alone requested inter district
transfers into Saratoga Union. These I.D.A.'s were opposed by
Moreland. Because of Morelands opposition, most students who lost
their request for an I.D.A. to Congress Springs went to private
schools. Both Saratoga Union, which has now had to close Congress
Springs for lack of students and students in Saratoga Woods who
wanted to attend school five blocks away at Congress Springs were
hurt by Moreland's action.
Now the Moreland Board wants Brookview rezoned so it can sell the
site to a developer and use the millions of dollars in proceeds to
benefit non- .Saratogans. In.the absence of.a written statement of
intention by the Moreland Board agreeing to consent to a boundary
transfer of Saratoga Woods and 'any other areas of Saratoga wishing
to transfer into Saratoga Union from Moreland, (See Ed. Code #35710),
permiting Moreland's application for rezoning Brookview is tantamount
to aiding and abetting the appropriation of millions of dollars
from Saratoga by Moreland with the result of increasing Saratogans
population density and loss of open and recreation space.
We also respectfully disagree with the Planning
4, 1982 declaration that an environmental impac
required for the project proposed by Moreland.
R1- 10,000. Only R1- 20,000 with the requirement
open space islands would permit the conclusions
Mike Flores.
Department's January
L report is not
Moreland is requesting
of significant
of Assistant Planner
1
yy t
SARATOGA PARK WOODS HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.
,19001 Mellon Drive, Saratoga, CA 95070
In conclusion, we respectfully submit that the commission should
take no action at this time other than to deny Moreland's application.
We are satisfied this commission's use restrictions on lessees at
Brookview will protect us from further violations by Moreland's
lessees.
Yours truly,
C. Randall Schneider
Executive Board Member
Saratoga Park Woods Homeowner Association
l
SARATOGA PARK WOODS HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC J C re
19 V 10
12776 Saratoga Glen Court, Saratoga, Ca. 95070 i JUL 2 91982
i
August 4, 1982
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
RE: Proposed General Plan
Amendment GPA 82 -1 -B
(Brookview School)
Dear Members of the City Council:
The Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners' Association respectfully
requests that the Council deny Moreland School District's request
to amend the 1974 General Plan Designation for Brookview School
from Community Facility School Site to Medium Density Residential
and disapprove the Negative Declaration executed January 4, 1982,
which states development of this 11.57 acre parcel will have no
significant effect or substantial adverse impact on the environment.
History of Moreland School District's Application
Brookview School opened in 1960 and served our neighborhood
as a K -6 school until June, 1979, when it was closed by Moreland.
Since Brookview's closure, Moreland no longer operates a general
education school in the City of Saratoga. In early 1979, the
residents of Saratoga Woods sought to transfer school districts
so their children (1.9/ of Moreland's attendance) could attend
Congress Springs effective September 1979. Saratoga Union School
District voted to accept the children, but Moreland successfully
opposed the transfer although 79% of Saratoga Woods voted in
November 1979 to transfer districts.
Although Moreland successfully closed Brookview and prevented
the boundary transfer, it delayed selling Brookview because under
the law in 1979 it would have had to give back 97% of the money
from the sale of the 11.57 acre site to the State which paid
that percentage of the cost to build Brookview. The law has
now changed and under current law 75% of the sale proceeds can
be kept by Moreland, although used only for capital improvements
and maintenance.
On October 6, 1981, the Moreland Board, without notice to
our neighborhood, directed Superintendent Reasoner to request
the City of Saratoga to rezone Brookview to R1- 10,000 to
facilitate sale of the site to a developer. This charge to
Mr. Reasoner was made before the Moreland Board activated the
-2-
P.A.C. (Property Advisory Committee) and before the Board
gave the P.A.C. its charge on November 17, 198-1, despite
Education Code Section 39384 (b) which states, "It is the
intent of the Legislature to have the community involved
before decisions are made about .... the of surplus
space, thus avoiding community conflict and assuring building
use that is compatible with the community's needs and desires."
As a result of the letter the Moreland Board ordered Mr.
Reasoner on October 16, 1981, to send a report to the City
of Saratoga. The Planning Commission staff prepared a
report and negative declaration was executed January 4, 1982.
Meanwhile, Moreland's P.A.C. noticed a public hearing at
Brookview School on January 12, 1982, the day before Moreland's
application came on the Planning Commission's January 13th
agenda.
The P.A.C. minutes of the January 12, 1982 public hearing
at Brookview indicate: "The preference of those present was
for long -term lease of site ... and that the lease be for
educational or recreation purposes: Private school or private
day care center (for services to children)." In short, those
attending on January 12th, unanimously voted not to sell the
site, but keep it leased long -term for school purposes or
programs benefiting children. At the January 12, 1982 public
hearing no one on the Moreland staff, P.A.C., or the Moreland
Board mentioned that the very next night, January 13, T982,
Mr. Reasoner was to appear before the Planning Commission
seeking a rezoning of the Brookview site. Fortunately, some
of our members independently received written notice from
the City that Moreland's application was on the January 13th
Planning Commission Agenda.
On January 13th, Mr. Reasoner appeared for Moreland and
we appeared for the neighborhood. The Planning Commission voted
5 to 2 to deny Moreland's application. Later, because El Quito
School Park was referred for a study session, the Brookview
application was also referred for a study session. The Commission
did not meet en banc for the study session, and the application
was reagendized for May 26, 1982, at which time the Commission
voted 4 -3 to recommend the Council amend the 1974 General Plan
as Moreland requested.
On June 23, 1982, however, the Planning Commission voted
3 -2, at our request, to adopt a 1982 General Plan for Area D
which stated, inter alma, as follows: Brookview school shall
be retained for future public school use and open space and its
zoning remain Community Facility School Site for a period no
less than seven years. Interim usage as a commercially operated
institution for the education and recreation of children is
permissible. Should the site no longer be required for public
or, private education and recreation of children, the site may
-3-
be rezoned for detached, single family houses at a density no
greater than one house per one -half acre.
Moreland's application to amend the 1974 General Plan is
now before the City Council, having been continued from July
21, 1982.
Reasons For Denial of Moreland ADDlication
1. During the public hearings before the Planning Commission
no one who lives in Saratoga Woods, the area which immediately
surrounds Brookview, spoke in favor of Moreland's application.
In fact(.only one Saratogan, Ms. Sally Carlson of the Moreland
P.A.C., spoke in favor of the application, all other Saratogans
spoke against it. Ms. Carlson does not live in the Saratoga
Woods neighborhood impacted by the application.
2. Our Homeowners Association held a neighborhood meeting on
February 18, 1982, where the future use of Brookview was discussed.
Every one of the 356 homes in Saratoga Woods received written
notice of the meeting and subject matter. At this meeting those
attending (50 persons) voted unanimously to lease the site
long -term with primary use for education and recreation of
children.
3. The school site has been an important part of our community
since 1960. Our neighborhood cherishes this open space and
has regular organized recreational activities at the site on
Labor Day and Memorial Day in which parents' and children
traditionally have participated.
4. Our Homeowners' Association has developed a dialogue with
One World Montessori School, the current lessee concerning
appropriate uses. Montessori prefers a long -term lease for
stability and has promised sensitivity to immediate neighbors.
We supported amending the applicable city ordinance to allow
profit- making activities at the Brookview Site which are designed
primarily for the education and recreation of children, so that
the site may be fully leased and appropriately utilized and
maintained. Also, days and hours of operation have been jointly
developed by our Homeowners' Association, Montessori, and the
Planning Commission.
5. Several families in our neighborhood use the programming,
including the day care center, now in place at Brookview.
6. We now realize that the property manager for the site,
School Property Managers, Inc., which receives a 10% commission
based on annual rents, has oversight responsibility if complaints
about lessees arise. In a February 6, 1981 letter Property
Managers vowed to "personally talk with tenants" who are offending
neighbors or improperly maintaining the sites. Thus, even if our
-4-
good rapport with the existing lessees breaks down, a non-
governmental agency will be responsible to resolve any disputes
with neighbors, should they arise.
7. Data comparing five -year deferred maintenance against
current annual rents reveals the Brookview site has the most
favorable cost /rent ratio of any of the 7 closed Moreland sites
being leased. An alternative to selling Brookview would be to
sell one of the sites Moreland operates less efficiently in
San Jose, and San Joseans would still have several remaining
closed Moreland sites in their community. By selling Brookview
and E1 Quito sites, no further Moreland sites would exist in
Saratoga. Unfortunately, the Moreland Board charged the P.A.C.
to hold meetings and advise it only regarding the closed Saratoga
sites, not the other 5 sites outside Saratoga.
8. If Brookview is sold for residential development (FMV is
approximately $6,000,000.00), up to 75% of the proceeds could
go to the district, but the funds would be restricted to capital
improvement and maintenance. Because of the drastic reduction
in K -8 children from Saratoga attending Moreland Schools since
the board closed Brookview in June, 1979, few Saratoga children
would benefit from the multi - million dollar contribution our
neighborhood would be making to Moreland's deferred maintenance
plan. The benefit gained Cor the'two or three dozen Saratoga
Woods children attending Moreland schools in San Jose would be
far outweighed by the loss'-of the open and recreation space at
Brookview which currently benefits all Saratoga Woods adults
and children. In contract, lease income under ECS 41003, may
be allocated to any fund, and can go to teachers and programing,
not just buildings and deferred maintenance. If Moreland were
to sell Brookview to a special assessment district or the City
of Saratoga pursuant to Ed. Code Section 39394 at 25% of FMV,
the proceeds, likewise, could go to Moreland's general fund
and be used for teachers and programing. We realize the latter
solution is not practical given the City's fiscal condition,
unless a special assessment district were established.
9. The Planning Commission staff report on Moreland's application
to rezone Brookview indicates 40 units could be built on the
site which "would generate about 49% more traffic than the school
had at its peak enrollment." Because no new ingress and egress
is possible, severe negative environmental impact could be
anticipated if the application were approved as requested. Lessees
can be changed or made to conform to use permit requirements,
but a development with approximately 100 automobiles for 40
dwellings and the accompanying loss of open space would be
permanent.
10. Moreland Should retain at least one site in Saratoga if
it purports to service Saratogans.
RetLsons For Disapproving Negative Declaration
-5-
1. The proposed project will have a permanent negative effect
on the environment because the creation of 40 dwelling units
on the site would create significant local traffic congestion.
The approximate 100 new cars would each make several trips
a day. No new egress or ingress is possible, and Radoyka
Drive would become highly congested, because all traffic would
have to enter and leave the development at Radoyka and Kosich.
The Staff report states traffic would increase 50% over what
it was at the school's peak enrollment, but this is understated.
2. The proposal will permanently eliminate the open space/
recreation value which the site has provided Saratoga Woods
since 1960.
3. The proposal would permanently deny residents the recreation
activities now provided by the lessee maintaining the school site.
Conclusion
We recognize the plight of Moreland School District in
these times of declining enrollment and fiscal constraints.,
Recent history, however, demonstrates that our neighborhood's
needs have not been acknowledged by Moreland.
Moreland no longer significantly serves Saratogans. In
September, 1981, only 89 students from the entire former Brookview
attendance area (of which Saratoga Woods is only a part)
attended Moreland Schools. When Brookview was closed in
1979, 62 students from Saratoga Woods alone requested inter
district transfers into Saratoga Union. These I.D.A.'s were
opposed by Moreland. Because of Moreland's opposition, most
students who lost their request for an I.D.A. to Congress Springs
went to private schools. Both Saratoga Union, which has now had
to close Congress Springs for lack of students and students in
Saratoga Woods who wanted to attend school in their own community
five blocks away at Congress Springs were hurt by Moreland's action.
Now the Moreland Board wants Brookview rezoned so it can
sell the site to a developer and use the millions of dollars
in proceeds for capital improvements and maintenance to benefit
non - Saratogans. Permiting Moreland's application for rezoning
Brookview is tantamount to appropriating millions of Saratoga
dollars to Moreland with the result of increasing Saratoga's
population density and loss of open and recreation space.
Requiring Moreland to maintain Brookview as a School Site/
Community Facility will not leave Moreland without an alternative
since it can sell any one of its other five closed sites
outside of Saratoga which are less profitable. If, at the
end of seven years, population trends have not changed, then
Moreland's request may properly be reconsidered.
M
EXECUTIVE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
C. Randall Schneider
Respectfully submitted,
James G. Russell,
President, Saratoga ark Woods
Homeowners' Associa ion
July 30, 1982
To the members of the Saratoga City Council:
JUL 3 019$2 1
We urge you to retain Brookview School as an educational and
recreational facility. Both the Girls? Soccer Club - Saratoga and the
boys' United Soccer Association use the field at Brookview for regular
soccer play (practices, games, and tournaments) from August through
April of each year.
As you know, soccer reaches the broadest spectrum of children and
offers them. wholesome experiences. However, it's impossible to carry
on such a program. without large fields such as the one at Brookview.
The number of soccer fields available to Saratoga children is quite
limited. Our clubs work closely with Saratoga AYSO and the organizations
of neighboring conuunities to maximize the use of all suitable fields.
To lose the fine facilities at Brookview would be a tremendous loss to
soccer in the area.
We hope that you will consider our concerns when determining
the future of Brookview School. Thank you.
Yours truly,
Dallas Denery
United Soccer Association; Saratoga Soccer League
Ethel and J. Bruce Bauer
Girls Soccer Club - Saratoga; Saratoga
Soccer League
Paula and Jim Oenning
Girls Soccer Club - Saratoga; United Soccer
Association
Janet Harris
Girls Soccer Club - Saratoga; Saratoga
Soccer League
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION 4
MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, May 26, 1982 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, King, Laden, Monia, Schaefer
and Zambetti
Absent: None
Minutes
Commissioner King moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, to waive the
reading of the minutes of May 4, 1982 and approve as distributed. The motion
was carried, with Commissioners Laden and Crowther abstaining, since they were
not present at the meeting.
The following changes were made to the minutes of May 12, 1982: On page 2,
the first sentence should read "State Act ", and on page 6, the date in the
third line should be May 26, 1982. Commissioner King moved, seconded by
Commissioner Laden, to waive the reading of the minutes of May 12, 1982 and
approve as amended. The motion was carried, with Commissioner Zambetti
abstaining since he was not present at the meeting.
la. GPA 82 -1 -B - Moreland School District, Brookview and E1 Quito School
lb. GPA 82 -1 -C - Sites, amend the General Plan Designation from Community
Facility - School Site to Medium Density Residential and P -D r "•h '``
(Planned Development) Residential respectively; continued
from May 18, 1982
Staff gave the history of the applications. They noted that the Planned
Development was no longer being considered as part of the E1 Quito site..
It was explained that part of the purpose of the hearing at this time is
to get input from the citizens in the area as to what they feel is the
appropriate use for the school sites, considering the fact that the Zon-
ing Ordinance may be amended to allow different uses. It was noted that
the sites have a General Plan designation of Community Facility- School
Sites, and the zoning allows the implementation of school usesbecause
they are conditional uses in the R- 1- 10,000 district; therefore, it is
not inconsistent with the General Plan.
The environmental analysis procedure and State guidelines were discussed.
Commissioner Crowther expressed the opinion that he felt an Environmental
Impact Report should be prepared on the project, specifically in view of
the large public interest. It was noted that an initial study is on
file for Commission review.
The public hearing was opened at 7:50 p.m.
Terry Griswold, 12618 Paseo Cerro, inquired about the sale of the sites: `-
and reiterated Quito's position that, if the property is going to be
sold, they want single family homes there.
Mr. Reasoner reiterated the School District's position. He clarified
that the State does discourage districts from holding onto sites that
are not being used for school purposes by placing increased penalties.
He noted that the district has accepted a bid for lease for a one -year
period of time with the One World Montessori School.
Commissioner Crowther stated that he believes that the Open Space Ele-
ment of the General Plan catalogs the school sites as open space, and
he asked Staff to research this issue. Staff explained that school sites
are not designated as open space; they are part of the Open Space Element
because they are a resource. They added that the General Plan is not
1
-
Planning Commission Page 2
_
Meeting Minutes 5/26/82
into the community with young families that are going to utilize these
.�.:,..
GPA 82 -1 -B and 82 -1 -C (cont.)
_
inconsistent with the zoning because school sites are conditional uses
..:r;::U_ :` :• -.:
and the concurrent uses with school sites are conditional uses and are
allowed in those districts. Commissioner Crowther disagreed, and asked
- _
the Deputy City Attorney to review the Open Space Element and the map
- -_ -
and designations. The Deputy City Attorney clarified that the school
sites are listed as resources.
with Commissioners Bolger, Crowther and Monia dissenting. Commissioner
-
Commissioner Schaefer explained that she had discussed with Mr. Reasoner
the fact that perhaps the three -month period granted by any public
agency selling land could be extended to six months, in order to allow a
community group to come forth if they are interested in buying it for
".
25% of its fair market value. She also suggested that the amount of land
;..;
or fees that would be required when development occurs could be increased.
Bob Michaels and Randy Snyder, of the Executive Board of the Saratoga
Parkwood Homeowners Association, expressed their previous recommendation
to support the current zoning of Community Facilities - School Site.
Jack Coverstreit, a resident of the Moreland School District, noted that
the District paid for the Brookview site, not the City, and he urged the
Commission to consider the best usage for the site for the City now and
in the future, stating that the district is in financial trouble and
needs money to make improvements on other schools.
Susan Zimmer, a resident of the School District, indicated that the larger
issue is the education of the children, and the district needs money at
this time.
~w• ~^
Mike Evans, a resident of the School District, agreed, stating that he
>'- `
did not wish to be burdened with carrying an empty site that is no longer
used as an educational facility.
-
Commissioner Monia moved to close the public hearing, Commissioner
Laden seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
_
Commissioner Bolger agreed that there needs to be an Environmental
Impact Report. He stated that he feels there would be a great deal of
-
"..
traffic added to the neighborhood if R -1- 10,000 zoning was recommended,-
- _:•.. -:
and he also would like to know how much traffic would be generated if
it were designated R -1- 20,000. The traffic increase was discussed.
Commissioner Monia moved to deny GPA 82 -1 -B, stating that he feels that
the area should be consistent with the General Plan, which has an open
space school use designation, and the neighbors have expressed their wish
to keep it in its present use. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion.
Az�
Staff discussed the underlying zoning and the General Plan designation.
Commissioner Laden suggested taking this school site and putting it into
the General Plan discussion, which would include needed open space. The
policies of the General Plan Committee were discussed.
The vote was taken on the motion to deny GPA 82 -1 -B. It failed, with
Commissioners Zambetti, Laden, Schaefer and King dissenting. Commissioner
Laden moved that this item be joined with the General Plan Review and
assessed along with it. The motion failed for lack of a second.
Commissioner King commented that he felt that the Commission was being
unrealistic, since the City was doing nothing to allow people to come
into the community with young families that are going to utilize these
schools. He moved to approve GPA 82 -1 -B and C, per the Staff Report.
Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion. It was pointed out that the
applications should be considered in separate motions. Commissioner King
withdrew his motion and moved to recommend approval of GPA 82 -1 -B,
per the Staff Report dated January 7, 1982. Commissioner Zambetti
seconded the motion.
The motion was discussed. The vote was taken, and the motion was carried,
with Commissioners Bolger, Crowther and Monia dissenting. Commissioner
Schaefer moved that the Commission request that there be an attachment in
writing on this property that, at the time of the subdivision map, the
City will be requesting 1' to 2 acres of land for dedication. Commissioner
King seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioners Bolger,
Crowther and Monia dissenting.
r
t:
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 5/26/82
GPA 82 -1 -B and GPA 82 -1 -C (cont.)
C Page 3
Relative to 'application GPA 82 -1 -C (E1 Quito School Site)
discussion followed on the portion of land to be purchased by the City
to add onto the park that is now under lease. Mr. Reasoner stated that
the District will make the determination of the amount of land to be
offered, and the land is now being surveyed. A possible donation of
land to the City by the District was discussed. Commissioner Monia
commented that the City does give up tremendous open space resource, and
he feels some consideration should be given to the fact that the communi-
ty has supported the District for many years.
Staff noted that the Commission is only dealing with the area that is
developed in school buildings at this time. The Deputy City Attorney
clarified that the drawing on the original application is before the
Commission, and if approved, that will be the boundary on the General Plan
He added that if the survey being done by the District is different,
this action will be controlling.
Commissioner Crowther stated that he believes this site also needs an
EIR, and he moved to deny GPA 82 -1 -C and retain it as a school site.
The motion failed for lack of a second.
Commissioner Zambetti moved to recommend to the City Council approval
of GPA 82 -1 -C, per Item 3 in the Staff Report dated January 7, 1982
and Exhibit "D ". Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was
carried, with Commissioner Crowther dissenting.
2. Consideration of Amendments to the 1974 General Plan of the City of
Saratoga; continued from May 18. 1982
Staff commented that at the previous meeting there had been concern
expressed about the density issue in Area I. They noted that this
issue had been advertised; however, none of the people from the original
area meeting were notified, nor were the area representatives. Letters
received were referenced, specifically one from Mr. Mooney, asking if the
Commission would entertain the notion of allowing mini storage on the
Carreira property.
The public hearing was opened at 8:55 p.m.
Gerald Mooney and Mr. Francis appeared to address the mini storage
project, giving a presentation on the possible project. It was deter-
mined that the Commission will review and consider all of the C -V areas
in a study session at a future date, at which time this project could
be considered.
Commissioner Zambetti expressed concern about the density in the Area I
and the amount of conforming secondary living structures on the lots
that are R -1- 40,000. He requested Staff to determine exactly where the
zoning lines are between the two densities, and what areas specifically
it is affecting. It was also determined that Areas A, C and J will be
considered at the next meeting and decisions made. It was directed that
this matter be continued to the Adjourned Regular Meeting on June 1, 1982
at 4:30 p.m.
3. GF -334 - Consideration of an Amendment to the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance
authorizing Manufactured Homes in all Residential Districts
within the City of Saratoga, an Ordinance required under SB -1960
The Deputy City Attorney reported that the City Council had an informal
public hearing on this matter and referred it back to the Commission for
any further consideration. He stated that there is no legislation pend-
ing which would affect SB 1960; there is some legislation concerning
mobilehome parks. He outlined the various options available at this time.
The question of doing a needs analysis in the Housing Element before
adopting this ordinance was discussed. The Deputy City Attorney explained
that the statute states that you cannot discriminate against manufactured
housing. It does not qualify that prohibition by requiring a finding of
need first; it presumes the need. He added that the language concerning
compatibility applies to designation of lots, not districts. He discussed
the statute, stating that it does not give any guidance on compatibility;
it is left up to the cities to determine their own needs and make their
own judgments. It was clarified that it would be possible to establish
- 3 -
�yw.a�y�'•:�.vr�5- (J.ar•� ^k'+�.5'.»''ti'�. f- v..?'v�.�.'.��w l� +E'�� ��,:.,.: \...,`
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DATE: Tuesday, May 18, 1982 - 7 :30 p.m.
PLACE: Community Center Meeting Room, 19655 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga
TYPF: Regular Adjourned Meeting
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Bolger, Laden, Schaefer and Zambetti
Absent: Commissioners Crowther, King and Monia
2. GPA82 -1 -B and GPA 82 -1 -C, Moreland School District, Brookview and
E1 Quito School Sites, amend the General Plan Designation from
'
Community Facility - School Site to Medium Density Residential and P -D
(Planned Development) Residential respectively.
_
Commissioner Schaefer discussed a previous meeting with Glen McNic olas,
:.,:• -:; .::::;r; :° - .:..;. -.
Bob Reasoner, Art Lund '(Chairman of the School Board of Moreland School
District), Sally Carlson and herself to come up with options for con-
sideration on how the Brookview and El Quito School sites should be used. The
history . of the Brockview School was discussed and the comi.ittee caire up with a plan
for approximately two acres. 'The acreage would be dedicated to open space or to a plat
:> ` °' " "` -" " " `' `•, `" "' ` `: `"
field, and may or may not include the buildings. A demand for such
an area was felt, but it was not determined how the traffic could be
controlled. The area would be properly irrigated and the responsi-
bility for maintenance would be that of the school. In return, the
school would be zoned in accordance with the surrounding area, R-1-10,000
It was anticipated it would be four years before the closure of the
school and in the interim period there would be no profit generated.
The option period in which the agencies or the City would have to
'
consider the school for purchase would be increased from the normal
three month period to six months. The committee also discussed the
„
possibility of realigning the school district line, enabling the
students living in the Saratoga area to become part of the Saratoga
School District.* This, the committee felt, would impose additional
indebtedness to the City of Saratoga.
Robert Reasoner, Superintendent of the Moreland.School District,
redefined the school districts position indicating that the school
'
had, in essence, developed two general plans. The latest plan was
devised in September and pointed out that the district could not
"
justify keeping these schools open. He cited the decline in enroll-
ment, particularly in the Saratoga area, as the primary reason for
the districts position. Reasoner further indicated that the district
was in financial trouble and as such could not afford to continue to
lease the school. Reasoner added it would require $2.9 million to
keep the sites maintained. Adding to the tight financial squeeze
would be a penalty imposed by the state on each school site not being
used as such. Further, no money could be made from the lease because
•*:%a!vNrz?5„�c;,a?r rr
they could only charge lease income and they must keep the lease
income commensurate with the cost of site maintenance, since anything
above this amount would go to the State: The State is currently
' ;: % ><.!:: :- ::,z: >:. •::•: <.- .:.' .,,•,:.:';'"
allowed to keep 10% more than it had been previously allowed.
Reasoner expressed a desire to work with the community and referred
to the recommendations of the Advisory Committee each claiming that
the Brookview School be sold as soon as possible. Reasoner did point
out that the district had tried to hold out as long as they financially
could in order that they might preserve the open space. Further,
Reasoner pointed out the difficulties of leasing the space in lieu of
the problems with the use permits. He urged the Commission to take
a good look at the regulation, indicating that the district does not
want the sites used for anything other than that which would be com-
natible with normal school use. Reasoner expressed concern for the
provisions in the present lease agreement which state that the building
must be available for the community, that it must follow the community
service regulations of a normal school and that the conditions with
respect to profit making organizations be related to tutoring fees
and finally, these fees must be reasonable and consistent with normal
> A
L ti�4��;'b'd7•�, ys•!'�+£'�'�'4` -{�
school use.
+t'iA�'';,�d�+i ,�'fr
It was decided by the representative from Morcland School District
y
that it would be too difficult at this to accomplish.
y`* i? -s`ys "'cl� j�riit! �YCV • ��;
( • - 2
Reasoner stressed the fact that Moreland School District is different
than the Saratoga District because Saratoga has paid off its property
indebtedness and they can use their monies in many ways, while the
taxpayers of the Moreland School District are still paying taxes to
pay of the indebtedness. He stated if the area of the Brookview
School were zoned as single family homes, it could generate as
much as $90,000 in taxes to the City of Saratoga.
Further, Reasoner stated he does not favor a possible change in school
boundaries since, as he believes, the transferring of indebtedness
from one city to another is forbidden in Proposition 13. Reasoner
referred to his position of leniency when it is the request of the
• "" • ' -'' A' = "'"` " "' ^ "'` °'' -' - °" ` ' ^' "'' "° " >' °,"
students or parents to change to the Saratoga School District, but
points out the favorable busing conditions for those students who do
not wish to change 'districts.
•K %::L+ r y;:�tiiz:-%;.,;rw =�N' alCaY%%i.'_'.= 'hs?,�'ti �>=wG; -7 �;
t
t H
In summary, it is the Districts request that the Brookview site be
zoned compatible with the surrounding neighborhood with the possibility
for open space and the possibility of holding the zoning until such
time whereas something works out to sell two acres to an agency or
group since the City has indicated that it'is not interested.
As for E1 Quito, it is requested that it, too, be zoned consistent
with the surrounding area and since it falls between two areas, it
should be zoned half and half. These recommendations, Reasoner feels,
would give the City the greatest amount of flexibility to determine
the best use. Residents of the area are concerned with density.
It is the intention of the School District to lease El Quito site as
long as feasible and at the point when it is no longer feasible, the
District will attempt to work with the City in the sale of about 6.782
acres which is currently being leased to the City at $1.00 per year.
The assessment would be determined on the basis of zoning and the City
could purchase the site for 25% of the market value.
Upon Commissioner Schaefer's request, Reasoner reclarified his position that
the two -acre parcel was not to be dedicated, but rather sold since it re re-
sents 20% of the site's value. Reasoner estimated a projecteT three -
year period in ability to meet maintenance costs. Reasoner did point
out that given an increase in enrollment in his district, the increase
could be absorbed in his 15 other locations. These 15 locations are
capable of absorbing 275 more students if necessary.
Jim Russell, Saratoga Parkwoods Homeowners' Association, called it
to the Commission's attention that the homeowners in his area were
opposed to any changes "in the zoning of the Brookview School site.
The residents support the community facility school designation and
desire that the school be operated on a long -term basis for children,
education and recreation. While Russell acknowledges that the Moreland
School District has an interest in resolving its financial problems,
he feels the money derived from the sale of the school will not benefit
Saratoga. Therefore, he expressed the support of his group in the
preservation of the Brookview School.
Russell believes, contrary to proposals, that the density in the
area will increase, and given this projected increase, the school should
be operated for the benefit of the children, to meet their educational
and recreational needs, but must also conform to the neighborhood
standards with regard to noise, traffic and congestion. Russel condones
the use of the Brookview school by the-:One World Montessori School, but
is against the use of the school as a community center used for a diverse
range of activities difficult to supervise.
Mr. Asby, resident of Saratoga Woods, referred to a few comments made
by Mr. Reasoner, refuting them, and claiming that they were not nec-
essarily supported by the Park group. Citing reference to several
letters already on file with the Commission, and citing a forced area
election, Asby pointed out a consensus of the area was to have the
school property transferred. Asby noted that Saratoga Woods represents
less than 2% of the Moreland School District, but it carried 49% of
the voters in the request for such transfer. Asby indicated that
maintenance costs for the next four years to be approximately $185,000.
He pointed out that the One World Montessori School leases the property
for $50,000 per year and, thus, the income would surpass the actual
rate of the maintenance. Asby made mention of a letter presented by
One World Montessori indicating that they desired to continue leasing
the property and indicating further that there appears to be no deficit
Mike Trapman, President of the Homeowners' Association of the Saratoga
Parkside, speaking on his own behalf and not that of his organization,
indicates that his area is composed of newcomers who are, for
_
3
part, satisfied with
to the Moreland School site by continuing to lease out the site.
. .:.:�,... mom,. . , ... .. ..
the handicapped program, and who are concerned with possible
Asby called the Commission's attention to the opinion of their area's
legal counsel who maintains, in contradiciton to Mr. Reasoner, that
of reconstruction of new schools, should
as long as the area represents essentially less than 5% of the assessed
valuation of the district, the new Proposition 13 laws do not forbid
maintained that the proposed subdivision
the transfer of a property to another district. Finally, Asby con-
cludes that as long as the school is used for the education of children
(not adults, as in dance, karate classes or church, etc.) it is an
acceptable use of the school if it is coincident with the maintenance
of the site or community use as an open site.
Chris Newbound, Chairman of the Board for the One World Montessori,
spoke on behalf of his school's position expressing a preference for
a multi -use room with a need for constraining hours. He further
addressed the land use issue, indicating that his school is meeting
the needs of the community. He stated these needs may be in jeopardy
unless the approval of the City be secured to run a profit- making
organization. Newbound asked the indulgence the Commission in
their future attention to this issue. -
Susan Zimmer, Moreland School District resident, questioned why as
a resident taxpayer of the Moreland School District, she should have
to subsidize over a long period of time,. the use of this facility by
an outside group, when the district needs the money to retire the
bonding business and to continue a program viable to the district's
children. Ms. Zimmer stated she understood that there are many uses
that are compatible with the neighborhood, but feels that there are
overriding concerns, the education of the children in the best possible
manner, and she further hopes this would be the concern in the dis-
position of the site.
A teacher of an aerobic dance company, interested in leasing from the
One World Montessori School, expressed her desire to continue being
-<', Y?? �tiar;? ;-:•y:x= .c= :- ";,;,r::,,:- :::,;> - : °:, <..:.<
an asset to the women, children and teens in the area who already
'
participate in her community dance programs.
The former President of the Moreland School District, also a Saratoga
resident, indicated that she had served on the District Property
Advisory Committee when it was originally organized to study all of
the schools. She recalls a few points made by Mr. Russell and Mr.
Anderson that were not quite as she'remembered them and she addressed
these points. Ms. Carlson also defended the move made by the
Moreland School District on January 13, immediately following the
public hearing, stating that the timing of the application to the City
for an amendment to the General Plan was coincidental and did not
reflect upon the Advisory Committee.
Ms. Carlson further pointed out that in 1977 the best use
for the land were determined to be,' in order of priority: A school
for the handicapped, adult education, and community centers for senior
citizens. Then, as private use, perhaps a day care center. The
district president does not feel that the City should ask the School
District to maintain open space use and, finally, points out that if
the residents of an area wish to see boundary transfers and some changes
made, they need to work with the County Commission on School District
:,•..:.., r.. �t; k:;•:, t:, 4�::;:::• �; <`3: °:i,�: >.;:.r:;:.,. ":.......
Organization.
Commissioner Laden posed the possibility of combining the tenants of
the two schools in a move that might resolve all.
Kathy McGoldrick pointed out that despite the feelings expressed by
the neighbors to keep the county school where it is, she feels that
it is only a matter of time before the schools are going to have to
close. She further added that the District is desperate for funds
and is lacking a tax base. Further, Ms. McGoldrick feels that there
is no buffer from traffic and development, but when given a choice
would opt for single family dwelling construction.
Mike Trapman, President of the Homeowners' Association of the Saratoga
Parkside, speaking on his own behalf and not that of his organization,
indicates that his area is composed of newcomers who are, for
the most
part, satisfied with
conditions, but who sympathize with and
support
the handicapped program, and who are concerned with possible
future
growth and the costs
of reconstruction of new schools, should
the
need arise. Trapman
maintained that the proposed subdivision
cut out
CITY OF SARATOCA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DATE: :Wednesday, April 28, 1982 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Bolger, King, Laden, Monia,and Schaefer
Commissioner Zambetti arrived after the break
Absent: Commissioner Crowther
Minutes
Commissioner Laden made the following change to the minutes of March 24,
1982: Citing Commissioner Crowther's question as to whether the de-
veloper whom Commissioner Laden represented had an economic
interest, Commissioner Laden indicated he did not.
Commissioner Monia moved to approve the minutes of April 6, 1982,
waiving the reading. Commissioner Laden seconded the motion, the
minutes of April 6 were approved.
Commissioner Monia moved to approve the correction of the April 14
minutes. Commissioner Laden seconded the motion. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Commissioner Schaefer determined that A -818, A. Berman, Request for
Design Review Approval to construct a one -story building over 22' in
height on Via Tesoro Court (Lot 2) in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district
be continued at the May 26th meeting, due to a request for a one -
month continuance.
Commissioner Schaefer announced that testimony for the Moreland School
District would begin tonight and further announced that the issue would
be continued to the session of May 18 for a study session in which areas
D and F would be discussed. She stated there would be another public
hearing on this item.
Commissioner Schaefer reviewed the discussion of the April 20, Regular
Adjourned Meeting concerning the 1974 General Plan, Areas A. C, B, and
part of J, indicating that no vote was taken and further indicating
that a vote will be taken following discussion of all of the areas.
At the meeting of May 4 Areas B, G. H and I will be discussed. Further
discussion of the 1974 General Plan was delayed until after 8 :00 p.m.
2. CPA 82 -1 -B, Moreland School District, Consideration of changing
the General Plan designation from Community Facilities -
Elementary 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 Brook -
view School
Staff reviewed the proposal indicating that the school district
wishes to have the Community Facility School Site desiiznation
amended to allow for Medium Density Residential development. The
Area D representative expressed that it is the consensus; that the
area should be zoned R -1- 20,000.
Staff noted several letters were submitted in opposition to the
request, indicating their desire to keep -the school site open as
much as possible to provide recreational opportunities and private
schooling.
Planning �.;' �.•.
Commission 4/28/82
�' ::, taw•:•,:, - ?: >:...• Commissioner Schaefer called attention to several questions posed
by the residents.
Commissioner Schaefer recommended that since E1 Quito is owned
by Moreland School District, this proposal be discussed in con-
junction with the Moreland School.
3. GPA 82 -1 -C, Moreland School District, Consideration of changing
x ^`F�r`•,7„ �4,� y the General Plan designation from Community Facilities -
Elementary School to Planned Development - Residential
Parcel designated in the Santa Clara County Assessor's
Book as APN 386 -14 -4, and known as El Quito Park School
at 18720 Bucknall Road, Saratoga.
Staff outlined the E1 Quito Park School proposal. Staff noted
residents' opposition to the proposal indicating they wished a
lower density designation. Commissioner Schaefer called attention
to letters - received indicating the desire for single- family designa-
tion because of traffic conditions.
The public hearing was opened at 7:42 p.m.
Bob Black, 12750 Paseo Presada, representing the Quito Park area
urged the Commission to deny the petition for FD zoning, since in
his opinion the proposed changes would sake the area undesirable
and not in compliance with the area.
Kathy McGoldrick, Area representative to the Citizens' Advisory
Committee to the General Plan, reiterated the consensus of the El
Quito Park Area in their opposition to the commercial or condominium
dwelling because of poor traffic conditions.
Terry Griswold, representative from the Quito Area, called the
attention to a prior staff decision in the Teresi property, :;hich
was to have set the precedent for the area. This report showed
single -story zoning along Pucknall and the side of E1 Quito ?ark.
Griswolu feels 'the present zoning proposals of staff are, therefore,
inconsistent.
Margaret Russel, representative member of the Citizens' Advisory
Committee from Area D, requested that no action be taken on t:
^e
school site issue until the General Plan is approved, since all
of the sites are addressed in the General Plan.
John Anderson, representing the Moreland School District, presented
a history of the school district and its community- committees. He
outlined the proposals of the several commissions all of which in-
dicated the desire that the Brookview and E1 Quito Schools be sold
in order to reduce the indebtedness of the community and to secure
future tax reductions. Anderson cited declining enrollment as the
primary reason for the proposed school closings.
Mr. Asby, speaking on his own behalf and that of several neig':bors
in the Saratoga Woods area, expressed the opinion that maintenance
in the desired fashion of a school site primarily with open space
is not an expense to the Moreland School District.
Dan GuiterrDz, resident of the Quito area,reaffirmed the opposition
to the PD zoning.
This matter was continued to the meeting of May 18th in the
Community Center.
1. Consideration of Amendments to the 1974 General Plan of the City
of Saratoga.; continued from April 14, 1982
In referring back to the General Plan, it was decided to review
all elements dealing with all areas including circulation, land use
and all other open space, Areas E, G, H, and I -would ba continued
at the May 4th meeting, and discussion of Areas D, F, L, and'K
- 2 -
is }�2'�-:.P''a�T'r�L�l+t•�.•�ktis �.N- r,�,i+fi,+t �";• ..o.
. ........
.
t4 }'
1
. �:. rro; PJ• r:. �!:; r>i>tii:.'t`.`:��.a�:<�a.fj� ?J:' -t +;n; ^N
0. 0
Planning Commissiol" Page 5
Meeting Minutes - 1/13/82
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 as APN 391- 04 -11,
located at the northwestern 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 space. 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 m. - 9:50 P.M.
11. GPA :!!:aneral reland School District, Consideration of Changing the
Plan Designation from Community Facilities -Ele-
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- 10,000. 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 "foods 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
- S -
� tN�i! •nF,• „w., Planning Commission''
ommission Page 6
Meeting Minutes 1/13/82
GPA 82 -1 -B (cont )
law a inventoried as open space has to be zoned that. Staff
;; ,• .;.,,;- z;.;.. -, ; clarified that the site has been designated in the inventory as open
- - — space, but in the.General Plan Land Use Element it is designated as
School Facilities.
ti `"?��'x'?s'�?s�r'f The public hearing was opened at 9:S0 p.m.
Mr. Reasoner, the Superintendent of the Moreland School District,
? >,,,,,� '..;v` {Y „,,•'. 5 discussed the financial position of the district. He commented that
at this point the board -has made no decision to sell either Brookview
or E1 Quito School. Mr. Reasoner explained that in 1977 a Property
Advisory Committee was established and at that time recommended to
A sell both Brookview and E1 Quito sites when it became appropriate.
In the meantime the district has tried to maintain those sites by
leasing them. The District has now requested that the Committee again
,- conduct public hearings and meetings were held recently regarding the
future use of those sites. Mr. Reasoner discussed the subleasing of the
Brookview site and the concerns expressed by the residents of that
facility, particularly in connection with the public use in the evening.
He stated that they were looking at the possibility of selling one or
two sites to help fund the operating expense for maintenance of the
other school sites. He added that the money received from the sale
-^-- , cannot be used for the instructional program or for operating expenses.
'��} Mr. Reasoner indicated that they can only keep the portion of the
_ "':-” money accrued from leasing that is required to maintain those sites
in terms of maintenance and improvements. Mr. Reasoner stated that,
under legal provisions, the City has the first right'on the El Quito
Park property, should it wish to purchase that at 25% market value.
He added that the district would like to work with the City in trying
to work out such an agreement, should the board decide to sell that
” '1T +> site. Mr. Reasoner expressed concern regarding the continuous leasing
sz of Brookview and the communication from many of the homeowners that
the current use of the site is not as desirable as single family resi-
dential homes would be; therefore, he .urged approval of the Staff's
recommendation that the General Plan designation be.changed to R- 1- 10,00C
The leases on the school sites were discussed. The let -ter from the
+: Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners was referenced, which stated that they
wanted Brookview leased on a long term basis and that it not be closed
and rented out. Mr. Reasoner stated that the letter seemed contra-
dictory, in that the information he received prior to that was that the
residents would prefer to have it sold and used for single family
dwellings.
Randy Snyder, Executive Board Members of the Saratoga Park Woods
Homeowners Association, stated that they wanted the open space
4 maintained. He indicated that it was their opinion, from the meeting
held last night, that the school district was not considering selling the
Brookview site; however, Mr. Reasoner has implied a different feeling.
,i_ ";��y�� �w;• Mr. Snyder commented that they feel, as an organization, that any abuses
by the subleasees that existed in the past have been corrected by the
Commission's action and could be corrected in the new contract that
Moreland will negotiate with the primary leasee.
It was pointed out to Mr. Snyder that letters had previously been
sent to the Commission over the signature of supposedly a member of
the executive body of his group, regarding the use permit. She added
that in those letters unhappiness with the subleasees of Brookview had
been expressed. Commissioner Laden commented that a number of people
from the Saratoga Park Woods area had spoken re that lease, indicating
they would prefer homes instead of leases.
r -,-r
wh
.l
Mr. Snyder admitted that there were individuals who had said they were
speaking officially for the group, who in fact were speaking for them-
selves. He added that that is not the position of their Executive
Board and that Mr. Gilovich, who wrote the letter, is no longer with
the Group.
Allen Aspi reinforced what Mr. Snyder had said as to the consensus
of the people appearing at the meeting last night. He stated that he
would endorse the continued use of the school by activities oriented
towards children and operating under the constraints of the use permit
C
Panning Commissioi. ' Page 7
C ::
Meeting Minutes 1/13/82
• ! �: f��iiv4' 1al (:�ai+4`.7.tW.:Y:':Y'`iV:'> ::.�.v'. �ri..Y:'� ^. :. -..
cont.)
.:� •�. :._�:,:::::;'_.... ::...:.. ::. :_.
Commissioner Laden suggested that, since there seems to be some
haziness about the motion for the use permit, and since it it will
be agendized for the next meeting for reconsideration, perhaps this
discussion could be deferred until the motion is clear and the
;.:.
City Council has made a decision. She added that by that time more
information may be available from the school district as to whether
".
they could in fact exist under the interpretation given the Commission
and the Council on a lease basis at al.l.
;�`.',;• ;`'
Commissioner Crowther commented that there was no haziness regarding
the use permit except as to the timing of the conditions, and he felt
that the Commission should take action on this item at this time.
Commissioner Laden stated that the City Council may interpret the
,.
allowable use permit differently, and perhaps it would have an impact
on what the school will eventually do with the site.
Daryl Becker, 18699 San Palo Court, stated that he feels the City
should look seriously at buying both of the sites at 25¢ on the dollar,
resell one and take the profit to support the other to keep it open for
open space.. It:was explained to Mr. Becker that the City could not do
:.:'r:. .: .s::• _.: `:.
that; they could buy the site and keep it, but could not resell it.
t L i
Mr. Becker stated he would support the leasing of the school and would
be against multiple housing.
=- '�-
Bill Hout, Business Manager for the Moreland School District, stated
that they have expressed some doubt about the possibilities of leasing
the school, but have never threatened to board uD a school. He
explained the Naylor Bill, which states that if the site is purchased
by the City.for 25% of market value, it is required to be used solely
for open space; at such time that it ceases to be used for that Pur-
_
pose, the school district then gets the option of buying it back.
Commissioner Laden moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioners
Schaefer and Zambetti dissenting.
Commissioner Bolger commented that he would have a great deal of trouble
findift g g a Negative Declaration on this particular pro ect. He indicated
J
that his feeling would be to keep this site as open space, subject to
_
the fact that there would be a long term leasee that would be able to
maintain the property.
. "-
Discussion followed on continuing this item to a study session on school
sites or dealing with this item separately. Commissioner Crowther
`
stated that he felt it would be detrimental to the applicant if the
request was just turned down and he feels the citizens have a good basis
for making "the request they have made. He commented that he would have
a great deal of trouble approving the proposed change as it now stands.
He agreed with Commissioner Bolger regarding an Environmental Impact
Report. He stated that maybe the Commission will want to reconsider
the proposed change at some later time, but he feels the Commission
should act on this particular application at this time.
Commissioner Crowther moved to recommend to the City Council that
GPA 82 -1 -B be denied without prejudice.
The timeframe within which the school district could find a leasee
was discussed. Discussion also followed on the motion. Commissioner
Crowther exDlained that he is suggesting that the Commission recommend
to the City Council that the school district's request for the change
in the General Plan designation be denied without prejudice, which in
effect would leave the General Plan in its Dresent form, which lie feels
is what the citizens are requesting.
The vote was taken on the motion to recommend denial without nrejudi.ce
:
for GPA 82 -1 -B. The motion was carried, with Commissioners Laden and
Schaefer dissenting.
4
t
NAgv
7 _
RESOLUTION NO. GPA 82 -1 -B
o v �w zti ij� grXs RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF SARATOGA AMENDING THE 1974 GENERAL PLAN LAND
USE ELEMENT FOR A 11.57 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND COMMONLY
KNOWN AS THE BROOKVIEW SCHOOL (APN 386- 10 -60)
,r
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga received an application
from the rioreland School District to amend the 1974 General -.
P1an.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 May 26th, 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 "A ";
'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 11.57 acre parcel, commonly
known as Brookview 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 26th day of May, 1982 by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners King, Laden, Schaefer and Zambetti
NOES: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther and Monia
ABSENT: None
ABSTAINED: None
Chai man, Planning Commi Sion
ATTEST:
ecretary
CITY OF SARATOGA
' _ Dept. Hd.
AGENDA BILL NO.
DATE: June 4, 1982 C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Policv Analysis C. Mgr. ,
SUBJECT. GPA 82 -1 -C, Moreland School District, El Quito Park School, Change
General Plan Designation from Community Facility to Medium Density
----------- - R=r i% rtra% --------------------------------------------------- -------------
Issue Summary
1. On May 26, 1982 the Planning Commission approved changing the General
Plan designation of the subject property from Community Facility- School
Site to Medium Density Residential consistent with adjacent single -
family residential development.
2. School district originally proposed a P -D (Planned Development)
designation for the property but verbally changed their request due to
opposition from the Quito Homeowners Association.
3. City Council must establish a date for public hearing of this project
and direct staff to advertise said hearing.
Recommendation
1. Review the attached material.
2. Establish a date for public hearing (the Superintendent of Moreland
School District, Mr. Reasoner, has requested that-the date for the hearing
be July 21, 1982 so he would be available to.answer questions).
3. Direct staff to advertise hearing.
Fiscal Impacts
None anticipated
Exhibits /AttacYmL -nts
Exhibit A - Negative Declaration dated 1/4/82
Exhibit B - Staff Reports dated 1/7/82 and 4/22/82
Exhibit C - Various letters from concerned citizens and the school district
Exhibit D - Planning Commission minutes dated 1/13/82, 4/28/82, 5/18/82 and
5/26/82
Council Action
6/16: Mallory /Jensen moved to set public hearing 7/21. Passed 5 -0.
7/21: Continued to 8/4.
8/4: iloyles /-7llory moved to approve Resolution 2003. Passed 5 -0. (Resolution approved GPA.)
ETA- 4 -1-C No: GPA 82 -1 -C
Saratoga (�
DECLATUr TION THAT 1:11VTRON14ENTAL
IMPhCT REPORT NOT REQUIRED
(Negative * Dcclaration) L- n
Environmental Quality Act of 1970.
The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the
CITY OF SARATOCA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation
has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable
provisions of the Environmcntal.Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15030
throuah 15023 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 DESCRIPTIOiQ ,
General Plan Amendment to change the Designation of a
portion of a site from Community Facility- School Site to P -D Planned Development
Residential. The site is 11.17 acre's in size and is located at 18720 Bucknall
Road(El Quito Park School). A maximum of 61 dwelling units•coula be constructer'
on the site with an approved use permit unless a density bonus is granted.
Minimal open space would be lost since the lower portion of the site would
be-maintained as a park.
1IAME ANni ADDRESS OF APPLICANIT
Moreland School District.
4710 Campbell Avenue
San Jose, CA 95130
R1-2iSON FOR IMCATIVE DECLARATION Although .the proposed project could have a
signs scant effect on the environment it will not because of the mitigation
measures that will be applied to any new residential development through the
use permit and tentative subdivision process and by enforcement of existing
codes and ordinances. New development would be considered an infill project
which would not require the significant extension of urban services.
E-ecuted at Saratoga, California this 4th day Of ' Jury . 19,_82_
R: ' S.- Robinson, Jr.
Director of Planning"And Policy-Ahalysis
DIRECTOR'S AUT1JOIZIZED STAFF 1.10,113ER
lv�
• r
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE
Commission Meeting
4/22/82
4/28/82
SUBJECT GPA 82 -1 -B and GPA 82 -1 -C, Moreland School District,
Brookview and E1 Quito School Sites
on January 27, 1982 the Moreland School District requested that
the above referenced items be continued until after their March
9, 1982 Board of Trustees meeting. On March 22, 1982 staff
received a letter dated March 18, 1982 from the school district
requesting reactivation of their requests. Since that time
staff has renoticed the public hearings for these sites. The
school district has not modified its original requests for the
designation changes on each site (please see attached staff
reports).
Although these requests have been readvertised for a public
hearing for the April 28, 1982 meeting, the Commission may wish
to continue both items to a study session to discuss the various
alternatives and issues that apply to these proposed amendments.
Some residents in the areas affected have indicated that a
study session would be appropriate and believe that was the
Commission's intent in allowing these requests to be continued.
If the Commission decides to continue these items to a study
session they should announce that intent at the beginning of
the meeting and only take general testimony at the time of the
public hearing.
Another option the Commission may consider is to continue these
items to a meeting where the area plans for Planning Areas D
and F are considered. Discussion of the school sites could then
be incorporated with the other problems and issues associated
with the planning areas.
Michael Flores
Assistant Planner
MF /mgr
• 1�
NEW
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: l/ 7/82
Commission Meeting: 1/13/82
SUBJECT: GPA 82 -1 -C, Moreland School District, 18729 Bucknall Road
(E1 Quito Park School)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Request:, Amend the General Plan Designation of the northern 4.89
acre portion of the subject property, changing it from Community
Facility - School Site to PD - Planned Development.
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 318 property owners in
the vicinity.
Zoning: R -1- 10,000
Surrounding Land Uses: Multi- family residential to the west;
single family residential to the north and east; park to the south.
Site Size: 11.17 acres
Site Slope: Gentle (less then 5 %)
Staff Analysis: The Moreland School District is the other school
district besides Saratoga Union School District to follow up on
the Planning Director's October 19, 1981 letter giving school
districts the opportunity to amend the General Plan Designation of
surplus school sites. The District is also proposing an amendment
to the designation of the Brookview School site (GPA 82 -1 -A) also on
this agenda). The El Quito Park Elementary School was closed in
'1973 due to declining enrollment. Since that time the District
has leased the buildings to the County of Santa Clara for
handicapped educational facilities and to a privately maintained
day care facility. The City currently leases the southern 6.28
acre portion of the site and is operating it as a park. The
District is now in the process of conducting hearings on how the
surplus school site should be used in the future.
GPA 82 -1 -C e
January 7, 1982
Page 2
If the District decides to sell the site to reduce maintenance
costs and create more revenue the proposed change in the site's
General Plan Designation would allow multi - family residential
development on the-site and make it easier to sell. It should
be noted that the school use of the site need not be abandoned
if the proposed change is adopted since public schools would remain
as Conditional Uses in residential districts. The site can still
be used for school or other compatible use if it is not sold in
the future.
The loss of open space will be less a problem than in the
proposed General Plan Amendments for Congress Springs and Brook -
view since the City currently leases the southern portion of the
site as park and intends to eventually buy this portion of the
site. The Park Designation of this portion of the site will
remain unchanged.
The remainder of this report will be devoted to the potential
impacts of the applicant's request on adjacent properties and
the potential.impacts of alternative proposals. The comments and
desires of the representatives of Planning Area F in which the
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. P -D (Planned Development)
This proposed designation is consistent with the General
Plan Designations of adjacent properties to the west but incon-
sistent with designations to the east. As stated before, residents
would support residential development of school sites at densities
consistent with surrounding development. Item 5 of the Action
Program for Area F states that vacant parcels should be developed
in the same single family densities as existing adjacent development.
It is not clear whether P -D or Medium Density Residential should
occupy the 4.89 acre site entirely.
If the site were developed entirely under.densities allowed
by the PRD (Planned Residential Development) Ordinance approximately 61
units could be built on site. If a density bonus is granted-for
a senior citizen housing project, the maximum number of units
would be 75.
Residents of the area have expressed concern over traffic
increases due to commercial development. A 61 unit project would
generate 67% more traffic than a 17 lot subdivision that could be
located on the site. A 75 unit project would generate 120% more
traffic. (Please refer to GPA 82 -1 -A for an example of how these
numbers are derived) .
However, a maximum density of 1 unit /6,300 square feet would
allow a multi - family development of about 34 units which would
GPA 82 -1 -C
January 7, 1982
Page 3
have the same impact as a 17 lot subdivision. This option
would allow preservation of a significant amount of open space
with clustered units. The P -D Designation would give the City
greater flexibility and control in developing the site through
the use permit process.
2. No Change. Community Facility /School Site
This option contains the same problem expressed under the
proposed school site amendments also on this agenda. Neither the
school district nor the City have sufficient funds to maintain
buildings or the open space. The City is unlikely to purchase any
more of the El Quito site since the City already intends to purchase
the southern portion of the site.
Use of the existing buildings is again limited by the list
of conditional uses allowed in an R -1 District and the potential
for controversy reduces the viability of this option.
3. Single- family. Medium Density Residential
Approvimately 17 detached single - family units could be
built on the 4.89 acre site after deducting 20% of the site
area for streets. This number of units would generate about a
third less traffic than the school did when at its peak enrollment.
(Reference: "Trip Generation Sturdy" - Institute of Transporta-
tion Engineers - 1976)
This would be the option utilized if the Commission
determined that single - family residential would be more consistent
with adjacent development.
4. Commercial /Industrial
The same problems this option presented for the other two
school sites also apply to this one particularly considering the
fact that significant commercial expansion has already occurred
in the general area.
5. Mixed P -D and Single- Family
Since the major issue of this application is whether or not P -D
or Medium Density Residential.is most compatible with adjacent develop-
ment, a compromise - option can -be-formulated. It Paseo Flores were extended
through the site it would bisect the site into two 2 -acre parcels.
P -D Development could be allowed to the west of the Paseo Flores
extension and single family development could be allowed to the
east. The new P -D area would be developed at a density of 1 unit/
6,300 square feet which would create the same traffic impact as a
single family development on the same size site.. The eastern
portion could be developed as a standard single family subdivision.
GPA 82 -1 -C •
January 7, 1982
Page 4
The map designating land use for the s..te is. shown ".as
Exhibit "C ". The text of the General Plan would be amended to
allow a density of only 1 unit /6,300 square feet. This creates
a.-�transition zone between the higher density P -D development to
the west (both existing and proposed) at 1 unit /3,500 square feet
to the lower density single family residential area to the east
at a density of 1 unit /10,000 square feet. The P -D development
will still be controlled by Use Permit.
Conclusions:
The issue that needs to be resolved in this application is what
constitutes consistency with adjacent development when a site
is bordered by P -D and Medium Density Residential Designations.
It is clear,f,rom.concerns expressed by residents in the area
that traffic is a major issue. Three options can accomplish
the goal of creating minimal traffic impacts: Medium Density
Residential (Single- Family) at 1 unit /10,000 square feet, P -D
(multi - family) at 1 unit /6,300 square feet (entire 4.89 acres)
or Mixed P -D /Medium Density Residential at an average density
of 1 unit /7,700 square feet.
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends that the Commission forward a resolution adopting
Option 5 (Mixed P -D /Medium Density Residential) as the General
Plan Designation for this 4.89 acre site to the City Council. The
resolution should specify the density allowed on the P -D half of
the site as 1 unit /6,300 square feet.
Michael Flo s
Assistant Planner
INIF /mg r
0 OPA 82 -1 -C
EXHIBIT A
Findings:
1. The proposed General Plan Amendment would not adversely
affect the public health, safety and welfare or be materially
injurious to adjacent properties or improvement.
2. The proposed amendment will allow for a reasonable transition
from the multi - family project on Saratoga Avenue to the
single family dwellings on Paseo Presado Avenue.
3. The proposed amendment is consistent with the objective of
Area "F" to designate all major vacant lands (including
school sites) with a General Plan Designation which is con-
sistent with the existing development of adjacent properties.
I
I!
m 0 m m*m �m- 11 �V7,i r,
1121♦1
Egli
IN
0 M L2 -1-&
WILLIAM J. MINKEL
18598 PASEO PUEBLO
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 ex Iq ICJ C.
Panning Commission
Gity of Saratoga
Greetings:
As a tax - paying home -owner
borhood, I oppose the suggested
Park School site from Community
School to Planned Development -
the way for more condominiums i
April 27, 1982
in El Quito Park neigh -
change of the E1 Quito
Facilities - Elementary
Residential, opening
n our neighborhood.
In recent years, this area has become the "dumping
ground^ for multi - dwelling and commercial Projects,
increasing the tax -base of the City of Saratoga while
compromising the safety, comfort and life -style of our
residents, due to increased traffic, deteriorating roads,
vandalism, and general over - crowding of a once - pleasant
middle -class neighborhood. I respectfully submit that
it is time to distribute the burden of these types of
developments in other areas throughout Saratoga. rlease
maintain the existing designation or change to R -1- 10,000,
in keeping with the majority of residences in our neigh-
borhood.
Yours truly,
wy
,Villiam J. Minkel
Mo C�_x� kcll�
-----------------
LI-J�
C-7
-c-d-
0 0
�ciacoL
0
To: Planning Commission, Saratoga.
t3 Paseo Olivos
S atoga, Ca. 95070
Apr. 27, 1982 6% 4- t'� ,/ C
My husband and I wish to have it placed on record that we are strongly
opposed to the proposed re- zoning of the E1 Quito Park School property,
as recommended by staff, of 50/50 Planned Development /medium density residential.
Although this would certainly be prefereable to l00% Planned Development, as
desired by the Moreland School District, it would still involve - according to
figures given us - at least two times as many families as would 100% med,
density residential and we are very concerned about the extra traffic this
would generate along adjacent streets (including ours), particularly in view of
the fact that it would continue the precedent set by the Saratoga Parkside
development and possibly lead to further such density in our area in the
future.
We request that this area be zoned 100% medium density residential.
Sincerely,
Zara van Wichen
12642 PaagooaOlivos
0 r
Vida C. Ten
18596 Paseo Pueblo
Saratoga, California 95070
April 26, 1982
Ms. Louise Shaeffer
Planning Commission
13777 Fruitdale Ave.
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Dear Ms. Shaeffer,
I wish to protest the proposal GPA 82 -1 -C to
convert the El Quito Park School site to Planned
Development - Residential.
I have lived at the address indicated above for
the past six years. We bought our home because we
enjoyed the settled residential, almost rur 1,
quality of the neighborhood in a convenient�loca-
tion at affordable prices for a growing family.
Since we have moved, we have seen changes which
have been detrimental to the quality of life in our
neighborhood; the expansion of Quito Park Shopping
Center, the new office building at Paseo Presada
and Cox, senior citizens, developments on Cox and
more recently on Saratoga Ave. behind Quito Park,
and the proposed condominium development on Saratoga
and Bucknall. These developments have brought more
traffic (but not more road repairs) and have se-
riously compromised the residential character of
our neighborhood.
If the site can no longer be used by the
Moorland School District, it should be maintained
as R -1- 10,000, the same as the single- family resi-
dences on Bucknall and Paseo Presada.
Sincerely,
J
Vida C. Kenk
Boarciof Trustees •
JRELAND SCH00L DISTRICT
Anna K. Kurse
President
Arthur A. Woods, Jr. CALIFORNIA'S OLDEST KNOWN RURAL SCHOOL DISTRICT • 1851
Clerk
John W. Anderson ROBERT W. REASONER
Marilyn M. Ineardona March 18, 1982 SWerrntendent
Damon G. Nalty RECEIVED
1AAR 2 2 1982.
COMMUNITY. DEVELOPMENT.
Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Commissioners:
Representatives of the district appeared before the Commission earlier
to request a change in the General Plan designation for Brookview and
El Quito Park Schools sites (GPA 82 -1 -B and GPA 82 -1 -C). Because there
was a question about the possibility of maintaining those sites for
school use, it was felt best to continue this request until the Board
of Trustees made a,final decision regarding these two sites. At its
March 9 meetinq the Board of Trustees decided that these sites would
not be needed as school sites and recommended the following action:
1. That the Brookview site be leased through June, 1983
but that immediate steps be taken to sell the site,
2. That negotiations begin with the City regarding the
purchase of a portion of the E1 Quito Park site for
use as a park, and
3. That the E1 Quito Park site be leased for another
three year period.
Accordingly, the Board would like to reactivate its request for change
in General Plan designation for Brookview and E1 Quito Park School sites,
✓GPA 82 -1 -B and GPA 82 -1 -C, and requests that such steps be taken as are
required to recalendar these requests.
RWR:mab
Respectfully,
Robert W. Reasoner
Superintendent
4710 Campbell Avenue San Jose, CALfornia 95130 4081379 -1370
RECEIVE*
APR ^ 6 1982
COMMUNITY. DEVELOPMEN.L
62 �QcPZ
' r
-
Board of Trustees
i4*(_)RELAN_D SCHO M DISTRICT
Anna K. Kurse
President
Arthur A. Woods. , r.
Clerk
John W. Anderson
Marilyn M. Incardona
Damon G. Nalty
CALIFORNIA'S OLDEST KNOWN RURAL SCHOOL DISTRICT • 1851
January 27, 1982
Planning Commission
City of Saratoga__
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Commissioners:
ROBERT W. REASONER
AVerCntendent
RECEIVED MH 2 r 1Q82
It does not appear, after last night's Board of Trustees meeting,
that the Board will reach a decision regarding its proposed
actions concerning Brookview and E1 Quito Park schools until its
meeting of March 9, 1982.
The Board requests a continuance of its request for change in
General Plan designation for these two sites, GPA 82 -1 -B and
GPA 82 -1 -C, to be renoticed for hearing later in the year follow-
ing the Board's determination of its plans for these sites.
Respectfully,
Gerard auck
Assistant Superintendent- Business
GWH:ch
4710 Campbell Aoanue San Jose, California 95130 4081379.1370 �'
Bourdof Trustees J� ]� �.
I ND SCII L DISTRICT
Anna K. Kurze
President
Arthur A. Woods, Jr. CALIFORNIA'S OLDEST KNOWN RURAL SCHOOL DISTRICT • 1851
Clerk November 24, 1981
John W. Anderson ROBERT W. REASONER
Marilyn M. Incardona Superintendent
Damon G. Nalty
Mr. R. S. Robinson, Jr.
Director of Planning and Policy Analysis
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mr. Robinson:
The Moreland School District would like to request that the
General Plan be amended with regard to the Brookview and E1
Quito'Park School sites. It is requested that the designation
of the Brookview School be changed from School Site to Single
Family /Medium Density Residential R -1- 10,000 a.nd.that the E1
Quito Park School site be changed from School Site to Planned
Development consistent with the adjacent property.
Enclosed are completed environmental impact questionnaires
for the two sites, plot plans, lists of all adjacent property
owners, a check for $600 to cover the fee for the General Plan
amendment and the cost of the environmental determinations for
the two sites.
We appreciate the opportunity for the Council to consider all
General Plan changes related to school sites at the same time.
We hope that submission of these requests will be in sufficient
time for the January 13 Planning Commission Meeting.
Sincerely yours,
Robert W. Reasoner
Superintendent
RWR:ch
Enclosures
4710 Canty6eli Avenue Sar Jose, California 95130 4081379 -1370
I
(I
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
Exk , b! I + D
DATE: Wednesday, May 26, 1982 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
------------------------------------------------------------- -- ---- - - ----
ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, King, Laden, Monia, Schaefer
and Zambetti
Absent: None
Minutes
Commissioner King moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, to waive the
reading of the minutes of May 4, 1982 and approve as distributed. The motion
was carried, with Commissioners Laden and Crowther abstaining, since they were
not present at the meeting.
The following changes were made to the minutes of May 12, 1982: On page 2,
the first sentence should read "State Act ", and on page 6, the date in the
third line should be May 26, 1982. Commissioner King moved, seconded by
Commissioner Laden, to waive the reading of the minutes of May 12, 1982 and
approve as amended. The motion was carried, with Commissioner Zambetti
abstaining since he was not present at the meeting.
la. GPA 82 -1 -B - Moreland School District, Brookview and E1 Quito School
lb. GPA 82 -1 -C - Sites, amend the General Plan Designation from Community
Facility - School Site to Medium Density Residential and P -D
(Planned Development) Residential respectively; continued
from May 18, 1982
Staff gave the history of the applications. They noted that the Planned
Development was no longer being considered as part of the E1 Quito site.
It was explained that part of the purpose of the hearing at this time is
to get input from the citizens in the area as to what they feel is the
appropriate use for the school sites, considering the fact that the Zon-
ing Ordinance may be amended to allow different uses. It was noted that
the sites have a General Plan designation of Community Facil•ity-School
Sites, and the zoning allows the implementation of school usesbecause
they are conditional uses in the R- 1- 10,000 district; therefore, it is
not inconsistent with the General Plan.
The environmental analysis procedure and State guidelines were discussed.
Commissioner Crowther expressed the opinion that he felt an Environmental
Impact Report should be prepared on the project, specifically in view of
the large public interest. It was noted that an initial study is on
file for Commission review.
The public hearing was opened at 7:50 p.m.
Terry Griswold, 12618 Paseo Cerro, inquired about the sale of the sites
and reiterated Quito's position that, if the property is going to be
sold, they want single family homes there.
Mr. Reasoner reiterated the School District's position. He clarified
that the State does discourage districts from holding onto sites that
are not being used for school purposes by placing increased penalties.
He noted that the district has accepted a bid for lease for a one -year
period of time with the One World Montessori School.
Commissioner Crowther stated that he believes that the Open Space Ele-
ment of the General Plan catalogs the school sites as open space, and
he asked Staff to research this issue. Staff explained that school sites
are not designated as open space; they are part of the Open Space Element
because they are a resource. They added that the General Plan is not
. Va*-
Planning Commission C Page 2
Meeting Minutes 5/26/82
GPA 82 -1 -B and 82 -1 -C (cont.)
inconsistent with the zoning because school sites are conditional uses
and the concurrent uses with school sites are conditional uses and are
allowed in those districts. Commissioner Crowther disagreed, and asked
the Deputy City Attorney to review the Open Space Element and the map
and designations. The Deputy City Attorney clarified that the school
sites are listed as resources.
Commissioner Schaefer explained that she had discussed with Mr. Reasoner
the fact that perhaps the three -month period granted by any public
agency selling land could be extended to six months, in order to allow a
community group to come forth if they are interested in buying it for
25% of its fair market value. She also suggested that the amount of land
or fees that would be required when development occurs could be increased.
Bob Michaels and Randy Snyder, of the Executive Board of the Saratoga
Parkwood Homeowners Association, expressed their previous recommendation
to support the current zoning of Community Facilities - School Site.
Jack Coverstreit, a resident of the Moreland School District, noted that
the District paid for the Brookview site,, not -the City, and he urged the
Commission to consider the best usage for the site for the City now and
in the future, stating that the district is in financial trouble and
needs money to make improvements on other schools.
Susan Zimmer, a resident of the School District, indicated that the larger
issue is the education of the children, and the district needs money at
this time.
Mike Evans, a resident of the School District, agreed, stating that he
-
did not wish to be burdened with carrying an empty site that is no lo
nger
used as an educational facility.
Commissioner Monia moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Laden seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Bolger agreed that there needs to be an Environmental
Impact Report. He stated that he feels there would be a great deal of
traffic added to the neighborhood if R -1- 10,000 zoning was recommended,
_
and he also would like to know how much traffic would be generated if
it were designated R -1- 20,000. The traffic increase was discussed.
Commissioner Monia moved to deny GPA 82 -1 -B, stating that he feels that
the area should be consistent with the General Plan, which has an open
space school use designation, and the neighbors have expressed their wish
5-
to keep it in its present use. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion.
Staff discussed the underlying zoning and the General Plan designation.
Commissioner Laden suggested taking this school site and putting it into
the General Plan discussion, which would include needed open space. The
policies of the General Plan Committee were discussed.
The vote was taken on the motion to deny GPA 82 -1 -B. It failed, with
Commissioners Zambetti, Laden, Schaefer and King dissenting. Commissioner
Laden moved that this item be joined with the General Plan Review and
-
assessed along with it. The motion failed for lack of a second.
Commissioner King commented that he felt that the Commission was being
^- _
unrealistic, since the City was doing nothing to allow
Y g g a people to come
into the community with young families that are going to utilize these
--
schools. He moved to approve GPA 82 -1 -B and C, per the Staff Report.
Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion. It was pointed out that the
applications should be considered in separate motions. Commissioner King
withdrew his motion and moved to recommend approval of GPA 82 -1 -B,
per the Staff Report dated January 7, 1982. Commissioner Zambetti
-
seconded the motion.
The motion was discussed. The vote was taken, and the motion was carried,
-
with Commissioners Bolger, Crowther and Monia dissenting. Commissioner
Schaefer moved that the Commission request that there be an attachment in
writing on this property that, at the time of the subdivision map, the
City will be requesting 1' to 2 acres of land for dedication. Commissioner
King seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioners Bolger,
Crowther and Monia dissenting.
2
F
j.
Planning Commission
Meeting�Minutes 5/26/82
GPAj-812 -1 -B and GPA 82 -1 -C (cont.)
Page 3
Relative to 'application GPA 82 -1 -C (E1 Quito School Site) ,
discussion followed on the portion of land to be purchased by the City
to add onto the park that is now under lease. Mr. Reasoner stated that
the District wiT'-1 make "the determination of the amount of land to be
offered, and the land is now being surveyed. A possible donation of
land to the City by the District was discussed. Commissioner Monia
commented that the City does give up tremendous open space resource, and
he feels some consideration should be given to the fact that the communi-
ty has supported the District for many years.
Staff noted that the Commission is only dealing with the area that is
developed in school buildings at this time. The Deputy City Attorney
clarified that the drawing on the original application is before the
Commission, and if approved, that will be the boundary on the General Plan
He added that if the survey being done by the District is different,
this action will be controlling.
Commissioner Crowther stated that he believes this site also needs an
EIR, and he moved to deny GPA 82 -1 -C and retain it as a school site.
The motion failed for lack of a second.
Commissioner Zambetti moved to recommend to the City Council approval
of GPA 82 -1 -C, per Item 3 in the Staff Report dated January 7, 1982
and Exhibit "D ". Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was
carried, with Commissioner Crowther dissenting.
2. Consideration of Amendments to the 1974 General Plan of the City of
Saratoga; continued from May 18. 1982
Staff commented that at the previous meeting there had been concern
expressed about the density issue in Area I. They noted that this
issue had been advertised; however, none of the people from the original
area meeting were notified, nor were the area representatives. :Letters
received were referenced, specifically one from Mr. Mooney, asking if the
Commission would entertain the notion of allowing mini storage on the
Carreira property.
The public hearing was opened at 8:SS p.m.
Gerald Mooney and Mr. Francis appeared to address the mini storage
project, giving a presentation on the possible project. It was deter-
mined that the Commission will review and consider all of the C -V areas
in a study session at a future date, at which time this project could
be considered.
Commissioner Zambetti expressed concern about the density in the Area I
and the amount of conforming secondary living structures on the lots
that are R -1- 40,000. He requested Staff to determine exactly where the
zoning lines are between the two densities, and what areas specifically
it is affecting. It was also determined that Areas A, C and J will be
considered at the next meeting and decisions made. It was directed that
this matter be continued to the Adjourned Regular Meeting on June 1, 1982
at 4:30 p.m.
3. GF -334 - Consideration of an Amendment to the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance
authorizing Manufactured Homes in all Residential Districts
within the City of Saratoga, an Ordinance required under SB -1960
The Deputy City Attorney reported that the City Council had an informal
public hearing on this matter and referred it back to the Commission for
any further consideration. He stated that there is no legislation pend-
ing which would affect SB 1960; there is some legislation concerning
mobilehome parks. He outlined the various options available at this time.
The question of doing a needs analysis in the Housing Element before
adopting this ordinance was discussed. The Deputy City Attorney explained
that the statute states that you cannot discriminate a,ainst manufactured
housing. It does not qualify that prohibition by requiring a finding of
need first; it presumes the need. He added that the language concerning
compatibility applies to designation of lots, not districts. He discussed
the statute, stating that it does not give any guidance on compatibility;
it is left up to the cities to determine their own needs and make their'
own judgments. It was clarified that it would be ossibl to establ; h
p e is
3 -%
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COPSMISSION
MTNTTTF.S
DATE: Tuesday, May 18, 1982 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: Community Center Meeting Room, 19655 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga
TYPE: Regular Adjourned Meeting
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Bolger, Laden, Schaefer and Zambetti
.
Absent: Commissioners Crowther, King and Monia
2. GPA 82 -1 -B and GPA 82 -1 -C, Moreland School District, Brookview and
E1 Quito School Sites, amend the General Plan Designation from
Community Facility - School Site to Medium Density Residential and P -D
(Planned Development) Residential res ectiv el .
Commissioner Schaefer discussed a previous meeting with G en P1cNic olas,
Bob Reasoner, Art Lund '(Chairman of the` School Board of Moreland School
District), Sally- Carlson and herself to come up with options for con-
sideration on how the Brookview and El Quito School sites should be used. The
history of the Brookview School was discussed and the conrdttee came up with a plan
_
for approximately two acres. 'The acreage would be dedicated to open space or to a play
field, and may or may not include the buildings. A demand for such
an area was felt, but it was not determined how the traffic could be
controlled. The area would be properly irrigated and the responsi-
bility for maintenance would be that of the school. In return, the
school would be zoned in accordance with the surrounding area, R- 1- 10,000
It was anticipated it would be four years before the Closure of the
school and in the interim period there would be no profit generated.
The option period in which the agencies or the City would have to
consider the school for purchase would be increased from the normal
three month period to six months. The committee also discussed the
possibility of realigning the school district line, enabling the
students living in the Saratoga area to become part of the Saratoga
School District.* This, the committee felt, would impose additional
indebtedness to the City of Saratoga.
Robert Reasoner, Superintendent of the Moreland.School District,
redefined the school districts position indicating that the school
had, in essence, developed two general plans. The latest plan was
devised in September and pointed out that the district could not
justify keeping these schools open. He cited the decline in enroll -
ment, particularly in the Saratoga area, as the primary reason for
the districts position. Reasoner further indicated that the district
was in financial trouble and as such could not afford to continue to
lease the school. Reasoner added it would require $2.9 million to
keep the sites maintained. Adding to the tight financial squeeze
would be a penalty imposed by the state on each school site not being
used as such. Further, no money could be made from the lease because
<•:*rUw:'a %rs;,r.i;�ti ;1<r' -r
they could only charge lease income and they must keep the lease
income commensurate with the cost of site maintenance, since anything
above this amount would go to the State: The State is currently
:•;-<:>:- r:.:::;;:;;;;._<:;>.:•: ..:.,;._ :....:...:.:....:,.:..-
allowed to keep 10% more than it had been previously allowed.
Reasoner expressed a desire to work with the community and referred
to the recommendations of the Advisory Committee each claiming that
the Brookview School be sold as soon as possible. Reasoner did point
out that the district had tried to hold out as long as they financially
could in order that they might preserve the open space. Further,
Reasoner pointed out the difficulties of leasing the space in lieu of
the problems with the use permits. He urged the Commission to take
a good look at the regulation, indicating that the district does not
want the sites used for anything other than that which would be com-
natible with normal school use. Reasoner expressed concern for the
provisions in the present lease agreement which state that the building
must be available for the community, that it must follow the community
service regulations of a normal school and that the conditions with
respect to profit making organizations be related to tutoring fees
and finally, these fees must be reasonable and consistent with normal
school use.
It was decided by the representative from Moreland School District
that it would be too difficult at this to accomplish.
:stG:;d;.�ciwi;• =�:. �G. �x! n� '^'�•i�Ta:;:s:�:r;.;:t'.:.rdi
i
Upon Commissioner Schaefer' s request, Reasoner reclarified his position that
the two-acre parcel was not to be dedicated, but rather sold since ;it repre-
sents 208 of the site's value. Reasoner estimated a projected three -
year period in ability to meet maintenance costs. Reasoner did point
out that given an increase in enrollment in his district, the increase
could be absorbed in his 15 other locations. These 15 locations are
capable of absorbing 275 more students if necessary.
Jim Russell, Saratoga Parkwoods Homeowners' Association, called it
to the Commission's attention that the homeowners in his area were
opposed to any changes'in the zoning of the Brookview School site.
The residents support the community facility school designation and
desire that the school be operated on a long -term basis for children,
education and recreation. While Russell acknowledges that the Moreland
School District has an interest in resolving its financial problems,
he feels the money derived from the sale of the school will not benefit
Saratoga. Therefore, he expressed the support of his group in the
preservation of the Brookview School.
Russell believes, contrary to proposals, that the density in the
area will increase, and given this projected increase, the school should
be operated for the benefit of the children, to meet their educational
and recreational needs, but must also conform to the neighborhood
standards with regard to noise, traffic and congestion. Russel condones
the use of the Brookview school by.the -One World Montessori School, but
is against the use of the school as a community center used for a diverse
range of activities difficult to supervise.
Mr. Asby, resident of Saratoga Woods, referred to a few comments made
by Mr. Reasoner, refuting them, and claiming that they were not nec-
essarily supported by the Park group. Citing reference to several
letters already on file with the Commission, and citing a forced area
election, Asby pointed out a consensus of the area was to have the
school property transferred. Asby noted that Saratoga Woods represents
less than 2% of the Moreland School District, but it carried 49% of
the voters in the request for such transfer. Asby indicated that
maintenance costs for the next four years to be approximately $185,000.
He pointed out that the One World Montessori School leases the property
for $50,000 per year and, thus, the income would surpass the actual
rate of the maintenance. Asby made mention of a letter presented by
One World Montessori indicating that they desired to continue leasing
the property and indicating further that there appears to be no deficit
2
Reasoner stressed the fact that Moreland School District is different
than the Saratoga District because Saratoga has paid off its property
indebtedness and they can use their monies in many ways, while the
taxpayers of the Moreland School District are still paying taxes to
pay of the indebtedness. He stated if thearea of the Brookview
School were zoned as single family homes, it could generate as
much as S90,000 in taxes to the City of Saratoga.
Further, Reasoner stated he does not favor a possible change in school
boundaries since, as he believes, the transferring of indebtedness
from one city to another is forbidden in Proposition 13. Reasoner
referred to his position of leniency when it is the request of the
students or parents to change to the Saratoga School District, but
".
points out the favorable busing conditions for those students who do
not wish to change districts.
In summary, it is the Districts request that the Brookview site be
zoned compatible with the surrounding neighborhood with the possibility
for open space and the possibility of holding the zoning until such
time whereas something works out to sell two acres to an agency or
group since the City has indicated that it'is not interested.
As for Fl Quito, it is requested that it, too, be zoned consistent
with the surrounding area and since it falls between two areas, it
should be zoned half and half. These recommendations, Reasoner feels,
would give the City the greatest amount of flexibility to determine
the best use. Residents of the area are concerned with density.
It is the intention of the School District to lease E1 Quito site as
long as feasible and at the point when it is no longer feasible, the
District will attempt to work with the City in the sale of about 6.782
acres which is currently being leased to the City at $1.00 per year.
0�y�d4
The assessment would be determined on the basis of zoping and the City
-
could purchase the site for 25% of the market value.
:stG:;d;.�ciwi;• =�:. �G. �x! n� '^'�•i�Ta:;:s:�:r;.;:t'.:.rdi
i
Upon Commissioner Schaefer' s request, Reasoner reclarified his position that
the two-acre parcel was not to be dedicated, but rather sold since ;it repre-
sents 208 of the site's value. Reasoner estimated a projected three -
year period in ability to meet maintenance costs. Reasoner did point
out that given an increase in enrollment in his district, the increase
could be absorbed in his 15 other locations. These 15 locations are
capable of absorbing 275 more students if necessary.
Jim Russell, Saratoga Parkwoods Homeowners' Association, called it
to the Commission's attention that the homeowners in his area were
opposed to any changes'in the zoning of the Brookview School site.
The residents support the community facility school designation and
desire that the school be operated on a long -term basis for children,
education and recreation. While Russell acknowledges that the Moreland
School District has an interest in resolving its financial problems,
he feels the money derived from the sale of the school will not benefit
Saratoga. Therefore, he expressed the support of his group in the
preservation of the Brookview School.
Russell believes, contrary to proposals, that the density in the
area will increase, and given this projected increase, the school should
be operated for the benefit of the children, to meet their educational
and recreational needs, but must also conform to the neighborhood
standards with regard to noise, traffic and congestion. Russel condones
the use of the Brookview school by.the -One World Montessori School, but
is against the use of the school as a community center used for a diverse
range of activities difficult to supervise.
Mr. Asby, resident of Saratoga Woods, referred to a few comments made
by Mr. Reasoner, refuting them, and claiming that they were not nec-
essarily supported by the Park group. Citing reference to several
letters already on file with the Commission, and citing a forced area
election, Asby pointed out a consensus of the area was to have the
school property transferred. Asby noted that Saratoga Woods represents
less than 2% of the Moreland School District, but it carried 49% of
the voters in the request for such transfer. Asby indicated that
maintenance costs for the next four years to be approximately $185,000.
He pointed out that the One World Montessori School leases the property
for $50,000 per year and, thus, the income would surpass the actual
rate of the maintenance. Asby made mention of a letter presented by
One World Montessori indicating that they desired to continue leasing
the property and indicating further that there appears to be no deficit
"`.ut� _ .f,� „? .��.e• is ��'s�'3s' � �,Y�!'.'”. x ,
. ietairi?. :ti?�d:,v%y.irs?it.Y.%#a�'��"J -` his °- ;++?�'r..- '•',- 's3?. =F�°
E
3
to the Moreland School site by continuing to lease out the site.
Asby called the Commission's attention to the opinion of their area's
legal counsel who maintains, in contradiciton to Mr. Reasoner, that
as long as the area represents essentially less than 5% of the assessed
valuation of the district, the new Proposition 13 laws do not forbid
the transfer of a property to another district. Finally, Asby con-
cludes that as long as the school is used for the education of children
(not adults, as in dance, karate classes or church, etc.) it is an
acceptable use of the school if it is coincident with the maintenance
of the site or community use as an open site.
Chris Newbound, Chairman of the Board for the One World Montessori,
spoke on behalf of his school's position expressing a preference for
a multi -use room with a need for constraining hours. He further
addressed the land use issue, indicating that his school is meeting
the needs of the community. He stated these needs may be in jeopardy
unless the approval of the City be secured to run a profit- making
organization. Newbound asked the indulgence the Commission in
their future attention to this issue. -
Susan Zimmer, Moreland School District resident, questioned why as
a resident taxpayer of the Moreland School District, she should have
to subsidize over a long period of time,. the use of this facility by
an outside group, when the district needs the money to retire the
bonding business and to continue a program viable to the district's
children. Ms. Zimmer stated she understood that there are many uses
that are compatible with the neighborhood, but feels that there are
overriding concerns, the education of the children in the best possible
manner, and she further hopes this would be the concern in the dis-
position of the site.
A teacher of an aerobic dance company, interested in leasing from the
One World Montessori School, expressed her desire to continue being
an asset to the women, children and teens in the area who already
participate in her community dance programs.
The former President of the Moreland School District, also a Saratoga
resident, indicated that she had served on the District Property
Advisory Committee when it was originally organized to study all ok
the schools. She recalls a few points made by Mr. Russell and Mr.
Anderson that were not quite as she remembered them and she addressed
these points. Ms. Carlson also defended the move made by the
Moreland School District on January 13, immediately following the
public hearing, stating that the timing of the application to the City
for an amendment to the General Plan was coincidental and did not
reflect upon the Advisory Committee.
Ms. Carlson further pointed out that in 1977 the best use
for the land were determined to be, in order of priority: A school
for the handicapped, adult education, and community centers for senior
citizens. Then, as private use, perhaps a day care center. The
district president does not feel that the City should ask the School
District to maintain open space use. and, finally, points out that if
the residents of an area wish to see boundary transfers and some changes
made, they need to work with the County Commission on School District
Organization.
Commissioner Laden posed the possibility of combining the tenants of
the two schools in a move that might resolve all.
Kathy McGoldrick pointed out that despite the feelings expressed by
the neighbors to keep the county school where it is, she feels that
it is only a matter of time before the schools are going to have to
close. She further added that the District is desperate for funds
and is lacking a tax base. Further, Ms. McGoldrick feels that there
is no buffer from traffic and development, but when given a choice
would opt for single family dwelling construction.
Mike Trapman, President of the Homeowners' Association of the Saratoga
Parkside, speaking on his own behalf and not that of his organization,
indicates that his area is composed of newcomers who are, for the most
part, satisfied with conditions, but who sympathize with and support
the handicapped program, and who are concerned with possible future
growth and the costs of reconstruction of new schools, should the
need arise. Trapman maintained that the proposed subdivision cut out
Planning
Commission 4/28/82
Commissioner Schaefer called attention to several questions posed
by the residents.
Commissioner Schaefer recommended that since E1 Quito is owned
by Moreland School District, this proposal be discussed in con-
junction with the Moreland School.
3. GPA 82 -1 -C, Moreland School District, Consideration of changing
the General Plan designation from Community Facilities -
Elementary School to Planned Development- Residential
Parcel designated in the Santa Clara County Assessor's
Book as APN 386 -14 -4, and known as E1 Quito Park School
at 18720 Bucknall Road, Saratoga.
Staff outlined the E1 Quito Park School proposal. Staff noted
residents' opposition to the proposal indicating they wished a
lower density designation. Commissioner Schaefer called attention
to letters received indicating the desire for single - family designa-
tion because of traffic conditions.
The public hearing was opened at 7:42 p.m.
Bob Black, 12750 Paseo Presada, representing the Quito Park area
urged the Commission to deny the petition for PD zoning, since in
his opinion the proposed changes would make the area undesirable
and not in compliance with the area.
Kathy McGoldrick, Area representative to the Citizen-,;' Advisory
Committee to the General Plan, reiterated the consensus of the E1
Quito Park Area in their opposition to the commercial or condominium
dwelling because of poor traffic conditions.
Terry Griswold, representative from the Quito Area, called the
attention to a prior staff decision in the Teresi property, which
was to have set the precedent for the area. This report showed
single - story zoning along Bucknall and the side of E1 Quito Park.
Griswolu feels the present zoning proposals of staff are, therefore,
inconsistent.
Margaret Russel, representative member of the Citizens' Advisory
Committee from Area D, requested that no action be taken on the
school site issue until the General Plan is approved, since all
of the sites are addressed in the General Plan.
John Anderson, representing the Moreland School District, presented
a history of the school district and its community committees. He
outlined the proposals of the several commissions all of which in-
dicated the desire that 'the Brookview and El Quito Schools be sold
in order to reduce the indebtedness of the community and to secure
future tax reductions. Anderson cited declining enrollment as the
primary reason for the proposed school closings.
Mr. Asby, speaking on his own behalf and that of several neighbors
in the Saratoga Woods area, expressed the opinion that maintenance
in the desired fashion of a school site primarily with open space
is not an expense to the Moreland School District.
Dan Guiterrez, resident of -the Quito area,reaffirmed the opposition
to the PD zoning.
This matter was continued to the meeting of May 18t1i in the
Community Center.
Consideration of Amendments to the 1974 General Plan of the City
of Saratoga; continued from h.pril 14, 1982
In referring back to the General Flan, it was decided to review
all elements dealing with all areas including circulation, land use
and all other open space, Areas B, G. :, and I would be continued
at the P +nay 4th meeting, and discussion of Areas D, E, F, L, and'K.
- 2 -
60
Planning �.. .
Commission 4/28/32
Commissioner Schaefer called attention to several questions posed
by the residents.
Commissioner Schaefer recommended that since E1 Quito is owned
by Moreland School District, this proposal be discussed in con-
junction with the Moreland School.
3. GPA 82 -1 -C, Moreland School District, Consideration of changing
the General Plan designation from Community Facilities-
..,.. ...: .:.. .. ...,.::.. -_,-t :�:;. :•u� ..'^.•
Elementary School to Planned Development- Residential
Parcel designated in the Santa Clara County Assessor's
Book as APN 386 -14 -4, and known as E1 Quito Park School
„ at 18720 Bucknall Road, Saratoga
Staff outlined the E1 Quito Park School proposal. Staff noted
residents' opposition to the proposal indicating they wished a
lower density designation. Commissioner Schaefer called attention
to letters received indicating the desire for single- family designa-
tion because of traffic conditions.
The public hearing was opened at 7:42 p.m.
Bob Black, 12750 Paseo Presada, representing the Quito Park area
urged the Commission to deny the petition for PD zoning, since in
his opinion the proposed changes would make the area undesirable
and not in compliance with the area.
Kathy M- cGoldrick, Area representative to the Citizens Advisory
Committee to the General Plan, reiterated the consensus of the E1
Quito Park Area in their opposition to the commercial or condominium
dwelling because of poor traffic conditions.
Terry Griswold, representative from the Quito Area, called the
attention to a prior staff decision in the Teresi property, which
was to have set the precedent for the area. This report showed
single- story zoning along Bucknall and the side of E1 Quito Park.
Griswolu feels the present zoning proposals of staff are, therefore,
inconsistent.
Margaret Russel, representative member of the Citizens' Advisory
Committee from Area D, requested that no action be taken on the
school site issue until the General Plan is approved, since all
of "the sites are addressed in the General Flan.
John Anderson, representing the Moreland School District, presented
a history of the school district and its community committees. He
outlined the proposals of the several commissions all of which in-
dicated the desire that the Brookview and E1 Quito Schools be sold
in order to reduce the indebtedness of the community and to secure
future tax reductions. Anderson cited declining enrollment as the
primary reason for the proposed school closings.
Mr. Asby, speaking on his own behalf and that of several neighbors
in the Saratoga Woods area, expressed the opinion that maintenance
in the desired fashion of a school site primarily with open space
is not an expense to the Moreland School District.
'4
Dan Guiterr3z, resident of 'the Quito area, reaffirmed the opposition.
�" =' -' "' "" •
to the PD zonins
b '
this matter was continued to the meeting of May 18t1i in the
"
Community Center.
1. Consideration of Amendments to the 1974 General Plan of the City
of Sarato:�a.; continued from April 14, 1982
In referring back to the General Plan, it was decided to review
all elements dealing with all areas including circulation, land use
and all other open space, Areas B, G, H, and I would be continued
at the Mlay 4th meeting, and discussion of Areas D, E. F, L, and'K
- 2 -
1 d Ai• �4�� I 1 �' �F'� .
•S Y �^ •4 ��t r `y
yew y.�,!. r t
�akss�n�S,x,�n +, N ,
Planning -
o
Commission 4/28/82
would be continued at the meeting of May 18.
-
The public hearing was opened at 8 :14 p.m.
Clarification of item /429 in the Quito area was requested from the
public. It was reconfirmed that a study session would take place
on May 4, together with a regular adjourned meeting, complete with
minutes and a possible vote on Areas B, G, H, and I. if deemed
necessary. The Moreland School sites would be topic for discussion
at the May 18th meeting, and'the May 12th meeting would be a regular
meeting.
It was directed that this matter be continued to Mav 4th.
4a. A -809 V. Bellomo, Request for Design Review Approval and a Variance
4b. V -570 to erect a sign which exceeds the maximum allowable area at
_ --
18570 Prospect Road; continued from March 24, 1982
Staff reviewed the proposal and recommended that the application
be denied.
The public hearing was opened at 8:20 p.m.
Through interchange with the applicants and the Co7,mission, t':e
Commission recommended to the applicants the conditions of an
acceptable sign would include: maximum size of forty square feet.
removal of the existing sign, the height not exceeding 13'4",
and that the: -sign be a. natural tone and- include`.only the name and
..::: YCk_+ Y�kil Y. Nr i' :— .+�J.•�Lt+::'�.- w+_:.nt•,.s._
address of "the center. The setbacY,:must be 'as per the ordinance
which .is ten .feet.
Commissioner Schaefer proposed the possibility of changinc the
name of the center for increased exposure.
it was directed that this matter be continued to Mai• 26, 1182.
5. SDP, -1458, John Rankin, Request for Tentative Subdivision approval
for Lp lots on Glen Una Drive; continued iron noril
Staff noted the corrected maps were now in compliance with the
Commission's directions and the parcel has been subdivided intZ) :L
1' • _
lots.
The public hearing was opened at 8 :50 p.m.
John Rankin and the surveyor appeared on behalf of the proposal.
Commissioner Monia moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
King seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Laden moved to approve SDR -1452 as per the Staff 7eport
dated 4-14 -82 with the conditions as listed, and with the map "E -l"
dated 4- 23 -82.
Commissioner Monia added the condition that the line on the map
which appears to be a property line be removed.
Commissioner Bolger added the ordinance trees that are aff ected by
grading be boxed.
A call for the motion was made. The motion passed unani- ousl;.
6. SDR -1516, Imperial Savings, request for Building Site = oprova_ t
1 lot (consolidation of 3 lots) to allow con t- nucti.:n o_-
a bank on Saratoga -'Los Gatos Road near Oak :lace;
continued from April 14 1982
Staff reviewed letter received from applicant, confirmed S.
findings with City Attorney indicating that site approval i s
y •tr
•
Planning Commission'
Meeting Minutes - 1/13/82
12. GPA 82 -1 -C Morela
Genera
Element
Is
C Page 8
nd School District, Consideration of Changing the
1 Plan designation from Community Facilities -
ary School to Planned Development - Residential on
the northern 4.891 acre portion of an 11.173 acre parcel
designated in the Santa Clara County Assessor's Book as
APN 386- 14 -04, and known as E1 Quito Park School at
18720 Bucknall Road
......................
The Director of Community Planning and Policy Analysis described the
proposed change. He indicated that Staff is recommending that the
northwestern part of the site be Planned Development with a density
of 1 unit per 6300 sq. feet, which is much less than the Hagan project
and less dense than what is being requested by the school district.
He added that the other side of the site would be R -1- 10,000 or Medium
Density.
The public hearing was opened at 10:50 p.m.
Mr. Reasoner expressed his confusion regarding the previous action
on GPA 82 -1 -B. He reiterated that the school board has not made a
decision to sell the sites, but they may need to be in the position to
sell one 'of them,:in view of the fact that they have not been able to
find leasees for the two sites. He added that the reason for request-
ing the PD zoning was that it was their understanding that this would
provide for maximum flexibility. Mr. Reasoner commented that they did
want to work with the City to come up with some creative use of this
site. He indicated that he feels Staff's recommendation would severely
limit the creative use of the site in terms of a development that would
be consistent with the park and with the unique nature of that site.
Mr. Reasoner suggested that both of the sites be discussed at a study
session.
Brett Cross, 12601 Paseo Cerro, stated that the Hagan /Teresi property
is on appeal before the City Council; therefore, it is not certain
whether there will be R -1- 10,000 homes there or condos. He commented
that he feels to go ahead and put a small section of PD in there
seems to be inconsistent with the fact that directly across from that
property is R -1- 10,000 zoning. Mr. Cross added that he feels his
neighborhood is becoming chopped up. He indicated that he feels the
best solution would be that this property be incorporated into the
E1 Quito Park and the open space expanded.
Dan Guiterrez, President of the E1 Quito Homeowners Association, stated
that, with this planned development, the City is asking them to accept
more density in their area and their streets cannot take it. He added
that he would hope that negotiations can take place to try to keep the
facility as an educational facility.
Kathy McGoldrick, 12860 Paseo Presada, explained that she is the
General Plan Advisory Committee representative for that area. She
stated that they wrote into the General Plan that you have to take
a look at the cumulative effects of everything that has gone on in
E1 Quito Park School. She added that the people clearly stated that
for the Abrams property they wanted senior citizen housing, but for
everything else they wanted single family dwellings. Ms. McGoldrick
commented that the neighbors at the Moreland meeting said they wanted
the school district to keep the school open: however, she understands
where the district is coming from. In closing, she added that the
neighbors would like the school to stay open, but if it must be sold,
then they want the lowest possible density.
Lucille Rider stated that she lives in the Saratoga Park Woods area
but was representing her daughter who lives on Cox near Quito Road.
She commented on the traffic, the trash thrown on the lawns, the
condos, etc. She added that she feels that that area has become the
dumping ground of Saratoga. She feels that the citizens who have
lived there for a long time should be considered.
Bob Black, 12750 PaseoPresada, asked why that area is getting all of
the condos and apartments. He expressed concern for the streets and
all of the traffic.
- 8 -
Planning Commission Page 9
Meeting Minutes - 1/13/42
>`. .. GPA 82 -1- (cont.)
ie Almer, 13774 Paseo Presada, addressed the traffic issue.
She stated that, if there is going to be a school open on that side
;:c; ;. ,;:a : �:;� ,r:.•r- of Saratoga, the logical place would be El Quito Park. She added
that she feels in ten years the children will be .there, considering
the number of preschoolers and babies in the area,
Tim Hale, Paseo Flora, also addressed the traffic issue, stating that
there was a lot of commute traffic.
^�^ Harvey Sanden, 18301 Purdue Drive, representing the Sunland Park
Homeowners Association, stated that they were in total support of the
residents.
Discusson followed on whether to continue this matter to a study ses-
sion. Commissioner Crowther stated that he did not see any purpose in
continuing the public hearing, since the issues are fairly clear and
he would like to take an action similar to the previous one.
r A vote was taken on whether to close the public hearing. It was
determined to continue the public hearing, with Commissioners Alonia.
and Crowther voting against the continuance. It was directed that the
public hearing will be continued to a study session on February 2, 1982
and the regular meeting of February 10, 1932.
The Deputy City Attorney clarified that the first application having
been denied without prejudice, will be forwarded to the City Council
unless the Commission determines that it wants to consider both applica-
tions at one time. He added that, in that event, the Commission might
move to reconsider their earlier action and nut GPA 82 -1 -'B on a study
e� r F^ ,sY�rtitL -x y,�f session also.
After further discussion Commissioner Schaefer stated that if both sites
were studied further at a study session, it would offer the opportunity
for some logical nlanning for the school district and for the City.
�-` Commissioner Crowther commented that he has not been presented with
enough information to be in favor of the anplications.. Commissioner
r Bolger agreed, stating that he feels the residents are very clear in
their- position, but the school district has not been very clear on
5 this particular case.' He added that he would be in favor of loosing
at other alternatives and determine what the school district has in
mind.
Commissioner King moved to continue both applications, GPA 32 -1 -B and
GPA 82 -1 -C, to a study session and reconsider the Commission's position
? on these issues. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, since he feels
that they should be considered together. Commissioner Bolger commented
"'"' "'" that he feels it is up to the school district to make the nresentation,
and the Commission should not be trying to do their work for them. The
vote was taken on the motion to continue both items and reconsider
GPA 82 -1 -B. The motion was carried, with Commissioners Bolger and
Crowther dissenting. It was directed that these items will be continued
to the study session on February 2, 1982 and the regular meeting of February 10, 1982.
Commissioner Laden suggested to the Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners
Association that they supply the Commission with the number of people
in attendance and the number of people they actually represent as
paid members of their association, so the confusion will not continue to
exist. Staff stated that they felt it would be advantageous for the
school. district and the residents to meet together prior to the .study
session to clarify their position.
The Deputy City Attorney clarified that
the motion was to reconsider
the denial without prejudice on GPA 32 -1
-B, and that
and
that denial without prejudice has been
prevailed,
reversed. Therefore, the
subject
remains open and subject to a vote at the
next meeting following
the
study session.
•Y'{".YiCWM`411'1.H, > ..,.i 1 1/ bY1h1 til'YS, �is
_ 9 _
� X..•rriry a�„z�,;• .;;•?'may }C :r e -� ^ r.;:e
�_ .: ^ .:." it .5,:'" r �,. a`�WP,.•F�'Yt�ti*C v.«5: �r -`�,r v .. .. .. .. ....
_. .. ,. �. ..vas- •w..�++.�..++..�.o......: .....�c.... e
!.� i•.JM �'Y'1w wLt ..A- :�R�FI�,t :t��fiY � ` -,.r.
r°
.3G yM'p';�.. Vr•. .
RESOLUTION NO. GPA 82 -1 -C
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CI7.TY OF SAvRATOGA AMENDING THE 1974 GENERAL
PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT FORA 4.89 ACRE PARCEL
OF LAND COMMONLY KNOWN P.S EL QUITO SCHOOL
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga received an application
from the Moreland School District to amend the 1974 General Plan
Land Use Element Designation of this parcel frcm "Community
Facility,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 May 26, 1982 and reviewed the proposed amend -
ment'tc the Land Use Element; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission reviewed
the Draft Negative Declaration and the Findings; attached as
Exhibit "A ";
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission
of the City of Saratoga:
That the Planning Commissicn recommends that the City
Council amend the 1974 Land Use Element from "Community Facilities -
School Site" to "Medium Density Residential" for the 4.89 acre±
parcel commonly known as E1 Quito School and as shown on Exhibit
"D" based on the ability to make 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 26th day of May, 1982 by the following vote:
AYES:
Commissioners
Bolger, King, Laden,
Monia, Schaefer and
Zambetti
NOES:
Commissioner
Crowther
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAINED:
None
I
�
Chairman, Planning
I
Commission
ATTEST:
ptrumazljllw,