HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-21-1988 CITY COUNCIL AGENDASARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECTIVE SUMMARY NO. /S I AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: 12/21/88
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planning CITY MGR. APPROVAL
�l
SUBJECT: GP -87 -003 - Florence Nelson Foundation, Request for General Plan
Amendment from OS -OR to Medium Density Residential
Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council analyze the
Committee report and the identified options, accept public testimony and
decide the request to amend the General Plan.
Report Summary: The City Council continued the consideration of the request
for General Plan amendment from its June 15, 1988 meeting to convene a
committee to discuss the feasibility of several land use options. The
Committee's report is attached and submitted for Council's analysis.
The decision before the City Council is the proposed General Plan amendment
from OS -OR to Medium Density Residential. While the developer requested a
medium density designation for the entire site, a draft resolution was
prepared and attached which divides the property into two General Plan
designations, Residential Very Low Density and Residential Medium Density.
To adopt the General Plan amendment would necessitate the subsequent
consideration of zone change and subdivision applications. To not adopt
the General Plan amendment will nullify the Williamson Act contract
cancellation and will preclude development until it expires.
Fiscal Impacts: See Committee report for fiscal analysis of each option.
Attachments:
Motion and Vote
1. Staff report
2. Committee report
3. Draft Negative Declaration
4. Draft Resolution amending General Plan
12/21: Notion to approve General Plan Amendment failed 2 -2 (automatically returns to
Council at next meeting where a quorum is present).
1/4. Continued to 2/1 at Ainsley's request.
C
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council DATE: 12/21/88
FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director
SUBJECT: GP -87 -003 - Florence Nelson Foundation, Request for General Plan
Amendment from OS -OR to Medium Density Residential
The issue before the Council is a request to change the General Plan
requested from the Florence Nelson Foundation, from Open Space - Outdoor
Recreation to Medium Density Residence.
Background
The City Council opened a public hearing in June of this year and continued
it to December 21, 1988 agenda. The Council formed an ad hoc subcommittee
to prepare a report discussing the feasibility and implementation of
various land use options. That report is completed and herewith submitted
for City Council's use in deciding the proposal to amend the General Plan.
Findings and Alternatives
To actuate the cancellation of the Williamson Act contract, the General
Plan must be amended. Further, the General Plan must also be amended prior
to considering subsequent zone change and subdivision proposals.
Conversely, deciding not to amend the General Plan will nullify the
contract cancellation and will render the rezoning and development issues
moot. As the Council will recall, a draft resolution amending the General
Plan was presented at the June meeting and is attached for further City
Council consideration. This resolution was drafted to designate a portion
of the property Medium Density Residential and a portion Very Low Density
Residential.
An Initial Study and Negative Declaration was prepared for the City
Council's June hearing when the initial request was presented to Council
and is also attached to this report. A decision to amend the General Plan
must be preceded by the adoption of the attached draft Negative Declaration
which indicates that an Environmental Impact Report is not required. The
Council will note that the Negative-Declaration addresses only the General
Plan amendment and will not P- xe'nPt -- future development from subsequent
environmental review and the preparation of an EIR.
Memo to City Council
Re: GP -87 -003 - Florence Nelson Foundation
Specific options for alternate uses for the site are discussed in detail.
For further analysis and the implications for the options identified, the
City Council should refer to the Committee's report.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council analyze the
Committee report and the identified options, accept public testimony and
decide the request to amend the General Plan.
Ste hen Okslie
Planning Director
SE /dsc
RES -ND File No. GP -87 -003, ZC -87 -003
Saratoga
DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED
(Negative Declaration)
Environmental Quality Act of 1970
The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY
OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has
determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable
provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through
15065 and Section 15070 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 terms and meaning of said Act.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION General Plan amendment of 5.1 acres of partially
developed property from open space /managed resource to medium density
residential, rezoning from A (Agriculture) to M- 1- 12,500 and resubdivision
of 2 lots into 9 of unequal area. Property is located 1,500' west of
Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. and is bordered on the north by Trinity Avenue on
the east by Pontiac Avenue and on the south by Saratoga Hills Road and
Pontiac Avenues.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT Ainsley Development, Inc.
2195 Hamilton Ave.
San Jose, CA. 95125
REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION The project is essentially
services are available and development according to City
resolutions will mitigate any impact on the environment.
Executed at Saratoga, California this day of
YUCHUEK HSIA
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
inf ill. All
ordinances and
, 198 .
DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER
ndgp003
FORM EIA -lb
CITY OF SARATOGA
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
/(TO BE COMPLETED BY PUBLIC AGENCY)
�.t.GG(.GJ�'' /�� it �lJ�rbo" L'dGr�•Ii+ O
PROJECT: �� c 4 FILE NO: 6;
LOCATION: /50U " �� 8 9 �v 3
,,.., � • ' � '' �,.� sue.. �,� P��
�•�- ,�,�.(� � ,� G=am .
I. BACKGROUND (/, oQ
1. Name of Proponent: ,4te, �
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent:
3. Date of Checklist Submitted:
4. Agency Requiring Checklist: d�
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable:
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe "answers are required on attached
sheets.)
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in
geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over-
crowding of the soil?
c. Change in topography of ground surface relief
features?
d. The destruction, covering or modification of any
unique geologic or physical features?
i
-1
YES MAYBE NO
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either-on or off the site?
f.
Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which
may modify the channel of a river or stream or the
bed of a lake?
✓
g.
Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards
such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground
failure, or similar hazards ?.
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Substantial air emissions or deterioration of
ambient air quality?
b.
The creation of objectionable odors?
Y
J
c.
Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature,
or any change in climate, either locally or region-
ally?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements in fresh water?
—
3
b.
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or ✓
the rate and amount of surface water runoff?
rGJllLr/ <�!rtll,Ge� cl�u�+,..Ps ,rG..o:Gt,�.r�. �.aCn,,,. -- c�it.t�..i a✓
c.
Alterati s to the course or flow of flood waters?
-2-
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any
species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, /
crops, and aquatic plants)? —
AIIZ� _41_11
b. Red c ion of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of plants? —
-3-
YES
MAYBE NO
d.
Change in the amount of surface water or any
✓
water in any water body?
—
e.
Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration
/
of surface water quality, including but not limited
✓
to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
—
f.
Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of
✓
ground waters?
—
g.
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
—
h.
Substantial reduction in the amount of water other-
wise available for public water supplies?
—
i.
Exposure of people or property to water related
✓
hazards such as flooding?
—
j.
Significant changes in the temperature, flow, or
chemical content of surface thermal springs?
—
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any
species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, /
crops, and aquatic plants)? —
AIIZ� _41_11
b. Red c ion of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of plants? —
-3-
N
c. .Introduction of new species of plants into an area, YES MAYBE NO
or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of /
existing species? _
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
......
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light
or glare? —
aC
d.
Reduction in acreage of any crop?
✓
//agricultural
5. Animal
Life. Will the propo a result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of
any species of animals (birds, land animals includ-
V_�
ing reptiles, fish, or insects)?
_
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of animals?
_
C.
Introduction of new species of animals into an area,
or result in a barrier to the migration or movement
of animals?
_
d.
Deterioration to existing wildlife or fish habitat?
` au •<�+
6. Noise.
Will the proposal re ult
- i
1
a.
Increases in existing noise levels ?
. ........... ............
—/
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
......
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light
or glare? —
aC
• r
YES MAYBE NC
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial
alteration of the present or planned land use of an v
area?
9.
Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources?
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural
resource?
10.
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous
substances (inlcuding, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event
✓
of an accident or upset conditions?
b. Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or—an emergency-evacuation plan?
11.
Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area?
12.
Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional housing?
(�
13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result
in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular
movement?
-5- a
7
_i:
YES MAYBE NO
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand
for new parking?
C. Substantial impact -upon existing transportation /
systems? l�
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or ✓
movement of people and /or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? "
f.
Increase in traffic hazardous to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
n /1
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon,
or
result in a need for new or altered governmental
vv-
services in -ahy of the following areas:
-'-
a.
Fire protection?
b.
Police protection?
C.
Schools?
✓
d.
Parks or other recreational facilities?
e.
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
f.
Other governmental services?
V/
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
-6-
Aft
�L
Wo-
YES MAYBE NO
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing
sources of energy, or require the development of
new sources of energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new
systems, or substantial alterations to the following
utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? ✓_
b. Communications systems? ✓_
C. Water? ✓
d. Sewer or septic tanks? ✓/
e. Storm water drainage? 1�
f. Solid waste and disposal?
_s
J a �
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health /
hazard (excluding mental health)? V
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? ✓
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc-
tion oF —any scenic vista or view open to the public,
or will the proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to public view?
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon
t eT— quality or quantity of existing recreational /
opportunities? V_
R -� -7-
r
YES MAYBE NO
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or
the destruction of a prehistoric or historic
archeological site?
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure, or object?
C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a
physical change which would affect unique ethnic V /
cultural values?
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or
sacred uses within the potential impact area?
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
_-
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce<
the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self -
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term,
environmental goals? (A short -term impact on
the environment is one which occurs in a rela-
tively brief, definitive period of time while
long -term impacts will endure well into the
future.)
r
r.
YES MAYBE NO
C. Does the project have impacts which are indivi-
dually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may impact on two or more separate
resources where the impact on each resource is
relatively small, but where the effect of the
total of those impacts on the environment is
significant.) ✓
d. Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
�E1�'Gfi, �.:f.�� sz�iG�f.� %.�G.i ,�:a ,�i �w cro c,7,✓G�G'zae,�- �Ln.,t
"e'
-� erg. TursQ,c,n o4+
�' -9-
►J
1
IV. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
�I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect
on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLAPATION will be prepared.
OI find that although the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect
in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WILL BE PREPARED.
OI find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
DATE:
AGNANVE
For:
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
-� -10- (rev. 5/16/80)
0
Q
i
17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or
regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading
g
18. 71f industrial, indicate type, estimated employment
loading facilities: N/A Per shift, and
19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment
per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities
benefits to be derived from the project: ro' : and community
_N /A
20• If the project involves a variance
caticn, state this and indicate clearindtional use or rezoning appli-
Y why the application is required:
ural to residential is
construction of sin le family
residences.
Are the folloleing items applicable to the project or its effects. I
below; all items checked yes ' Discuss
Y =S `p (attach additional sheets as necessary). I
?L 21. Change in ex;
_ x
22.
?{
13.
X
X
X
sting features of any lakes or hills, or sub-
stantial alteration of ground contours.
Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential
areas or public lands or roads.
Change pattern,
project. scale or character of general area of
Significant ar.:ounts of solid waste or litter.
:S. Change in dust, ash, snoke, fumes .or odors in vicinity
16. Change in like, stream or ground water , ua lt
or alteration of existing drainage Patternsy or quantity,
?7. tho vicinit char.rc in cxistii�; nuisc or vibration levels in
the vicinity.
i -
s
'M I
FILING FEE: $ 75
GENERAL I \FOR ?CATION:
CITY OF SARATOCA
ENVTRO \>1L•STAL I`dpACT OUL•STION`.AIRL•
(To be crrsplrted f'v applicant)
DATE: July 20, 1987
FORM EIA -la
FILE NO: C M0el
I. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: A i ns 1 Pv naves 1 nn
Inc., 2195 Hamilton Avenue San Jose CA 95125 �' men
2. Address of project: 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd.
Assessor's Parcel Number: — —41, — —
3._1ame, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning
this project: see attached list
4.
S.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
1J.
1s.
16.
4 �-
Indicate number of the
permit application for the project to which this
form pertains: _ N/A
List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals
required for this project, including those required by city, regional,
state and federal agencies: change of zoning, general plan
amendment W;lliamson Act Cancellation subdivision, Des gn Review
Eiisttng zoning district. _A (agricultural)
Proposed use of site (project for which this form is filed): medium
density single - family residential development.
Site size: 503 -49 -41--1 11 A r 50� 49 d
•
4__033_2--3 77 AC
Square footage• 501- 49 -41 -- 57,934 8 sg ft 503-49-42--1640,221.2 sq. ft.
Nur.:ber of floors of construction: one
Amount of off- street parking: code requirement
.Attached plans? Yes No
Proposed scheduling:
Associited prcieets: NO
r
.Anticipated incremental development.:
I: residential, ir.cluJv the number of units, schedule of unit sizes,
range of sale prices or rents, and tYre of household size expected:
9 homes; 3,000 to 3,200 sq.ft.; 4 -5 member
households
t•
t
i
r
Ir
t•
r
•
l
YES NO
X 23. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. As
to APN 503 -49 -41 only (1.33 acres
X29. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as
toxic substances, flammables or explosives.
X 30. Substantial chance in Demand for municipal services
fire, Water, sewage, etc.), P (Police,
X31. Substantially increase fossil fuel 'Consumption
oil, natural gas, etc.). P (electricity,
X32. Relationship to a pro larger project ect or series of projects.
.._E\YZRONMENT.4L, SETTING:
33.
34.
Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including
information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any
cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existingg struc-
tures on the site, and the use of the structures. The 1.3 3 acre
parcel sl opeG into the hillside & is a grassy knoll
with trees as delineated on site plan. The 3.77 acre
parcel is flat or gently slope A out two acres 07—that
palue is a non -pro uc,ng ore ar 0—f apr,co s w, a few
.walnut trees. On the remain er is a sma vacan ermit
'Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants'
and anic:als and any cultural, :historical or scenic aspects. Indicate
the tyFe of lan-i use (residenti ?l, commercial, etcs.), intensity of
land use (one - family, apartment houses, shops; department stores, etc.)
and scale of development (height, fron ;l e, setback, rear yard, etc.).
Surrounding properties are buiftwith single family
residential; generallv one stor homes. Zonin is R1 -10,0
and R1 -12 500 surroundin most of the site, with setbacks
apparently according to code. Typical medium- ens,ty
su ,visions.
CERTIFICATTO`;: t
1 `crebv certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached
exhibits present the data and information required for this initial
evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements
and infor .mation presented arc true and correct to the best of em nts
ledge and belief. �--� .
DATE:
' For:
i
0
-1V:
RESOLUTION NO. GP -87 -003
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT DESIGNATING
THE FLORENCE NELSON PROPERTY MEDIUM AND VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga City Council has determined that it is
in the public interest to allow development of 5.1 acres of the Florence
Nelson Foundation property located on Saratoga Hills Road; and
WHEREAS, the property is currently designated Open Space Outdoor
Recreation in the land use element of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the eastern portion of
the property should be designated medium density, consistent with the
slopes and surrounding properties and the western portion should be
designated very low density, consistent with hillside development; and
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga City Council reviewed the negative
declaration and found there are no adverse impacts on the environment as
a result of the proposal; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing in accord with
Government Code Section 65351 and reviewed the proposed amendment to the
Land Use element;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council amends the Land Use
designation of the property shown on Exhibit A to medium and very low
density residential.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga City Council, State
of California, this 15th day of June, 1988 by the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
5
Mayor
EXHIBIT A
FLORENCE NELSON FOUNDATION
APN 503-49-41 & 42
GP 87-003
W.>
.'OS
-�OR
U
RV'L D;
L
CFS
&--Ado rl
RVL D
r-A-
y *y
C R
PA
Q -4
1p
Os
ESTERLEE AVE OR
CR--
QL RFM
IF
Rmt-
i 03
CR..
CFS
WENDEL, ROSEN, BLACK, DEAN & LEVITAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
DAVID I. WENDEL
DONALD A. McISAAC
A. MARINA GRACIAS
VICTOR D. ROSEN, INC.*
HOWARD W. LIND
JANET McCORMICK RILEY
DONN L. BLACK
RODNEY P. JENKS, JR.
DAVID L. WOLO
MICHAEL A. DEAN
DAVID GOLDMAN
CAROL BURNS DUKE
DEANNA D. LYON
RANDALL L. KISER
ALLAN C. MILES
RONALD P. STURT2
TIMOTHY S. WILLIAMS
MATTHEW J. OREBIC
LES A. HAUSRATH
CHRISTINE K. NOMA
GILLIAN M. ROSS
WALTER R. TURNER*
CAROLYN JOHNSON STEIN
MARIAN KENT ORTIZ
TODD A. AMSPOKER
;CERTIFIED SPECIALIST TAXATION LAW
December 16, 1988
HAND DELIVERED
Honorable Karen Anderson
and Members of the City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
TWENTIETH FLOOR CLOROX BUILDING
OAKLAND CITY CENTER
1221 BROADWAY
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612
PLEASE REPLY TO:
P. O. BOX 2047
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94604-2047
TELEPHONE: (415) 834 -6600
CABLE ADDRESS: WENLAW
TELECOPIER: (415) 834 -1928
JACOB LEVITAN (1934 -1988)
Re: Application of Ainsley Development, Inc. For General
Plan Amendment: Nelson Foundation Property
Dear Mayor Anderson and Council Members:
This office represents The Florence Nelson Foundation, which
owns the parcel of property located at 20851 Saratoga Hills Road
and commonly referred to as the Nelson Gardens. The Foundation
is under an option contract to sell the property to Ainsley
Development, Inc. Ainsley, as the Foundation's representative,
has pending with the City an application for General Plan
amendment and rezoning of the Property with the ultimate goal of
constructing single family homes on the site. As you will
recall, the Council has already approved tentative Williamson Act
cancellation for the property.
I am writing on behalf of the Foundation to urge the Council
to approve Ainsley's pending application. There are several
reasons why approval of the application by the Council is not
only appropriate, but is clearly the best course of action for
the City of Saratoga to follow.
Let me discuss briefly some of the benefits to the City that
approval of this application, and ultimate approval of
development of the parcel as proposed by Ainsley, will generate.
First, if the sale goes through, the Foundation will receive
substantial liquid funds which it will return to the community in
the way of charitable contributions. The Foundation has a long
history of supporting religious, educational and charitable
causes in the City of Saratoga as well as other parts of Santa
Clara County and the Bay urea. A list of the Foundation's recent
grant recipients is attached hereto, as is a letter from the
Foundation's President, John Higgins, which was previously sent
to the Council. This letter sets forth the Foundation's position
Honorable Karen Anderson and
Members of the City Council
December 16, 1988
Page 2
with respect to its charitable
surrounding areas, as well as a
the reasons for the Foundation's
WENDEL, ROSEN, BLACK, DEAN 6, LEVITAN
endeavors in Saratoga and the
brief history of the property and
decision to sell the parcel.
Second, approval of one of the development options put forth
by Ainsley will result in direct contributions to the City's park
development fund and Hakone Gardens. The Williamson Act
cancellation agreement calls for $240,000 in contributions, with
$120,000 to the general park fund, and $120,000 to Hakone
Gardens. Moreover, approval by the City of the nine -home
proposal recently submitted by Ainsley will return $360,000
directly to the City, with $250,000 of that money earmarked for
Hakone Gardens. We understand that this contribution would allow
the City to receive an additional $250,000 in matching funds.
Quite frankly, I do not see how the City can even consider
turning down $360,000 in cash for park improvements, plus the
matching funds and substantial other charitable contributions
that will flow to the community from the sale proceeds.
Moreover, the development proposed by Ainsley is compatible
not only with the site, but also with the surrounding
neighborhood, and it has been designed to achieve just these
purposes. Further, under the most recent Ainsley proposals, the
property as developed can also include a park, which will
directly benefit the City's residents.
We would submit that if a benefit analysis for all of
Saratoga's citizens was conducted, ultimate approval of the
development strongly outweighs those interests favoring retention
of the property as open space. Surely the neighbors living in
the immediate area will benefit from retention as open space.
And who wouldn't want the property to remain as open space, if
they lived adjacent to it? But when the Ad Hoc Committee held
its first public meeting to discuss the use of this property,
only a handful of citizens showed up. And when the telephone
survey was conducted, 65% of the persons polled had never heard
of the property. We would submit, therefore, that there is not
great public support among Saratoga's citizens as a whole to
acquire this parcel with public funds. But what about $360,000,
plus $250,000 in matching funds, plus permit fees, real property
taxes, and countless charitable contributions; these are real and
tangible, and will benefit all of Saratoga's citizens.
At this juncture, I think it is appropriate to remind the
City that the property in question is privately owned. I know
that this is stating the obvious, but throughout the many months
that Ainsley's application has been pending, it appears that some
in the City may have lost sight of this fact.
WENDEL, ROSEN, BLACK, DEAN & LEVITAN
Honorable Karen Anderson and
Members of the City Council
December 16, 1988
Page 3
We are fully cognizant of the fact that the City retains the
right to control development of this and other properties through
legitimate planning and zoning channels. A municipality would be
remiss in its responsibilities to its citizens if it did not
examine use and development applications for parcels within the
city with a view toward the overall planning perspective. And
that process has been followed in this instance.
Here, however, the City appears to have gone beyond the
normal realm of planning for an individual parcel, and has almost
treated the Nelson Foundation property as if it were publicly
owned. The entire committee structure was established, in large
part, to explore public ownership and open space options which
the owner of the property is not even legally entitled to
consider, and which it opposes in any event. Short of condemning
the property and paying full value, I am sure you are all aware
that the City cannot effectively prevent reasonable development
of the property by simply refusing to grant necessary land use
approvals. If the City chooses such a course, it will constitute
a clear "taking" of our client's property without just
compensation, and the Foundation will surely resist all such
efforts in court. I should add that the City of Hayward recently
attempted to prevent residential development of a parcel zoned
for open space, and was successfully challenged in Federal Court.
The court held that the plaintiff's parcel was unfairly singled
out from other parcels, and therefore the City was unjustified in
blocking development of the property.
It is certainly not my intent to make threats of litigation
in an attempt to intimidate the City. But I would be remiss in
my responsibilities to my client, and would violate my policy of
total candor when dealing with municipalities in the planning
arena, to suggest that the Foundation will simply sit back if the
pending application is not approved and the City then blocks all
efforts to develop the property in a reasonable fashion.
The Foundation is aware that the Ad Hoc Committee spent
considerable time exploring open space, park and similar options
for the property. At several points along the way, the
Foundation was asked, either directly or indirectly, whether it
would support one of these options. As was indicated during the
process, the Foundation is not in a position to comment on these
matters, because it is under contract to Ainsley Development to
sell the property to Ainsley. Both legally and morally, the
Foundation cannot attempt to go around the contract and deal
directly with the City. Further, as set forth in Mr. Higgins'
letter, the decision to sell the property was only made after due
consideration of the attendant costs of holding the property as
WENDEL, ROSEN, BLACK, DEAN & LEVITAN
Honorable Karen Anderson and
Members of the City Council
December 16, 1988
Page 4
open space. As you know, the Foundation has been unable to
obtain liability coverage for the property, and the maintenance
costs have soared. Other than this property, the Foundation does
not have substantial assets with which to pay these costs.
Moreover, I should make it clear that once the decision was
made by the Foundation to sell the property, Ainsley was
carefully selected as a developer because of the reputation of
its projects as both responsible and sensitive to the surrounding
environment. Ainsley has proposed a very sensible and
environmentally sound development for this site, and the
Foundation would like to see it go forward.
In this regard, while no formal action has yet been taken to
extend the option. (such act would, in fact, be premature) , the
Foundation has discussed with Ainsley the possibility of entering
into a long -term "right -of- first - refusal" agreement with Ainsley,
should the City elect to deny all development at this juncture.
I think the likelihood of such an agreement being consummated is
high. If this is the case, the property will simply remain as it
is, with only the minimum maintenance performed. This will
benefit no one.
Therefore, I do not think the City should assume that if the
general plan amendment and rezoning applications are rejected by
the City that the Foundation will simply turn around and sell the
property to the City. Moreover, if the City elects to condemn
the property, as has been suggested, then the City should be
prepared to pay top dollar for the parcel. Certainly any
threshold of value would be the $2.4 million contract price; I
think a higher value is more likely in view of escalating land
values.
There is one other matter I would like to address briefly,
and that is the question of Frank Nelson's position in this
situation. There have been continued suggestions that Mr. Nelson
does not, in fact, concur in the Foundation's decision to sell
the property to Ainsley Development. These suggestions persist,
despite the fact that a tape recording indicating Mr. Nelson's
express wishes for the property has been played to the Council
and the Ad Hoc Committee, despite the existence of Mr. Nelson's
January 13, 1988 letter to the Council (attached to Mr. Higgins'
letter), and despite the fact that Mr. Nelson has also recently
reiterated his desires in writing to William Penn Mott, the
Director of the National Park Service and a friend of Mr.
Nelson's. A copy of that letter, and Mr. Mott's letter, are
attached hereto.
WENDEL, ROSEN, BLACK, DEAN & LEVITAN
Honorable Karen Anderson and
Members of the City Council
December 16, 1988
Page 5
I do not think that Mr. Nelson's wishes could be made any
clearer. Moreover, if I might add a personal note, I know that
I, Mrs. Nelson, and the other Foundation Board members resent the
continuation of the rumors and suggestions that somehow Mr.
Nelson is being led astray by the remainder of the Board. Frank
Nelson is a kind and generous man who has led an extraordinary
life. His generosity -- and that of the Florence Nelson
Foundation -- have greatly benefited many thousands of Saratoga,
Santa Clara County and Bay area residents for generations. It is
truly a sad footnote to this whole affair that the integrity of
this man -- and that of the Foundation Board itself -- are
actually being questioned by some in the City of Saratoga.
Mr. Nelson's wishes have been made clear, and it is the
foundation that he created -- and not the City of Saratoga --
which owns this property. The Foundation has already
demonstrated its willingness to work within the existing planning
framework to obtain the desired land use approvals. Let's let
the ultimate decision be made within that framework, and leave
out the innuendo and suspicion.
In sum, the Foundation -- and Ainsley -- have patiently
waited throughout the approval process for well over a year.
Certainly the Foundation -- and I'm sure Ainsley as well -are
advocates of responsible and well - informed planning decisions by
municipalities. But the Foundation (and Ainsley) have waited
long enough. The City has had more than ample time to explore
all possible options for this privately -owned parcel. Now is the
time to act, and we submit that approval of the requested general
plan amendment and rezoning application and ultimate development
as proposed by Ainsley is the only responsible course of action
for the City to follow. The benefits to the City are numerous,
and we respectfully request your support.
Very truly yours,
WENDEL, ROSEN, BLACK, DEAN & LEVITAN
Les A. Hausrath
LAH:701 /E3
Enclosures
cc: Frank Nelson
John Higgins
Harry Peacock
Ainsley Development, Inc.
Linda Callon, Esq.
THE FLORENCE NELSON FOUNDATION
.CONTRIBUTIONS AND GRANTS
FROM ORGANIZATION TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1987
(Unaudited)
Yr. of
last con-
tribution
ANIMAL CARE
Year Ended 9/30
1986 1987
SCHEDULE 2
Organiza-
tion to
9/30/87
Berkeley -East Bay Humane Society 1974 7,150
Desert Shelter for Animals 1976 1,000
Humane Society of Santa Clara Valley 1987 1,000 1,000 7,000
Humboldt SPCA 1987 500 500 7,750
Pets Unlimited 1964 436
SPCA - San Francisco 1974 1.450
Total Animal Care
ARTS. & HUMANITIES
Redwood Art Association
Redwood Empire Educational TV Inc.
San Francisco Players Guild
Total Arts & Humanities
EDUCATIONAL
1,500 1,500 24,786
1967 50
1973 3,000
1970 200
3,250
Arthur Young Foundation
1976
60,533
Arthur Young Foundation - Matching Fund
1982
2,000
College of the Redwoods
1973
5,000
Convent of the Sacred Heart
1967
800
Humboldt State College
1969
1,100
:iumboldt State Fda. of Forestry
1964
1,000
'-11 is College Cha enge Fund
97
2,000
Pacific School of Religion
1974
1,300
Sproul Scholarship Fund
1963
250
Stanford University Library -
"ugget Fund
1972
125
^ong, Lily M. - Educational Grant
1974
1,100
riends of Saratoga Libraries
1987
1 500 1,500
Total Educational
1,500 76,708
_�IRONMENTAL /CONSERVATION
"alifornia State Parks Fda. - Special 1984 70,000
Operating'1977 1,000
-ep California Green, Inc. 1972 1,360
.�Iture Conservancy 1976 2,100
'3ratoga Community Gardens 1987 1,000 13,_T0_0 ,
One Gardedns League 1973 7 1,500 1,500
Total Environmental /Conservation 2,500 90,560
Total Forward
,
-7-
2,500 5,500 195,304
Jl.ilt�liU!�::
THE FLORENCE NELSON FOUNDATION
CONTRIBUTIONS AND GRANTS
FROM ORGANIZATION TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1987
(Unaudited)
Brought Forward
HANDICAPPED & ELDERLY
Foundation for Hope
Our Lady of Fatima Villa
Redwoods United Inc.
Saratoga Sr. Coordinating Council
Yr. of
last con-
tribution
1987
'1987
1987
1987
Year Ended 9/30
1986 1987
2,500 5,500
2,000 2,000
1,500
1,500 1500
1,500
Organiza-
tion to
9/30/87
195,304
10,000
4,500
19,500
6,500
Tot.. al Handicapped & Elderly
3,500 6,500
40,500
MEDICAL SCIENCE & HEALTH CARE
Alta Bates Bldg. Fund
1976
18,050
Alta Bates Foundation Assn.
1980
25
American Cancer Society-Del Norte Co.
1974
500
American Cancer Society- Eureka
1973
1,750
Arcata Trinity Hospital
1967
2,010
Christian Medical Foundation
1964
200
City of Hope Medical Center
1973
950
Easter Seals - Del Norte County
1973
120
Easter Seals - Humboldt County
1973
290
Fairhaven Home & Hospital Fund
1970
300
Heart Fund - Humboldt & Del Norte Co.
1974
2,450
Herrick Foundation
1980
47,425
Herrick Mem. Hosp. - Regional
Kidney C.enter..
1972
500
Humboldt T.B. Association
1968
6,250
Kara
Lakeside Community Hospital
1987
1974
,500 1,500
7,500
Mennin er Foundation
1977
300
6,550
Mercy Hospital Expansion Fund
1965
_66-00
Myer Bistrin Israel Hospital Acct.
1970
200
Natl..Jewish Hospital at Denver
1967
324
Northern Calif. Community Blood Bank
1963
250
Palm Springs Hospital Bldg. Fund
1958
500
Sister.Jean_Theres.a Memorial Fund
1971
500
St. Joseph Hospital - Eureka
1973
5,950
Willow Creek Community Hospital
1962
300
Total Medical Science & Health Care
1,500 1,500
103,794
Total Forward
7,500 13,500
339,598
IF-oil
Brought Forward
RELIGIOUS
SCHEDULE 2
THE FLORENCE NELSON FOUNDATION
CONTRIBUTIONS AND GRANTS
FROM ORGANIZATION TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1987
(Unaudited)
Yr. of Year Ended 9/30 Organiza
last con- tion to
tribution 1986 1987 9/30/87
7,500 13,500 339,598
Congregational Church, Berkeley
'1976
28,300
Congregational Church, Berkeley
Endowment
1976
40,000
Reconciliation Fund
1972
15,000
Congregational Church, Campbell
Endowment
1976
24,579
Congregational Church, Campbell
1977
38,250
Congregational Church, Campbell
Building Fund
1971
5,000
Mortgage Indebtedness
1973
2,500
Congregational Church, S.F.
1976
6,000
Emmanuel United Presbyterian Church
1964
50
Eureka Synagogue Buildin Fund
1965
250
First Baptist Church, Arcata
1971
1,150
First Methodist Church of Los Gatos
1976
500
Methodist Church, Arcata
1973
1,400
Presbyterian Church, Arcata
976
16,000
Presbyterian Church, Eureka
1971
250
Presbyterian Church, Hoo a
1963
100
St. Edward's--CEurch Building Fund
1963
5
Saratoga Federated.Church
Benevolent Fund
1977
18,950
Operating Fund
1971
100
Adah C. Nelson Endowment Fund
1987
2,000 2,000 12,000
Sevent Day Adventists - Arcata
1973
700
- Eureka
1973
1,400
— Orleans
1968
150
United Church Board o Wor d
Ministers, Dr. Riggs
1969
2.950
Total Religious
Total Forward
Mtn
2,000 2,000 216,079
9,500 15,500 555,677
THE FLORENCE NELSON FOUNDATION
CONTRIBUTIONS AND GRANTS
FROM ORGANIZATION TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1987
(Unaudited)
Yr. of Year Ended 9/30
last con -
tribution 1986 1987
Brought Forward 9,500 15,500
SOCIAL SERVICES
Organiza
tion to
9/30/87
555,677
American Missionary Society
•1970
25
American Friends Service Committee
Algerian Relief
1963
300
Indian Relief
1972
8,050
Quaker Relief
1965
1,650
American Red
Cross Berkeley
1974
400
American Red Cross - Del Norte Co.
1974
600
American Red Cross - Humboldt Co.
1973
3,100
Cato is Socia Service o Santa
Clara County
Children's Health Council
1987
1987
•2,000 2,000
1,000 1,000
12,000
Children s Home Society of Ca ifornia
1987
1,200 1,200
7,000
35,200
Children's Home Society of California -
Building Fund, San Francisco Center
1975
50,000
Crippled Children s Society o
Santa Clara County
Eastfield Children's Center
1987
1987
1,500 1,500
15,000
Family Service Center
1972
1,500 1,500
14,000
Florence Crittenton Home
1971
250
Half Way House
1977
400
Homemaker Service of Santa Clara Co.
1987
1,000 1,000
700
7,000
Live Oak Day Care Center
1987
2,000 2,000
8,000
Mobilized Women of Berkeley
1968
13 600
St. Vincent de Paul Society - S.F.
1974
560
St. Vincent de Paul Society - S.J.
1982
3,000
Salvation Arm - Del Norte Co.
1973
Salvation Army
1,300
- Humboldt Co.
974
Salvation Army - San Jose
1984
3,000 3,000
14,850
17,000
Salvation Army - S.F. - Berkele
1972
South Side Mission o Peoria
970
925
Thos. A. Dooley Foundation Inc.
•
1967
75
United Crusade for Salvation Army
1970
150
United Crusade - Humboldt Co.
97
500
West Valley FISH
1987
1,500
,700
3,500
Total Social Services.
Total Forward
-10-
13,200 14,700 225,835
22,700 30,200 781,512
4P
THE FLORENCE NELSON FOUNDATION
CONTRIBUTIONS AND GRANTS
FROM ORGANIZATION TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1987
(Unaudited)
Yr. of
last con-
tribution
SCHEDULE 2
Year Ended 9/30
1986 1987
Organize
tion to
9/30/87
Brought Forward 22,700 30,200 781,512
YOUTH ACTIVITIES
Arcata Little League &
Babe Ruth League, Inc.
1980
50,000
Berkeley YMCA
1971
970
Big Brothers Inc. of S.F. Bay Area
1982
—5-,-6-5-0
Boy Scouts of America - Redwood Area
970
3,100
Council
1987 1,000 1,000
32,750
Camp Fire Girls - Humboldt County
1973
250
Caterpillar Girls Aid Society
1955
X200
Cazadero Music Camp
1969
2,500
Co umbia Park Boys Club
1976 _____T,300
247
Fairfield Church Camp
1967
617
Father Flana an's Boys' Home
1961
10
Hanna Boys Center
1973
3 0
Lake County Council Big Brothers
& Sisters
1982
1,000
Los Gatos YMCA - Playground
97
00
Newman House
1961
500
Santa Clara County Council - Boy
Scouts of America
1987 3,000 3,000
28,100
Sierra Cascade Girl Scouts Council
1973
1,725
Total Youth Activities 4,000 4,000 130,092
OTHER
Gideons International
1976
100
Hoopa Chamber of Commerce
1965
100
Italian Catholic Federation
1959:
500
National Safety Council
970
3,100
RAIL Foundation
1976
2,500
Saratoga Historical Foundation
1978
5,000
S eriff s Marin Posse of Humboldt Co.
1971
1,000
Saratoga Fire Dept
1987
1,500 1,500
Miscl. & Direct Relief
1968
247
Total Other
Grand Total
-11-
1,500 14,047
26,700 35,700 925,651
TF( FLORENCE NELSON FOUN(— \TION
INCORPOA A110 WITH PE RPI TUAE TXIS II NCE FOR CHARI TART[ AND HUMANE ACTIVITIES
120 MONTGOMERY STREET. SUITE 2425. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
(415) 392 -2384
OFFICERS
FRANK C. NELSON, HON. CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
JOHN C. HIGGINS. PRES.
ROGER W. ROSS, VICE PRES.
EDWINA KUMP, SECTY.- TREAS.
DIRECTORS AND ADVISORY COUNCIL
JOSEPHINE APPLETON
RAY L. BYRNE
P. E. GREENLEE
YUEN T. GIN
JOHN C. HIGGINS
EDWINA KUMP
FRANK C. NELSON
HELEN R. NELSON
WILLYS I. PECK
ROGER W. ROSS
January 13, 1988
The Honorable City Council Members
City of Saratoga
137777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Re: The Florence Nelson Foundation
Nelson Gardens located at 20851 Saratoga Hills Road
Saratoga, California.
Dear City Council Members:
This letter is submitted by The Florence Nelson Foundation. The purpose
of this letter is to provide the Council with additional information prior
to the meeting of the City Council to be held on January 20, 1988.
There is enclosed herewith the following:
(1) Articles of Incorporation of The Florence Nelson Foundation
(2) Pro Forma.Balance Sheet and Income Statement
(3) Letter from Mr. Frank C. Nelson
Nelson Gardens was acquired by Frank C. Nelson together with substantial
other property in the adjacent area (circa early 1930's.) Except for
the Nelson Gardens, all of the property purchased by Frank C. Nelson has
been sold, and now is used for residential purposes. When Frank Nelson
contributed the property to The Nature Conservancy starting in 1971, he
intended that the Nelson Gardens be preserved as a historical apricot
orchard for the general public as an example of the vanishing apricot
orchards as they once flourished in the early days.of the Santa Clara
Valley. At one time there was equipment and tools located on the premises
which were used in the harvesting and drying of apricots.
4C FLORENCE NELSON FOUNLATION
INCORPORATED WITH PERPETUAL EXISTENCE FDA CHARITABLE AND HUMANE ACTIVITIES
120 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 2425, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
(415) 392 -2384
OFFICERS
FRANK C. NELSON, HON. CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
JOHN C. HIGGINS. PRES.
ROGER W. ROSS, VICE PRES.
EDWINA KUMP, SECTY.- TREAS.
DIRECTORS AND ADVISORY COUNCIL
JOSEPHINE APPLETON
RAY L. BYRNE
P. E. GREENLEE
YUEN T. GIN
JOHN C. HIGGINS
EDWINA KUMP
FRANK C. NELSON
HELEN R. NELSON
WILLYS I. PECK
ROGER W. ROSS
Page 2
After acquiring all of the Nelson Gardens, The Nature Conservancy deter-
mined that it was not within the purposes of its organization to hold and
maintain property such as the Nelson Gardens for the length of time that
Mr. Nelson envisioned. The Nature Conservancy, therefore, transferred
the property to the California State Parks Foundation with.the intent that
the California State Parks Foundation would attempt to hold and maintain
the Nelson Gardens in accordance with Mr. Nelson's wishes. The Florence
Nelson Foundation contributed to the California State Parks Foundation to
assist the California State Parks Foundation in maintaining the Nelson
Gardens.
After owning and operating the Nelson Gardens for over six years, the
California State Parks Foundation also determined that, because of the
labor and costs involved, the California State Parks Foundation could not
continue to hold and maintain the Nelson Gardens. With the consent of
the Nature Conservancy, the California State Parks Foundation transferred
the Nelson Gardens to The Florence Nelson Foundation in 1984 with the
intent that The Florence Nelson Foundation would attempt to hold and main-
tain the Nelson Gardens to carry out Mr. Nelson's wishes.
After acquiring the Nelson Gardens, The Florence Nelson Foundation made
good and sincere efforts to preserve the Nelson Gardens as an apricot
orchard and make the Nelson Gardens available to the general public,
especially senior citizens of the community. The exhorbitant and ever
increasing cost of maintaining the Nelson Gardens, including taxes, labor,
insurance and maintenance costs make it most difficult for The Florence
Nelson Foundation to retain the property for the purposes for which Frank
Nelson envisioned. The final blow was the inability of The Florence Nelson
Foundation to obtain liability insurance protection against the contemplated
uses for the Nelson Gardens.
Mr. Frank C. Nelson fully agrees with the decision of the Board of Directors
to sell the Nelson Gardens and use the proceeds of the sale to accomplish
the charitable objectives of The Florence Nelson Foundation. A copy of
Mr. Nelson's letter is enclosed.
T( FLORENCE NELSON FOUN(_ \TION
INCORPORATED WITH PI R P I I U At 111STENCE TOR CHAR17ABIE AND HUMANE ACTIVITIES
120 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 2425, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
(415) 392 -2384
OFFICERS
FRANK C. NELSON, HON. CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
JOHN C. HIGGINS, PRES.
ROGER W ROSS, VICE PRES.
EDWINA KUMP, SECTY.-TREAS.
DIRECTORS AND ADVISORY COUNCIL
JOSEPHINE APPLETON
RAY L. BYRNE
P. E. GREENLEE
YUEN T. GIN
JOHN C. HIGGINS
EDWINA KUMP
FRANK C. NELSON
HELEN R. NELSON
WILLYS I. PECK
ROGER W. ROSS
Page 3
The Florence Nelson Foundation firmly believes that it is in the best
interest of the County of Santa Clara, which includes the City of Saratoga,
that the Nelson Gardens be sold. The Board of Directors of the Florence
Nelson Foundation has not changed its' decision to sell Nelson Gardens
as presented to the Council in a prior meeting, except that one Director,
Willys Peck, now feels the Nelson Gardens should not be sold. The sale
of the Nelson Gardens would generate approximately $184,000 additional
gross income each year and increase cash available for charitable
recipients by approximately $172,000. (Said figure depends on the final
sale proceeds from the Nelson Gardens.) The benefits from the sale would
be shared by the entire community, whereas retention of the Nelson Gardens
would benefit only a very small segment of the community. Advocates of
retaining the Nelson Gardens have proposed uses for the Nelson Gardens
which are not at all clear and it is extremely doubtful whether the size
of the Nelson Gardens would accommodate any of the uses proposed. Further-
more, there already exists in the Santa Clara Valley several symbolic
apricot orchards which the general public can observe for a history of the
apricot industry as it once flourished in Canta Clara County.
Respectfully submitted
THE FLORENCE NELSON FOUNDATION
John C. Higgins
President
T4, FLORENCE NELSON FOUN( ,TION
INCORPORATED WITH PF RPF TUAE IXISTFNCE FOR CHARITABEE AND HUMANE ACTIVITIES
120 MONTGOMERY STREET. SUITE 2425, SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 04104
(415) 302 -2384
OFFICERS
FRANK C. NELSON, HON, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
JOHN C. HIGGINS, PRES.
ROGER W. ROSS, VICE PRES.
EDWINA KUMP. SECTY.- TREtAs.
DIRECTORS AND ADVISORY COUNCIL
JOSEPHINE APPLETON
RAY L. BYRNE
P. E. GREENLEE
YUEN T. GIN
JOHN C. HIGGINS
EDWINA KUMP
FRANK C. NELSON
HELEN R. NELSON
WILLYS I. PECK
ROGER W. ROSS
January 13, 1988
The Honorable City Council Members
City of Saratoga
137777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA. 95070
Re: The Florence Nelson Foundation
Nelson Gardens located at 20851 Saratoga Hills Road,
Saratoga, California.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This letter is to confirm to the City Council of the
City of Saratoga that I, Frank C. Nelson, fully concur with
the decision of the Board of Directors of The Florence Nelson
Foundation to sell the Nelson Gardens.
I strongly feel that it is no longer appropriate to
try to maintain the Nelson Gardens for the purpose which I
originally intended, namely, an example of an historical
apricot orchard. The Board of Directors of The Florence Nelson
Foundation, including myself, have made sincere efforts to
maintain the Nelson Gardens as I intended but the cost of
maintaining the Nelson Gardens has become too prohibitive.
I respectfully request the Council to grant The Florence
Nelson Foundation'.s request to take the Nelson Gardens out of
the Williamson Act.
Sincerely yours,
Frank C.l Nelson,'Director
The Florence Nelson Foundation
NT Of
0
IN REPLY REFER TO:
United Mates Department of the LiLiterior'
,-r.anl. Eel:;on
1215 Stone Crest
7
,an FranciSco, CA 941;?
TIP-ar Pranl,:
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
P.O. BOX 37127
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2001 3 -7 1 27
SEP 2 2 1988
a
?Ali � M
PME IN
M
en a 9.011, - '- * '- �)
have
-c,l-luently 1-i o u;lit about you alld -%.'ondcrod 110'." )"OU th-J.-,
Y c
YOU .:.7 cl i job io vc ,lr an-J ?* ll--�%lc ven-- littic -L1--cc Jlc "l,
-cent -cs, in Ycllo;i�;toma lia,�c con,;u-.,JicJ ;�iuch o.'
pro�,rcs.,�. The rc I I
:Iy The .L)a,,!, ir, not destr'oy'ed and will lac better ccolor.-ically.
;i, rea7.on for -witinl -, to you io that liayor of :).-arato.-a cal).cd a fc:j dalc
arl'o to tc).). ri•� t.hat the Citl"V iS 0,-11,-i0U:-! to VOW' J-,i'0PC1't--! lclto a Pc
,:Id Tiltcrnrctivo r•cll"cp. T 7-T.L: :l -o!-
c("ll
Council li,rl b o
"11(c 10111': Pull.
Of par i ou an,l T C.-Lil T 1 roll
lr
�Jar�•;a3t reu -ard.n,
: 'illio:-" Penn 'lotlt-" Jr.
-)ircc',;or
Sarawoa City COUACil:
'.ire Council should rezone the Nelson property from agricultural to single
family residential and allow the property to be developed by Ainsley'
Development Corporation into nine. homes.
There are a number of advantages'that accrue to the City of Saratoga from
such an action.
1. The Florence Nelson Foundation, which donates to many Saratoga and
Santa Clara Valley charities, will benefit from the proceeds of the
sale and will have more money to'use in its charitable pursuits.
2. The City of Saratoga will receive a donation from the Ainsley
Development Corp. of $250,000 for the Hakone Gardens and another
$110,000 for the parks fund. Actually, that $250,000 will allow the
City to receive another $250,000 in matching funds.from a Dr. Nagai, a
Japanese gentleman who is very interested in funding Hakone Gardens.
Sa, in effect, allowing the nelson property to be developed,will bring
over $600,000 into the city coffers to be used for parks.
3. The City will receive property tax revenues and building fees:
The proposal for the city to buy this property for use as a park seems
unrealistic. During the last 15 years it has been owned by various parks- -
oriented groups, the Nature Conservancy, the California State Parks
Foundation, and the Florence Nelson Foundation, arid. none of them has been able
to rn_)ke the property a successful park. It has been too expensive, and the
uses have been too narrow. lie have no particular reason to think that ti)e City
of Sarato;-i could transform this property into a park with city-wide appeal.
We already have a centrally located park property that is a working orchard,
The Herita;e Orchard, and Foothill Park, which is only two blocks away from
t"Le Nelson property, remains undeveloped because the city cannot afford to
develop it. It seems to us that the main issue here is that a relatively-
small group of neighbors wants the land to remain undisturbed, but they 5,,alit
the entire city to underwrite the cost.
The city does not have the money to purchase this property without borro...i.ng
it and then taxing the residents. People are proposing that the City buy a
$2 1%2 million property when, in fact, the City of Saratoga has been selling
off property it owned in order to balance its budget. The city government
i,cxe operates on a roughly $6 million annual budget. and simply does not have
,-in extra $2 1/2 million lying around.
We cannot support the proposal that the entire city be formed into a Lighting
and Landscaping District 'Lou. the purpose of purchasing this land as a park.
That approach is a thinly dis -wised attempt to avoid the Prop. 13 requi.rElments
regardinU the imposition of ne%,! taxes. And we do not believe that a 2/3
majority of the voters would approve a bond issue for the purpose of
purchasing this property. in addition, k'e think that a condemnation procec("Jn,?
would not only fail but would .likely result in the City being embroiled in a
cost.l)' 1�� i t_- rii;i.rli i t �.,,nU.Z:1 probably lose.
Therefore, we ac,ain reco[nmend that this property be rezoned so that Ainsley
Corgi. _.an :OCeG'(e 'aiti; ti :e 6F'vE' (r-)i:Itlent of ni na hnrip� nn this property.
• t. fit'• -- - --
J
Inl r7o -w��
1Vw,e-- It-l;/ /ems
L /'Lf�/ r ���% C/��Y2�� � �GL/ti -�'J �N��LI �C/��� ✓ �%� � � �7/ /�'.c� "
C�
e
William Penn Mott Jr.,
National Park Service
P. 0. Box 37127
FRANK C. NELSON
120 HONTGOMEPY ST., SUITE. 2425
SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94104
October 17, 1988
Director
Washington, D.C. 20013 -7127
Dear Bill:
Thank you for your letter of September 22, 1988. It
was good to hear from you and if and when you come this way, I
would enjoy seeing you.
As for the Saratoga property, it has been most difficult
to dedicate the land to public use because of liability insurance,
cost factors and other problems. The Board of Directors of
The Florence Nelson Foundation, of which I am one, feel it is in
the best interest of the Foundation to sell the property and use
the proceeds for charitable purposes. Keeping the property in
open space benefits very few individuals because of the locality
compared to the many who can benefit from the sale of the property.
Mrs. Nelson recalls that when you were here after your
appointment as National Park Service Director and you told us of
your new position, you suggested that I sell the property because
it is too expensive to maintain. That has certainly proven to be
the case.
We are now under an option agreement with a developer to
sell the property for $2,400,000, of which $240,000. would go to
the City ol" ,Saratoga. Of this a,Tio�_nt,. $120,GOO. is deS4gnat2d for
the Hakone.Foundation which operates the well known Japanese gardens
in Saratoga. The option agreement expires January 5, 1989. It is
our hope that this agreement will be successful and, if so, we intend
to use t'-ie income from the proceeds for charitable contributions to
needy organizations in the Santa Clara County area.
My very kindest regards to you.
Sincerely yours,
?-
Frank C. Nelson
BERLINER, COHEN & BIAGINI
SANFORD A. BERLINER'
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAMUEL J. COHEN'
HUGH L ISOLA'
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
ANDREW L FABER
WILLIAM J. GOINES'
UNION BANK BUILDING
ROBERT W. HUMPHREYS
MICHAEL H. KALKSTEIN
99 ALMADEN BOULEVARD. SUITE 400
M YRON L BRODY
SAN JOSE. CALIFORNIA 95113
RALPH J. SWANSON
PEGGY L SPRINGGAY
TELEPHONE 14081 286 -5800
JOSEPH E. DWORAK
SAMUEL L FARB
ALAN J. PINNER
JEFFREY M. FORSTER
GARY J. COHAN
LINDA A. CALLON
NORMAN D. THOMAS
JOHN M. DALEY
ROBERTA S. HAYASHI
RUSSELL J. HANLON
TIMOTHY T. HUBER
MARY BETH LONG
December 21 1988
NANCY J. JOHNSON
�
ANNE L NEETER
KEVIN F KELLEY
OF COUNSEL
THEODORE J. BIAGINI
CLARENCE A. KELLOGG. JR. '
Mayor Karen P. Anderson
and Councilmembers
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: GP -87- 003 - Florence Nelson Foundation
City Council Agenda Item 8A
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:
KATHLEEN K. SIPLE
CHRIS SCOTT GRAHAM
LYNN G, MCKINNON
JAMES P. CASHMAN
SCOTT R. HOVER SMOOT
P. LAWRENCE KLOSE
THOMAS P. MURPHY
STEVEN J. CASAD
JEANETTE R. YOUNGBLOOD
THOMAS A. BARTASI
JONATHAN D. WOLF
NANCY F THORNTON
JEROLD A. REITON
ROBERT L. CHORTEK
CYNTHIA M. LIMA
STACY L. SAETTA
BRADLEY D. BOSOMWORTH
PAMELA M. SCHUUR
JOHN R. WIERZBICKI. JR.
THOMAS J. MADDEN. III
COLBY A. CAMPBELL
EILEEN D. MATHEWS
STEWART LENZ
SUSAN B. CORNMAN
LORI D. BALLANCE
'A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
FACSIMILE: 14081 9905388
Missing from your Agenda packet, but included in the
original Council packet for your meeting of June 15, 1988 is the
Staff Report recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment,
and setting forth why such approval makes sense and meets with
State law. Staff gives the facts explaining why the Amendment is
in the public interest, is consistent with the General Plan
policies, and is appropriately a; negative declaration under CEQA.
(Please note that the environmental assessment evaluated the
entire project, including the rezoning and subdivision of the
property into a maximum of nine residential lots, as required
under CEQA. The assessment resulted in the negative
declaration.) The following is verbatim from the Staff Report:
1. Amend in the public interest
On February 17, 1988, the City Council tentatively
cancelled the Williamson Act Land Contract on the property.
The Council made the finding that since the Florence Nelson
Foundation was unable to continue to maintain the property,
the property could become a blight upon the neighborhood, a
potential health hazard and an attractive nuisance. In
addition, the Council made the finding that the City would
receive a substantial donation of charitable funds for
... _... Yp.!:f _ _Y.•1tliI�Jl1SYk•:. :... �..I. - :: Y _ .
Mayor Karen P. Anderson
and Councilmembers
City of Saratoga
December 21, 1988
Page -2-
development of the park fund and Hakone Gardens from the
sale of the property. Therefore, future development of the
property is in the public interest - a broad range of
citizens will benefit.
2. Internal consistency with the General Plan
The subject site is located in "General Plan Area B -
Congress Springs /Pierce Road." The text (p. 4 -4) refers to
the Horticultural Foundation "with potential for
significant development" and "the area is unanimous in the
desire to assure that any development or redevelopment of
sites within the area be only single family detached
residential with a density consistent with the surrounding
neighborhood." Medium density residential is consistent with
the developed residential properties adjacent to Trinity,
Malcolm and Pontiac Streets.
The proposal is consistent with the goals of the land use
element (LU 8. 0) housing element (H 6.0) and the
circulation element (CI 5.0). Specifically, LU 8.0 and H
6.0 stated that "the City shall continue to be
predominantly a community of single- family detached
residences." CI 5.0 stated that the City should "use street
capacities in determining land uses and acceptable
densities. If . . . existing streets need to be improved to
accommodate a project, such improvements shall be in place
or bonded for prior to issuance of permits."
The City Engineer has reviewed the proposal and will be
requiring improvements toSaratoga Hills Road with the
tentative map. All the remaining local streets are
developed.
3. CEQA
The California Environmental Quality Act requires that
environmental assessment evaluate "the whole of a project.''
In this case, the "project" includes the General Plan
Amendment, future rezoning and a subdivision of the
property into a maximum of 9 residential lots. The project
has been reviewed by City departments, the Parks and
Recreation Commission, sanitation, water, storm drainage and
fire district. All services are available for the project
and no unusual conditions will be required on the tentative
map.
... � .. _�_.... � :i�i�,� :_. -, =__. e. 7. �: �d .•31�ry."i�ii!�.�a..l:d�:iss:; �.r: ��r �_ ..._ _.:cif =.; ��'d+AxiD�
Mayor Karen P. Anderson
and Councilmembers
City of Saratoga
December 21, 1988
Page -3-
Biotic and wildlife assessments were completed on the site.
Although there are no rare or endangered species of plants
and animals on the property, the City can require
preservation of many of the trees identified in the
wildlife assessment, at the subdivision stage. The City s
Horticultural Consultant has analyzed the health of the
trees and proposed protection measures that can be
incorporated as a condition of a tentative map.
ISSUE
Several residents of the area requested a one acre designation on
the entire property in order to ensure that future homes are
compatible with the character of the surrounding homes, "single
story with 2,500 square foot or less foundation footprints."
The topography and surrounding land use designations, however,
support the medium density proposal at the easterly portion with
a low density designation beginning at the toe of the slope. The
subject property, which abuts Pontiac and Trinity Avenues, has an
approximate 5% slope in the flatter portion. The rear portion is
20 -25 %. In addition, the neighboring lots to the north, east and
south are designated and developed at medium density in the
flatter portions of the area; Upper Hills and Saratoga Hills Road
are appropriately designated low density, consistent with the
hillside topography.
The issue of lot size and configuration will be determined
during the subdivision proposal when the location of the trees
and slopes will be studied in detail. The sizes of the homes
(bulk and compatibility) will be assessed during the design
review process, although the Planning Commission may condition
single story homes for specific lots on the tentative map.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends two designations on the property: medium
density (M -12.5) on the eastern portion and very low density
(RVLD) at the west.
These designations would allow a maximum density of nine
units on the property. The actual number of lots will be
determined based upon the location of trees, access or
slopes which may dictate an alternative to the nine lots
suggested by the applicant.
a _ - .... � ... ..�_w •'..i.L' = L�+a�• °i.;i''.fn�o.:av .. � � ..,....._ ,r,.•..•:iYNYt:]t
Mayor Karen P. Anderson
and Councilmembers
City of Saratoga
December 21, 1988
Page -4-
On behalf of Ainsley, we respectfully request your
concurrence with the Staff Report, and approval of the General
Plan Amendment. The benefits to the City are many, as well as to
the recipients of the Nelson Foundation grants, and there are NO
drawbacks.
We have reviewed the Task Force Report, and find it
offensive in its assumption that the Nelson property is available
for City and public use. As you know, this property is
privately owned, and is under contract to Ainsley for purchase to
build residential homes. It was unbelievable to read at page 25
the suggestion that current land use restrictions remain in
force so that the City can condemn the property at a discount of
fifty to sixty percent from the current $2.4 million contract
price. The City has already granted tentative cancellation of
the Williamson Act to allow residential development of the site.
To now instead deny the approvals required to implement the
cancellation is certainly suspicious, and may put the City and
Councilmembers at risk. We previously put the City and the
neighbors on notice that we objected to Task Force consideration
of the property for open space use without regard to Ainsley's
contractual rights.
In addition, the Task Force analysis of source of funds for
City purchase of the site is flawed. In the first place, it is
absurd to impose the cost of this small parcel of land on all
Saratogans to please a few neighbors. The land is not "gardens ",
it is not a working orchard; rather, it is simply a five -acre
parcel surrounded by homes. The City has already preserved a
Heritage orchard for the public on twelve acres near City Hall.
In any event, the Task Force, apparently to avoid the
ballot, suggests use of a City -wide assessment district under the
Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, assessing each parcel in
Saratoga an estimate of $25 per parcel for twenty years to cover
the debt service on bonds. (How many millions does that make the
purchase price ? ?) However, that Act does not seem to provide for
issuance of bonds to purchase parklands. The Act specifically
sets forth improvements which may be bond financed, not
including park property. (See Streets & Highways Code §22660,
22662.5.) Furthermore, an assessment district is only permitted
under State law because a particular parcel of land receives
benefit from the improvement for which it is assessed, i.e., the
value of the parcel paying the assessment is increased. The
concept of "benefit" does not mean that people enjoy the
improvements, but that parcels do. It cannot be argued that
Ak-
Mayor Karen P. Anderson
and Councilmembers
City of Saratoga
December 21, 1988
Page -5-
purchase of this property by assessment district improves the
value of all property throughout Saratoga. It can only increase
the value of those few homes surrounding the property.
Please make the decision that truly benefits all the
residents of Saratoga, as well as community organizations and
persons throughout the Valley. You will give $250,000 to Hakone,
to be parlayed into $500,000 for Hakone, plus $110,000 to
Saratoga Parks, plus thousands of dollars annually to community
organizations and charities from the Foundation as a result of
your decision.
Very truly yours,
BERLINER, COHEN & BIAGINI
v
LINDA A. CALLON
cc: Mr. John Higgins, Nelson Property Foundation
Harry Peacock, City Manager
Stephen Emslie, Planning Director
Kathryn Caldwell, Senior Planner
Harold Toppell, Esq.
Bruce Bowen, Ainsley
Jeff Wyatt, Ainsley
03978- 003.AinSar.ltr:2LAC1:le
ROBERT D. INGLE, Senior Vice President and Executive Editor
san 3o5e JEROME M. CEPPOS, Managing Editor
JENNIE BUCKNER, Managing Editor /Afternoon
.lercmo rcws
ROB ELDER, Vice President and Editor
KATHY YATES, Senior Vice President /General Manager
DEAN R. BARTEE, Senior Vice President
JOHN B. HAMMETT, Senior Vice President
' PETER E. PITZ, Vice President /Operations
TALLY C. LIU, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
,:.TIMOTHY J. ALLDRIDGE, Marketing Director
>- .RONALD G. BEACH, Classified Advertising Director
WILLIAM A. OTT RICHARD R. FETSCH, Director of Circulation Operations
President and Publisher:., ROBERT C. WILLIAMSON, Display Advertising Director
Editorials ;�� -`',•, 'Wednesday, Dec. 21, 1988 lOB I
. , .._., .. ..._.. _.... _ .. - .. -o,. - art•.; }r ^•• .- 4.fy� .., 7,
� ..;,,. ]a, a• x Ty' �j,� ,�.L�../? 1,t 1+r! 4°'th,C�1j dot y.�%.
' .. .>�- ;/a1 1�: � /%_�"1�r. L:F( - %,i'• �.. :b ^q i�•�'_'.�:���i �l. \'Y.+F.�(arl��� `'-
$250,000 to the city's Halcone Gardens, '
If neighbors want`;to which,- through •'a'•matching grant," can
P : �:, la its gift .into $500,000. The rest of..
_� . � : , ,� , ,,par Y
. "the money would o to local charities
houses off Saratoga site y g
�. So the council . decision on "land_ use
they ShOL11C .bL13T the IariCi i tonight should be easy, right?
Wrong. Folks who live around ;those;
five acres want th em to stay open not
OR . years, a : landowner tried to as a general -use park, "of course, but as a
give Sarato a five acres off Sara place where 'school kids would, come'to::`.
' " to a Hills Road to use "as an a
g gri- , learn about California" arming.-- do: ;
cultural park, but the city couldn't work it this,. taxpayers ..probably would "have to
out. Then a few ye ago the state tried "pay market rate for = the land "; '$2.4' "• -.-
to run the site as park . ' ':.but the city : million at the moment.' ` Add the'' "cost'`:'of
-would only let it open three days a week. 'developing the park, and. dream on:``; + °'';:':
Now. the Florence Nelson Foundation If neighbors want the open space, they
;'wants to sell the land for $2.4 million to a should buy it. Saratoga,'< having bungled
;_ developer who would put nine homes on • the chance to get the land free,: should
. it. Of that money, the foundation would approve this development and thank ihe;' 3
give $110,000 .to thea city parks fund and foundation for its generosity ° lk., r "4
<nf ; ^.,'.t ` �3a+.vi '}�'ti:t''t+btw;,�. .•.t.f.;�t" 7,' L k'+° J�'.. ���3:"�#Y`' "'�', 1 `
'c.,...:__r..... .... v.1, ss5•ti;- sir,...,.,cs..:.Y..': "lwtiSr --fs ...Zrb'`i —ui� i'u..�; •,kM14's2"F
.... ,'�, . -_ _ .: d�=,.e .��. ._. . •�a.a z_ ]sin:
The Nature Conservancy��-
California Field Office
785 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94103
(415) 777 -0487
December 21, 1988
Ms. Karen Anderson
Mayor
City Hall
1377 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Ms. Anderson:
This letter will confirm that The Nature Conservancy's intent in
acquiring the property known as Nelson Gardens was to preserve the
site's undeveloped character. Because the Conservancy's primary
focus is the preservation of rare and threatened species and habitat
we ultimately decided to transfer the property to the California
State Parks Foundation, an organization we felt was more capable of
managing the site. It was or assumption that the Foundation would
honor Mr. Nelson's expressed desire to leave the gardens
undeveloped.
If I can be of any further help, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
Steve McCormick
Director
SM /ems
Western Regional Office, 785 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94103
National Office, 1800 North Kent Street, Arlington, Virginia 22209
100% recycled paper
Saratoga City Council
Saratoga City Offices
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA
Dear Council Members,
Dec.20,1988
As a long -time resident of Saratoga I remember very
well how the valley looked before "progress ", and I
can appreciate what Frank Nelson tried to do with his
property. It now appears that the Nelson Foundation
has more interest in the plans of Ainsley Development
than those of Mr. Nelson.
To change the zoning and accept the "reward" would
set an interesting precedent for financing Saratoga's
parks: let developers destroy a potential park in
order to keep up existing ones. What's next? Maintain
existing parks by selling "excess" land in them to
developers?
I urge you to deny a
Gardens property and
possibility of making
of financing it.
Douglas Diemer
20751 Wardell Rd.
Saratoga, CA 95070
change of zoning for the Nelson
allow more time to explore the
it a park and to devise a means
Sincerely,
D&c& llbcr 19, 1 cD88
:aaratocizi City Cc)uncil
Citv Hall
Saratogaa, CA �)5C)7C)
Ladies arid Gentlemen.
I aril writinq to urge you to keep the Nelson Property under the
dl�llllal'iisul'i r`ii.t.
r'11thougl-, the pressure to develop the land is very strong, once
developed it is riot possible to return it to open space. One of ti'ie
attractive features of Saratoga is its rural nature. This is not going to
last if we continue developiriq at the alarminq pace of recent years. My
property is not near the Nelson Property yet I am affected by the decision
before you. We all pain by having open space in our community. I am
willing to pay a parcel tax to ensure that pockets of undeveloped land are
kept as open space in Saratoga.
Please give considerable thought to the long term needs of Saratoga.
J I
ere
Louise Lyon " non
Jl ? f Thelrna hvenuc
Saratoga, C� 95070
Saratoga Area
SA SENIOR COORDINATING COUNCIL
SCC P. O. Box 30339 Saratoga, California 95070
(408) 867 - 3438 R 57
December 19, 1988
Mrs. Karen Anderson, Mayor
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Subject: Public Hearing, December 21, 1988
Florence Nelson Foundation
Approval of Proposed Sale of Five Acre Parcel
Dear Mayor Anderson:
It is the policy of the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating
Council not to take a pro or con position on public issues when
matters other than solely senior citizens' interests are the
predominant considerations.
However, we believe it is appropriate to pass along to you
the factual information that on two occasions the Florence
Nelson Foundation has made donations of $1,500 each to the
Senior Coordinating Council. Foundations management has indicated
its intention to make future donations in amounts depending upon
the availability of funds.
Respectfully,
Betty Eskeldson
President
CC: Edwina Kump, Secretary- Treasurer
Florence Nelson Foundation
Saratoga City Council Members
Andrew Beverett
SASCC Fund Raising Chair
Roger Ross, Vice President
Florence Nelson Foundation
13004 Faseo Fresada
Saratoga
December 18, 1900
.Mayor Karen Anderson and the City Council
13777 F'ruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mayor Anderson and other Council members,
''e urge you to support a community park at the Nelson
Hardens site.
We do not need more subdivisions. As residents of Saratoga for
33 years- who voted long ago for its incorporation to Beep it "rural ",
iw,e have seen too much open spade devoured by developers.
As long time supporters of the Saratoga Community Harden w-e
have seen it lose its site. What an opportunity to exploit nos,- in
assuring that {young and old -will have access to this facility - within
our city limits!
N'e encourage. the city* to explore such options as state funding
or private grants to fund the park. N'e -a- ould most heartily
support investing $25 a year for the next '425 years if this is
needed to assure us of this environmental asset, not only for us
but for the generations to dome.
Sincerely,
� a-ej Ra+ 1,e4te.(
Vic and Barby Ulmer
- eJ
rl
J6 tte..w
1
I ` •
s �
v .'
Judy Rathbun Whitney
19430 Valle Vista Drive
Saratoga, California 95070
(408) 354 -3762
�']- w(s)R
!l6
0
1-2ec, /7
iv-e �sG)L �Cr�ns ��� Le
/tLk -Ac
/6-0 PAO/l
Uat�. LL2—
Cum disc -ha i2gaj I
I Ve,
Trustees
William E Glennon
E Floyd Kvamme
Henry Yamate
Mayor Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
F. L. Stutzman, M.D.
Don Peterson
David Moyles, Esq.
Hakone Foundation
December 7, 1988
Re:. Florence Nelson Foundation property
Friends:
Especially on behalf of the Hakone Foundation and generally
on behalf of the citizens of Saratoga, I ask that you permit the
Florence Nelson Foundation to build at least nine homes on their
property.
It is my understanding that in the absence of protests by
neighbors the 12,500 square foot zoning appropriate for this land
would allow ten to eleven homesites.
The developer has offered $250,000 to Hakone plus $110,000
to the City for use on other parks if he is allowed zoning for
nine homesites.
It goes without saying that, if development of this small
parcel were not in the bests interests of the people in Saratoga,
no amount of money would justify development.
This, however, is not the case. The parcel is too small to
be of benefit to anyone as open space but the immediate
neighbors. Please bear in mind, those individuals opposing this
development do not represent the City; they don't represent one
percent of the residents of the City. You never heard from them
before and will never hear from them after this matter blows
over.
The property, if not developed now, will be developed in
eight years when it comes out of the Williamson Act. The only
difference will be that the City will have lost $360,000 (plus,
perhaps the $250,000 matching funds given to Hakone by Dr.
Nagai).
255 North Market Street, Suite 190, San Jose, California 95110 408/292 -2434
December 7, 1988
Page two
When you make your decision, please ask yourself if eight
years of open space on those six acres is worth $360,000; and, if
the 34,000 people in Saratoga who have not been at your meetings
but have expected you to represent them would agree.
Saratoga has always been acknowledged as having the
brightest, least political Council in the County and the present
Council is no exception. I am proud to be, even in a small way,
associated with you. I will be at your meeting on the 21st and
will help in any way you ask of me.
Very truly yours,
WILLIAM E. GLENNON
WEG : mm
bcc: Mr. Roger Ross
Trustees
December 17, 1988
The Honorable Karen Anderson
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Ca 95070
Re: The Nelson Garden
Dear Mayor Anderson:
I am surprised at the attitude of Mr Glennon, Trustee of Hakone
Gardens, as expressed in his letter to the City Council.
It seems he should have a wider view of the whole park concept
for Saratoga and should help mobilize the community to
support parks in general.
Mr. Glennon is willing to have the Nelson Garden sold to a
developer who will in turn pay $250,000 to support Hakone.
Why must one park be forever sacvificed for another? I am
grateful that we have Hakone Gardens. After visiting many
Japanese Gardens with the Saratoga Sister City group, I came
to realize more than ever what a national treasure we have in
Hakone Gardens. The Nelson Garden could also be a treasure, too.
Having Hakone does not precliide the City of Saratoga from
acquiring other beautiful open space. These areas can never
be replaced when they are covered with houses.
Mr. Glennon claims to speak for the great majority of Saratogans.
On the contrary, it would appear from their public expressions
that many of our citizens believe the quality of life is
enhanced by maintaining a more rural charact &r to the city.
We thus can assume they would be willing to pay the necessary
taxes to maintain this character.
I trust that the City Council will not be influenced by bribery,
since the conditions for this gift by the developer would lock
the Council into allowing nine houses to be built on ttie Nelson
Garden property. Our Council has been most fair in allowing
a 6 month waiting period and inviting citized inputt-before
deciding on the Williampon Act cancellation. It would seem wiser
for the City to acquire the property and use careful planning in
the future. The property will not lose value during planning
time.
Sincerely,
Bla�a1ton
21060 Saratoga Hills Rd
Saratoga, Ca
1988 Winter Solstice
Dears
How can a Foundation established within the city limits
and run by citizens of the city not hear the pleadings of its
citizens to keep this ground as open space?
Who are thses people who fight against themselves?
We are the city.
What ignorance and lack of vision has crept into our veins
that we cover over land in order to gain money that will be
scattered to the winds in small amounts. In no way will this
ever compare to keeping the LAND that never can be replaced.
Have we become so money hungry that we trade our most
valuable possissi.on, LAND, for improvements, repairs and coins
for budgets? What tinsel is this that lures us into draining
the life's blood of our community?
Sincerely,
its�*ttom";
Betty Peck
14275 Saratoga Ave.
Robert G. Coo
19480 Valle Vista Drive
Saratoga, California 95070
(408) 354 -2452 �2GQU(��" /-// eg
Ao t 14 -e, � d o s of A�
{/ LCSON
Card" . 140 uY..�a�ev uJ2 �-ee/
U2►' sft'o�t l �c a-t f� pr�ha rc/s
G
/do d.
l vole
f6r cpe ue %mehf .
ui
Qu
�2 C1.LP
.Ply -J�
jor bull ComS(derctlon�
12177 Country Squire Ct.
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
December 16, 1988
City Council
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Dear friends,
As a resident of over thirty years in beautiful
Saratoga, we are writing you to request that you re-
tain the Nelson Gardens as rural orchard as an in-
heritance for our children. Do you, in all conscience;,
really believe that our children and grandchildren
will benefit by more houses on this land or should
they have the opportunity to commune with nature - or
even God - in a unique setting? I hope you agree with
me that the Boy Scouts, etc. do not need proceeds from
the sale of this land as much as we do. Let's be kind
to Saratogans. I have faith in your good judgment.
Sincerely .yours,
�i
Ma Borer Mote and Morris W. Mote
The San Jose Children's Health Council
1671 The Alameda, Suite 201, San Jose, California 95126 •408/293 -8288
New Futures for
Multi- Problem Children
Executive Director
Margaret Ann Niven
Clinical Consultant
Alan J. Rosenthal, M.D.
Officers
President, Duane W. Bell
Vice President, Patricia H. Calfee
Vice President, Janet L. Goy
December 16, 1988
Vice President, Charles D. Niessen
Secretary, Janet S. Herman
Treasurer, Dennis J. Pastirik
Board of Directors
Duane W. Bell, C.P.A.
City Council Members
Patricia H. Calfee lfee
Cynthia A. Freeman
City of Saratoga
Janet L. Goy
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Sally H. Harvey, Ph. D.
Janet S. Herman
Saratoga, CA 95070
Robert Herman, M.D.
Franz N. Kaiser, M.D.
Anna F. Kuhl,Ph.D.
Dear Council Members:
Charles D. Niessen
Margaret Ann Niven
Dennis J.Pastirik
The San Jose Children's Health Council has recently learned that
George
the Florence Nelson Foundation is negotiating with the City
Saul Wasserman,
Advisory Board
of Saratoga to sell a five acre parcel of property. The sale
Frank S.Belluomini
would allow the Foundation to increase their resources for
Mrs. John D. Crummey
contributions to nonprofits such as ours.
Mrs. Paul Davies
Mrs. Robert Finocchio
Glenn George
Susan W. Hammer
As far as the SJCHC is concerned , it is imperative that you
Diane McNutt
allow the sale to take place. The Foundation has been contributing
onra
Conrad Cra d R R ushing
to our work with troubled children since 1981. Their consis-
JacquiSmith
tent support has allowed us to continue and to use their
Betty Swenson
Austen Warburton
support to receive monies from other foundations and corpora —
Patti Warren
tions in the community.
Nancy Wiener
Professional Advisory Board
Nancy Alvarez, M.D.
We have been working with troubled children and their families
Gloria Ambrosini
since 1979. Children who stump the experts. We try to solve
Nancy Bent
Bob carroty
these children's problems using a team of professionals to
P g P
Carolyn Compton,Ph.D.
diagnose and recommend a treatment plan.
David Kerns, M.D.
Nora Manchester
Alan J. Rosenthal, M.D.
It's a unique service and one that is tremendously important
Barbara Swenson
Saul Wasserman, M.D.
to the local community. Last year we saw more than 200 such
children. Children who might otherwise have "fallen through
the cracks" if it weren't for organizations like the Florence
A United Way Agency Nelson Foundation.
The sale of five acres of land seems like a small investment
in the future of a child. But it is an investment that could
save hundreds of lives and eventually save the community
hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Thank you.
Duane W. Bell
President, Board of Directors
Donald S. Macrae
20679 Reid Lane
Saratoga, California
December 16, 1988
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
As a member of the Nelson Gardens Task Force Committee
which has submitted its findings and report to the
City Council, I wish to have the opportunity to address
the Council and voice my strong recommendation that the
Nelson Gardens remain under the Williamson Act provisions
and the open space be preserved as a historical orchard /cq RDO/V
park that all citizens of Saratoga can enjoy, now and in
the future.
Sinc erely,
Donald S. Macrae
December 15, 1988
The Honorable Karen Anderson
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Ca 95070
Re: The Nelson Garden
Dear Mayor Anderson:
I have been actively envolved this past year in promoting the
preservation of The Nelson Garden and Orchard. I wish to
thank the City Council for taking a second look at this beau-
tiful piece of land and for establishing the City Council
Task Force Ad Hoc Committee to further study the options for
the property.
It is my experience that the City Council's Task Force Ad Hoc
Committee was a perfect example of how others have responded
to the Nelson Garden. Several of us on the Committee came
on board wanting the Garden to.be preserved. Others came in
Wanting it to be "developed ". Neither group changed their
mind. But the third subgroup was originally more neutral.
That group over time became quite actively pro- preservation
of the Garden. They ended up writing parts of the final report
which were supportive of preservation of the Garden.
This Task Force experience is a good lesson to take into account
as you make your decision about the Garden on December 21st.
Some people in Saratoga are very aware of the Nelson Garden
and want to preserve it. Many more are only dimly aware or
unaware. Yet, it is my experience that when people do become
aware of the Nelson Garden, the majority see it as a gem to
be preserved. They are even willing to help pay for it. The
City Council's Task Force Committee responded in that manner.
The Public Opinion Survey results, in the Task Force's Final
Report, also indicated a positive response to such a specialty
park.
I envision a park at the Nelson Garden that would attract
children and adults who wish to learn more about the rural
history of Santa Clara Valley. In the past, the Nelson Garden
has not had the kind of promotion and active local support
which it needed to be a viable park. Its history is similar
to Ha koni? and Montalvo's history. Both, in their respective
beginnings, had'only a small vocal support group and were
virtually unknown. They struggled financially. With much
work, they are now well- known, beautiful public parks. The
Nelson Garden could be a compact addition in that constellation
of Saratoga parks.
-2-
Re: The Nelson Garden
It is inevitable that groups which need money from the same
money pot begin to snipe at one another and want to shut each
other out so they can have more money. I would hate to see
that happen in Saratoga. I wish Haikoni much success in its
drive for money. It is a beautiful specialty park. My mother
is actively involved in it. My concern is that we should not
pit q� konf, against the Nelson Garden's existence. That
would oe a sad, narrow-minded-response. Instead, I would
hope the City Council would mobilize the Trustees of Ha'�konj2
and Montalvo into helping sensitize Saratogans to the beauty
of their surroundings, to mobilize them to support saving the
fast disappearing green space including the Nelson Garden,
and to mobilize the community to agree to expand their financial
support of all parks and green space.
I recommend saving the Nelson Garden and continuing to build
a beautiful constellation of parks which represent a variety
of themes. Saratoga could become the special garden spot in
Santa Clara Valley.
Sincerely, �l
Ann Waltonsmith, Ph.D.
cc: Identical letters to:
Councilman David Moyles
Councilman "Stutz" Stutzman
Councilwoman.Martha Clevenger
Councilman Don Pererson
19045 Sunnyside Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
December 14,1988
Dear City Council Members:
The purpose of this letter is to lend support
to the idea of saving the Nelson Gardens and
using it as a park. We are writing to you
because we will be unable to be present at
the meeting on the 21st of December.
If it would require a resident tax of approximately
twenty-five dollars per year for twenty years as
was mentioned in the news article in the Saratoga-
News, we would support that tax.
A� ,
OUTLINE
NELSON GARDENS
OPEN SPACE DOCUMENTS
1. (Aug. 1971) Extensive City- sponsored neighbor survey - 84 %+ favor
park or open space - supported by local foundation members.
2. (1972 -1977) Conveyances to Nature Conservancy.
3. (March -Oct. 1977) Terms of Conveyance to California State Parks
Foundation (CSPF).
a. (3/18/77) Frank Nelson contract with CSPF requiring
dedication of the property to public use.
b. (7/18/77) Frank Nelson letter confirming terms of transfer
with Nature Conservancy.
C. (10/14/77) Nature Conservancy deed transmittal letter citing
public use dedication of "Nelson Preserve."
4. (Jan. 1981) Nelson Foundation Board Meeting Minutes with CSPF
President William Penn Mott, Jr. citing:
a. Property to be retained as historical and educational area;
b. Property to be made more available to public;
C. Ultimate plan to turn property over to City, County or State.
5. (June 1981) Frank Nelson letters acknowledging neighbor support
for public Nelson Gardens.
6. (June 1981) Mott letters as President of CSPF to Frank Nelson and
Foundation confirming contractual understanding to turn property
over to City, County or State.
7. (Nov. 1983) Letter to CSPF from Nelson Foundation Director and
Attorney Gin agreeing,as follows:
a. Nelson Gardens to be preserved;
b. Nelson Foundation will take property to carry on open space
dedication and preservation;
C. Nelson Foundation does not contemplate selling and would
only do so out of necessity;
d. Committed to continue Nelson Gardens maintenance and
preservation for the benefit of the General Public.
8. (Feb. -March 1984) Resolutions of CSPF and Nelson Foundation
confirming agreement to maintain and preserve Nelson Gardens and
actively work for public usage.
4 i
city of S A RAT ® GA
INCORPORATED 195 �� ��� _: 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE. SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 93070
September 23, 1971
Mr. Frank C. Nelson
3100 Crocker Plaza
San Francisco, California 94104
Dear Mr. Nelson:
In reply to your letter of September 21, 1971 please find enclosed the
individual responses to the questionnaire sent out in connection with
the use of your property on Saratoga Hills Road.
We would appreciate it if you could return these questionnaires at your
convenience so we can retain the information for future use. Thank you.
Yours truly,
,All
JLR. Huff,
C}TY MANAGER
JRH :r
11
r,
INCORPORATED 1956
i-^N
0
city of SARATOGA
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE, SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070
September 15, 1971
Mr. Frank C. Nelson
20551 Saratoga Hills Road
Saratoga, California 95070
Dear Mr, Nelson:
Enclosed, you will find the results of the City survey concerning the
use of your property located on Trinity and Pontiac Avenues and
Saratoga Hills Road. Also enclosed, you will find the questionaire
sent to property owners within 500 feet of the subject parcel.
After quick review of the charts, you will find half the responses
favor a nature park and quarter of the responses favor a combination
recreational and nature park. This survey indicates a majority of the
people favor the use of your land as a park versus development into
single - family residences.
The survey results will be presented at the next Park and Recreation
Comlaission Meeting, Monday, September 20, 1971 for their review and
recommendation. If you desire reviewing the individual questionaire
.responses, feel free to come into the office or we could possibly
Xerox each one and send them to you.
If you have any further questions, feel free to contact this-office.
CAS/ cp
Very truly yours,
JAMES R. HUFF
CITY ALAN1GER
c ^ •
By:
Gary A. onfiglio
Assistant Planner
/If
/0070
90
90
70
60
�o
30
ao
0
SOA/ 1PR40P4P-r1
PeQ PE-Ry ,' v TdA--r s� /9S ;
C To r.4G Re-Spa V,rs . .S-/
erTB�Nh7ioN
RECR ER7 /oNAf-
Afll) NA raRE
QE5' °�n�SES
a
OTHER C S7�7E0 i �/
Co�tMEyiS
a 1 IF 'Yo U FAL116 R *4 PAR �
l U�/l5f i c N OF Tl1�S�- F#4c 1G1 ri,g-,r
you
C 7b
/0076
90
8d
70
&0
Ca44)
C;�o C 79 (.a
3 S�9oC /D� /0:%s �o) Z� g (7'� �3� 0
io . S.690 3•S�% (o•a% S. 6% 6.8% i � � �
Z/, r 7o V, °% 1.757o �o
0 r/"00 P71 rzA 0
B uFFM $ CV tfES . �(o
P /iKG RSf- P/C/YIC M nab l4MPrN -. TA/crcz.r OPE7v
S fME TRBtCS CENTcR r#EA7R6 cV oRSE TURF AREA
P /7r,S �'1)
NAT�IfE �IOLLBY- CRAFT Nor °�E _ VFF CREA7iY� PRE, ScHoo[-
'rRA1tS BAK. cc�vrEiQ r RE 7.�PCEr PlAy AREA �,(/i4 �
E
Cov.t7S Sr�oY PR�?KiNG cy/zOReN's) ptyR/pREA
i
KEY TO SURVEY MADE BY CITY OF SARATOrA
BILLS ROAD - answer requested no later
RE NELSON PROPERTY ON
than August 15. 1971•
SARATOGA
I prefer that the property be used
as
A. Nature Park
Yes
No
B.' Combination recreational and nature
park
Yes
No
C. No park
Yes
110
D. Other (Please state in comments)
Yes
No
,2:. If you favor a park, which of these
facilities would
you
like to
see included:
A. Buffer planting
Yes
No
B. Nature trails
Yes
No
C. ,Benches
Yes
No'
0. Volley Ball. Courts
ves
No
E. Horseshoe Pits
Yes
No
F. Craft Center
Yes
No
G. Picnic Areas
r
Yes
No
H. Nature lecture -study center
Yes
No
I. Meeting Center
Yes
No
J. Off street parking
Yes
No
K. Amphitheatre
Yes
No
L. Creative play area (children's)
Yes
No
M. Tricycle Course
Yes
No
N. Preschool creative water play
area
Yes
No
0. Open turf area
Yes
No
Answers received from the followinn:
R. M. Eiler
2.
A
2.B
Pontiac Street
2.
C
2.D
2.
E
2.F
•
2.G
2.11
2.1
2.J
2.K
2.
L
2.
M
2.
N
1Irs. Patricia Boorn
20760 Trinity'Ave. (extended to Sept.
15)
1.0
Comments: It is difficult to visualize another nark in the area
especially after viewing the present inert condition of Wildwood Park.
I walk my dog daily in the hills surroundinn this particular area.and
we often come upon couples in various-stages of nudity "doing their thi
Why establish a park for them. Foothill School a here block away seer..:
to provide most of thetfacilities mentioned in your questionnaire -
those missing could be added.
It seems to me that this particular property was at one time
subdivided for acre homesites. How can "five lovely acres" add up to
--N
Yes No
Mr. & Mrs. R. D. VanHook 1. A
13896 Trinity Ave. 2. n
2 f.
2. J
Betty Eiler 1. A
13982 Pontiac Ave. 1. n
2. A
2.
n
2. r
2. 0
2. E
2.
F
2.
2. II - Yes( ?) denending
on
the need
2.
I
2.
J
'
2.
K
2. L
2.
1!
•2.
N
2. 0
r
Comments: The area is fairly small for a large combination of things.
An amphitheatre would be great if there were more parkin, but it would
be a shame to take up park -space with a large parkins! area. Would like
to see it kept as natural as possible, yet useable for casual small
scale recreation. With Foothill School so close,a meeting center
seems unnecessary.
F. 11. Ohlfs 1. A
13923 Malcolm Ave. 2. B
2. C
2. II
2. J
Comments: A generous offer from some very nice peonle!
Oavid and Ann Fisher 1. A
20865 Malcolm Ave. 2. A
' 2. n
2. H
T. D. Watson 1. B
20113 Trinity Ave. 2. A
• 2. !,
2. C
2. r
2. H
2. J (underlined)
2. 11
2. 0
Comments: Primary concern for neighborhood is the number of cars parkii
on the street, what law enforcement will be provided after dark.
Mr. Nelson is doing a very great public service to Saratoga
and to our neighborhood - we congratulate him for his thoughtfulness.
-2-
Yes No
E. T. Callah.an
Joan A. Callahan 1. A 1. B
20$43 Malcolm Ave. 1. C
Added Hiking Trails' X
. 2. A
2. 0 2. c
2. 0
2. E
2. F
2. r,
2. I
2. J
2. K
2. L
2. M
2. W
,2 . 0
Comments: .I prefer the area to remain as untouched and as undeveloped
as possible so that it is nossible to Lave a true natural environrient.
Mr. & Mrs. E. H. McCaughey
-20649 Trinity Ave. 1. A
1. C
Comments: We hesitate to choose any facility which would brirrq large
numbers of people. -and much - increase in traffic into the area.
H. Paul & Beverly B. Reynolds 1. A 1. G
20156. Pon.ti ac Ave. 1; C
2 A
2. B 2. C
2. 0
2. E
2. F
2. G
2. 11 2. I
2. J.
2. K 2. L
2. 14
.. 2. N
2. 0
Comments: Would like to see the area preserved as close to its
present state as possible for enjoyment of its open, rustic, character
by everyone in the community.
I q
ISE
Yes No
Mr. and Mrs. W. B. Drake 1. A 2. F
..Malcom Ave. 2. A 2. r,
2. R 2. H
2. C 2. I
2. D 2. J
2. E 2. K
2. L
2. H
2. N
2. 0
Comments:. Please note that this questionnaire must be returned by
Auqust 15, and yet Mr. Nelson will not be available to show his pronert;
until after Aug. 15. Rather late. isn't it?
Mr. & Mrs'.. Thomas Fryer 1. C
14029 Saratoga Dills Rd. Leave as a visual site.
Comments: We would prefer to see nice homes, than the problems a park
for public use would create.
(Note: the Fryer's voted t%iice.)
Mr. & Mrs. Thomas B. Fryer 1. C
14041 Saratoga Hills Rd. at Reed Leave as is, a visual park on
Comments: A park would on]-y. create a worse traffic problem down Reed &
Saratoga Hills Rd. The young drivers going up Saratoga Hills fed. drive
crazy around these two turns now. I could only see a great big problem
deaths. • g
George W. Dwyer
1.
A
,
20693 Trinity Ave.
1.
1.
C
1.
D
2.
A
2.
D
2.
B
2.
E
2.
C
2.
F
2.
G
2.
I
2.
11
2.
11
2.
K
2.
L
2.
N
2.
N
2.
0
Howard W. Jundt
1,
B
13860 Malcolm Ave.
2.
A.
2.
B
2.
F
2.
C
2.
G
2.
D
2.
H
2.
E
2.
I
2.
J
2.
K
L
2.
ri
2.
n
Mr. & Mrs'.. Thomas Fryer 1. C
14029 Saratoga Dills Rd. Leave as a visual site.
Comments: We would prefer to see nice homes, than the problems a park
for public use would create.
(Note: the Fryer's voted t%iice.)
Mr. & Mrs. Thomas B. Fryer 1. C
14041 Saratoga Hills Rd. at Reed Leave as is, a visual park on
Comments: A park would on]-y. create a worse traffic problem down Reed &
Saratoga Hills Rd. The young drivers going up Saratoga Hills fed. drive
crazy around these two turns now. I could only see a great big problem
deaths. • g
Paul A. Contos
13818 Malcolm Ave.
firs. Quentin L. Jacobs
13902 Malcolm Ave.
Yr_s
1. A (3 checks)
2. A
2. B
?. E
2. H
1. A - 2nd choice
1. 0
2. C
2. 0
2. F
2. G
2. I
2. J
2. K
2. L
2. 11
2. N
2. 0
Comments: We appreciate very much ' -tr. Nalson's desire to dedicate his
land to public use. In the years since we've lived here, we have
enjoyed seeing his orchard blossom in spring and the trees color the
roadside in the fall.' We think it would bp nice to have it left as
natural as possible - with a minimum of improvements. Maybe an occasiona
bench or table. Children have so few natural places left to play in.
Mr. and Mrs. Joseph C. Ross, Jr.
13870 Trinity. Ave.
1.
A
1. B
1. C
1. _0
2.
A
2. 0
2.
B
2. E
2.
C
2. F
2.
r
2. L
2.
H
2. M
2.
I
2. N
2.
J
2.
K
Comments: Please keep your lovely acres as a Natural Park, fir. Nelson.
We feel that the little ones of Saratoga have adequate hack yards and
other play areas for their benefit. Keep the volley ball at the schools;
(we enjoy it there.) . Viewinq the orchard through the seasons is a daily
pleasure 'for our family and our nei nhbors. flany, many thanks for your
thoughtfulness and civic generosity. A quiet natural retreat for the are
will be a wonderful community asset, which will be more anpreciated as th
years pass. We are thinkinq, in particular, of the town of Belmont as we
knew it in'the thirties, and the wal -to -wall housinq coveri'nq its hills
today. Roaming those unspoiled hills remain one of our most vivid child-
hood memories. Thank you, thank you for nreservinq some "free hill" area
for Saratoga's future. Mr. & firs. J.C.R.
r
Mr. & Mrs. C. Pi-. Jorgenson
21171 Saratoga Hills Rd.
Y n s No
1. A
1. B
A
2. n
2. C
2. E
2. H
2. I
2. K
(second choice
Comments: We are very pleased that Mr. Nelson wishes to hive this
beautiful_ property to the city.
John A. Puretey. (sp. ?) 1, A 2. 0
Upper Hill Court 1. B 2. E
'2. A 2. I
2. B 2. K
2. C '2.. 11
2. F 2. N
2. G 2. 0
2. If
2. J
2. L
Josephine Elliott
4940 Gattucio Or., San Jose, Ca. 95124 1. C
Comments: Please, No park! It would bring undesirables, noise, etc.
Beisdes, it isn't large enounh.
C. H. Huenergardt 1.
A
2.
A
Euruea Huenergardt 2.
B
2.
0
13922 Trinity Ave. 2.
C
2.
E
. 2.
F
2.
K
• 2.
G
2.
L
2.
H
2.
t
2.
1
.2.
N
2.
J
2.
0
Fred 0. & Elennor G. Lovgren 1. A
13970 Trinity Court
H. L. Lawson 1. C. NO PARK )
20789 Trinity Ave. 1. 0
Comments: 1.
Leave as is.
`
2.
One story, single dwelling
(no duplexes)
We are deinitely
aqainst an type of park
as this will encourage the
Hippy
element as well
as the motorcyc a element
as well as litter and
degredatior
of the property
values.
No
Or. and Mrs. E.
0. Pietes
1. C
1. A 2. C
Malcolm Ave.
1.. 0
I.
B
2. II
2.
A
2. I
Comments: Greenbelt
or .agricultural. We
have a park at
2•
0
2. J
Foothill School
with plenty of parking & within walking
2•
C
2. 1'
distance of all
the neighborhooti.
2.
0
2. L
2.
E
2. 1'
-6-
2.
F
�.•
Comments: lie vote to have the. Nelson property remain as is, in' its Rreser
condition, as a visual attraction. Any cftannes would bring degradation tc
its natural beauty, and could encourage an element 4at'rimenta.1 to the
neighborhood; i.e. : more cars, people, noise, litter, a threat to the gi,i
and other small wild life; and frequently inviting undesirable elements -
witness the recent Montalvo tranedv.
Mr. a Mrs.. Paul Piligian
13863 Malcolm Ave. .
1. A
2. A
2. 8
2. C
2. H
2. I
2. J( ?)
2. K ?)
2. 0( ?�
2. D
2. E
2. F
2. G
2. L
2. t1
2. N
S. J. Roumanis
20737 Reid Lane*. 1. C 1.
1
Yes No
F. T.
P owe 1
A
2.
.13875
Malcom Ave.
l . A 2.
C
C
2. 1
.2. A ?..
D
2. 1
. 2.
2.
E
2.
r,
2. 8 2..
F
11
2.
C �,•
2.
II
2.
I
2.
J
2.
K
2.
L
2.
"1
2.
11
2.
0
Roger
W. Ross
Helen
Marie Ross
1.
A
20850
. Saratoga Hills Rd
.
1.
N o park 1. C .
8
Comments: lie vote to have the. Nelson property remain as is, in' its Rreser
condition, as a visual attraction. Any cftannes would bring degradation tc
its natural beauty, and could encourage an element 4at'rimenta.1 to the
neighborhood; i.e. : more cars, people, noise, litter, a threat to the gi,i
and other small wild life; and frequently inviting undesirable elements -
witness the recent Montalvo tranedv.
Mr. a Mrs.. Paul Piligian
13863 Malcolm Ave. .
1. A
2. A
2. 8
2. C
2. H
2. I
2. J( ?)
2. K ?)
2. 0( ?�
2. D
2. E
2. F
2. G
2. L
2. t1
2. N
S. J. Roumanis
20737 Reid Lane*. 1. C 1.
A
2.
A
2.
2.
8
2
2.
C
2. 1
2.
D
2. 1
. 2.
F
2. i
2.
r,
2.
2.
11
2.
I
Helena M. Ilugger 1. A
20843 Michaels Dr. 1. 8
2. A
2. 8
2. C
2. E
2. F
2. r.
2. !1
2: I
2. J
Comments.: 1. Off street parking will be major concern.2. K
2. Financial support.
- 7-
•
Mr. b Mrs. Pleas Greenlee
13819 Trinity Ave.
Yes
No
1. A
1. R
2. A
1. C
2. R
1. 0
2. C
2. D
2. 11
2. E
2.
2. G
2.
2. J
2.
2. K
2.
2. L
2.
2. M
2.
2. N
2. 0
Comments: Immediately north of Mr. Nelson's property, George Day has
two undeveloped lots on a steep hillside ill - suited for orthodox homes.
Why can't the city seek to acquire these two lots from r,c►orge Day, e.g., a
a qift, and comtirte this area with Mr. Nelson's proposed gift?
J. R.
Doyle
1. R
20801 Trinity Ave. ( corner Trinity & 2.
A
2. D
Upper
Hill Court
2. E
2.
2.
A
2.
H
2.
R
2.
D
2.
K;
2.
C
2.
F
2.
F
2.
J
2.
II
2.
K
2.
I
2.
11
2.
L
2.
N
?..
0
R . H .
(3VLt.�t.�i�
1.
A
13958
Trinity Court
1.
a
1.
D
1.
C
Residential
Comments: Use as a greenbelt area only-. This small parcel of property i
surrounded entirely by homes and is som-Pi•ihat out of the mainstream of
Saratoga.- To use it for public use would probably cause a problem for the
home owners in-'the immediatp area.
Dr. & Mrs. Peter E. Jackson 1.
A
1. R
20801 Trinity Ave. ( corner Trinity & 2.
A
2. D
Malcolm) 2.
B
2. E
2.
C
2. F
2.
H
2. G
2.
J
2. I
2.
K;
2. L
2. M
2. .J
2. 0
Comments: Buffer planting should be extended around on the Trinity Ave.
side of the property as well as the Pontiac side -
With Foothill School so near and the 3 lots on Seaton Ave. scheduled to be
a nark next to the school, We feel additional recreation space in the- area
4S.- not- neeessary; _
t
-13-
Yes
No
2.
Ray Byrne 1.
A 1.
B
13904 Trinity Ave. 2.
B 2.
D
2.
C 2.
F
.. 2.
II 2.
F
2.
2:
I 2.
K 2.
G
J
2.
L
•
2.
11
2.
2.
N
2.
2.
0
Comments: As indicated by the above, we believe the area should be left if
the most natural state possible. There is a school playground nearby, so
we see no reason to include playground facilities at this property. We
believe it is a wonderful and qenerous gesture on the Dart of Mr. Nelson
to dedicate this property to the community.
'Mr. & Mrs. Ralph Gentile
13843 Trinity Ave.
tb Park 1. C
77 er
Comments: We prefer to see this propertyrleft•as is. It has always been
well maintained and has complimented the neighborhood. Uo parks are
needed in this area and we feel that anv here would be an invitation to
outsiders to turn the neighborhood into _a. problem area.
P. L. Petersen P 1. A
Trinity Court lie feel the area is too small to accommodate autos
& playground at Foothill School*is available for
small children.
2. A
2. B
2. C
2. If
Comments: * Affiliate with Saratoga I4.S. R /or West Valley College in
giving nature lectures for__the grade school children.
Floyd J. Jensen
20755 Trinity Ave.
• 1.
C
2.
A
2.
2.
B
2.
2.
C
2.
2.
D
2.
2.
E
2.
2.
F
2.
2.
G
2.
2.
Comments: I completely oppose a "park" of any sort this close to my home.
I do not want to be close to a hangout for Hyppies & transients -
My first preference would be to stay the way it is - It might end up
the only orchard in Santa Clara County! Nv second preference is homes.
S. B. Walton 1. B
21060 Saratoga hills. Rd. 2. E
2. F
2. r,
2. II
2. I
2. Y,
-0-
Robt. B. Kelly
13901 Malcolm
Comments: Keep it nature oriented - No crafts (even
for senior. citizens),9 No picnics.
Yos
No
A
1.
A - see
below
2.
A 2.
D
2.
8 2.
C
2.
C 2.
F
2.
II 2.
r,
2.
J 2.
I
2.
2.
K
I
2.
L
D
2.
M
2.
N
2.
._
n
0. H. Price 1. R
13888 Trinity Ave. 2. C
2. D
2. E
2. r,
2. I
- 2. 0
" r
Howard Sharek
1.
A
1.
C
13887 Malcolm Ave.
1.
F3
2.
F
2.
A
2.
G
2.
R
2.
H
2.
C
2.
I
2.
D
2.
J
2.
E
2.
K
2.
L
2.
N
2.
M
2..
0
Jeanne Williams >i Carol Adams
1.
A
1.
B
Trinity
2.
B
2.
A
'
2.
C
2.
D
2.
II
2.
E
2.
J
2.
F
2.
G
2.
7
2.
K
2.
I.
2.
H
2.
N
2.
0
Comments:- As residents on Trinity Ave. onnosite the Nelson orchard, tit,
have thoroughly enjoyed the seasonal and varying beauties of the apricot
orchard. • We greatly admire Mr. Nelson's generosity in his donation of
a "park preserve for nature study." However, if the cite Parks & Recreat
Dept, has any slight intention of converting beautiful nature into ugly
public facilities we are adamantly opposed to the nark, period. If Mr. I
intentions are carried out in regards to a nature preserve, pure & siriple
then we wholeheartedly sups "ort his plan.
lYes No
Comments:- Basketball courts.
Any chance of tennis courts?
Letter writ=ten ' to -
11 Aug. '71
.Dept. of Parks and Recreation
City of Saratoga, California
Sirs • s'
Vie are opposed to the proposed Nelson Park .just off Saratoga
Road. This would simply add to an already overcrowded traffic conditio
Sincerely,
(Signed) Joseph B. Cooper
Hazel L. Cooper
14016 Sarat,nga Ili 11s Road
1.
C
20774 Pontiac Ave.
Comments: Single residential (112 acre) as it
exists all
around
the sa
property.
Mrs. Barbara- Macrae
1.
A
1..
n
20679 Reid. Lane
2.
A
1.
C
2.
B
2.
D
2.
C
2.
E
2.
G
2.
F
2.
J
2.
H
2.
I
2.
K
2.
L
20
l;
2.
0
2,
N
Mr. & Mrs. Jerry Jordan
1.
B
2.
J
21463 Saratoga Hills Rd.
2.-A
2.
f
2.
E
2.
r
2;
L
2.
0
Comments: ble would enjoy seeing.this area kept
hasicly uncomplicated w
lawn and shade trees and perhaps a children's play
area.
Robert -W. Leonard
1.
B
13803 Trinity--Ave.
2.
A
2.
B
2.
C
.
2.
P
2.
E
2.
F
2,
r,
2.
H
2.
I
2.
J
2.
L
Comments:- Basketball courts.
Any chance of tennis courts?
Letter writ=ten ' to -
11 Aug. '71
.Dept. of Parks and Recreation
City of Saratoga, California
Sirs • s'
Vie are opposed to the proposed Nelson Park .just off Saratoga
Road. This would simply add to an already overcrowded traffic conditio
Sincerely,
(Signed) Joseph B. Cooper
Hazel L. Cooper
14016 Sarat,nga Ili 11s Road
RECORDING REOUESTIED BY ;�: 1.: =j
�T11E IIATIIRE CO'ISffCC CY
ANO WHEN
11[CC —of O[D MAIL TO IGK
1!
N..• rThe Mature Conservancy t
,,,,,.... 215 tlar{:(:t Street � /•` .. ^.
San Francisco, Ca. 94105)
ACT'G. COUNTY CLL':LK G 1SI:Ur2DEA
Title Order No.— Escrow No. - --
SPACE AOOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S VSE
"o Transrer tax due NONE _
(—The Mature Conservancy
H "y`
c/o Frank C. tielson THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
Aun.a.. 3100 Crockcr Plaza �j'•/
San Francisco, Ca. 941:•4 —J 13Y,'/ "1.•
..... L
��tui�iittct�r �1'FIIYf �cc�
WCSTEnN TITLE TORN NO. 104
FOR VALUE R1:CL•IVED, f AIIK C. IIFL50.I of Sarato ^a. Cal i forni a, a married
man, dealing vrith his separate prone rty,
GRANTS to TIIE l:AIURC r•0'1SURWA CY, a corpnratinn orrtani11 i under the
larrs of the, nistrict of Columbia, an undivided one - fifth interest in and to
all that real prnpcltys;t%mtein'tllc r.i t,/ Of Saratnrla
County of
$ a n t a~ C l a ra Slalc of Cali(L.rI.i:1, dcscril:cd as it Mutts:
ror nropert.;, clescri -)pion see r-xhibit .1 attached hereto and by this
reference incorporated herein in the same manner ar if set forth in
full herein.
Dated_ December 19
19 12
STATE 01' CAL11,011NIA
1 ' 11—CouNtof
On 1):.(' F.nll)(.J .1•crore mc. the undcnigncd.
a Notary Public, in /alnd (or said State, personally aprcared__
4n—n to me to Inc the pcnon _ ,ho,c name --
sut..crihcd to tl,c within in.trnmrnt• and acl.no„IC119 I ro me that
- -he_- c t,ccutcd the .ame.
--` —� I rank 1 ':r.1 sr.n
FOR NOTARY SCAL OR SIAMP
. 1If'1
,� I>
EXHIBIT A
I t f' • fir; ;;
t
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION CONSTITUTING A PART
OF A GRANT DEED FROM FRANK C. NELSON, GRANTOR
TO THE NATURE CONSERVANCY, A CORPORATION,
ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
All that certain real property oituate in the City of Saratoga. County
of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point in the center line of a private road,
along the Northeasterly line of that certain 11.32 acre tract
described in Lhe Deed from Susuan R. Stevens, et vir,to Bruce
Bonn; dated October 4, 1912 and recorded in Book 303 of Deeds,
page 242, distant thereon North 90 47' 21" West 81.54 feet from
the Southeasterly corner of said 11.32 acre tract; Lhence from
said point of beginning along the Northeasterly line of said
11.32 acre tract and the center line of said private roadway
the Lollowiny� courses and distances; North 90 47' 21" West
6.25 feet; North 310 U6' 44" West 65.87 LeeL; North 460 14' 39"
West 54.80 feet; North 590 03' West 66.16 feet and North 490 21' 02"
West 65.97 reef; thence leaving the center line of said private
roadway and continuing along the Northeasterly line of said 11.32
acr(, tract, North 270 45' 03" West 42.92 feet; thence parallel
wit), the center line of said private road and distant Northeasterly
16.00 feet at a right angl-, therefrom, North 50 0b' z:" West
228.27 feet; thence North 740 51' 33" West 67.35 feet; thence
leaving said parallel line, North 50 15' 09" West 73.42 feet;
thence North 190 04' 09" East 85.70 feet; thence North 620 10' 33"
East 81.41 feet; thence North 870 21' 57" East 209.24 feet:
thence Svuth 100 2U' East 28.92 feet; Lhence along the arc )1 Z
tangent curve to the left, Southeasterly with a radius of
180.00 feet, through a central angle of 5L0 25' 53" for an arc
distance of 161.28 feet; thence South-710 35' 53" '
East 60
feet; thence Easterly along the arc of a curve to the Lett with
a radius of 480.00 feet, through a central auylc of 190 UU'GU"
for an arc distance of 159.17 feet; thence North b90 24' 07" i:aSt
35.83 feet; thence along the arc of a tangent c.'rve to tine ri.ilit
with a radius of 40.00 feet through a central anglr of 900 li 53"
for an arc distance of 62.97 feet; thence So,.,tli 00 24' UO" East
176.52 feel-; thence along the arc of a tangent curve to the
right, with a radius of 60. 10 foet, Lhroeyh a central an(,le •)f
;i60 54' U7" for an arc distance of 91.00 feet• thence alon�i (`�`L'
arc of a reverse curve to the left, with d raui.:s of 225.:.'
through a central angle of 250 30' 43"for an arc distance of
100.55 feet; thence Sol.,th 600 59' 24" west 136.87 Lett Lo Lhc
Point of Beginning.
f:
�l
Y-' ;>
f' e`
�T
,s
FRANK C. NELSON
3100 CROCRER PLAZA
POST AT MONTGOMERY
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
March 18, 1977
Mr, William Penn Mott, Jr.,, President
California State Parks Foundation
1706 Broadway
Oakland, California 94512
Dear Bill:
As you know, the last deed I gave The Nature
Conservancy for the property in Saratoga excluded the portion
on which the two homes were located. As I explained to you,
I did this because I wanted it understood that my sister and
I would have the privilege of occupying the houses during our
lifetimes.
The Nature Conservancy has expressed a desire to aL
transfer this property to the California State Parks Foundation.
but first Naturg Conservancy would like to have all of the five e
acres deeded to it without the exclusion of any part of it.
I am willing to do this provided California State
Parks Foundation makes a firm commitment that although it owns
the property neither Adah, my sister, (82 years of age) nor
myself (87 years of age) would be disturbed in the occupancy
of the two houses during our lifetimes. With that understanding
you may handle and develop the property as you please so long
as there is no interference with the dedication of the property
to public use.
Enclosed is an extra copy of this letter if you wish
to sign it in approval of the.above matter.
Sincerely. yours,
Frank C. Nelson
Enclosure
APPROVED
California S Parks Foundation
By
Date z Z
July 18s 1977
The baturo Conservancy
425 Bush Street /
San Francisco, Ca. 94108
Attantion: 144. Carol Blanton
ladies and Gantlowow:
I have initialed the changes in the
deed recoived andor cover of your lottar of
July 14th.
It could $00M to be in ardor nos for
YOU to transfer this progerty to the California
State Parks Foundation in accordance with the
terns proviously discussed which you gill presumably
set forth in your letter covering the transmission
Of the dood to the California Stata Parks Foundation.
Sincarely yours.
Frank C. Nelson
Enclosure: Deed dated
June 140 1977
cc: Ar. tin.. Pann t4ott. Jr.
California State Parks Foundation
1906 Broadway
04ftlafld. Ca. 945iZ
The Nature Conservancy,
Western Regional Office
425 Bush Street, San Francisco, California 94108
(415) 989 -3056
14 October 1977
William Penn Mott, Jr.
President
California State Parks Foundation
1706 Broadway
Oakland, California 94612
Dear Bill:
Enclosed is The Nature Conservancy's deed conveying the Nelson
Preserve to the California. State Parks Foundation. The Conservancy
is pleased to be able to transfer this property to the Foundation
as clearly your organization will best be able to manage the area
in a manner that both protects and enhances the natural beauty
while allowing the citizens of the Santa Clara Valley and the entire
State to benefit from its use.
After you have had an opportunity to give the enclosed a
final review and it has been recorded, the Conservancy would appreciate
having a copy of the recorded deed for its files. Should you
have any questions regarding the deed, do not hesitate to contact
myself or Carol Blanton, of this office.
Again, on behalf of The Nature Conservancy, it has been a
sincere pleasure to work with the California State Parks Foundation
on this project. We wish you every success in the future management
and development of the Nelson Preserve.
Sin rely,
pi�o-
ry
Hen Little
Western Regional Director
Enc.
EPLcb
6
ac: Frank Nelson
John Flicker, The �i
Nature Conservancy
National Office, 1800 North Kent Street, Arlington, Virginia 22209
100°/6 Recycled Paper
MC'I-IRANDUH RE rEPOPT OF '.114. PENN MOT" . JR., PRESIDENT OF CALIFORNIA
STf''E PANS FOU%DATION
On January 17, 19PI fir. Mott presented a ' eport relating to the
progress of Nelson Orchard R Gardens to the Board of Directors and Adviso
Council of The Florence Nelson Foundation, as follows:
The addi!.ion of the stream, waterfall, etc. has been completed and a
electrical wiring in the garden has been brought up to code. The improv-
ments were accomplished by contributions from Frank C. Nelson in amount o
$18,000.00.
California State Parks Foundation terminated its contract with the
Saratoga Community Gardens in September, 1980. At that time a new contra
with K. Hatsushi, landscape gardener and contractor from Pleasanton, was
agreed upon for the maintenance work on a month -to -month basis.
The orchard and garden are.now in good order. In the next couple of
months Hatsushi will concentrate on the hill area installing water lines,
removing brush, cutting a fire break, and providing additional planting.
The brown house is now occupied by fir. b Mrs. Bert Johnson at a
monthly rental of $500.0Q,? Their telephone number is (408) 741 -1654 shou
any director of The"FJTorence Helson Foundation wish to contact them.
Mr. Johnson is employed by the government in connection with the control
of_C_�_fr-- u+t- -fIy., firs. Johnson is also employed. The. Jo nsons on y
responsibility during their tenancy is to provide some measure of securit,
while they are present on the property.
Because of the fruit fly problem, all citrus fruit will be removed
as requested by the authorities.
Two small groups of -interested people have come to see and enjoy the
property. 'Io special effort will be made to bring any large groups into
the area at the present time.
Hatsushi's contract is for maintenance of the property. His fee is
$2,966.16 per month ($35,000. aer yr.) which includes his right to control
and use -of the brown house in accordance with his agreement with Californi
State Parks Foundation. Ile is entitled t*o provide a permanent employee fc
maintenance or receive the rental income from the brown house. - ,tea u
Matt Fouratt works on the pro pert.,., 3 days per week-at S15n, ner week,
His salary is paid by the Parks Foundation in amount of $770. per mo.
(estimated) which also includes administration, supervision, insurance,
taxes, etc. T� 3.3 �v
It was suggested that the present names on the mailbox be removed.
The original purpose of retaining the orchard for its historic value
and as an educational area will be continued. Revenue from any fruits an(
vegetables belongs to California State Parks Foundation.
All tools and equinment are to be kept on the property. (Roper Rcss
had been informed by Batt that the blower was missi.ng.) The federal
i
i
i
goverrm-L-nt agency will inspect and decide what fruits and vegetables have
to ce removed in addition to the citrus fruit.
The white house will eventually be used as headquarters for Cali forn•
State Parks Foundation in connection with Nelson Orchard & Gardens.
A financial statement will be presented to The Florence Adelson Foundi
when available. At January 17, 1981, $1,213.19 was on hand for the Nelsor
account. Every six months a detailed accounting will be made.
j Persons had been interviewed who would be willing to live in the broti.
house free and work on the property but.Mr. Hatsushi's arranvement'with
the Johnsons worked out just as well. Johnson is on a month -to -month rent
basis. (Roger Ross understood that Johnson has a 6 -month lease.)
' The land (orchard and gardens) is tax exempt but California State Pai
Foundation pays property taxes on the two houses and immediate area.
Because of original restrictions concerning ACN and FCN, tax exempt statu!
on the houses was not recommended or requested.
Mr. Gin stated that steps should be taken now to make the property
more available to,the public. fir. Mott said the ultimate plan would be
to turn the property over to the City, County or State. Mr. Higgins
requested of Mr.. Mott a letter of understanding confirming this fact.
If the white house is not being used, steps will be taken to utilize
the house. Mr. Gin felt that the Parks Foundation should proceed on the
basis that the white house is available to them.
A program will be set up as soon as feasible for public visiting.
Concerning public access to the property at harvest time, some publii
parking would have to be provided. At some point in time prior to public
use of the property there will have to be a meeting of the neighborhood.
There has been some comment by the neighbors of the public use of the
property. Such use would not be pressed until everything is in first cla!
shape. A meeting should be held in the spring with interested parties
concerning this matter.
In regard to the' maintenance program, a review will be made in July
o;• :4uqust with consideration given toward a permanent employee who would
live in the brown house on the property. At the present time, the Johnsoi
are good tenants and should fit in well with the neighborhood.
Upon completion of his report, Mr. Mott joined the directors for
►`
luncheon provided by Mrs. Nelson.
J•
. t
�r
IL 4
-2-
I
ecret ry
IFRANK C. NELSON
3100 G F10C • 1 H PLAZA
POST AT'MONT(.OMCRY
SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94104
June 9, 1981
Cear Neighbors:
I thank you and oth/_r signers of the round
robin letter dated May 15th for your expression of
appreciation in the establishment of the Nelson Orchard
& Gardens by The Florence Nelsen Foundation and me.
It is my. hone that You will -)refer to have
the property enjoyed principally by Adults. In this
connection I note that it is reported in the press that
the City of Saratoga is also establishing a 3 -acre park
on the school grounds in close proximity to the 5 -acre
Nelson Orchard & Gardens. It is reported that the park
is to provide recreation for the youngsters as well as
other park features whereas, in the case of the 5 acres.
I would like to see them used primarily by adults.
If any of you have suquestions relative to the
use of this property, please let me near from you. I
would be glad to see that the directors of the Foundation
are informed of your views.
Sincerely yours,
..,•'�� , tom.• ,.
Frank C. Nelson
Xerox copies: Vern & Alice Lawson
Fabian, Irene & Jeff Onlfs
Carolyn & Bud Alexander
✓Roger & Helen Vt. ^oss
Dean & Lou Weston
Josephine Klee Spencer
Emma & Clarence H. Huenergardt
Betty, Ray & don Byrne
Kay & 2ud Greenlee
Jeanne 'Williams
Carol Adams
Patty, Joe & Chip Ross
Francis A. & Ruth Ann Juliano
U
'CAUF0ItMIA 31AIt rmm rtA+wvl.... -e.. • —_. .._..... .
4gJ'Ae.ndedefnN./c.fdedand1x00e F F-
June 30, 1981
Mrs. Edwina Kump, Secretary to
Mr. Frank C. Nelson
3100 Crocker Plaza
Post at Montgomery
San Francisco, CA 94104
Dear Mrs. Kump:
Thank you very much for the check No. 1114 in the amount of $2,500
which was included in your letter of June 25.
With reference to your letter and the letter of understanding, I am
enclosing my letter to Frank of December 12, 1975. This may not be
exactly what the Trustees would like to have since it was the initial
presentation to Mr. Nelson.
Our understanding of the ultimate disposal of the property has never
changed. At such time as the project is functioning as we have all
felt it should, the Foundation will turn the property over to the
City, County or the State for operation. To further clarify this
matter, a separte letter of understanding is enclosed. It would be
desirable for the Trustees to advise the Foundation that they are in
agreement with the letter of understanding. This would eliminate
misunderstanding in the future.
Sincerely,
William Penn Mott, Jr.
President
j1P
Enclosures
June 30, 1961
?:r. Frank C. Selsoa
3100 Crocker Plaza
Post at Montgomery
San Francisco, CA .94104
Dear Frank:
:t has always been my understanding that your gift to the California
State Parks Foundation of five acres of land at 20851 Saratoga Hills
c:oad, Saratoga, would at the appropriate time be turned over to the
City, County or State for park purposes. By appropriate tiae is
.haunt when the property has been developed according to the concept
Ls expressed in the master plan by Hall and Goodhue and maintenance
Lrrd the ir�terprative prubraa, of the property is functioning. We can
then say to the governmental agency, "Thin is the quality and
Ltandard that we want you to maintain if you accept the property."
:f this is the Trustees of your Foundation and your understanding, I
,+ould appreciate a letter to that effect for our files. This will
eliminate any misunderstanding in the future.
Sincerely,
William Penn Mott, Jr.
President
jlp
LAW OFFICE OF
YUEN T. GIN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORAnON
120 MONTGOMERY STREET
SAN FRANCISCo, CALIFORNIA 94104
(415) 989-2700
November 2, 1983
California State Parks Foundation
1212 Broadway, Suite 436
Oakland, California 94612
Attention William Penn Mott, Jr., President
Re: Nelson Gardens
Gentlemen:
At a meeting of the Board of Directors of The
Florence Nelson Foundation held on Saturday, October 22,
1983, said Board reviewed your recommendations concerning
the Nelson Gardens as set forth in your letter to John
Higgins dated September 14, 1983. After an extended discussion
of this matter,.the Board of Directors of The Florence
Nelson Foundation concluded that:
1. The Nelson Gardens property should be maintained
to preserve the cultural heritage of the Santa Clara Valley,
particularly as it relates to the apricot industry. The
Board firmly believes that it is possible to obtain the
consent, permission and approval of the various governmental
authorities to accomplish the desired objectives in preserving
the Nelson Gardens for the general public.
2. California State Parks Foundation should not
sell the Nelson Gardens property if it can legally transfer
and convey said property to The Florence Nelson Foundation
to carry on the charitable purposes for which the Nelson
Gardens is now dedicated.
3. The Florence Nelson Foundation, in accepting
the transfer of the Nelson Gardens from California State
Parks Foundation, will maintain and preserve the Nelson
Gardens for charitable purposes consistent with the objectives
under which the Nelson Gardens is now maintained. The
Florence Nelson Foundation will more actively seek to obtain
all of the necessary permits and approvals to allow more
persons and organizations to enjoy the use and beauty of the
Nelson Gardens.
California State Parks Foundation
Page 2
November 2, 1983
4. There is much work needed to be done at the
Nelson Gardens, and the present caretaker has given notice
of her departure. It is important, therefore,-that the
transfer of the Nelson Gardens to The Florence Nelson
Foundation take place'without any undue delay.
It is my understanding that California State Parks
Foundation is authorized to transfer the Nelson Gardens
property to The Florence Nelson Foundation as long as said
property is used for charitable purposes. It is my further
understanding that you are going to discuss this matter with
The Nature Conservancy from whom your organization received
the property to make sure that The Nature Conservancy has
no objections or reservations to the transfer of the Nelson
Gardens to The Florence Nelson Foundation.
I discussed this matter very briefly the other week
with your attorney, Howard Bell. I can assure you that The
Florence Nelson Foundation is a charitable organization and
has obtained an exemption letter from the Internal Revenue
Service as a Section 501(c)(3) organization. Under its
Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, none of the assets of
The Florence Nelson Foundation can inure to the benefit of
any private individual. Upon receipt of the Nelson Gardens
from your organization, said Nelson Gardens will be dedicated
solely for charitable purposes, and if at some point in the
future, it would be necessary to sell the Nelson Gardens
property, the proceeds therefrom will also be solely used
for charitable purposes. However, it should be emphasized
that at the present time, the Board of Directors of The
Florence Nelson Foundation does not contemplate selling the
Nelson Gardens property.
Over the years, you have met all of the officers
and Directors of The Florence Nelson Foundation, and you are
familiar with its activities and the support it has given
your organization in maintaining the Nelson Gardens. The
Board of Directors of The Florence Nelson Foundation is most
appreciative and gratified that the California State Parks
Foundation is willing to allow The Florence Nelson Foundation
the opportunity to continue the maintenance and preservation
of the Nelson Gardens for the benefit of the general public.
YTG:sw
cc The Florence Nelson
Yours very
Founds n
.ruly, f
LAW OFFICE OF
YUEN T. GIN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
120 MONTGOMERY STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
(415) 989 -2700
January 17, 1984
California State Parks Foundation
1212 Broadway, Suite 436
Oakland, California 94612
Attention William Penn Mott, Jr., President
Re: Nelson Gardens
Gentlemen:
Edwina Kump, Secretary of The Florence Nelson
Foundation, recently showed me your letter dated January 5,
1984. In said letter, you stated that California State
Parks Foundation was closing its account on Nelson Gardens
as at December 31, 1983.
At the present time, neither The Florence Nelson
Foundation nor I have been advised that the real property
has been conveyed to The Florence Nelson Foundation. The
Florence Nelson Foundation would like to see the transfer
and conveyance completed so it can adequately plan and
arrange for the care, conservation and maintenance of the
Nelson Gardens. As you know, there is much work to be
done.
I shall be pleased to assist your attorney in any
way that I can in order to effect the transfer of the real
property to The Florence Nelson Foundation.
Yours very truly,
cc The Florence Nelson Founda G
CERTIFICATION
RESOLVED, that The Florence Nelson Foundation is
hereby authorized to accept a gift of the real property
commonly known as the Nelson Gardens located in Saratoga,
California, from California State Parks Foundation. In
accepting the gift and transfer of said Nelson Gardens from
California State Parks Foundation, The Florence Nelson
Foundation will maintain and preserve the Nelson Gardens for
charitable purposes consistent with the objectives under
which the Nelson Gardens is now maintained. The Florence
Nelson Foundation will actively seek to obtain all of the
necessary permits and approvals to allow more persons and
organizations to enjoy the use and beauty of the Nelson
Gardens. If, at some point in the future, it is necessary
to sell or dispose of the Nelson Gardens property, The
Florence Nelson Foundation will use the proceeds therefrom
solely for charitable purposes; and
RESOLVED, FURTHER, that the President, Vice
President and /or Secretary or Assistant Secretary of The
Florence Nelson Foundation are, or as the case may be is,
authorized to make, execute and deliver such necessary
documents as may be reasonably necessary in order to acquire
ownership of Nelson Gardens from California State Parks
Foundation.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I, Edwina Kump, hereby certify that I am the
Secretary of The Florence Nelson Foundation, a California
corporation, and that the foregoing is a full, true and
correct copy of the resolutions adopted by a Unanimous
Written Consent of Directors of said corporation on February 24,
1984, and that said resolutions have not been amended or
rescinded.
Dated: February 27, 1984.
Edwina Kump, Secret y
RESOLVED that the Nelson Gardens property be transferred to
the Florence Nelson Foundation; providing (a) legal matters
for the transfer are approved by counsel for the California
State Parks Foundation; (b) The Florence Nelson Foundation
undertakes to maintain and preserve Nelson Gardens; and (c)
The Florence Nelson Foundation agrees to use the proceeds of
sale of the property, if it becomes necessary to sell the
Nelson Gardens property, solely for charitable purposes.
)� /
I, JAN PYNCH, Assistant Secretary of California
State Parks Foundation, a charitable corporation, incorpo-
rated under the laws of the State of California, do hereby
certify that the attached resolution is a full, true and
correct copy of a resolution of the Board of Trustees of
said corporation, duly adopted at a meeting of the Board of
Trustees of said corporation which was called and held in
all respects as required by law, and by the by -laws of said
corporation, on the 21st day of. November, 1983.
I further certify that said resolution is still in
full force and effect and has not been amended or revoked.
IN-WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand as
such Assistant Secretary jnd affixed the corporate seal of
said corporation this a2y�ay pj MarchA 1984.
IFORNIA STATE PARKS FOUNDATION
Numemaker Services, Inc.
ay-
A Non - Profit, Non - Medical In -Home Care Agency
2025 Gateway Place, Suite 234
San Jose, California 95110
T (408) 452 -1134
J L S1 North & South County:
(800) 922 -2728
December 13, 1988
OFFICERS
George A. Hopiak
Chairman Mayor Karen Anderson and
M. Harry Coblentz Saratoga City Council
Vice Chairman 13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Mrs. Stanley R. Norton Saratoga, CA 95070
Secretary
Alexander W. Berger, CPA Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Treasurer
Mrs. Richard L. Miller It has come to our attention that The Florence Nelson
Mrs. Stanley R. Norton Foundation is seeking to negotiate with the City of Saratoga
to permit sale of its five acre parcel of property in Saratoga
Mrs. Philip Pendleton in order to increase resources for contributions to charitable
Daniel Persyn, M.D. causes such as Homemakers. Homemaker Services endorses the
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER Foundation's cause and supports its efforts to increase its
Rita R. Baum, M.Ed. resources for charitable contributions. We urge you to respond
favorably to the Foundation's request to permit the sale of
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER property in Saratoga.
Betty Gillespie Pollack
Sincerely,
Rita Baum
Chief Operating Officer
Affiliated with Visiting Nurse Association, Inc. and
�, A United Way Agency The Health Dimensions System
I am writing on behalf of Homemaker Services, Inc., a non -
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
profit in -home care agency providing non- medical support
Jorge Acevedo, Ph. D.
services to persons who are frail elderly, physically or
Alexander W. Berger, CPA
cognitively disabled, or recovering. Our mission is to
Mark J. Brown, Jr.
enable disabled persons to remain in their own homes as
long as possible, to maintain their independence, and to
M. Harry Coblentz
avoid unnecessary or premature institutionalization.
Anthony M. D'Anna
Mrs. Lester Florant
Since 1982, The Florence Nelson Foundation has assisted our
Ms. Herminia Florido
efforts through contributions to the agency's three services:
Meals on Wheels, Homemaker /Personal Care, and Respite. Such
Ms. Jean B. Gervais
contributions enable individuals with limited income to re-
George A. Hopiak
ceive services and care at a reduced fee based on ability to
Edllgen
pay. The difference between the actual cost of care and
Mrs. I. Roy Jarman
clients fee is paid for by foundations such as The Florence
Nelson Foundation, individuals and the United Way.
Lawrence W. Liston
Mrs. Richard L. Miller It has come to our attention that The Florence Nelson
Mrs. Stanley R. Norton Foundation is seeking to negotiate with the City of Saratoga
to permit sale of its five acre parcel of property in Saratoga
Mrs. Philip Pendleton in order to increase resources for contributions to charitable
Daniel Persyn, M.D. causes such as Homemakers. Homemaker Services endorses the
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER Foundation's cause and supports its efforts to increase its
Rita R. Baum, M.Ed. resources for charitable contributions. We urge you to respond
favorably to the Foundation's request to permit the sale of
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER property in Saratoga.
Betty Gillespie Pollack
Sincerely,
Rita Baum
Chief Operating Officer
Affiliated with Visiting Nurse Association, Inc. and
�, A United Way Agency The Health Dimensions System
FASTFIFLD MINA, MIONG
December 8, 1988
Ms. Karen Anderson
Mayor
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Ms. Anderson:
On behalf of Eastfield Ming Quong's Board of Directors, I
wish to urge your positive consideration of the Florence
Nelson Foundation's request for a permit to sell their
five -acre parcel of property in Saratoga.
The Florence Nelson Foundation has supported the work of
Eastfield Ming Quong for many years. Their generous
donations allow us to continue to provide the best possible
care and treatment to the mentally and emotionally troubled
children and families we serve.
Your support of the Florence Nelson Foundation at the
December 21 City Council meeting will allow this important
organization to expand its support of the charitable and
humane activities in our community.
Thank you for your concern and consideration.
Sincerely,
F. Je me Doyle
Pre ent /CEO
KPR:gm
Headquariuis.
251 Llewellyn Avenue, Campbell, California 95008
(408) 379 3790
Los Gatos Cajn-pus
499 Loma Alta Avenue, Los Gatos, Califurnia 95032
(408) 354 6051
10
A United Way Agency
E '�jV
�
�
" DAY
December 6~ 1988
Mayor Karen Anderson
Members of the City Council
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
^
SIFIW
0
Dear Mayor Anderson and Members of the Council:
I have watched with interest during the past year as you
have negotiated with THE FLORENCE NELSON FOUNDATION over the
proposed sale of their property in Saratoga'
My interest is two fold - as director of a social service
agency which receives financial support from THE FLORENCE
NELSON FOUNDATION, and as a resident of Saratoga.
LIVE OAK ADULT DAY SERVICES has received financial support
from the Foundation for the past four years. This agency,
located in Los Gatos, provides social day care to the frail
elderly community from Saratoga, Los Gatos, Campbell, and
San Jose. In addition to LIVE OAK, THE FLORENCE NELSON
FOUNDATION donates funds to agencies that serve children,
the environment, churches and civic groups. If the Nelson
oroperty is sold, all of these groups, plus others, stand to
benefit from the revenue generated which the Foundation will
then dispense in the true spirit of philanthropy.
My other perspective is that of a twenty one year resident
of Saratoga. My family and I ride our bicycles around the
Nelson property several times each week. As it appears now
- fenced - and under-maintained, the property can hardly be
considered " open space". Located so completely surrounded
by a lovely residential neighborhood, it surely seems to be
an inappropriate place for a public park of any kind. One
can easily project the increase in traffic and noise such
use would bring to the area. Although all my instincts tend
toward the attitude of an environmentalist, I still cannot
envision this particular piece of property being better used
than for residential development that conforms to the
standard of the neighborhood.
10".. A United Way Agency 19 Hiah School Court 0 Los Gatos, California 95032 0 (4Q0)354-4702
VA
Mayor Karen Anderson
Page 2
December 7, 1988
It is my understanding that when the Nelson property is
sold, existing parks in Saratoga will receive many thousands
of dollars for further development and maintenance. This
provision seems to offer all of us the best possible
solution for preserving the lovely public areas in our town,
while still respecting the rights of owners of the Nelson
property to dispose of this land. The sale of this property
will both relieve the Foundation of its administration and
will enable it to provide much needed support to many
charitable causes in this community.
I'd like to add my name to the many who urge you to approve
the sale of the Nelson property so that THE FLORENCE NELSON
FOUNDATION may get on with its business of helping others.
Sincerely,
Leta Friedlander
Executive Director
LIVE OAK ADULT DAY SERVICES
13540 Saraview Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
CAROLYN 0. ALEXANDER
20760 Trinity Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
December 5, 1988
Mayor and City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Frultvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Honorable Mayer and City Council
Due to travel plans, I will be unable to attend the December 21st
westing during your consideration of the Nelson Gardens Ad Hoc Committee
Report.
You five people have the unique opportunity to take a stead for
preserving some of the beauty and history of our city, I hope you will do
o
I would like to thank the Council for establishing the committee and
giving me the opportunity to serve on it. It has been a real pleasure to
work with the other committee members. All of these people lead very busy
lives but gave unstintingly of their time and talent. The City staff
provided us with much guidance and expertise. we could not have
accomplished wbat we did without their assistance.
would encourage you to study the report. I believe you will be
e'a
BERLINER, COHEN & BIAGINI
SANFORD A BERLINER'
SAMUEL COHEN'
HUGH L ISOLA'
ANDREW L FABER
WILLIAM J GOINES'
ROBERT W HUMPHREYS
MICHAEL H KALKSTEIN
• YRON L BRODY
RALPH J SWANSON
PEGGY L SP RINGGAY
JOSEPH E DWORAK
SAMUEL L FARE
ALAN J. PINNER
JEFFREY M FORSTER
GARY COHAN
LINDA A. CALLON
NORMAN D THOMAS
JOHN M DALEY
ROBERTA S HAYASHI
RUSSELL) HANLON
TIMOTHY T. HUBER
MARY BETH LONG
NANCY J. JOHNSON
ANNE L. NEETER
KEVIN F KELLEY
OF COUNSEL
THEODORE J. BIAGINI
CLARENCE A. KELLOGG. JR.
BY HAND DELIVERY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
Mayor Ka r n Anderson
and Co ncilmembers
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
UNION BANK BUILDING
99 ALMADEN BOULEVARD. SUITE 400
SAN JOSE. CALIFORNIA 95113
TELEPHONE 14081 286 -5800
January 4, 1989
IE C F. � W/ E 0
JAN 4 i989
CITY OF SARATOGA
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
Re: General Plan Amendment /Ainsley Development,
Nelson Foundation - GPA 87 -003
Your Agenda January 4, 1989, Item 6A
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:
KATHLEEN K. SIPLE
CHRIS SCOTT GRAHAM
LYNN G MCKINNON
JAMES P CASHMAN
SCOTT R HOVER SMOOT
P LAWRENCE KLOSE
THOMAS P MURPHY
STEVEN J. CASAD
JEANETTE R YOUNGBLOOD
THOMAS A BARTASI
JONATHAN D. WOLF
NANCY F THORNTON
JEROLD A. REI TON
ROBERT L. CHORTEK
CYNTHIA M CIMA
STACY L SAETTA
BRADLEY D BOSOMWORTH
PAMELA M SCHUUR
JOHN R WIERZBICKI. JR
THOMAS J. MADDEN III
COLBY A CAMPBELL
EILEEN D MATHEWS
STEWART LENZ
SUSAN B CORNMAN
LORI D. BALLANCE
'A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
FACSIMILE (408) 998.5398
On behalf of Ainsley, we respectfully request that you
continue the above matter to your first meeting in February,
February 1, 1989, to allow Ainsley to investigate the feasibility
of Councilmember Peterson's proposal to establish a working
demonstration orchard in the City's heritage orchard in the Civic
The l � L d the l _. 17 _ -_ � _. L _ _ L___ b _1 _
center. 111C Nro�JVjCi1 5i.gg:.s �eL1 1.116 1vC1JVi1 L'vLL1ilA C7 Ll vil \. :J�lVi i/1uL.G
$200,000 to the City's park fund rather than $110,000, and in
addition, donate $30,000 a year to fund the operating orchard.
Mr. Peterson did state, however, that he was uncertain of the
actual cost of establishing the demonstration orchard, and its
maintenance, and Ainsley would like to pursue the proposal with
the Nelson Foundation and the City.
The proposal, if it can be funded, is very attractive in
that it puts to use 3 acres out of the 14 the City has already
preserved in orchard for the Saratoga community to enjoy. It is
certainly a more suitable location, right at the Civic Center
with parking available, near the library, near Saratoga
elementary schools, the Community Center and Senior Center, than
the Nelson property remote in a residential neighborhood. All of
the councilmembers at the December 21 meeting expressed some
interest in this proposal; we would like a chance to see if this
proposal can become a reality.
r
Mayor Karen Anderson
and Councilmembers
January 4, 1989
Page -2-
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
BERLINER, COHEN & BIAGINI
X INDA A. CALLON �L�
LAC /dj e.
cc: Mr. John Higgins, Nelson
Property Foundation
Mr. Harry Peacock, City Manager
Harold Toppel, Esq., City Attorney
Mr. Bruce Bowen, Ainsley Development
Mr. Jeff Wyatt, Ainsley Development
S -6-0 2, Z,
January 25, 1989
Members of the Saratoga City Council,
For some time I have wanted to further express my views
regarding the Nelson parcel issue. And that is the purpose of this
letter. My oral comments at the recent council meeting were somewhat
hastily contrived. (I had decided to speak only a few moments
earlier.) Even though my comments were not well prepared, I do
believe the thoughts are worthy of your consideration.
One concern is the perceptions of most of the "participants" in
the Nelson parcel issue. That is, they have not dealt with and are
probably are not aware of the real outcomes involved in either
"saving" or "developing" the Nelson property.
Another important concern is the manner with which the issue is
being cast. That is, the apparent cavalier willingness of the Council
to enter into what may be perceived as inappropriate financial "deals"
on the one hand and the perhaps politically motivated painting of
"Camolotian" parks and open space on the other hand. Neither is
realistic nor appropriate to serving the decision making needs of
Saratoga.
In my view, both concerns can be addressed with directed
analysis towards identifying and evaluating the real facts and figures
of the issue. That was the thrust of my comments at the recent Council
meeting.
Currently, I think the Council is in a no win situation and,
contrary to some accounts, no compromise can make it into a win -win.
Without the factual analysis suggested, any arbitrary solution will be
perceived as a sellout somewhere along the way.
To illustrate my view of your needs prior to meaningful
decisions regarding the Nelson property and to help explain my
contentious remarks above, the following observations are given:
1. On the issues involved in retaining the site for open space, park,
or other public use:
A. Has the city undertaken an analysis'of the needs for such
facilities. Is the Nelson property the most appropriate site
available. Is the cost anticipated warranted by the advantages
offered.
These seem appropriate questions in deciding to procure and
develop any site for public use in Saratoga.
Another point that might be included is an "opportunity
analysis" which deals with a currently receptive neighborhood. (It was
interesting that the neighborhood was very receptive to a community
garden type facility. The same was recently opposed with some
vehemence at the Azule park site. What evidence suggests it is
realistic to believe that such willingness will continue with time.)
1
B. What are the likely costs involved in procuring and developing the
Nelson site. What are the planned uses and alternatives. Such planning
is required to evaluate and estimate up front costs as well as
continuing costs for maintenance, operations, overhead such as
insurance, staff, etc., etc..
C. Has the city determined the availability of funds, for example,
what is the current balance in the Park Development Fund, what are the
possibilities for receiving State funds and the time scale for
application, and the availability of other city funds.
Included in this should be an evaluation of the revenue impact
(lost interest) to the ongoing park development and maintenance
expenditures.
D. The several analyses to date have dealt more with emotional than
substantive data. At least it seems so judging from the points raised
at the public hearing and the documentation I have read. My
observation leads to the belief that those favoring the city acquiring
the property are dealing with some feeling that no development is
good, like motherhood and apple pie. We all favor pie but a slice
costs about $3.00; you don't know if it is good until you eat it, and
it makes you fat. The point is, we haven't adequately studied either
the cost or the benefit side of the equation as yet.
Furthermore, those opposing the development seemed to feel they
won by the Council's denial of the Foundation's request. That is
simply not the case. What will they feel and say when the Williamson
contract expires. How will the city deal with the issue in eight
years.
2. On the issues involved in amending the general plan thereby opening
the way for residential development of the Nelson property:
A. Fundamentally, the Foundation appears to have a right to request
the change. Of course, the Foundation should be required to deal with
the usual penalties associated with requesting Williamson contract
cancellation. When any development is proposed, the owners, etc.
should also be required to pay all required fees, park development
assessments, etc. In other words, they should be treated as any
developer /owner in Saratoga.
B: My perception is that the Council is treating the Foundation (and
Ainsley) very different than other applicants. Somehow, the
discussion seems to be centering on how many dollars will be
contributed to various causes rather than on the merits of the
application. Perhaps this was initiated by the Foundation to sway
opinion, perhaps not. It is notable that the Foundation has only
recently begun to favor causes in the Saratoga area as opposed to, for
example, causes in Arcata, CA. In any case, I was very surprised to
hear the dialog regarding potential contributions and couldn't help
but wonder how it would be thought of if a Mr. Smith and the XYZ
Development Corp. (fictitious names, I hope) were the applicants.
Frankly, I did not like what I seemed to be hearing and I really
believe the Council members and the Foundation people feel the same
way.
2
In essence, the application should be treated on its merits
without consideration of the donation inducements. Development is
appropriate or it is not. If development is not appropriate the
applicant and the city should exercise their respective legal options
and responsibilities. Similarly, if the Foundation feels that the
various Saratoga causes they are offering to support are appropriate,
then they ought to support them irrespective of the outcome of these
proceedings. Perhaps such thoughts are too idealistic in such
affairs, but it seems to me that the Saratoga Council and the Nelson
Foundation ought to at least accept the challenge of trying to keep
things cleaner.
Related to the above point is a concern about potential
negative feelings towards Hakone Garden, since Hakone appears to be
the major thrust of the contributions pledged.
C. I submit that the suggested Nelson Foundation (or Ainsley) support
for another demonstration orchard is also begging the issues. First,
because the so called demonstration orchard suggestion is really a
completely separate issue. Second, because it seems to be furthering
the extortionary images discussed above.
What will we do, for example, if the Foundation is not
interested in supporting the "Nelson orchard idea" (now or at some
future time). Again, if it is a good idea we should do it. Such a
decision really has little to do with the merits of a park or houses
on the Nelson property. Similarly, naming an already city owned and
maintained demonstration orchard (we already call the Heritage Orchard
or Central Park as such now) for Mr. Nelson is either a good idea or
it isn't. The merits of the Nelson property proceedings should have
nothing to do with it.
IN SUMMARY - As mentioned in my remarks at the December public
hearing, I believe you ought to delay, _fo_r a_ specific_ period of time,
the decision on the Nelson property. Your decision should be based on
the factual elements, and I submit these are not really available as
yet. In the final analysis, you may well grant the Nelson Foundation
request. However, the benefit of taking the time to determine answers
to the questions raised above (and probably several others) is that
the Council as well as most of the people involved in the issue will
then understand and can agree on the appropriate course of action.
The land will still be there in the 6 to 12 months needed to
get the required facts. The Foundation should be willing to wait a
reasonable period to get the neighborhood and themselves on the same
wavelength. And the Council will have averted a divisive issue now as
well as for future councils and commissions.
We need to forthrightly address the costs and merits of the
opportunity to retain open space or a park use for the Nelson
property. We also must undertake a candid appraisal of the costs and
merits of the Nelson Foundation request. And lastly, while the
Foundation's offers to various interests in Saratoga are tempting to
include in the proceedings, they are separate. Similarly, renaming an
existing asset (Heritage Orchard) does not change bitter to sweet.
Ed Gomersall
3
TEE GOOD GOVERNMENT GROUT'
of Saratoga, California, Inc.
P. O. Box 371
Saratoga, California 95070
January 25, 1989
Mayor Anderson and Members
Saratoga City Council:
As you know, Good Government Group seeks to track all major issues affect-
ing City of Saratoga and its constituency. Thus, we have closely followed
the deliberations affecting the Nelson property and have reviewed the
December 21, 1988 Final Report of the "Nelson Gardens Task Force Ad Hoc
Committee." We note with interest that a decision is now pending to affirm
or deny the Tentative Cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract and
authorize or decline a change in the designated use of the property from
agricultural to single family residential.
While we continue our long- standing support for a balanced amount of
open space within the City to help maintain its rural atmosphere, we
believe that retaining part or all of the Nelson property as a park, as
a demonstration orchard, or as a community garden over the expressed
desire of Mr. Frank Nelson and the Nelson Foundation is not in the best
interests of Saratoga.
It is the considered opinion of our Board of Directors that under any of
the options which contemplate City or a new foundation acquisition and.
maintenance of the property, the City.would not be well served. Morebve�,
forfeiture of the substantial incentives offered to the City and to the
Hakone Foundation and other local charities would be unfortunate, indeed.
Rather, rejection of these significant revenues would be a disservice to
all Saratoga citizens save only the immediate neighbors who wish to retain
the site as open space at any cost and others who see the property as a
possible site for a demonstration garden.
We thus respectfully support a decision to proceed forthwith to rezone
and pursue normal City procedures toward residential.development of the
property. Any contemplated park use would, we believe, be counter to
the City's budget interests, to the lack of any demonstrated need for
more parks within the City and to the urgent financial needs of the
Hakone Foundation and others who would be recipients of Nelson Foundation
grants. Any funds which would be forthcoming to the City from disposal
of the property could well and effectively be used to upgrade our exist-
ing parks which now suffer from underuse or misuse. Such problems would
only be compounded by the addition of still another neighborhood park.
Following the zoning change and appropriate decision with respect to
residential development of the site, independent and objective decision
can then be made concerning the possible location of a demonstration
orchard or gardens on existing City property -- unrelated and unpressured
by any land use tie -in with the Nelson property decision.
We strongly urge your favorable consideration to the pending rezoning
and formal cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract.
Respectfully,
cc- Saratoga News Glady Armstrong, P sident
GGG Board Members
Saralo,gans in action since 1957.
January 23, 1989
Mayor and City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Honorable Mayor Anderson and City Council Members Clevenger,
Moyles, Peterson and Stutzman,
After working months on the Nelson Gardens Ad Hoc Committee,
I was shocked at your granting Ainsley Development, Inc. a
continuance until February 1, 1989. Both the developers and
the Nelson Foundation were members of the Ad Hoc Committee and
present at all of the meetings. The Heritage Gardens /Orchard
site was discussed by the committee and considered unsuitable
for either a historical use park or the community gardens.
Destruction of the Nelson Gardens should not be traded for
the inappropriate concept of using the Heritage Gardens /Orchard
site as a demonstration orchard. We need all our current parks
and open space and more for the future.
The last election indicated that the voters wanted open
space /environmental leaders in our city government. Please
listen to the voters, and keep the Nelson Gardens property under
the Williamson Act protection.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Louise Gager
20972 Saratoga Hills Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
GARY L. NEMETZ
13960 Pontiac Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
(408) 867 -4592
January 12, 1989
The Honorable Karen Anderson, Mayor of Saratoga
Council Member Marty Clevenger
Council Member. Frances Stut.zman
Council Member David Moyles
Council Member Donald Peterson
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Nelson Gardens
Dear Mayor Anderson and Council Members:
Since the December 21, 1988, meeting, I have followed with
interest the various news reports of the Saratoga City Council's
activity regarding Nelson Gardens. Although I am sure it is well
intentioned, the proposal by Council Member Peterson is misguided
and contrary to the desires of those Saratoga residents who
support the preservation of the Nelson Gardens.
The Council's consideration of establishing a community
garden named after Mr. Nelson adjacent to the City Hall is only a
win -win situation for the developer and those potential nine
families that might obtain a home in the proposed development.
It is actually a lose -lose situation for Saratoga residents.
That is, not only does Saratoga lose the existing Nelson Gardens
site which substantial evidence indicates was to be given to a
city, county or state organization for perpetual open space
usage, but also the City and residents of Saratoga lose
additional open space by the congestion created by the proposed
establishment within the Heritage Orchard.
The fundamental issue before the Council is whether it is
willing to take a well thought out approach to the loss of the
Nelson Gardens open space and, for that matter, any future open
space remaining within the confines of Saratoga. The City and
residents of Saratoga will not lose the potential monetary
extractions from the Nelson Gardens property by denying the
development at this time. All options will remain open for the
remaining eight years the property is precluded from development
to
The Honorable Karen Anderson, et al.
January 12, 1989
Page Two
under the Williamson Act and beyond under the City of Saratoga's
continuing right to pass judgment and request the monetary
extraction from any development plan proposed on the Nelson
Gardens property in the future. The Council should not ignore
the value of an "in kind" payment of irreplaceable open space.
To put it simply, to approve the widely opposed development
on the Nelson Gardens property irrevocably forecloses any other
option. To deny the Williamson Act cancellation and general plan
change leaves all options open while allowing Saratoga elected
and appointed officials to determine how best to fulfill
Saratoga's residents' desire to preserve this open space.
GLN /dw
Respect
GARY �.
fully submitted,
NEMETZ%
CAROLYN G. ALEXANDER
20760 Trinity Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
(408) 867 -9190
January 9, 1989
Mayor and City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Honorable Mayor and City Council:
The Council agreed at its meeting on January 4, 1989, to
a continuance of the request for General Plan Amendment of
the Nelson Gardens property by Ainsley Development, Inc.
Ainsley based its request for a continuance on the need to
investigate the feasibility of Councilmember Peterson's
suggestion that the Heritage Gardens be utilized as a
demonstration orchard. I was frankly dismayed that the
Council agreed to the delay. You appointed the Nelson
Gardens Ad Hoc Committee to look at the various options for
the Nelson Gardens property. Councilmember Peterson remarked
at both the December 21 meeting and the January 4 meeting
that the Ad Hoc Committee had not made a specific
recommendation to Council. As was stated by at least two
members of the Committee at the December 21 meeting, the
Committee was requested not to make a single recommendation
but only to report on the various alternatives.
At two of the Committee's meetings, August 11 and
September 22, 1988, alternate sites for the Community Gardens
were discussed. The Committee solicited input from Mary Ann
Swan, representing the Community Gardens, and David Johnson
of the Youth Science Institute. Ainsley Development, Inc.
and the Nelson Foundation were represented on the Committee
and those representatives were in attendance at those
meetings. The Heritage Gardens was one of those sites
considered and deemed unsuitable for several reasons:
it has been set aside as a last piece of orchard
in the City and is protected from development;
the Community Gardens is a "use" park not a "look -
see" park;
It would be a working farm;
- the location alone would be prohibitive - it is on
a busy street which will become even busier when
the freeway interchange is built.
As Councilmember Clevenger so aptly pointed out at the
December 21st meeting, the property will not go down in value
if there is a delay. Such a delay would allow time to
receive input from the citizens and pursue funding. We
cannot reclaim open space after development has begun.
Surely there is no question that the citizens made
their wishes known at the last election when they voted in
two councilmembers who were on record as being advocates of
preserving open space. I hope the Council will remember that
election and vote to deny the General Plan Amendment and
leave the property in the Williamson Act at the next meeting.
Very truly yours,
Carolyn Alexander
WENDEL, FA N, BLACK, DEAN & LEVITAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFE55IONAL CORPORATIONS
DAVID 1, WENDEL,
DONALD A, M.ISAAC
A. MARINA GRACIAS
VICTOR D. RO EN 'IN C..
HOWARD W. LIND
JANET McCORMICK RILEY
DONN L. SLACK
ROONEY R. JENKS, JR.
DAVID L,WOLD
MICHAEL, A. DEAN
DAVID GOLDMAN
CAROL BURNS DUKE
DCANNA D. LYON
RANDALL L. KISER
ALLAN C. MILES
RONALD P. STURTZ
TIMOTHY S, WILLIAMS
MATTHEW J. OREBIC
LES A. HAUSRATH
CHRISTINE K„ NOMA
GILLIAN M. ROSS
WALTER R. TURNER"
CAROLYN JOHNSON STEIN
MARIAN KENT ORTIZ
TODD A. AMSPOKER
Y CERTIFIED SPECIALIST TAXATION LAW
TWENTIETH FLOOR CLOROX BUILDING
OAKLAND CITY CENTER
1221 BROADWAY
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612
PLEASE REPLY TO:
P, O. BOX 2047
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94604-2047
TELEPHONE: (415) 834-6600
CABLE ADDRESS: WENLAW
TELECOPIER: (415) 834-1928
JACOB LEVITAN (1934-1988)
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Very truly yours,
WENDEL, ROSEN, BLACK, DEAN & LEVITAN
CC: The Florence Nelson Foundation
Board of Directors
Jeff Wyatt
Linda Callon, Esq.
February 22, 1989
Karen Anderson, Mayor
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mayor Anderson:
This letter is to urge the City Council to continue working to protect the special open
space of Saratoga.
There is still much to be done to permanently protect the Nelson Gardens and other
major open space lands which are now threatened by development. Until recently,
many Saratogans have taken their public open space land for granted. We Saratogans
now realize this open space will be lost if action is not taken.
The City Council must quickly discuss, plan, and make decisions about saving the
remaining open space.
The Paul Masson Mountain Winery, the Nelson Gardens, and the Country Club all need
your positive attention. They represent important parts of our history. They will be
gems in the crown of Saratoga's future. These gems will augment the present beauty
spots of Hakone and Montalvo.
Sincerely,
Ann Waltonsmith
21060 Saratoga Hills Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
cc: Councilwoman Martha Clevenger
Councilman "Stutz" Stutzman
Councilman David Moyles
Councilman Don Peterson
t
BERLINER, COHEN & BIAGINI
SANFORD A. BERLINER' ATTORNEYS AT LAW KATHLEEN K. SIPLE
SAMUEL J. COHEN' CHRIS SCOTT GRAHAM
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL C RA N
HUGH L. ISOLA' E LYNN G. McKINNON
ANDREW L. FABER UNION BANK BUILDING D �� JAMES P. CAS HMAN
WILLIAM J. GOINES' SCOTT R. HOVER-SMOOT
ROBERT W. HUMPHREYS P. LAWRENCE KLOSE
99 ALMADEN BOULEVARD. SUITE
MICHAEL H. KALKSTEIN THOMAS P. MURPHY
MYRON L. BRODY SAN JOSE. CALIFORNIA 9511 JAN 31 1989 STEVEN J CASAD
RALPH J. SWANSON JEANETTE R. YOUNGBLOOD
PEGGY L SPRINGGAY TELEPHONE 14081 288.5800 THOMAS A. BARTASI
JOSEPH E. DWORAK CITY OF SARATOGA JONATHAN D. WOLF
SAMUEL L FARB OFFICE F THORNTON
ALAN J. PINNER CITY ?MANAGER'S OFFICE JEROLD A. REITON
LINDA A. CALLON ROBERT L. CHORTEK
NORMAN D. THOMAS CYNTHIA M. CIMA
JEFFREY M.FORSTER
STACY L. SAETTA
GARY J. COHAN BRADLEY D. BOSOMWORTH
JOHN M. DALEY
PAMELA M. SCHUUR
ROBERTA S. HAYASHI JOHN R. W ERZBICKI. JR.
RUSSELL J. HANLON THOMAS J. MADDEN, III
TIMOTHY T. HUBER COLBY A. CAMPBELL
MARY BETH LONG January 30, 1989 EILEEN D. MATHEWS
NANCY J. JOHNSON STEWART LENZ
ANNE L NEETER SUSAN B. CORNMAN
KEVIN F. KELLEY LORI D. BALLANCE
SCOTT M. PHILLIPS
OF COUNSEL CAROLYN N. FRINK
THEODORE J. BIAGINI EDWARD F. MALYSZ
CLARENCE A. KELLOGG. JR.
'A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
FACSIMILE: 14081 998.5]88
Mayor /Kare Anderson and
Citilmembers
City toga
13777 ale Avenue
Sarat 95070
Re: General Plan Amendment /Ainsley Development
GPA 87 -003 - Your Agenda of 2/1/89. Item 6A
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:
The continuance you granted to Ainsley has produced good
news. Ainsley has worked with the Nelson Foundation to
accommodate the City's request for additional funds to establish
a working demonstration orchard in the City's Heritage Orchard in
the Civic Center. In addition to the Nelson Foundation
contribution of $110,000 to the City's Park Fund and $250,000 to
Hakone Gardens, $90,000 more will go to the Park Fund to
establish the demonstration project, along with $30,000 a year to
maintain it for a period of ten years. The sales price has been
increased to accommodate these increased contributions to the
City. (This greatly exceeds the funds you required as a
condition of the tentative cancellation of the Williamson Act for
the property. Please remember also that the Foundation must pay
a cancellation penalty of about $200,000 for deferred property
taxes.) As you know, these funds are contingent upon sale of the
property by the Nelson Foundation to Ainsley with City approval
of nine lots on the property consistent with the surrounding
residential neighborhood. Other proposals for lesser development
of the property are, however, still before you.
The benefits to the City and to Nelson Foundation recipients
of this proposal are manyfold. Besides providing the $250,000
matching funds Hakone needs to receive another $250,000 donation,
and much needed monies for the Park Fund, the Nelson Foundation
itself will gain approximately $184,000 additional gross income
each year from the sale and thereby increase its cash available
for charitable recipients annually by approximately $172,000.
Mayor Karen Anderson and
City Councilmembers
January 30, 1989
Page -2-
You received from the Nelson Foundation a complete listing of its
grant recipients -- please note especially Hope, Live Oak Adult Day
Service, Eastfield -Ming Quong, Homemaker Services, Inc., KARA,
Our Lady of Fatima Villa, Saratoga Senior Coordinating Council
Foundation, Saratoga Historical Foundation, Saratoga Community
Gardens, Saratoga Fire Department, the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts,
youth homes - -just a few among many supported over the years.
(You've received letters from several of these recipients
favoring the Ainsley proposal).
An issue rightly raised, however, is whether the proposed
development is suitable for the property - -9 homes on 5.1 acres.
It is! I again attach for your review the Saratoga staff report
of June 15, 1988 recommending approval of the requested General
Plan amendment. It notes that medium - density residential is
consistent with the adjacent developed residential properties on
Trinity, Malcolm and Pontiac Streets. Upper Hills and Saratoga
Hills Roads are General Planned low- density, so the staff is
recommending a General Plan designation of very -low- density for
the abutting rear part of the Nelson Property. (The Planning
Commission also found the proposed development consistent with
the surrounding neighborhood.) The City required wildlife and
horticultural assessments as part of its environmental
assessment, and has a plan to protect the few rare or unusual
trees on the property.
Please grant the General Plan amendment. This is truly a
unique opportunity for the City. Usually development approvals
benefit just buyer and seller - -here all the City residents and
local community organizations benefit, without detriment to
anyone.
Very truly yours,
BERLINER, COHEN & BIAGINI
I/ i
LINDA A. CALLON
LAC /dj e
Enclosure
cc: Mr. John Higgins, Nelson
Property Foundation /
Mr. Harry Peacock, City Manager ✓
Mr. Steven Emslie, Planning Director
Harold Toppel, Esq.., City Attorney
Mr. Bruce Bowen, Ainsley
Mr. Jeff Wyatt, Ainsley
(each w /enclosure)
P1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
ISV(F
MEETING DATE: December 21, 1988
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
jW
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2492.7 Increasing Appropriations and
Amending the Fiscal Year 1989 Budget
Recommended Motion:
Approve Resolution No. 2492.7 Increasing Appropriations and Ameding
the F.Y. 1989 Budget.
Report Summary:
This budget amendment provides:
$15,000 for additional accounting services to complete the
1987 -88 Audit
0,C:00 for recruiting services for executive search for a
new City Engineer-.,and advertising for other_ recruitments.
$5,000 for additional legal advertisement and community
notification services to carry out Council policy on
hearings.
Fiscal Impacts:
$40,000 fund transfer
,. Attachments:
Resolution No. 2492.7
Motion and Vote:
IRESOLUTION NUMBER 2492.7 8
RESOLUTION O1' THE CITY COUNCIL O1' THE CITY OF SARATOGA
INCREASING A!-PROPRIATIONS AND AMENDING THE F.Y. 19139 BUDGET
WHEREAS, it has been recommended by the City Manager that the
following transfer of appropriations and increase in the present
budget appropriations be made:
NOW, 1'111Su ORE., BE IT RESOLVED, that the budget of the City of
Saratoga adopted by Resolution 2492 be amended as follows:
Transfer:
$40,000
from
(0054 -2000)
FUND BALANCE
15,000
To
(7074 -4510)
AUDIT FEES
15,000
To
(7077 -4122)
RECRUITMENT
5,000
To
(7077- 5320)
PERSONNEL ADVERTISING
5,000
to
(7076- 5320)
LEGAL ADVERTISING
Purpose:
To fund additional audit services and projected recruitment
costs.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a
regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 21st day
181 is
of December, 1988 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
-----------------------
MAYOR
ATTEST:
DEl'17 C1'1'Y CLERK
• t
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: December 21, 1988
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MGR. APPROVAL/?
JW
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2492.7 Increasing Appropriations and
Amending the Fiscal Year 1989 Budget
Recommended Motion:
Approve Resolution No. 2492.7 Increasing Appropriations and Ameding
the F.Y. 1989 Budget.
Report Summary:
This budget amendment provides:
$15,000 for additional accounting services to complete the
1987 -88 Audit
$20,000 for recruiting services for executive search for a
new City Engineer and advertising for other_ recruitments.
$5,000 for additional legal advertisement and community
notification services to carry out Council policy on
hearings.
Fiscal Impacts:
$40,000 fund transfer
Attachments:
Resolution No. 2492.7
Motion and Vote!
� f
P
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. / Y-q I
MEETING DATE: December 21, 1988
ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Attorney
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: Amended Resolution Granting Use Permit to Primary Plus
Recommended Motion:
Adoption of Resolution No. 2520.1.
Report Summary: The amended resolution is intended to clarify some of the
technical details of the conditions set forth in the use permit granted to Primary Plus,
as explained in the Memorandum from the City Attorney submitted herewith.
Fiscal Impacts:
Attachments:
Motion and Vote:
None.
(a) Memorandum from City Attorney to City Council;
(b) Amended Resolution;
(c) Revised Use Permit.
PAUL B. SMITH
LEONARD J. SIEGAL
HAROLD S. TOPPEL
ROBERT K. BOOTH, JR.
STEVEN G. BAIRD
NICHOLAS C. FEDELI, JR.
HENRY D. CRUZ
ATKINSON • FARASYN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
660 WEST DANA STREET
P.O. BOX 279
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042
(41S) 967 -6941
MEMORANDUM
TO: Saratoga City Council
FROM: Hal Toppel, City Attorney
RE: Amended Resolution Granting Use Permit to Primary Plus
DATE: December 8, 1988
J. M. ATKINSON (1692 -1982)
L. M. FARASYN (1915 -1979)
On October 19, 1988, the City Council denied an appeal from a decision by
the Planning Commission granting a use permit to the Cupertino Union School District
and Primary'Plus allowing the conduct of a child care program at the Hansen School.
In accordance with usual procedure, a resolution memorializing this decision was
adopted by the Council at its next meeting on November 2, 1988, being Resolution No.
2520. The specific conditions of the use permit, as originally established by the
Planning Commission and revised by the City Council on appeal, were listed in the
resolution and incorporated verbatim into the use permit to be signed by the
applicants. After reviewing this document, the applicants have requested that certain
points be clarified in order to avoid any future misunderstanding and, in one case, in
order to avoid a legal problem. These clarifications are as follows:
1. Paragraph (3)(a) of Resolution No. 2520 requires that the child care
program be conducted only by Primary Plus, pursuant to its lease with the School
District, and further states that: "no other uses or programs shall be allowed and no
assignment or subletting by Primary Plus of any interest in its lease shall be made
without the prior approval of the City through modification of the use permit."
(emphasis added). At the time of the hearing on the appeal, Primary Plus stated its
intention to have certain activities such as dance, music, tutorial studies, etc.,
conducted by "subtenants," who would occupy some of the rooms within the space
leased by Primary Plus. The children attending these programs would include, but
would not be limited to, children who also attended the child care program conducted
by Primary Plus. The important point is that the auxiliary (or subleased) activities
would not change the numerical limit, the age limit, the hours of operation or other
conditions imposed by the use permit. However, as presently worded, Resolution No.
2520 would require a formal modification of the use permit for each such activity.
Under City Code procedures, the modification would require a noticed public hearing
conducted by the Planning Commission, which is not really necessary in order to
provide proper monitoring by the City. This language has now been changed to require
review and approval of the auxiliary activities by the Planning Director, which can be
denied if the proposed activity would violate any conditions of the use permit or any
provision of the Zoning Ordinance. Even if an auxiliary activity is approved, Primary
-1-
Plus would continue to be responsible for compliance with all conditions of the use
permit. The original condition was intended to prevent utilization of the premises by
someone conducting a different form of activity at a different time, such as night
classes for persons who drive themselves to the school. The amended language will
continue to accomplish this purpose. Any other form of assignment or subletting
would still require a modification of the use permit. Moreover, it should be
remembered that the use permit will periodically be reviewed by the Planning
Commission. An additional public hearing review for each and every auxiliary program
conducted under the auspices of Primary Plus would constitute a burden for the
Commission, the City staff and the applicant.
2. Paragraph (3)(i) of Resolution No. 2520 requires Primary Plus to
submit, at the time of each periodic review, a roster of its students showing the
"name, address, age, and usual time of arrival and departure of each student." We are
advised by both Primary Plus and the School District that the name and address of
students is confidential under state law for security reasons. This condition was
imposed for the main purpose of enabling the City to determine compliance with the
restrictions concerning age of students and hours of operation. The name and address
of each student is not really necessary for this determination. Although it might be
possible to establish procedures for transmittal of names and addresses to the City on
a confidential basis, this would impose legal obligations upon the City staff which
appear to be both administratively cumbersome and unnecessary. If a child is "stolen"
from the premises of Hansen School as a result of a custody dispute between estranged
or divorced parents, we do not want the City accused of being the party responsible
for disclosure of the child's whereabouts. The amended resolution therefore deletes
the requirement for names and addresses to be included on the roster. Instead, the
roster must state the total number of students attending the program, including any
auxiliary programs conducted under auspices of Primary Plus, and the arrival and
departure times of these students during the course of the day.
3. Paragraph (3)(j) of Resolution No. 2520 requires a periodic review of
the use permit by the Planning Commission. During the first year, such review will be
conducted every four months, and thereafter the review will be conducted annually.
Primary Plus has never objected to such periodic reviews, but has requested that
additional language be added to specify the purpose of the review. This condition was
not intended as an opportunity for opposing neighbors to reopen the battle over the
granting of a use permit to Primary Plus, which is what the applicant now fears. The
purpose of a review is to determine compliance with the conditions of the use permit
and whether there is any need for a modification of such conditions. The amended
resolution now contains language confirming this purpose. As in the case of other such
reviews, the item would be handled as a miscellaneous matter on the Planning
Commission agenda. Once again, it should be remembered that the City Code allows
the Commission to modify or amend the conditions of a use permit at any time, or
revoke the use permit if such conditions are viq ated.
Saratoga City Attorney
-2-
RESOLUTION NO.: 2520.1
AMENDED RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA UPHOLDING AND
MODIFYING A . DECISION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
WHEREAS, The Cupertino Union School District and Primary Plus, the
applicants, have applied to the City of Saratoga for a use permit to allow a child care
program to be conducted by Primary Plus at the Hansen School (now known as the
McAuliffe School) located at 12211 Titus Avenue, such application being identified as
UP -88 -010, and
WHEREAS, on August 10, 1988, August 16, 1988 and September 14, 1988,
the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga conducted public hearings on said
application, and following the conclusion thereof, the Planning Commission approved
the application subject to various conditions; and
WHEREAS, Christopher Taaffe has appealed the decision of the Planning
Commission to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on October 19, 1988, the City Council conducted a de novo
public hearing on the appeal, at which time any person interested in the matter was
given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the staff reports,
minutes of proceedings conducted by the Planning Commission relating to the
application, and the written and oral evidence presented to the City Council in support
of and in opposition to the appeal,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga, at its
meeting on October 19, 1988, by a vote of 4 -1 with Councilmember Clevenger
dissenting, did resolve as follows:
1. The appeal from the Planning Commission was denied and the
decision of the Planning Commission was affirmed and modified as
set forth below.
2. The City Council agreed with the findings and conclusions of the
Planning Commission as contained in Resolution No. UP -88 -010
adopted on September 14, 1988, and as set forth in the Staff Report
to the Planning Commission dated August 10, 1988, and the same are
incorporated herein by reference. The City Council further noted
that it was the policy of the City, as articulated in the General Plan,
to preserve school sites in order to provide open space and
recreational facilities for the community and the proposed use will
assist the School District in retaining this site. Potential adverse
impacts from the operation of the child care program will be
mitigated by the conditions of approval and periodic review of the
operation will determine whether such conditions are adequate.
Moreover, the use permit process will enable the City to exert more
-1-
control over the operation than would be the case if a child care
program was being conducted directly by the School District.
(3) The use permit was granted subject to the following conditions which
supersede the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission to the
extent of any inconsistency therewith:
(a) The child care program shall be conducted only by Primary
Plus, pursuant to its lease with the Cupertino Union School
District. Subject to prior written approval by the City Planning
Director, Primary Plus may enter into contractual
arrangements with other persons for the conduct of auxiliary
programs within the space leased by Primary Plus from the
School District; provided, however, such auxiliary program
shall be subject to all of the restrictions contained herein
including the restrictions relating to maximum number of
students, age of students and hours of operation, and Primary
Plus shall remain responsible for compliance with such
restrictions. The Planning Director may deny approval of any
proposed auxiliary program if e determines that -th_eR7BV7iy
will violate any condition of the use permit or any Qrovision of
the City's- Zoning Ordinance. Except as provided erein, any
assignment by Primary Plus-of any interest in its lease _w-1 e
9-c 37-District or any subletting of t e premises by rimar
Plus shall require a modification of the use permit.
(b) The hours of operation for the Primary Plus program shall be
6:45 a.m, to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. In addition, a
total of three evening or weekend activities shall be permitted
during the school year. The Planning Director shall be notified
at least 1'5 days prior to holding each such activity.
(c) The maximum number of students enrolled in the Primary Plus
program, including any auxiliary programs conducted under the
auspices of Primary Plus, shall not exceed- 175, or the amount
permitted by the State license, whichever is less.
(d) No parking shall be allowed on Titus Avenue by the
administrators or staff of either the Hansen School or Primary
Plus, or by persons who are delivering or picking up children
attending the school or enrolled in the child care program.
Additional on -site parking shall be provided if determined by
the City to be necessary in order to accommodate the regular
volume of traffic. In order to facilitate this determination,
Primary Plus shall furnish to City, not later than 30 days prior
to each eriodic review of the use ermi a� s descriheT in
Para a h (J) below, an abstract of its log showing the daily
arrival and departure times of all students attending both t e
child care program and any auxiliary programs conducte un er
the auspices of Primary Plus.
(e) Access to the school site shall remain on Titus Avenue and no
additional access from either Prospect Avenue or Melinda
Circle shall be established.
-2-
W If determined by the City to be required, a crossing guard to
assist children across Prospect Avenue shall be provided by the
School District and /or Primary Plus, at their own expense.
Nothing herein shall prevent either the School District or
Primary Plus from utilizing the services of a crossing guard in
the absence of a request from the City to do so.
(g) The applicants shall furnish to the City a description of plans
adopted and actions taken or to be taken for the purpose of
encouraging and facilitating carpool arrangements for students
attending the Hansen School and the Primary Plus program.
(h) Any additional on -site signs shall comply with Section 15- 30.080
of the City Code.
(i) The Primary Plus program shall be limited to preschool children
and children attending grades K through 6. Not later than 30
days prior to each periodic review of the use permit, as
described in Paragraph (j) below, Primary Plus shall furnish to
the City a roster showing the combined number of students
attending both the child care program and anv auxiliary
programs conducted under the auspices of Primary Plus and the
aye of each student.
(j) During the first year after the date the use permit is granted,
the use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission
every 4 months. Thereafter, the use permit shall be reviewed
by the Plrnning Commission annually. Such review shall be for
the purpose of determining whether Primary Plus has complied
with all of the conditions of the use permit and whether there is
any need for a modification or amendment of such conditions.
(k) All applicable requirements of state, county, city and other
governmental agencies shall be satisifed.
(4) This Resolution supersedes and cancels Resolution Number 2520,
adopted by the City Council on November 2, 1988.
(5) The Cupertino Union School District and Primary Plus shall indicate
their acceptance of the use permit, subject to the conditions set
forth above, within 30 days after the date this resolution is adopted;
otherwise, the granting of said use permit shall be null and void.
s s s
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 21st day of
December, 1988, by the following vote:
-3-
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
-4-
Recording requested by
CITY OF SARATOGA
After recordation return to:
CITY OF SARATOGA
Planning Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
USE PERMIT
Pursuant to Resolution No. 2520.1, as adopted by the City Council of the
City of Saratoga on December 21, 1988, a Use Permit is hereby granted to the
Cupertino Union School District and Primary Plus to conduct a child care program at
the McAuliffe School (formerly known as Hansen School) located at 12211 Titus
Avenue, Saratoga, California, subject to the following conditions:
(a) The child care program shall be conducted only by Primary
Plus, pursuant to its lease with the Cupertino Union School
District. Subject to prior written approval b the City Planning
Director Primary Plus may enter into contractual
arrangements with other persons for the conduct of auxiliary
programs within the space leased by Primary Plus from the
School District; provided, however, such auxiliary programs
shall be subject to all of the restrictions contained herein,
including the restrictions relating to maximum number of
students, age of students hours o operation, and Primary
Plus shall remain responsible or compliance with suc ��
restrictions. The Planning Director may deny approval of any
proposed auxiliary program if e determines that the ac ivi y
will violate any con i ion of is Use Permit or any provision o
the City's Zoning Ordinance. Except as provided herein, an
assignment by Primary Plus of any interest in its lease with the
School District or any subletting of the premises by Primary
Plus shall require a modification of this Use Permit.
(b) The hours of operation for the Primary Plus program shall be
6:45 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. In addition, a
total of three evening or weekend activities shall be permitted
during the school year. The Planning Director shall be notified
at least 15 days prior to holding each such activity.
(c) The maximum number of students enrolled in the Primary Plus
program, including any auxiliary programs conducted under the
auspices of Primary Plus, shall not exceed 175, or the amount
permitted by the State license, whichever is less.
(d) No parking shall be allowed on Titus Avenue by the
-1-
administrators or staff of either the Hansen School or Primary
Plus, or by persons who are delivering or picking up children
attending the school or enrolled in the child care program.
Additional on -site parking shall be provided if determined by
the City to be necessary in order to accommodate the regular
volume of traffic. In order to facilitate this determination,
Primary Plus shall furnish to City, not later than 30 days prior
to each periodic review of this Use Permit as described in
Paragraph (J) below, an abstract of its log showing the daily
arrival and departure times of all students attending both the
cniia care program ana any au;
the auspices of Primary Plus.
(e) Access to the school site shall remain on Titus Avenue and no
additional access from either Prospect Avenue or Melinda
Circle shall be established.
(f) If determined by the City to be required, a crossing guard to
assist children across Prospect Avenue shall be provided by the
School District and /or Primary Plus, at their own expense.
Nothing herein shall prevent either the School District or
Primary Plus from utilizing the services of a crossing guard in
the absence of a request from the City to do so.
(g) The applicants shall furnish to the City a description of plans
adopted and actions taken or to be taken for the purpose of
encouraging and facilitating carpool arrangements for students
attending the Hansen School an,� the Primary Plus program.
(h) Any additional on -site signs shall comply with Section 15- 30.080
of the City Code.
(i) The Primary Plus program shall be limited to preschool children
and children attending grades K through 6. Not later than 30
days prior to each periodic review of this Use Permit, as
specified in Paragraph (j) below, Primary Plus shall furnish to
the City a roster showing the combined number of students
attending both the child care program and any auxiliary
programs conducted under the auspices of rimary of s and the
age of each student.
(j) During the first year after the date this Use Permit is granted,
the Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission
every 4 months. Thereafter, the Use Permit shall be reviewed
by the Planning Commission annually. Such review shall be for
the purpose of determining whether Primary Plus has complied
with all of the conditions of this Use Permit and whether there
is any need for a modification or amendment of such conditions.
(k) All applicable requirements of state, county, city and other
governmental agencies shall be satisifed.
This Use Permit is issued in accordance with and shall be governed by the
provisions of Article 15 -55 of the Saratoga City Code.
-2-
The City of Saratoga reserves continuing jurisdiction over this Use Permit,
and may modify or amend the conditions hereof at any time in accordance with the
provisions of Section 15- 55.100 of the Saratoga City Code.
In consideration for the issuance of this Use Permit, the permit holders
agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City of Saratoga and its officers, officials,
boards, commissions, employees and volunteers harmless from and against any and all
claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating
to the conduct of the activity authorized by this Use Permit.
THE CITY OF SARATOGA
Dated: , 1988. By
Attest:
ACCEPTANCE OF USE PERMIT
The foregoing Use Permit is hereby accepted and the undersigned agree to
observe and perform the conditions set forth therein.
CUPERTINO UNION
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Dated: , 1988. By
PRIMARY PLUS
Dated: , 1988. By
-3-
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Attorney
AGENDA ITEM F —
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: City Code Amendment Concerning Unauthorized Deposit of Garbage
Recommended Motion: Introduction and adoption of ordinance amending Section
7- 05.310 of the City Code.
Report Summary: The proposed ordinance is intended to strengthen the City's
regulations concerning unauthorized deposit of garbage, as explained in the
Memorandum from the City Attorney submitted herewith.
Fiscal Impacts: None.
Attachments: (a) Memorandum from City Attorney;
(b) Proposed ordinance.
Motion and Vote:
ATKINSON • FARASYN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PAUL B. SMITH 660 WEST DANA STREET
LEONARD J. SIEGAL P.O. BOX 279
HAROLD S. TOPPEL
ROBERT K. BOOTH, JR. MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042
STEVEN G. BAIRD (415) 967 -6941
NICHOLAS C. FEDELI, JR.
HENRY D. CRUZ MEMORANDUM
TO: Saratoga City Council
FROM: Hal Toppel, City Attorney
RE: Regulations Concerning Unauthorized Deposit of Garbage
DATE: November 10, 1988
J. M. ATKINSON (1892 -1982)
L. M. FARASYN (1915 -1979)
Section 7- 05.310 of the City Code currently prohibits the deposit of
garbage upon a premises for pick up by the garbage collector where such garbage was
produced from another premises and the action results in the avoidance and reduction
of garbage collection service charges. This provision was added at the request of
Green Valley Disposal Company when Article 7 -05 of the City Code was amended to
eliminate mandatory garbage service. Green Valley was concerned over the potential
loss of revenue that would occur if a person having unlimited service allowed the
deposit of garbage on his property by a neighbor having single can or no garbage
collection service. These co- conspirators could then split the garbage collection
charges between them, thereby reducing the total cost for each.
Section 7- 05.310, as presently worded, becomes more difficult to apply
when garbage is dumped upon a premises without the knowledge or consent of the
property owner. This problem was illustrated during our recent attempts to prohibit
the unauthorized deposit of garbage behind the Arganaut Shopping Center. The
problem in this case was not the avoidance of garbage collection service charges, but
rather the unauthorized dumping of garbage which constituted an eyesore and a
potential health hazard. Moreover, if a culprit was apprehended and found to be a
non - resident or otherwise not responsible for payment of garbage collection charges, it
is doubtful such person could successfully be prosecuted for violating this section of
the City Code.
The proposed ordinance retains the existing language as paragraph (a) and
adds new paragraphs (b) and (c) which respectively prohibit the deposit of garbage into
any garbage container or upon any public or private property without permission to do
so from the person having legal ownership or possession of such container or property.
The unauthorized dumping of garbage will itself constitute a violation of these
provisions, irrespective of whether such conduct results in the avoidance of garbage
collection charges.
The proposed ordinance is intended to simplify and expand the enforcement
measures which can be taken by the City when dealing with the situation such as the
unauthorized dumping of garbage behi tip Arga ut Shopping Center.
A.
H p
Saratoga City Attorney
S7-05.310 Unauthorized use of garbage collection service
No person shall deposit, place or accumulate, or allow the deposit, placement
or accumulation upon a premises for pith up by the Garbage Collector, any garbage
produced from another premises where such action results in the avoidance or
reduction of any garbage collection service charges that would otherwise be payable
for collection of such garbage from the premises at which it was produced.
4
ORDINANCE NO. 71.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING
SECTION 7 -05.310 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO
UNAUTHORIZED USE OF GARBAGE COLLECTION
SERVICE
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows:
SECTION 1: Section 7- 05.310 in Article 7 -05 of the City Code is amended to
read as follows:
"S7 -05.310 Unauthorized deposit of garbage
(a) It shall be unlawful to deposit, place or accumulate, or allow the deposit,
placement or accumulation upon a premises for pick up by the Garbage Collector,
any. garbage produced from another premises where such action results in the
avoidance or reduction of any garbage collection service ,charges that would
otherwise be payable for collection of such garbage from the premises at which it
was produced.
(b) It shall be unlawful to deposit or place any garbage into a garbage can,
bin, container or dumpster for pick up by the Garbage Collector, without permission
to do so from the person owning, renting or otherwise entitled to use such garbage
recepticle.
(c) It shall be unlawful to deposit or place any garbage upon any public or
private premises without permission to do so from the owner or legal occupant of
such premises."
SECTION 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or
unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it
would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and
phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections,
sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 3: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its
passage and adoption.
The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the
waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular
-1-
meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of
1988, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
-2-
MAYOR
A'
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
JS 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. l AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: IL- 21 /QblS CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Attorney
SUBJECT: Minutes of City Council Meetings
Recommended Motion: Introduction and adoption of ordinance amending Section
2- 10.060 of the City Code.
Report Summary: The proposed ordinance will add a new paragraph (a) to Section
2- 10.060, which provides that any councilmember may request a verbatim transcript to
be included in the minutes. The request can be made at any time before the minutes
are approved. Paragraph (b) is the same language as now contained in Section 2-
10.060.
Because a councilmember may now request a verbatim
transcript, there does not seem to be any reason to retain paragraph (d) in Section 2-
10.120, which authorizes a councilmember to request an abstract of his statement to
be included in the minutes. Aside from the fact that this Section has never been
utilized, it requires the consent of a majority of councilmembers present at the
meeting, which is inconsistent with the language in the proposed ordinance. It is also
my feeling that if a councilmember is particularly concerned about his remarks being
accurately preserved in the record, a request for a verbatim transcript is preferable to
an abstract. Since the abstract is only a summary of statements made, it is subject to
challenge for accuracy. If a subject is already under council debate, there does not
seem to be any reason to generate a second debate over the sufficiency of the
abstract.
Fiscal Impacts:
council minutes to
amount of increase
the transcripts.
Attachments:
Motion and Vote:
The City will incur increased costs for the preparation of
the extent that requests are made for verbatim transcripts. The
will be dependent upon the frequency of requests and the length of
Proposed ordinance.
S2-10.060 Minutes of meetings
At least two days prior to each regular meeting of the City Council, the City
Clerk shall furnish each member of the City Council a copy of the minutes of the
preceding regular or special meeting. Unless a reading of the minutes of the
Council meeting is requested in open meeting by a member of the Council, such
minutes may be approved without reading if the City Clerk has previously furnished
each member with a copy thereof. Notwithstanding the provisions contained herein,
a reading of the minutes may always be waived by a duly carried motion to waive
the reading thereof.
§2- 10.120 Rules of debate
The following rules shall be observed in debate in the City Council:
(a) Getting the floor. Every Council member desiring to speak shall address
the chair, and upon recognition by the presiding :officer, shall confine all remarks to
the question under debate.
(b) Interruptions. A Council member, once recognized, shall not be
interrupted when speaking unless it be on a point of order or as otherwise provided
in this Article. If a point of order is raised while a Council member is speaking, the
Council member shall cease speaking until the question of order is determined and,
if in order, the Council member shall be permitted to proceed.
(c) Closing debate. Debate on any matter may be closed upon motion
adopted by a majority of Council members present at the meeting.
TD (d) Remarks of Council members entered in minutes. A Council member
may request the privilege of having an abstract of his statement on any subject
"$Z under consideration by the City Council entered in the minutes and upon the consent
ll of a majority of Council members present at the. meeting, such statement shall be so
��pe2►IC� entered in the minutes by the City Clerk.
(e) Rules of order. Except as otherwise provided in this Article, proceedings
of the City Council shall be governed under Roberts' Rules of Order on all matters
pertaining to parliamentary law. No action of the City Council shall be invalidated
nor the legality thereof affected by the failure or omission to observe or follow the
rules of debate or Roberts' Rules of Order.as provided in this Section.
i
ORDINANCE NO. 71.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING
SECTION 2- 10.060 AND REPEALING SUBSECTION 2-
10.120(d) OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING MINUTES OF
CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows:
SECTION 1: Section 2- 10.060 in Article 2 -10 of the City Code is amended to
read as follows:
"S2- 10.060 Minutes of meetings
(a) Any member of the City Council may, either during the course of a
meeting or at any time prior to approval of the minutes for such meeting, request
that the minutes contain a verbatim transcript of such portion of the meeting as
specified by the Councilmember making the request.
(b) At least two days prior to each regular meeting of the City Council, the
City Clerk shall furnish each member of the City Council a copy of the minutes of
the preceding regular or special meeting. Unless a reading of the minutes of the
Council meeting is requested in open meeting by a member of the Council, such
minutes may be approved without reading if the City Clerk has previously furnished
each member with a copy thereof. Notwithstanding the provisions contained herein,
a reading of the minutes may be waived by a duly carried motion to waive the
reading thereof."
SECTION 2: Paragraph (d) of Section 2- 10.120 in Article 2 -10 of the City Code
is repealed.
SECTION 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or
unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it
would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and
phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections,
sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its
passage and adoption.
se
The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the
waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of
1988, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
-2-
MAYOR
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: December 21, 1988 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Services
SUBJECT: CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF REVISED EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN
Recommended Notion: Authorize the City Manager to sign contract for consultant
services in behalf of the City with Geoff Paulsen for the development of a revised
Emergency Operations Plan using funds budgeted for an administrative intern to
finance the project.
art Summary: All cities are required by law to develop emergency operation
plans which outline how they will respond to major emergencies such as fires,
hazardous spills, floods, or a major earthquake. Saratoga's existing Plan,
approved by Council in January of 1986, was developed entirely by volunteers.
Since its development, the state -of -the -art with regard to emergency planning
has changed significantly, and a major rewrite of the Saratoga Plan has become
necessary. Staff recommends engaging Geoff Paulsen for this task because he
developed a new format for emergency planning for the City of Palo Alto which
is based on the "incident command" system and is being used now throughout the
State of California as a model for emergency planning. Mr. Paulsen is currently
employed with the Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Services.
Fiscal Impacts: None. Staff proposes using part of the $3,000 budgeted for an
administrative intern in the City Manager's Office to finance the $1,800 required
for this contract.
Attachments:
1. Proposal and contract
2. Comments on proposal prepared by Public Safety Commission Vice Chairman
Eugene O'Rorke
Notion and Vote:
Geoffrey Paulsen
10557 Randy Lane
Cupertino, CA 95014
November 14,1988
odd Argow
Co un ty vices Director
City o to a
13777 ruitva venue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Todd:
Here is my (revised) proposal for producing your Emergency Plan. As you can see, I made some changes based on our
meeting with Harry and on subsequent conversations with Gene. The main change is that the proposal now treats
each major component of the Plan (text, checklists, and call -up lists) separately. The price has also gone down, but
not a great deal. The reason the reduction is not larger is that the earlier proposal did not include editing and
amending the text of the Plan. Although the text is relatively short, this can be deceptive - remember that Mark
Twain said, "If I'd had more time, I would have written a shorter book."
To follow up on our discussion with Gene, here are our respective roles as I now understand them:
You are the project manager, responsible for managing this contract and assuming ultimate responsibility for seeing
that the Plan gets done. Since you are also City staff, you are probably the best person to see that other staff
members supply comments and other information needed for inclusion in the Plan.
The rest of the City staff will supply some of the raw material (comments and call -up lists, mostly) for the Plan.
Since the staff will be the ones using the Plan during an emergency, they are the best ones to decide what
information they will need to do their jobs during that emergency.
Gene is a facilitator and a catalyst, but I understand that, like a catalyst, he does not want to get used up in the
process. He has certainly helped get the ball rolling, and I think the momentum will continue with minimal work
on his part.
My role as contractor is to take the raw material that the Saratoga staff produces and edit it and format it into a
final document. I will also make recommendations regarding the content of the Plan.
The product will be a camera -ready Emergency Plan, complete with cover. Much of the work of collecting comments
on drafts can be done quite easily through memos. As Gene mentioned in his letter to you, I don't think it is necessary
for me to attend any more meetings in Saratoga, but I will be available, free of charge, for phone questions (day or
evening) and meetings in my office at the County.
I don't think the current format is going to be much of a problem. It is possible to get Apple documents converted to
Macintosh, and I will take care of this. I will also take care of having the all -caps sections retyped. The
conversion and re- typing is included in my price.
As I said before, I look forward to this project, and I hope this proposal meets with your approval.
Sincerely,
e cof lsen
r,
PROPOSAL FOR AN EMERGENCY PLAN
FOR THE CITY OF SARATOGA
to be completed under contract
by
Geoffrey Paulsen
THE GOAL: REVISE SARATOGA'S EMERGENCY PLAN SO THAT IT IS:
• EASY TO USE
• AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE'
• ACCEPTABLE TO COUNCIL AND STAFF
• EFFECTIVE DURING EMERGENCIES
WHAT HAS BEEN DONE SO FAR:
• THE CITY MANAGER HAS DEVELOPED THE EMERGENCY ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE
AND HAS DEFINED THE VARIOUS UNITS OF THAT STRUCTURE.
• THE CITY MANAGER HAS ASSIGNED INDIVIDUALS TO UNITS OF THAT STRUCTURE.
• DRAFT CHECKLISTS HAVE BEEN DONE FOR ALL EMERGENCY FUNCTIONS EXCEPT
FOOD, TRANSPORTATION, AND DEMOBILIZATION.
WHAT REMAINS TO BE DONE: (UNDER CONTRACT) COST
1. DEVELOP A UNIFORM FORMAT FOR THE TEXT AND THE CHECKLISTS. $150
a. I will give Todd a draft format and he will obtain the necessary approval.
2. COMPLETE THE CHECKLISTS FOR EACH EMERGENCY FUNCTION. $600
a. I will write draft checklists for the three remaining checklists.
b. I will review the other checklists and make suggested changes and additions.
c. I will put all checklists in the agreed upon format (this includes retyping all caps sections).
d. Todd will distribute checklists to the appropriate staff members for their review.
e. I will incorporate these changes into a draft.
page 1
3. COMPLETE THE TEXT OF THE PLAN
a. I will review the existing text and make suggested changes and additions.
b. I will put the text in the agreed upon format.
c. Todd will distribute the text to the appropriate staff members for their review.
d. I will incorporate these changes into a draft.
4. HAVE EACH OUTSIDE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION REVIEW THE PLAN AND THEIR
$450
ROLE IN THE PLAN. OBTAIN THEIR CONCURRENCE WITH THE PLAN. None
Staff members will work with the outside organizations that they would work with during an
emergency.
5. DEVELOP A CALL UP LIST SHOWING FUNCTIONAL TITLE, INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNED, HOME
ADDRESS, HOME PHONE AND WORK PHONE. THIS IS TO INCLUDE ALL LOCAL
(SARATOGA AREA) SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE A PRE- IDENTIFIED
EMERGENCY ROLE. $300
a. Todd will ask department heads to develop lists for their emergency functions.
b. Todd will give me a draft of the contact list.
c. I will suggest possible additions and type up a final list.
6. STORE THE PLAN ON DISKS SO THAT IT CAN BE REVISED AS NEEDED. None
a. I will provide these disks as part of the contract. I will not, however, provide the software
needed to make revisions. The software you will need to make revisions is Ready Set Go, a
widely used desktop publishing program. Ready Set Go sells for about $400. If the City ends up
buying a Macintosh, updating will be easy, but even if you do not have a Macintosh, there are
several small graphics firms that can make revisions for you for a relatively small charge.
7. PREPARE THE PLAN FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL. $100
a.. I will make a draft of the plan and submit it to Todd.
b. Todd will suggest changes and obtain the necessary staff approval.
c. I will produce a final draft for Council review.
8. PRESENT THE PLAN TO THE COUNCIL AND ANSWER THEIR QUESTIONS. $100
a. I will draft a report summarizing the contents and format of the plan.
b. Todd will revise the staff report as needed.
c. Todd and Gene will present the plan to the Council.
9. REVISE AS NEEDED AND ARRANGE FOR PUBLICATION. $100
Based on Council's input, I will make changes and produce a final camera -ready Emergency Plan.
TOTAL: $1,800
Geoff Paulsen's Proposal for a Saratoga Emergency Plan page 2
CONTRACT
THE PRODUCT:
I, Geoffrey Lee Paulsen, agree to produce for the City of Saratoga, an emergency plan that, in the
opinion of Todd Argow, the contract administrator, is:
• EASY TO USE
• AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE
• ACCEPTABLE TO COUNCIL AND STAFF
The product of this contract, as outlined in the attached proposal, will be one copy of camera ready
art (81/2" x 11 ", including cover), and 3 1/2" double sided floppy disks that contain the Plan in its
entirety. See the attached proposal for more detail.
THE TIME FRAME:
I understand that the contract adminstrator would like the Plan to be completed as soon as possible.
The plan will be completed in a timely manner, and I agree that, although it will take a period of
several weeks to complete the plan, that I will not be the source of unreasonable delays in the
completion of the Plan.
THE COST: $1800 (See the attached proposal for a breakdown of costs)
Since the overhead costs of producing the Plan are quite low, the payment may be made in one lump
sum, payable upon completion of the Plan as outlined in the attached proposal.
THE DISCLAIMER:
Although I will strive to produce a plan that will be effective during an emergency, I cannot
guarantee that the plan will indeed prove to be effective, since the Plan's effectiveness will depend
on the knowledge, experience, and skill of those who conduct the emergency operation. Therefore,
the City of Saratoga agrees absolve me of any and all responsibility if there are deficiencies in the
City's response during an actual emergency.
DATE:
signed
Representative of the City of Saratoga
signed
Geoffrey Lee Paulsen
Geoff Paulsen's Proposal for a Saratoga Emergency Plan page 3
TASKS TO BE DONE - NOT COVERED BY THE CONTRACT:
The following tasks were part of Gene's original proposal, but they are not part of the contract for producing the plan.
However, they are good suggestions, and will greatly improve your readiness if you can accomplish them. Because your
funds are limited, I have made suggestions as to where you might get free help:
DRAFT A PROCEDURE INCLUDING THE ASSIGNMENT OF CITY STAFF RESPONSIBILITY
FOR KEEPING THE PLAN CURRENT.
I have on file the County's old method of keeping track of plan updates. You are welcome to look at
it and change it to suit your needs. Staff assignment is probably up to Todd or the City Manager.
2. DRAFT A PLAN FOR TRAINING THE INCIDENT COMMANDER AND HIS DIRECT REPORTS
ON THE CONTENTS AND WORKINGS OF THE PLAN.
Todd and Harry could do this, perhaps as part of a regular meeting.
3. DRAFT A PLAN FOR TRAINING EACH SECTION AND ITS ASSIGNED UNITS ON THE
CONTENTS AND WORKINGS OF THE PLAN.
Once the section chiefs understand their roles, they could train their staff.
4. CONSULT WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND DRAFT A PLAN FOR THE LOCATION AND LAY
OUT OF THE CITY'S EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER.
This is a major task. Perhaps you could get a RACES volunteer to visit local EOC's, and take lots of
pictures. Then Todd and Gene could decide what they want in an EOC. I am not an EOC expert,
although I have visited EOC's in southern California and several in the Bay Area. I hope to take
CSTI's new EOC course and do some work on the County's EOC. Perhaps at some future date, I could
give you some more informed advice.
4. CONSULT WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND SET UP A ROOM FOR THE STORAGE AND
DISPLAY OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT NEEDED IN THE EVENT
OF AN EMERGENCY.
This is a minor to a major task. Putting some paper and some scanners in a closet is a minor task;
designing and implementing an information display system and a communications system are major
tasks. Your best local resources are probably your planning department for information display, and
for communications equipment, you could get good free advice from your fire departments, the
Sheriffs department, County Communications, and RACES volunteers.
4. DRAFT A PLAN FOR AND CONDUCT:
• PROBLEM SOLVING SESSIONS
• SECTION LEVEL AND UNIT LEVEL TABLE TOP EXERCISES
• SECTION LEVEL AND UNIT LEVEL FUNCTIONAL EXERCISES
CITY WIDE TABLE TOP EXERCISES
• CITY WIDE FUNCTIONAL EXERCISES
CSTI offers a free exercise design course. Check with Dave Wold to see if you are eligible.
Geoff Paulsen's Proposal for a Saratoga Emergency Plan page 4
' 5. DRAFT A PLAN FOR ALTERNATE STAFFING OF THE EMERGENCY TEAM ASSUMING THAT
ONLY RESIDENTS OF SARATOGA CAN RESPOND AND ASSUME THE RESPONSIBILITIES
INDICATED IN THE PLAN.
This should be somewhat covered by the Plan, in that the checklist will be designed so that a less
experienced person can use them.
0
6. ADVISE THE CITIZENS OF SARATOGA OF WHAT ACTION THEY SHOULD TAKE IN
ANTICIPATION OF AN EMERGENCY CONDITION, WHAT ACTION THEY SHOULD TAKE IF
AN EMERGENCY CONDITION OCCURS AND WHAT PROCEDURE THEY SHOULD FOLLOW
IF THEY WANT TO ASSIST IN THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE EFFORT.
This is a very important and a very difficult task. The most cost - effective method is to get free
materials (lots of them) and arrange to distribute them during earthquake month and immediately
after the next minor temblor.
Geoff Paulsen's Proposal for a Saratoga Emergency Plan page 5
I
November 15, 1988
To•� Todd Argow
From: Gene O'Rorke
Subject: G. Paulsen's proposal dated Nov. 14, 1988
I have reviewed the subject proposal and feel it is very
responsive to our needs and the price appears reasonable. The
following are my comments on the transmittal letter and the
proposal.
I feel the transmittal letter properly describes the role to
be played by you, myself and Paulsen. It also describes the role
of the remainder of the involved city staff and of course they
have not been a party to this description. However I believe
that we can depend on Harry to issue the necessary instructions
to the remainder of the staff and they will be willing to fulfill
their roles.
There is the matter of getting the disks that Sinclair has
used so that we can give them to Jeff. I"11 get to work on that
promptly.
With regard to the proposal itself I feel the definition of
the scope of work and the division of responsibility is properly
stated. You might be concerned in that it places considerable
responsibility in your corner. This might be of concern to you
with all of your other activities, however it appears proper in
that you will be the official "contract officer" and the official
liaison for the City with the Contractor. I will help you in
fulfilling many of these tasks and you and I will have to call on
Harry to support us by informing the staff that they are
requested to perform these tasks for_him, and that you and I are
acting as his agents in getting this work completed. We can't
have any foot dragging because someone thinks it is some make
work project thought up by Argow and O'Rorke.
Please note item 4 on the proposal. This might shake
people a little and we might have to hold a few hands but I think
it can be done and will have the desired result of generating a
feeling of ownership by members of the staff. You and I may have
to help on this item.
Also note item 5 in the proposal. I don't believe we asked
Harry who would have the responsibility for performing the call
up function. Whoever that is should be the main contributor to
item 5 in the proposal and probably should be charged with the
responsibility for keeping the call up list up to date of a
continuous basis.
I
. y.
One last point, the mat
address however it should not be
targets. This need not be by
lapse time basis. For example
number of weeks. We will give
of task 1 x number of days after
ter of schedule is difficult to
ignored. We should set out some
calender dates but could be on a
Jeff will complete task 1 in x
him our comments and or approval
receipt. Etc.
That is the extent of my comments. I suggest we try to get
this in motion quickly. If we can get the contract approved
before the end of the year holidays we may be able to take
advantage of Jeff "s "holiday time off" to get some of this work
started.
If you have any questions give me a call.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. .iS AGENDA ITEM..
MEETING DATE: �Z� q� CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Attorney
SUBJECT: Amendment to Section 9- 45.030 Regarding Off -Road Vehicles
Recommended Motion:
Introduction and adoption of ordinance.
Report Summary: The ordinance is intended to eliminate one of the exemptions
now contained in the City Code from the requirement of a permit for operation of an
off -road vehicle. The reason for this change is explained in the memorandum from the
City Attorney submitted herewith.
Fiscal Impacts: Nominal. Some additional fines might be collected from the
application of off - street vehicle regulations to a situation which is now exempted.
Attachments: (a) Memorandum from City Attorney;
(b) Proposed ordinance.
Motion and Vote:
PAUL B. SMITH
LEONARD J. SIEGAL
HAROLD S. TOPPEL
ROBERT K. BOOTH, JR.
STEVEN G. BAIRD
NICHOLAS C. FEDELI, JR.
HENRY D. CRUZ
ATKINSON - FARASYN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
660 WEST DANA STREET
P.O. BOX 279
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 04042
(415) 967 -6941
MEMORANDUM
TO: Saratoga City Council
FROM: Hal Toppel, City Attorney
RE: Off - Street Vehicle Regulations
DATE: November 4, 1988
J. M. ATKINSON (1892 -1982)
L. M. FARASYN (1915 -1979)
Article 9 -45 of the City Code requires that a permit be issued for the
operation of off - street motor vehicles on public or private property. Section 9- 45.030
sets forth various exemptions from this requirement, including an exemption for:
"Operation of vehicles on private vehicular rights -of -way by those having ownership
thereof or an easement, license or permission to do so." During a code enforcement
action being prosecuted by the City Attorney's office, this exemption was successfully
raised as a defense under circumstances where we do not believe it should have been
applied. The situation involved a large parcel of undeveloped hillside property on
which off - street motorcycles were being operated by the owner's son and his friends.
The continued operation of these motorcycles over the same "course" created a dirt
pathway which was visible upon the property. After receiving numerous noise
complaints from neighbors and giving warnings to the motorcycle operators, a citation
was finally issued for operating an off - street vehicle without a permit in violation of
Article 9 -45 of the City Code. The defendant was a young man who was a friend of
the property owner's son and was using the motorcycle "course" with the knowledge
and consent of the property owner. The matter went to trial and the court concluded
that the motorcycle course constituted a "private vehicular right -of -way" within the
scope of the permit exemption. Although we consider this decision to be clearly
erroneous, we believe the exemption should be repealed in order to avoid the defense
being successfully raised again in the future. As construed by the court, the
pioneering of a pathway over undeveloped property would become a "right -of -way"
through repeated use. Thus, we have the absurdity of a code violation being cured if it
is frequently committed.
The repeal of this exemption should not cause any problem with respect to
the operation of off - street vehicles on those areas of private property where such
operation is permitted. Paragraph (a) of Section 9- 45.030 exempts the operation of
licensed motor vehicles upon "any private road, driveway or parking area." This
language does not include a private "right -of -way" and thereby avoids the liberal
-1-
M
judicial interpretation of this term as described above. In the absence of the
exemption to be repealed, the court could not have found that the motorcycle "course"
was a private road, driveway or parking area. motorcycles are again operated on
this property in the future, a citation wi g e issued abut this time we expect to
make it stick. _ /I i9
Saratoga City Attorney
-2-
ORDINANCE NO. 71.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING
SECTION 9- 45.030 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO OFF -
STREET VEHICLE OPERATION
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows:
SECTION 1: Section 9- 45.030 in Article 9 -45 of the City Code is amended to
read as follows:
"59- 45.030 Exemptions
The permit requirement of Section 9- 45.020 shall not apply to any of the
following:
(a) Operation under the Vehicle Code of a vehicle having valid motor vehicle
registration, by a person possessing a valid operator's license, upon any public street,
highway, drive, parking lot or other area intended for use by motor vehicles, or upon
any private road, driveway or parking area.
(b) Vehicles designed primarily for agricultural, horticultural or construction
purposes and while being used in the ordinary, normal and lawful manner in
connection with such agricultural, horticultural or construction purposes.
(c) Operation of a vehicle by a public employee acting within the course and
scope of his employment."
SECTION 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or
unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it
would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and
phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections,
sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 3: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its
passage and adoption.
ssssss
The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the
waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular
-1-
meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of
1988, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
-2-
MAYOR
SARATOGA CITY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. S�S
MEETING DATE: 12;
ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Attorney
COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: Application of Vesting Tentative Maps to Commercial Projects
Recommended Motion: Introduction and adoption of ordinance amending Section
14-80.010(a) of the City Code.
Report Summary: In 1984, a new state law was enacted providing for an election
by a developer to file a vesting tentative map under which greater protection was
afforded against subsequent changes in local ordinances, rules or regulations which
might affect the development. Local governments were required to amend their own
subdivision ordinances in order to implement the state law. This amendment is now
reflected in Article 14 -80 of the Saratoga City Code. As originally adopted, the state
law applied only to residential development. However, the state law was subsequently
amended to include commercial developments and this amendment became effective
in 1988. The proposed ordinance eliminates from subsection 14- 80.010(a) of the City
Code all of the existing references to residential development and thereby expands the
applicability of Article 14 -80 to both residential and commercial development, as now
required by state law.
Fiscal Impacts: None.
Attachments: Proposed ordinance.
Motion and Vote:
ORDINANCE No. 71.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING
SECTION 14- 80.010 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO
VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows:
SECTION 1: Paragraph (a) of Section 14- 80.010 in Article 14 -80 of the City
Code is amended to read as follows:
"(a) Whenever a 'provisions of this Chapter requires that a tentative map be
filed, a vesting tentative map may instead be filed pursuant to this Article."
SECTION 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or
unconstitutional, such decision . shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it
would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and
phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections,
sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 3: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its
passage and adoption.
s s s s s s
The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the
waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of
, 1988, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: 12 -21 -88 CITY MGR. APPROVALAfi
ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGIMRING
i
SUBJECT: 20713 St. Charles Street Construction Acceptance
and Release of Cash Bond
Recommended Motion: ,
"Grant Construction Acceptance of Cash Bond" for Tract 7811, 20713 St. Charles
Street.
Report Summary:
The work has been satisfactorily completed. This Construction Acceptance will
begin the one (1) year maintenance period.
Fiscal-Impacts:
Unknown.
Attachments:
Memo describing bond.
Motion and Vote:
12/21: Removed from Consent Calendar because of deficiencies.
1/4: Approved 4 -07
f. .;_
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
►���• - -'- � (408) 867 -3438
It !t1c�)��:Nr�)t1ti1
TO: City Manager DATE: 12 -12 -88
FROM: Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Construction Acceptance for Tract 7811
Name & Location: 20713 St. Charles Street
Public Improvements required for TR. 7811
have been satisfactorily completed. I, therefore, recommen the
City Council accept the improvements for construction only.
This "construction acceptance" will begin the one'(1) year maintenance
period. During that year, the improvement contract, insurance and
improvement security will remain in full force.
The following information is included for your use:
1. Developer: St. Charles Street Investors
Address: 150 E, Campbell Avenue, Suite 101
Campbell, CA. 95008
2. Improvement Security:
Type-: Cash Bond
Amount: $1,250.00 (10186 Recept No.)
Issuing Company:
Address:
Receipt, No.: 10186
3. Special Remarks:
RSSjdsm Robert S. Shook.
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE :• SA- RATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: !
Finance Departrrient
FROM: City Llgineer
SUBJECT: Bond Release for: TR. 7811
20713 St. Charles Street.
DATE: ' .12 -12 -88
-----------------------------------------------
The work guaranteed by the bond listed below has been satisfactorily canpleted.
T am, therefore, requesting that bond be released as follows:
1. Bond Type: Cash
2. Amount: $1,250-00
3. Receipt, Bond or 10186
No.: .
4. Date Posted: 7 -24 -86
5. , Bond Posted by: St. Charles Investors'
6. Work guaranteed:
7. Account Number:
Issue Bond Release to;
Name; St. Charles Investors.
Address: 150 E. Campbell Ave., Suite 101
Campbell,., CA. 95008
Robert S. Shook
City Engineer
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. lJ��� AGENDA ITEM I `�•
MEETING DATE: 12-21-88.1 CITY MGR. APPROVAL;#f40
ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING
SUBJECT: FINAL ACCEPTANCE FOR SDR 1569, Farwell Ave.
&.Release of Bond
Recommended Motion:
"Grant Final Acceptance for SDR 1569, Farwell Ave. & release retaining portion
of assignment Certificate.
Report Summary:
The work has been.satisfactorily maintained for one .year.
Fiscal Impacts
City will take over maintenance of Farwell Avenue.
1. Resolution No. 36B.
2. Memos describing bond.
%. - -1 -- - t, -.
13777 FRUITVALE AVE@2 NUE $ �
ARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 05070
_• - -: 008) sd7 -3138
MEMORANDUM
TO. City Manager DATE: 12 -12 -88
FROM: City 'Engineer
SUBJECT: Tract - - -- SDR 1569
(Final Acceptance)
Location: Farwell Avenue
All improvements required' of SDR 1569
to in the and agreed
Deferred IRprnvement Agreement dated an. 31, 1986
have been satisfactorily completed..
Therefore, I. recommend the improvement security posted to guarantee
that agreement be released. The following information is included .
for your use:
1. Developer: Steven Berardo
Address: 19600.Farwell Avenue, Saratoga, Ca: 95070
2. Improvement Security:
Type: A05ignment Certificate
Amount: $1 .lOD 00
Issuing Co. Imperial Savings
Address : saratnna
Receipt, B
No. 7233
3. Special Remarks:
RSS /dsm Robert Shook
r
1�
.r
r
�ti]EMOO RANDUM
097f o:T 0&M&'XQ)S&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SAR.ATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
TO: City Council DATE: 12 -12 -88
FROM: City Enaineer -"
SUBJECT: Final Acceptance for SDR :1569
Location: . Farwell Avenue
The one (1) year maintenance period for ' SDR 1569
has expired and all deficiencies of the improvements have been corrected.
Therefore, I recommend the streets and other public facilities be accepted
into the City system. Attached for City Council consideration is Resolu-
tion I lti -R , which accepts the
and rights -of -way. public improvements, easements
Since the developer has fulfilled his obligation described in the improve-
ment contract, I also recommend the improvement securities listed below be
released. The following information is included for your information and
use:
I. Developer: Steven Berardo
Address : 19600 Farwiel Saratoa
2. Date of Construction Acceptance: Nov. 18, 1987
3. Improvement Security:
Type: Assignment Certificate
Amount: $1,100 .00
Issuing Co: I serial Sayincr�
Address: Sarat)c
Receipt, 30=&,.
No. 7233
4 • Miles of public Street: 1/2 street 150 L.F.
(0 028 miles)
5. Special Remarks: -
•RSS /dsm Robert S. Shook
Recording requested IIIu
by, U
and to be returned to:
City Clerk
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
RESOLUTION NO 36 -B-
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF STREETS
It appearing that on or about Nov. 23, 1987 , the street, storm drain and other
improvements as shown on the hereinafter referred to subdiviison map and on approved
improvement plans therefore were completed and thereafter were maintained by the sub-
divider for a period of not less than an additional year from date of satisfactory
completion.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
That portion of the City's previous resolution rejecting the dedication of certain
streets, storm drains and other easements as shown on the following described subdivision
map:
Map of TvacacQM SDR 1569recorded in Book .552 of Maps, at Page 11 , in the
office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California
on Jan, 31, , 19 86
and as set forth in the Clerk's certificate on said map, is hereby rescinded and the
previously rejected offers of dedication on said map are hereby accepted, except the
following:
and all of the above streets which are accepted under this resolution are hereby de-
clared to.be public streets of the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of
California.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the following described improvement bond or bonds are hereby ordered released:
_Assignment Certificate
That certain Improvement Bond No. dated 3 -20 -85 , and
issued by Imperial Savings
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on the day of
. 19 , at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
w
? 7 O
�a
4` w, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOCA, CALIFORNIA 05070
--- =� (408) 867- 31:38
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
City Manager
City ' Engineer
DATEt 12 -12 -88
Tract - -- SDR 1569 (Final Acceptance)
Location: Farwell Avenue
All improvements required of SDR 1569
to in the Deferred Improvement and agreed
have been satisfactorily completed. Agreement dated an. 31, 1986
Therefore, I recommend the improvement security posted to guarantee
that agreement be released. The following information is included
for your use:
1. Developer: Steven Berardo
Address: 19600 Farwell Avenue, Saratoga, Ca: 95070
2. Improvement Security:
Type: AGG; anment Certificate
Amount: -1 n0 00
Issuing Co.: _ Im erial Savings
Address: Saral" r
Receipt,
No 7233
3. Special Remarks:
R SS/ dsm
Robert , • Shook
•v
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL �%��
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. j S > AGENDA ITEM l J
MEETING DATE: CITY MGR. APPROVAL
f If
ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Attorney
SUBJECT: Revisions to Article 6 -10 of the City Code Concerning Alarm Systems
Recommended Motion: Introduction and adoption of ordinance amending various
sections of Article 6 -10.
Report Summary: The proposed ordinance modifies various sections in Article 6-
10 of the City Code to correspond with administrative procedures adopted for the
collection of false alarm charges, as explained in the memorandum from the City
Attorney submitted herewith.
Fiscal Impacts:
A ttwehments!
Motion and Vote:
None.
(a) Memorandum from City Attorney;
(b) Proposed ordinance.
PAUL B. SMITH
LEONARD J. SIEGAL
HAROLD S. TOPPEL
ROBERT K. BOOTH, JR.
STEVEN G. BAIRD
NICHOLAS C. FEDELI, JR.
HENRY D. CRUZ
-k-XX KINSON • FARASYN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
660 WEST DANA STREET
P.O. BOX 279
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042
(415) 967 -6941
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: HAL TOPPEL, City Attorney
J. M. ATKINSON (1892 -1982)
L. M. FARASYN (1915 -1979)
RE: AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 6 -10 CONCERNING ALARM SYSTEMS
DATE: November 1, 1988
On March 4, 1987, the City Council adopted an entirely new procedure for
the regulation of alarm systems and the collection of penalties for an excessive
number of false alarms. The new ordinance required a permit to be obtained for most
alarm systems within the City and established a schedule of fines for violation of the
various regulations set forth in Article 6 -10 of the City Code. As a departure from
earlier policy, alarm owners were no longer charged for the first or second false alarm
occurring within a twelve month period, but the penalties for the third and subsequent
false alarms within such period were substantially increased. In addition, failure to
pay such penalties would constitute grounds for revocation of the alarm permit, in
which event the alarm system must be disconnected and any further use thereof would
be prohibited. The philosophy of the new ordinance was that the threat of
disconnecting an alarm system was more effective than the threat of litigation to
collect a false alarm charge (which involved an expense to the City typically
exceeding the amount of the charge). The basic assumptions made at the time the new
ordinance was adopted have thus far been validated. Out of the dozens of billings for
false alarm penalties, only three have now reached the stage where litigation mi ht be
necessary.
When the new regulations governing alarm systems were first adopted, the
collection of false alarm charges was being handled by Vertical Management Systems
under its existing contract with the City which also covered the collection of traffic
and parking citations. This contract was cancelled by the City when VMS failed to
perform its obligations thereunder and the collection activity is now being handled "in-
house" under the immediate supervision of the Community Services Director. This
change necessitated the development of internal operating procedures for the
collection of false alarm charges. After a period of trial and error, procedures were
established which now appear to be working rather well. The process is as follows:
-1-
1. Upon receipt of false alarm reports from the Sheriff's Department
showing three or more false alarms from a single alarm system, an invoice is mailed to
the alarm owner for penalties computed in accordance with the ordinance. If the City
has no record of a permit having been issued for the alarm system, the owner is
advised of the requirement for a permit and a permit application is enclosed with the
invoice. Also enclosed is a form which the owner can use to request an administrative
review of the false alarm charges.
2. If the charges are not paid in response to the original invoice or as
determined to be payable upon an administrative review, as the case may be, a demand
letter is sent from the City Attorney threatening revocation of the alarm permit and
litigation to collect the penalties. If no alarm permit has been obtained, a demand is
made for payment of the additional fine which is imposed upon persons operating an
alarm system without a permit.
3. If no payment is made in response to the City Attorney's demand, a
Notice of Intention to Revoke Alarm Permit is sent by the Community Services
Director. This notice is followed by an Order to Discontinue any further use of the
alarm system if the charges still have not been paid.
4. The final step in the process is referral of the matter to the City
Attorney for the commencement of a lawsuit to collect the false alarm charges and to
enjoin any use of the alarm system. As of this date, no case has reached this stage.
The proposed ordinance is intended to codify the foregoing procedures.
One change is the elimination of a provision in the existing code which requires the
alarm owner to furnish the Community Services Director with a statement of
corrective action the owner intends to take in order to avoid future false alarms. It is
the opinion of staff that this requirement only generates time consuming and
unnecessary paperwork since the amount of penalties for multiple false alarms is
sufficiently high to prompt corrective action by the alarm owner. Furthermore, it
would be administratively difficult, if not impossible, to determine compliance with an
owner's statement of intended corrective action. The collection of cash seems to be
more persuasive than the expression of good intentions.
The proposed ordinance adds a new paragraph (a) to Section 6- 10.080, to
clarify that an excessive number of false alarms constitutes a violation of the City
Code. Section 6- 10.090 relating to corrective action is repealed, and the failure to
provide such a statement as a ground for revocation of the permit has been deleted
from Section 6- 10.100. A new paragraph (a) has been added to Section 6- 10.110 to
codify the administrative review process and paragraph (b) of this section has been
expanded with respect to the scope of appeals to the City Manager. Finally, the
penalty for failure to provide a statement of corrective action has been deleted from
Section 6- 10.120. A n
-2-
ORDINANCE NO. 71.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING
SECTION 6- 10.080, REPEALING SECTION 6- 10.090, AND
AMENDING SECTIONS 6- 10.100, 6- 10.110 AND 6- 10.120 OF
THE CITY CODE RELATING TO ALARM SYSTEMS
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows:
SECTION 1: Section 6- 10.080 in Article 6 -10 of the City Code is amended to
read as follows:
1156- 10.080 False alarms prohibited; investigation of false alarms
(a) It shall be unlawful to maintain, use or possess an alarm system which
has caused more than two false alarms to be transmitted within any twelve month
period to the County communications center, the County Sheriff's Office, or any
fire district, by communication from an alarm business or a person responding to the
false alarm.
(b) A representative of the police or fire department responding to each
emergency alarm shall attempt to ascertain by investigation whether said alarm was
activated with reasonable cause therefor or was a false alarm. In the event his
investigation indicates that the alarm was a false alarm, the investigator shall
prepare a report of his investigation stating his conclusions and the factual basis for
such conclusions, and shall forward such report to the Community Services Director.
The investigator shall also serve a copy of his report on the alarm owner or
occupancy of the premises on or in which the false alarm occurred by delivering the
same to and leaving it with some person of suitable age and discretion upon the
premises or by mailing a copy of the report to such alarm owner or occupant."
SECTION 2: Section 6- 10.090 in Article 6 -10 of the City Code is repealed.
SECTION 3: Paragraph (a) of Section 6- 10.100 in Article 6 -10 of the City Code
is amended to read as follows:
"(a) An alarm permit issued pursuant to this Article may be revoked on any
one of the following grounds:
(1) The occurrence of three false alarms within any twelve month
period.
(2) A violation by the permittee of any regulation set forth in this
Article.
(3) The failure by a permittee to pay any fine prescribed in Section 6-
10.120."
SECTION 4: Section 6- 10.110 in Article 6 -10 of the City Code is amended to
read as follows:
56- 10.110 Administrative review; appeal procedure
(a) Any person charged with a false alarm penalty under Subsection 6-
10.120(e) of this Article may request an administrative review of such penalty by
the Community Services Director. The request shall be submitted in writing, on
such form as the Community Services Director may prescribe. Within a reasonable
time after his receipt of such request, the Community Services Director shall
conduct the administrative review and furnish a written decision to the person
making the request. The Director is authorized to cancel any false alarm penalty if
he determines that a false alarm did not actually occur, or that the person charged
with such penalty is not responsible for payment of the same. In such event, the
penalty shall promptly be refunded if previously paid. If the Director determines
that the false alarm penalty was properly charged and such penalty has not
previously been paid, the penalty shall be paid in full within ten days after the
Director renders his decision on the administrative review.
(b) Any decision or determination by the Community Services Director with
respect to the issuance, denial or revocation of an alarm permit, the occurrence of a
false alarm, or the assessment of any penalty pursuant to Section 6- 10.120 of this
Article, may be appealed to the City Manager by filing a notice of appeal in the
office of the City Clerk within ten days after the date of such decision or
determination. The City Manager shall conduct a hearing on the matter, consider
all relevant evidence, and may affirm, reverse or modify the decision or
determination by the Community Services Director. The decision of the City
Manager shall be final."
SECTION 5: Section 6- 10.120 in Article 6 -10 of the City Code is amended to
read as follows:
"56- 10.120 Violations of Article
The violation of any provision contained in this Article is hereby declared to
be unlawful and shall constitute an infraction and a public nuisance. In addition to
the revocation of an alarm permit pursuant to Section 6- 10.100 and any other legal
remedies available to the City under the provisions of this Code, a violation of this
Article shall be subject to the following penalties based upon the type of infraction:
(a) Installing or using an alarm system without a permit (§6- 10.040):
$100.00. Such penalty shall be waived if the alarm owner applies for a permit within
five days after written or oral notification by the City that a permit is required and
such alarm owner was not the holder of a previously issued permit which has been
revoked.
(b) Installing or using an outside audible alarm which, upon activation, emits
a sound similar to sirens in use on emergency vehicles or for disaster warning
purposes (§6- 10.060): $250.00.
-2-
1,
1
Z
(c) Installing or using an outside audible alarm without a fifteen minute
automatic reset ( §6- 10.060): $100.00.
(d) Installing or using a prohibited direct -dial alarm system ( §6- 10.070):
$250.00.
(e) Maintaining, using or possession an alarm system which has caused any
false alarm to be transmitted to the County communications center, the County
Sheriffs Office or any fire district by communication from an alarm business or a
person responding to the false alarm:
(1) For the third false alarm within any twelve month period: $50.00.
(2) For the fourth false alarm within any twelve month period:
$100.00.
(3) For the fifth and each subsequent false alarm within any twelve
month period: $200.00."
SECTION 6: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or
unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it
would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and
phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections,
sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 7: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its
passage and adoption.
s s s s s s
The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the
waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of
, 1988, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
-3-
MAYOR
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: 12-21-SR
ORIGINATING DEPT: ___ENC;TNFFRTNG
AGENDA ITEM `mt`
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: Reconstruction & Overlay Certain City Streets
Schedule "B" and "C ". Notice of Completion.
Recommended Motion: ,
Accept the subject project and authorize filing of the "Notice of Completion ".
Report Summary:
The Saratoga City Council, at their regular meeting on August 3, 1988 awarded
the contract for the above project to Raisch Construction. The work on the project
has been satisfactorily completed.
Fiscal Impacts•
Total construction cost: $30,283.54.
Attachments:
1. Notice of Completion.
2. Progress Payment.
Motion and Vote:
TO r
t (A
`R.CHASE ORD -E
tT V OF SALRATOG
PURCHASE
13777 FRUITVALE AVE. PHONE $07 -9439 ORDER NO.
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 0649'0
We will not assume responsibility for marterial shipped not
covered by this order or not shipped according to instructions.
DATE 9 -1648
CITY OF-SARATOGA
13777 FRUITVALE AVE.
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
CLAIM.NO. ;
RAISCH CONSTRUCTION
1105 L'Avenida
Mt. View, Ca. 94043
DELIVERY TO
J
DEPARTMENT NAME lQ /��/,,,, �., ,y yy� ORGANIZATION ACCOUNT NO. PROJECT
ENGINEERING/ / �UC����O /� a,400� 9140 4510 90�
ORDERED BY ���
! { 1 + I CERTIFY THAT TF
ZER. AND THAT
Robert S. Shook.-, dt Enixineer
TITLE F
THIS ORQER NOT VALID UNLESS APPROVED BY CITY CLERK
'* SUFFICIEJWT UNENCUMBERED BALANCE IN THE ABOVE ACCOUNT TO COVER THE AMOUNT OF THIS
S. AA412 BEUR SET- ASIDE.FOR TAE PAYMENT THEREOF.
OROR'S COPY
OUANTITY
ARTICLES AND D CRIPTION
UNIT PRICE
AMOUNT
c
Overlay of Fruitvale Avenue
Schedule B.
$ 28,195.00
Schedule C
5,940.00
TOTAL
$ 34,135.00
Progress Payment - Oct. 5 - $27,254.83
ORDERED BY ���
! { 1 + I CERTIFY THAT TF
ZER. AND THAT
Robert S. Shook.-, dt Enixineer
TITLE F
THIS ORQER NOT VALID UNLESS APPROVED BY CITY CLERK
'* SUFFICIEJWT UNENCUMBERED BALANCE IN THE ABOVE ACCOUNT TO COVER THE AMOUNT OF THIS
S. AA412 BEUR SET- ASIDE.FOR TAE PAYMENT THEREOF.
OROR'S COPY
r � _
PROJECT: OVERLAY CERTAIN CITY STREETS 1988
DATE: 9 -26 -88 EST. NO. 111
FROM: 9 -15 -88 TO: 9 -26 -88
i nMTTA Allt"Mto cr"- a „
PROGRESS PAY ESTIMATE
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 FRUITVALE AVE.
SARATOGA, CALIF. 95010
,1
Sheet j__of1_
CONTRACTOR: RAISCH CONSTRUCTION
ADDRESS:
Director of Community Development
BID ITEM
QUANTITY
UNIT
PRICE
y
TOTAL
;DOME
PREVIOUS
WRK. DONE
THIS EST.
TOTAL
•DOME
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
DUE
UORK
DONE
REMARK
EST.
Clear b Grub
L.S.
10 000.00
. 10 000.00
0.0
10 000.00
10,000.00
100
Curb and
2.0 Construct Concrete Gutter
250.0,
26.0
6,500.00
0.0
250.0
250.0
26.0
6,500.00
100
3 Install Aggregate Base
220.0
23.0
5,060.00
0.0
202.0
91.82
4 Install 2�" A.C.
185.0
31.0
5,735.00
0.0
131.4
5 Adjust Manhole
3.0
300.0
900.00
0.0
3.0
3-O
300.0-
00.
1
6 Extra Excavation Behind Curb
L.S.
364.14
L.S.
0.0
L.S.
LOMITA
LVENUE SCHEDULE
"C"
I Surface Preparation
L.S.
0604 . .
2,400.00
2,400.0
0.0
1
Repair-Street
1.000.00
1.20-
1.200.0 _-
0.0
1 0
1
Instead of
it b screen
14-
0.0
1
1
T
200-on
Install Monument Box
'71 �
200.0
_ ' 200.0
Fx t
RECORD OF PREVIOUS PAYMENTS p -TOTAL DUE in
LESS 10% RETENTION 3,028.31
- - - TOTAL PAYMENT 27.254.83
By LESS PREVIOUS PAYMENTS 0.00
l acked B T PAYMENT DUE THIS EST. 27,254.83
Approved by:-
Director of Community Development
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. S�S�
MEETING DATE: 12 -21 -88
ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING
i
SUBJECT: Senior Center Addition
Re--o.;,mended Motion:
AGENDA ITEM �I
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
Accept the Senior Center Addition and authorize filing the "Notice of
Completion ".
Report Summary
All work on this contract has been completed and is ready for acceptance
by the City. In fact, acceptance of this project should have been brought to
you several mmnths ago.
City will maintain this addition to the Senior Center as it does the balance
of the Center.
Fiscal Impacts•
Ongoing maintenance costs.
Attachments:
Notice of Completion.
Motion and Vote:
. ° .'~
eccoRo/wo ncoucsrso BY
City Clerk
°°"°""° ""C=""" =L=
�-
~~
City of Saratoga
13777 rzni�n�e Ave.
~`~ L Saratoga, ca' 95070 -1|
SPACE ABOVE THIS uws FOR RECORDER'S uss------
�u,�f
That __ .
day »/ ---._' ............................................. � _' u_`_"w_«»_c _ _�
�_-_-_—_--_—_- _ `_~_3_w _ l_�_°� _
— /v �7 enter into x"xun^ with �—
ement, as a whole, was actually completed by the said ...................
That the name ...... and address ...... Of allt e owner ...... of said property are asfollOWS':***-
al� Alterations or Ar
upon the land above described, which contract was filed in the office of the county recorder of the
CITYoFaARmOGA
13777 rznitv,leAve
euzat,ga, co. 95070
and the nature
»y ....................................... title m said property 6__________________|i
-------------------------------
��������������������.�
-------------. .
--______ ---|
STATE 0FCALIFORNIA |�
^^
V �������� /
County of ..................................................... � '' ^� '
��on
--� " ~o~"
---------------------------------------' !
"="a°"�"wom.—_------_______ _______�/
� ----'
mn---//he«�vn/���/k,vmuo� of the ------------------wy�
��d*�m��n���d know the the foregoing same Su6wnbedand ,wo, /ob,�vemo/h� —�'�---~~~~*^, is true of
-------.day ^{-------/o--. ___________________________
��---------------------'/ ||U
------------------------- |N
" Delete words in brackets if owner signs.
Covi F N. 774 -NOTICE OF COMPLETION BY OWNER. (C. C. P. S 1193.1)