The URL can be used to link to this page

Attachment 19Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 Table of Contents RECEIVED DEC 01 2014 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION 1. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ERRED OR ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BECAUSE THE PLANNING COMMISSION FAILED TO FOLLOW THE 2020 GENERAL PLAN, TOWN CODE AND POLICIES IN APPROVING A PROJECT THAT WILL CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL HARM AND RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIRED RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT AND SUBSTANTIALLY DIMINISHED HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE FOR NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS .................. ............................... A. Inconsistency with the 2020 General Plan ........................................ ............................... 1 1. LU -1 - Planning for neighborhood preservation and protection is one of the most important purposes of the Town's General Plan.... Maintaining neighborhood quality suggests conservation of existing housing, good street design, traffic control in residential neighborhoods, and development review that adheres to quality design. Factors such as new or excessive traffic, aging or inadequate infrastructure, and even economic pressures may cause disruption of neighborhoods. Neighborhood preservation also includes balancing the intensity of land uses with the existing residential density ...................... ............................... 1 2. Goal LU -1- To preserve, promote, and protect the existing small -town character and quality of life within Los Gatos ............................................................... ............................... 1 3. Policy LU -4.2- Allow development only with adequate physical infrastructure (e.g. transportation.... and social services (e.g .... public safety, etc.) .......... ............................... 1 4. Policy LU -4.3- Only approve projects for which public costs can bejustified by the overall benefit to the community ............................................................. ............................... 1 5. Policy LU -6.1- Protect existing residential areas from the impacts of nonresidential development............................................................................................. ............................... 1 6. Policy LU -6.2- Allow non - residential activity in residential areas only when the character and quality of the neighborhood can be maintained ................ ............................... 1 7. Policy LU -6.4- Prohibit uses that may lead to the deterioration of residential neighborhoods, or adversely impact the public safety or the residential character of a residentialneighborhood .......................................................................... ............................... 1 8. Policy LU -6.5- The type, density, and intensity of new land use shall be consistent with that of the immediate neighborhood ................................................ ............................... 2 9. Action TRA -2.2- Adopt street standards that reflect the existing character of the neighborhood, while taking into account safety and maintenance considerations ................. 2 10. Policy TRA -2.5- Discourage single access roads of extended length, and restrict development along such roads ................................................................. ............................... 2 ATTACHMENT 1 9 Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 11. Policy TRA -3.7- All traffic reports shall include analyses of nearby uses with unusual or unique traffic generation factors or peak hours (e.g. pre - schools, faith communities, private clubs, quasi - public uses) ....................................... ............................... 2 .12. Policy TRA -3.12- The maximum level of mitigation measures shall be required for transportation impacts adjacent to sensitive receptors, including residences, schools, and hospitals................................................................................................... ............................... 2 13. Policy TRA -9.1- Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and publictransit use ...................................................................................... ............................... 2 B. Inconsistency with The Town Code Sec. 29.40. 380 ......................... ............................... 2 II. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BECAUSE IT FAILED TO CONSIDER OR ADDRESS ANY OF HILLBROOK'S UNAPPROVED USE MODIFICATIONS, PER TOWN CODE SEC. 29.20. 200 ............................. ............................... 3 A. 42% Increase in Staff B. Substantial Increases in After - School Activities ..... ............................... C. Without Authority, Hillbrook Changed Its "School Instruction Hours" So That The School Day Purports to End At 6:00 P.M, Not 3:15 P. M ........................... ............................... 5 D. Substantial Increased Summer Uses ................................................. ............................... 6 E. Hillbrook Violated its Enrollment Cap in 11 out of the last 13 years .............................. 7 III. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRECTION IN FAILING TO ACCURATELY APPLY TOWN CODE SEC.29.20.190, WHICH REQUIRES THAT IN ORDER TO APPROVE A REQUESTED CUP, THE PLANNING COMMISSION MUST DETERMINE THAT, "THE PROPOSED USES WILL NOT IMPAIR THE INTEGRITY AND CHARACTER OF THE ZONE." .................................... ............................... 7 IV. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FAILING TO COMPLY WITH TOWN CODE SEC. 29.20.190, INCLUDING SPECIFICALLY IN REGARD TO CONCERNS RAISED BY LONGMEADOW NEIGHBOR APPELLANTS, IN THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION FAILED TO REQUIRE CONDITIONS THAT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE SIGNIFICANT NOISE IMPACTS OF HILLBROOK'S PROPOSED EXPANSION ON LONGMEADOW NEIGHBOR APPELLANTS ....................... 9 A. Noise ................................................................................................... ..............................9 1. Amplification: ............................................................................................................... 9 2. Sound Wall: .................................................................................................................. 9 3. Sports Events: ............................................................................................................. 10 4. Maintenance: .............................................................................................................. 10 5. Enforcement: .............................................................................................................. 10 V. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRECTION IN FAILING TO ACCURATELY APPLY TOWN CODE SEC. 29.20.190, WHICH REQUIRES ii. Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 THAT IN ORDER TO APPROVE A REQUESTED CUP, THE PLANNING COMMISSION MUST DETERMINE THAT, "THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PROPERTY IS ESSENTIAL OR DESIRABLE TO THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR WELFARE." .. ............................... 10 A. If The Town Council Is To Allow Any Added Enrollment, It Should Be Conditioned On Strict Compliance With All CUP Conditions Which Must Include Substantial Sustained TrafficMitigation ....................................................................................... ............................... 12 VI. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FAILING TO CONSIDER AND APPROVE USE OF THE ANN ARBOR DRIVE ACCESS FOR HILLBROOK TRAFFIC ...................................................................... ............................... 13 VII. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRECTION IN FAILING TO ACCURATELY APPLY TOWN CODE SEC.29.20.190, WHICH REQUIRES THAT IN ORDER TO APPROVE A REQUESTED CUP, THE PLANNING COMMISSION MUST DETERMINE THAT, "THE PROPOSED USE WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR GENERAL WELFARE." ...................... ............................... 14 VIII. NEIGHBOR APPELLANTS' PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WILL RESTORE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHILE ALLOWING HILLBROOK TO SUCCESSFULLY OPERATE AS A PK -8 SCHOOL ... ............................... 16 A. Hillbrook Can Achieve Substantial Traffic Mitigation by Upholding its Long- OverDue Promises..................................................................................................... ............................... 17 LX. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BECAUSE CERTAIN OF THE APPROVED CONDITIONS EITHER IMPLY OR STATE USES THAT ARE NOT PERMITTED FOR HR -1 PROPERTIES EVEN WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, AS REFLECTED IN THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TABLE IN CHAPTER 29.20.185 OF THE LOS GATOS TOWN CODE ..... .............................19 B. Condition #3, Use and Hours of Operation ..................................... ............................... 19 1. "Professional Development- Training for Hillbrook parents and Hillbrook faculty only." 19 Condition #3 states the use is a JK through 8th grade school ...... ............................... 19 Condition #7- "Third Party Use/ Rental/Lease" ............................ ............................... 20 X. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BECAUSE IT FAILED TO CONSIDER OR REQUIRE STUDY OF SIGNIFICANT DETRIMENTAL IMPACTS TO NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS OR WAYS TO ALLEVIATE THE ALREADY SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIRED RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT CREATED BY HILLBROOK'S OPERATIONS ................................................................... ............................... 20 XI. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BECAUSE IT CERTIFIED AN EIR THAT WAS BASED ON INSUFFICIENT AND INACCURATE DATA THAT FAILED TO ADEQUATELY ASSESS THE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................ ............................... 21 iii. Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 Inconsistency with the General Plan; .. 21 2. Inconsistency with the Town Code; ............................................ ............................... 21 3. Lack of data for judgments about summer traffic and programming; ........................ 21 4. Insufficient and inaccurate data for conclusions about Hillbrook Average Daily Traffic(.. ADT") :.................................................................................... ............................... 21 5. Frequent use of unreliable ADT numbers to draw significant conclusions; .............. 21 6. Failure to look at the environmental impact of opening the Ann Arbor Dr. access to schooltraffic; ......................................................................................... ............................... 21 7. Unsupported assumption that the Traffic Demand Management Plan ( "TDM ") plan willreduce traffic; ................................................................................................................. 21 8. Failure to address questions about flaws in the 2012 TJKM traffic study; ................ 21 9. Failure to address adequately issues raised about emergency access on single- access streets like upper Marchmont Dr.; ......................................................... ............................... 21 10. Misinformation and unsupported statements about critical issues; ............................ 22 11. Failure to respond to commenters' questions .............................. ............................... 22 XII. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BECAUSE THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION WAS BASED ON FALSE OR INNACCURATE DATA THAT WAS PREJUDICIAL TO NEIGHBOR APPELLANTS, INCLUDING:.......... ..... 22 A. The Planning Commissioners Received Inaccurate Information From Town Staff That Was Prejudicial And Lead To Decisions That Otherwise Would Not Be Made ...................... 22 1. In response to a Planning Commissioner's question as to whether or not Hillbrook had been in violation of its CUP, the Town Planner stated that at the March 18, 2013 Town Council meeting at which alleged Hillbrook CUP violations were reviewed, no violations weref ound ............................................................................................. ............................... 22 2. In response to a Commissioner's question about the amount of neighbor - generated traffic on Marchmont Dr., the Town Planner stated that the neighbor - generated traffic for upper Marchmont Dr., as reported in the EIR, was 67 daily trips ......... ............................... 24 B. There Were Several Other Errors And Procedural Flaws That Occurred During The Pendency Of Hillbrook's Application That Are Prejudicial To Neighbor Appellants ............. 24 XIII. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BECAUSE CERTAIN OF THE APPROVED CONDITIONS FAIL TO PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF THE RESIDENTIAL ZONE IN WHICH HILLBROOK SITS .................... 25 A. Conditions Of Approval, Condition #3: ............. 25 I. "School Instruction," p. 1 ............................................................ ............................... 25 2. "Afterschool Sports and Other Competitions," p. 2 .................... ............................... 25 iv. Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 3. "Hillbrook Faculty /Administrator Weekday Work," p. 3 ............. .............................26 4. "Professional Development," p. 4 ............................................... ............................... 26 B. Condition of Approval # 7, p. 4, Third Party Use / Rental/ Lease ..... ............................... 27 C. There Are Several Conditions That Are Entirely Missing From The Conditions Of Approval, The Absence Of Which Will Cause Serious And Irreparable Harm To Neighbor Appellants.................................................................................................. ............................... 28 1. Lack of Effective Enforcement .................................................... ............................... 28 2. No Drop Off or Pick Up Of Students on Neighborhood Streets- Revised Condition #14. 29 3. Summertime- Proposed Conditions 4b; 9 .................................... ............................... 29 4. Necessary Definitions -The CUP lacks a definition of "ENROLLMENT," "STUDENT" and "ACADEMIC YEAR" ............................................. ............................... 34 5. TDM MEASURES ARE NOT ADEQUATELY DEFINED ...... ............................... 34 XIV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................. .............................35 V. Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 I. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ERRED OR ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BECAUSE THE PLANNING COMMISSION FAILED TO FOLLOW THE 2020 GENERAL PLAN, TOWN CODE AND POLICIES IN APPROVING A PROJECT THAT WILL CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL HARM AND RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIRED RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT AND SUBSTANTIALLY DIMINISHED HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE FOR NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS. The Planning Commission erred and abused its discretion in failing to accurately apply Town Code Sec.29.20.190, which requires that in order to approve a requested CUP, the Planning Commission must determine that, "The proposed use of the property is in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the General Plan and the purposes of the Town Code." A. INCONSISTENCY wmt THE 2020 GENERAL PLAN The Conditions of Approval, dated October 6, 2014, violate the policies and goals of the 2020 General Plan, including: LU -1 - Planning for neighborhood preservation and protection is one of the most important purposes of the Town's General Plan.... Maintaining neighborhood quality suggests conservation of existing housing, good street design, traffic control in residential neighborhoods, and development review that adheres to quality design. Factors such as new or excessive traffic, aging or inadequate infrastructure, and even economic pressures may cause disruption of neighborhoods. Neighborhood preservation also includes balancing the intensity of land uses with the existing residential density. 2. Goal LU -1- To preserve, promote, and protect the existing small -town character and quality of life within Los Gatos. 3. Policy LU -4.2- Allow development only with adequate physical infrastructure (e.g. transportation.... and social services (e.g .... public safety, etc.). 4. Policy LU -4.3- Only approve projects for which public costs can be justified by the overall benefit to the community. 5. Policy LU -6.1- Protect existing residential areas from the impacts of nonresidential development. 6. Policy LU -6.2- Allow non- residential activity in residential areas only when the character and quality of the neighborhood can be maintained. 7. Policy LU -6.4- Prohibit uses that may lead to the deterioration of residential 1. Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 neighborhoods, or adversely impact the public safety or the residential character of a residential neighborhood. 8. Policy LU -6.5- The type, density, and intensity of new land use shall be consistent with that of the immediate neighborhood. 9. Action TRA -2.2- Adopt street standards that reflect the existing character of the neighborhood, while taking into account safety and maintenance considerations. 10. Policy TRA -2.5- Discourage single access roads of extended length, and restrict development along such roads. 11. Policy TRA -3.7- All traffic reports shall include analyses of nearby uses with unusual or unique traffic generation factors or peak hours (e.g. pre - schools, faith communities, private clubs, quasi - public uses). 12. Policy TRA -3.12- The maximum level of mitigation measures shall be required for transportation impacts adjacent to sensitive receptors, including residences, schools, and hospitals. 13. Policy TRA -9.1- Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use. Hillbrook is surrounded on all sides by Low Density Residential, Hillside Residential and Open Space. Hillbrook's current intensified uses have already significantly impaired the character of the zone. The Hillbrook CUP approved by the Planning Commission on October 6, 2014 violates all of the above Goals, Policies, and Actions set forth in the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan and therefore must be rejected. B. INCONSISTENCY wiTH Ttm TowN CODE SEC. 29.40.380 The expansion of Hillbrook School directly contravenes Town Code Sec. 29.40.380, which states: Intent. 2. Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 The R -I zone provides a means to create the best possible location and development standards for single - family dwellings, assure adequate light, air privacy and open space for each dwelling, minimize traffic and parking congestion, and reduce hazards from encroachment of industry and commercial activity, (Emphasis added). (Ord. No. 1316, § 4.26.010, 6 -7 -76) II. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BECAUSE IT FAILED TO CONSIDER OR ADDRESS ANY OF HILLBROOK'S UNAPPROVED USE MODIFICATIONS, PER TOWN CODE SEC. 29.20.200. Hillbrook's current operations already significantly impair the character of the Low Density Residential Zone, well beyond what was approved or anticipated in the 2001 CUP, due to Hillbrook's unapproved modifications of its use of the property since 2001, and in violation of Town Code Sec. 29.20.200. ' The EIR fails to account for any of the "Intensification of Use" or "New Activities" because it relied on a "baseline" of traffic as it existed in 2012, AFTER Hillbrook substantially and without authority modified the uses of the property. The Town has not prohibited or even monitored Hillbrook's unauthorized intensifications of use since 2001, and that is why Neighbor Appellants' have been subjected to the existing traffic that Hillbrook acknowledges has been between 800 -1000 vehicle trips per day on Upper Marchmont Dr. All of that traffic is for Hillbrook's currently enrolled 220 families, and includes all of Hillbrook's carpooling, busing and other traffic mitigation efforts. These intensifications of use substantially interfere with Neighbor Appellants' use and enjoyment and quality of life and should be rolled back to restore the neighborhood to the HR -1, Low Density Character as it should be. Town Code Sec. 29.20.200. "Conditional use modification" states: A use authorized by conditional use permit shall not be modified unless a modification to the permit is approved. The followine changes in use are modifications: (1) Intensification of use. Changes of use that will result in an increase of five (5) or more peak hour tries. (2) Commencement of new activities that could have a material adverse impact on the surrounding area. (3) Any change that is a substantial departure from plans which were the basis of the conditional use permit approval. (underlines added) 3. Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 A. 42% INCREASE IN STAFF Since 2001, Hillbrook increased its staff by over 42% from 44 (2001) to 76 in 2014, all without seeking any CUP amendment. This staff expansion alone created an additional 32 peak period vehicle trips per day or 64 daily trips. Although this is clearly an "intensification of use" per the Town Code, Hillbrook neither sought nor received any CUP amendment permitting this increase. Hillbrook now lists 18 administrators for its current 315 students. In 2001, Hillbrook listed six administrators. B. SUBSTANTIAL. INCREASESLNAFTER -SCHOOLACTMTms Beginning in 2008, Hillbrook began to substantially expand its uses and activities in ways that were neither anticipated nor sanctioned in the 2001 CUP, creating additional unapproved intensification of use. The minutes of the 2001 CUP approval meeting reflect that in enacting the Conditions in the 2001 CUP, the Town Council disapproved of expanding activities at Hillbrook and expected further traffic mitigation. The Neighbors' fears referenced in the then Mayor Pirzynski's comments were realized and the Town failed to keep "rigorous control over what the school is engaged in." The 2001 CUP required that Hillbrook limit its morning and afterschool student traffic to 165 round trips during the "Peak Period" times just before and after school. The vast majority of all student traffic was to be confined to a daily maximum of 660 trips.3 Rather than fashion a traffic mitigation program to meet that obligation, without Town approval, Hillbrook fashioned a large After - School Recreation Program and expanded its existing After - School Sports Program such that a large percentage of students now stay at school after the end of the 3:45 p.m. so- called 2 Just after the vote to adopt the 2001 CUP, then Mayor Joe Pirzynski stated "I fully believe that the neighbors hope and pray that their quality of life is enhanced through the efforts of the school to continue and to enhance its carpool program in a rigorous fashion, whether Miss Bayne is there or some other headmaster is there.... We would expect that, and I would be absolutely, I think, devastated if we were to see some fallback position take place under the sense we've gotten from some of the neighbors- that this is only going to be done so long as the Town keeps rigorous control over what the school is engaged in. That said, I do believe also, that the staff is dedicated, and I know the Council is dedicated to make sure this happens...." 3 The 165 number was enacted before any busing was implemented, and the Town Council made clear that it expected Hillbrook to decrease its traffic to fewer than 150 peak period vehicle trips. 9 Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 "Peak Period." Hundreds of student vehicle trips then inundate the neighborhood after 3:45 p.m., when neighbors were promised quiet conditions.° Hillbrook spread a larger amount of traffic throughout the afternoon and evening, although "technically" meeting its 165 vehicle maximum for the PM Peak Period. By intensifying its use of the property and shifting its traffic to outside of the Peak Period, Hillbrook has evaded the clear intent of the "Peak Period" provisions of the existing CUP .5 In 2012, Hillbrook's Head of School explained to neighbors that afternoon carpooling is not feasible for many Hillbrook students because they are involved in on campus after - school activities. The Nelson\Nygaard TDM Hillbrook submitted to the Town ( "TDM ") confirms that. The TDM reflects that as of 2012, nearly half of Hillbrook's current 315 students stayed on campus after 3:45 p.m. for afterschool activities. (p. 7). It is no wonder that Hillbrook has managed to come under the 165 Peak Period counts in its current CUP. It has diverted more than half of its student traffic in the afternoon to after the Peak Period. Hillbrook created the programs that kept students on campus past the Peak Period and then used that as an excuse for not maintaining its traffic within the Peak Period. Town staff has said there was nothing they could do about it, because "technically," Hillbrook was not in violation of the Peak Period counts. The Town has never addressed Neighbor Appellants' complaints regarding Hillbrook's unauthorized intensifications of use. C. WITHOUT AUTHORITY, HILLBROOK CHANGED ITS "SCHOOL INSTRUCTION HOURS" SO THAT THE SCHOOL DAY PuRPoRTs To END AT 6:00 P.M. NoT 3:15 P.M. At the September 24th Planning Commission meeting, Head of School Mark Silver stated that the Hillbrook school day lasts until 6:00 p.m. That is in direct contradiction to Hillbrook's September 20, 2012 Letter of Justification, which states, "The school day begins at 8 am for grades 1 -8 and 8:15 am for JK/K. Dismissal times are staggered, with JK/K ending at 2:45 pm, 1 -4 at 3 pm, and 5 -8 at 3:15 pm." Town Staffs proposed CUP (September 24, 2014) had the "School Instruction" hours lasting from 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and that was simply accepted by the Planning Commission without discussion. 4 Hillbrook simply shifted the traffic of more than 100 of the 315 PK -81h grade students who participate in After - School Recreation Program and 95% of its 5" 4h graders that it says now participate in its After - School Sports Program to after the PM "Peak Period." s None of the increased staff traffic is captured in any of the "Peak Period" counts, because only exiting traffic is counted in the current CUP. Staff does not "exit" in the morning or during the PM Peak Period. 5. Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 Hillbrook has, without permission from the Town or notice to the neighbors, unilaterally extended its school day. When the 2001 CUP was approved, Hillbrook's school day ended at 3:15 p.m. and all students except those staying for daycare or sports (a small percentage at the time) were off campus by 3:45 p.m. Mr. Silver now claims that he considers all of the above - mentioned after- school enrichment activities as part of Hillbrook's regular school day. No other local elementary or middle school has the extended hours Hillbrook is seeking. The vast majority of the students at the local public and private schools depart the campus by 3:00 p.m. or soon thereafter. The same should be true at Hillbrook. Hillbrook should not be permitted to simply impose a longer school day on the neighborhood. Neighborhood residents have a right to peaceful and quiet enjoyment of the neighborhood after 3:45 p.m. The majority of the Hillbrook students should depart the campus by 3:45 p.m. as anticipated in the current CUP. The Town Council should make clear that Hillbrook's school day ends no later than 3:15 p.m. The Planning Commission failed to look at increased summer use on the Hillbrook campus, and the Planning Commission's proposed CUP contains no separate condition addressing summer use. It also appears to have failed to consider the recommendations for summer use made by Hillbrook itself, by Staff, and by neighbors. All parties recommended that summer use of the campus be far lower than school -year use. Hillbrook's current CUP makes no reference to any summer use at Hillbrook. Under the 2001 CUP, Third Party use is prohibited. Before 2010, when Hillbrook began to dramatically intensify its use of the campus in the summertime, Hillbrook's summer activities were minimal. Consistent with the third party use prohibition, there was modest use by Hillbrook- enrolled students. In 2010, Hillbrook began allowing third parties to use the campus in the summer, including Steve & Kate's Camp, the Santa Fe Leadership Center and Breakthrough Silicon Valley. Hillbrook opened these programs to children and adults who do not attend Hillbrook. Hillbrook sought no CUP amendment before implementing these substantial intensifications of use, although seeking a modification is expressly required by Town Code Sec. 29.20.200. Use by third parties also directly violated Hillbrook's CUP. Summer use is now all day long (7:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m.) and all summer long. Prior summers were no more than 4 -6 weeks, and no more than a half day. Residents are now awakened on most on Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 summer weekday mornings by 7:00 a.m. by large trucks, buses and cars due to Hillbrook's increased summer uses, largely by third parties. Hillbrook had no right to simply ignore its CUP and dramatically increase the summer use of the campus to the detriment of its neighbors. E. HILLQROOK VIOLATED ITS ENROLLMENT CAP IN 11 OUT OF THE LAST 13 YEARS. Hillbrook exceeded its 315 Enrollment Cap repeatedly, amounting to blatant CUP violations, on top of intensification of use. There is evidence that under Dr. Silver's tenure, Hillbrook over- enrolled every year except 2013 -14, when neighbors brought this to light. Exhibit 2.' By 2010 -2011, Hillbrook was over enrolled by at least 23 students, representing a financial gain to Hillbrook of over a half million dollars. Also that year, Hillbrook submitted an inaccurate Affidavit to the State of California (under the pains and penalties of perjury) that stated that there were only 20 students in Hillbrook's 8h Grade, when in fact, according to the class photo Dr. Silver sent to neighbors that year, there were 31 students in 8u Grade that year. Exhibit 2, p. 9. The Town has not required any evidence of Hillbrook's enrollment numbers, and Hillbrook has taken full advantage of that lack of oversight. III. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRECTION IN FAILING TO ACCURATELY APPLY TOWN CODE SEC.29.20.190, WHICH REQUIRES THAT IN ORDER TO APPROVE A REQUESTED CUP, THE PLANNING COMMISSION MUST DETERMINE THAT, "THE PROPOSED USES WILL NOT IMPAIR THE INTEGRITY AND CHARACTER OF THE ZONE." Hillbrook is a nonconforming use in a "Low Density Residential," "Hillside Residential & Open Space," and "Low Density Residential & Agriculture" zone. The purpose of the CUP Conditions is to allow Hillbrook to operate only under conditions that do "not impair the integrity and character of the zone." The specific character of the neighborhood is a purely residential, two -lane, dead -end street with no sidewalks or bike lanes. The streets leading to Hillbrook have a steep hill, sharp S- curves and 6 Exhibit 2 is a Code Compliance Complaint submitted to the Town on May 15, 2014. Many of the Exhibits originally attached to the complaint are not included due to their length, but are available on request. In January 2014, Hillbrook provided the Town a list of the number of students per grade that generally comports with the Affidavit Hillbrook submitted to the State in October 2013, however, as demonstrated in Exhibit 2, Hillbrook has proven unreliable in these reports in the past. 7. Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 multiple blind spots, and are extremely dangerous when both vehicle traffic and pedestrian /bike traffic is present. There is overwhelming credible evidence in the record that Hillbrook's current uses already substantially impairs the character of the zone. Hillbrook is a commuter school with the vast majority of students arriving to the neighborhood by vehicle. Therefore, it is critically important that the Town Council implement conditions that will protect the wider neighborhood from the traffic, noise, and safety hazards Hillbrook's current operations impose. Any further increased intensity of use that would inevitably be caused by a 32% enrollment increase will result in levels of noise and traffic that will further impair the quality of life for Neighbor Appellants. The Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated September 30, 2014, p. 11, reflects that if the 14 acre site on which Hillbrook sits were developed as Residential, even with 62 homes, the total traffic impact on the surrounding neighborhood would be 590 daily vehicle trips. In order to preserve the integrity of the zone, Hillbrook should be limited to creating no more than 590 daily trips on Marchmont Dr. Hillbrook may argue that traffic has increased all over Town since 2001 and that Neighbor Appellants cannot expect that traffic in our neighborhood would not increase also. However, the only source of the increased traffic on purely residential Marchmont Dr., a dead end street at the end of which Hillbrook sits, has been due to Hillbrook's expanded uses and ineffective traffic mitigation. Currently, Hillbrook far exceeds the number of daily trips appropriate for the neighborhood with its existing 315 students (220 families). Hillbrook's CUP has obligated Hillbrook to implement carpooling since at least 1984 when there were far fewer students and families. The 2001 CUP was also intended to result in significant traffic mitigation by Hillbrook, but, as described above, the 2001 CUP has not been effective. In order to maintain and not impair the character of the zone, Hillbrook- related traffic on upper Marchmont Dr. should not exceed 590 daily trips. The Neighbor Appellants' Proposed Conditions of Approval attached here as Exhibit 1 accomplish that (Conditions 8 -10). 3 Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 IV. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FAILING TO COMPLY WITH TOWN CODE SEC. 29.20.190, INCLUDING SPECIFICALLY IN REGARD TO CONCERNS RAISED BY LONGMEADOW NEIGHBOR APPELLANTS, IN THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION FAILED TO REQUIRE CONDITIONS THAT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE SIGNIFICANT NOISE IMPACTS OF HILLBROOK'S PROPOSED EXPANSION ON LONGMEADOW NEIGHBOR APPELLANTS. The Longmeadow neighbors have concerns in addition to those of many other of the Neighbor Appellants. Four homes (Meleyco —189 Longmeadow, Markman — 187 Longmeadow, Herzi — 185 Longmeadow, and Puterbaugh — 183 Longmeadow) border Hillbrook, i.e., they share a fence. Another home, (Fordyce —191 Longmeadow), is one lot over from Hillbrook. From the Fordyce yard, one can both see and hear the back sports field at Hillbrook. Town Code Sec.29.20.190 requires that in order to approve a requested CUP, the Planning Commission must determine that, "The proposed uses will not impair the integrity and character of the zone." The October 6, 2014 CUP Condition #18 acknowledges that there is a significant impact in the form of noise, but fails to include any acceptable mitigation measures. The Longmeadow Neighbor Appellants expressly opposed the one suggested mitigation measure which is ineffective and will cause further deterioration of the integrity and the character of the low density residential zone. The Approved CUP failed to include sufficient alternative measures designed to preserve the residential environment for Longmeadow Neighbor Appellants. The CUP approved by the Planning Commission failed to address the following concerns voiced by the Longmeadow Neighbor Appellants. A. NOISE 1. Amplification: The amplification system at Hillbrook can be clearly heard at all of the Longmeadow Neighbors' homes. Longmeadow Neighbors have never complained about the graduation ceremony (which can be heard in detail even inside our homes) or other regular Hillbrook school events. In order to preserve the character of the residential zone, Longmeadow Neighbors request that the amplification be limited to graduation only. 2. Sound Wall: Longmeadow Neighbors are specifically opposed to a sound wall of any sort, and provided that information to the Planning Commission. Longmeadow Neighbors supplied testimony to the Planning Commission indicating that research shows that Sound Walls do not work and do cause a significant decrease in property values. a Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 3. Sports Events: The Outdoor After - School Sports events that Hillbrook has held in increasing numbers in recent years should be limited to only two days per week, as proposed in the Neighbor Appellants' Proposed Conditions of Approval, Condition 3. (Exhibit 1). 4. Maintenance: There should be no outdoor maintenance (blowers and mowers) allowed on evenings or weekends, as proposed in The Neighbor Appellants' Proposed Conditions of Approval, Condition # 3. 5. Enforcement: An increase in enrollment by 1/3 will inevitably increase both the noise levels and the incidents and duration of detrimental noise to the Longmeadow Neighbor Appellants. Enforcing restrictions on noise is difficult. Neighbor Appellants believe the best way to ensure compliance with the noise mitigation conditions in the CUP is by strictly limiting the times and days that activities may take place on campus. Except for the ten Special Events permitted in Condition #3, during the school year, all activities and events should end no later than 6:00 p.m. During the summer, all activities and events should end no later than 1:00 p.m. V. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRECTION IN FAILING TO ACCURATELY APPLY TOWN CODE SEC. 29.20.190, WHICH REQUIRES THAT IN ORDER TO APPROVE A REQUESTED CUP, THE PLANNING COMMISSION MUST DETERMINE THAT, "THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PROPERTY IS ESSENTIAL OR DESIRABLE TO THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR WELFARE." Hillbrook wants to expand so that it can admit 99 additional students mostly in its Middle School. Since according to Hillbrook's website, 2/3 of Hillbrook students come from outside of Los Gatos, at most only roughly 33 residents of Los Gatos would be added to the Hillbrook student population. The remaining 66 students would come from outside the Town's boundaries. This overwhelming use of the school by non - residents is neither essential nor desirable, since it increases traffic and noise without any counterbalancing benefits to the welfare of the Town and adds to the "inconvenience" already created by Hillbrook's commuter traffic. Hillbrook offered no evidence that its expansion is essential or desirable for Los Gatos residents. To the contrary, there was substantial evidence offered showing that in addition to further compromising the integrity of the residential zone, the Hillbrook expansion will exacerbate existing conditions on Marchmont Dr., conditions that the EIR acknowledges already creates a "significantly impaired residential environment." 10. Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 Hillbrook's claim that if it expands it will somehow ease overcrowding in the local public elementary schools is faulty. Virtually all of Hillbrook's additional enrollment is sought in its middle school, and, other than further exacerbating the already treacherous traffic conditions, will have no impact on currently crowded elementary schools. In its initial vote on the matter, a majority of the Planning Commission voted to reject Hillbrook's enrollment increase. Inexplicably, the Commission then took a re -vote, Commissioner O'Donnell changed his vote, and the motion to approve the modified CUP passed after midnight on October 7, 2014. The Town Council should reject Hillbrook's request to expand its enrollment. The existing CUP was adopted in 2001, after a lengthy process by the Town, the neighbors and Hillbrook, who all came together to fashion traffic mitigation measures that were intended to protect the neighborhood. At the time, Hillbrook insisted that it needed to upgrade and enlarge its campus facilities in order to be ADA compliant and earthquake safe. Neighbors expressed the concern that Hillbrook would seek to increase its enrollment if it was permitted to enlarge its facilities. The Head of School insisted, in writing and during public hearings, that Hillbrook did not plan to increase enrollment beyond 315 students, even with its enlarged facilities. Now, Hillbrook seeks a 32% increase in enrollment without having to enlarge its buildings, claiming that it has "empty seats." The Town Council should hold Hillbrook to the guarantee it made to neighbors that it would not seek to increase its enrollment. Hillbrook's stated reasons for needing an increase in students —so that its middle schoolers can have more social and academic opportunities and more opportunities for sports and other activities—does not justify the neighborhood degradation this expanded use would cause. The benefits to the community of allowing Hillbrook to expand its enrollment, programs, and activities do not outweigh the detriment to Neighbor Appellants and the community. Hillbrook's neighbors already experience substantial detriment every day as a result of Hillbrook's excessive traffic and unsafe conditions. The Town should not give Hillbrook the right to sell Neighbor Appellants' quality of life and enjoyment in our bucolic neighborhood to benefit Hillbrook and largely out of Town students. Hillbrook has operated in a highly successful manner at its current enrollment numbers for many years. The small class size at Hillbrook has been one of its strongest selling points. In its 2013 Form 990, Hillbrook touts the fact that, "Ninety Five percent of Hillbrook graduates apply to and are accepted at their first choice private high schools." Hillbrook does not truly need to expand for any of the reasons it claims. Hillbrook's request to expand enrollment is simply another step in its multipronged quest to maximize its use of the facility to benefit Hillbrook. Financially, Hillbrook has been operating very successfully, including throughout the recession. According to its publically available 990 11. Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 forms, Hillbrook increased its revenues from $7,869,211 in 2008 to $9,860,828 at year end 6/30/2013. Hillbrook pays no taxes on either the revenue or its property. Hillbrook has been so successful that it purchased a more than two million dollar home at Brooke Acres Dr. for the Head of School in 2012. A. IF THE TOWN COUNaL IS TO ALLOW ANY ADDED ENROLLMENT, IT SHOULD BE CON'DTTIONED ON STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH ALL CUP CONDITIONS WHICH MUST INCLUDE SUBSTANTIAL. SUSTAINED T AFFIL MHIGATTON. Pre - determined staging of any enrollment increase is not a good idea if the intent is to avoid noncompliance. Instead, if the Town Council is to approve any enrollment increase, Hillbrook should be required to first demonstrate strict compliance with all new CUP Conditions, for at least one year, including that it be required to substantially mitigate its traffic impacts before any students may be added. That way, the Town does not create "a vested right" in the school having a certain number of students by certain dates, only to find out that Hillbrook does not agree to the Conditions, has fashioned loopholes and is just going ahead and adding the students despite noncompliance. Given Hillbrook's past disregard for its CUP Conditions, the Town should require Hillbrook to go through the use permit compliance assessment each year, by submitting a detailed compliance report to the Town Planner, which is also supplied to the public. Hillbrook must supply actual data demonstrating that it has complied with all CUP Conditions. The public shall have the right to review and comment on the Hillbrook supplied data and to supply additional data to the Town Planner. After receiving the information from all interested parties, the Town Planner would be permitted to make an administrative decision whether or not Hillbrook has satisfied its CUP conditions, such that it should be allowed to increase its enrollment by any amount. The Town Planner shall notify the public and Hillbrook of its decision and all parties shall have 30 days to object. If any party objects to the Town Planner's decision, the matter shall be heard by the Planning Commission. If there is no objection to the Town Planner's recommendation after 30 days, the matter shall be placed on the Planning Commission consent calendar for approval. Hillbrook is not permitted any increase to its enrollment to the next stage without the express written approval from the Planning Commission. It is not the residents or the Town's job to solve the school's problems. It is Hillbrook's job to implement an effective plan to insure sustained compliance with all aspects of its CUP. The 12. Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 Town would not permit any other business to require the Town or residents to figure out how to solve its management problems or to incur substantial harm or cost to insure the permittee's compliance. VI. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FAILING TO CONSIDER AND APPROVE USE OF THE ANN ARBOR DRIVE ACCESS FOR HILLBROOK TRAFFIC. Currently, no Hillbrook traffic, either vehicle or pedestrian, is permitted to access Hillbrook through the Ann Arbor Gate. At the DEIR stage, Town Staff determined that there would be no study or analysis of using the Ann Arbor Gate because Ann Arbor residents opposed use of this second access. As a result, Staff determined that analysis of the Ann Arbor Gate alternative was "politically infeasible." DEIR 5.5.3, p. 5- 14 -15. Opposition to increased use of local streets is not limited to Ann Arbor residents. The vast majority of the hundreds of residents on the Marchmont side of the neighborhood oppose Hillbrook's current traffic level and any increase in enrollment, noise and traffic. If local opposition is the criteria for designating opening of an access as "politically infeasible," then Staff should have deemed any increased access on the Marchmont side "politically infeasible" as well. Hillbrook did not request a change to the CUP to permit it to use the Ann Arbor Gate and Ann Arbor Dr. and Wollin Way residents who spoke at the Planning Commission wholeheartedly supported both the EIR and Hillbrook's requested expansion. Given that many Ann Arbor Dr. and Wollin Way residents support Hillbrook's proposed expansion, they should be willing to take on some of the increased traffic impacts that result from an expansion. Although the 2014 EIR failed to evaluate the topic, the Town's Consultant TJKM in a 2000 Traffic study noted the "need to distribute school traffic to more access routes to reduce the pressure on Marchmont Dr.," and recommended that the Ann Arbor gate be opened to "reduce about 90 vehicles per hour on Marchmont Dr." The 2000 TJKM study noted that "Hillbrook is a part of the community in all directions." Nothing in the neighborhoods surrounding Hillbrook has changed since 2000 that would make that statement any less true. The Town still uses TJKM as a Consultant, so the Town must still value its opinion. The Town Council serves the entire Los Gatos community. In order to grant approval of a CUP, the Town Council must find, among other things, that, "The proposed use of the property is essential or desirable to the public convenience or welfare." If the expansion of Hillbrook School is in fact, "essential or desirable to the public convenience or welfare," then all of the access 13. Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 streets surrounding the school should be made available to service this essential amenity. Providing access to Hillbrook via Ann Arbor Dr. is long overdue. Ann Arbor Dr., like Marchmont Dr., is a "local street." Since the EIR found that there would be no significant impact to Marchmont Dr. and surrounding residents unless the daily trip count on Marchmont Dr. reached 1500, then the same should also be true for Ann Arbor Dr., also a "local street." In its September 30, 2014 Staff Report, p.6, Staff commented that, "If the Planning Commission desires to pursue the possibility of the Ann Arbor gate as a secondary access point, further analysis and study for traffic and environmental impacts would be required." There was literally no mention of the Ann Arbor access during the Planning Commissioners' deliberations resulting in the October 6, 2014 Conditions of Approval. The fact that Staff excluded study of the Ann Arbor Gate access from the EIR prevented the Planning Commission from any meaningful evaluation of using the Ann Arbor Gate to mitigate Hillbrook's traffic. The apparent agreement between Ann Arbor area neighbors and Hillbrook that Hillbrook would not request use of the Ann Arbor Gate in exchange for those residents' support of Hillbrook's plans should not be sanctioned by the Town Council. Such a deal between a private business and a small group of residents should not be permitted to usurp the Town Council's obligation to apply the Town's policies and codes fairly to all residents in the areas affected by Hillbrook's operation. The Town Council should require analysis and study of the benefits to Marchmont Dr. area residents of opening the Ann Arbor Gate for access to at least some Hillbrook traffic. Without that analysis, the decision regarding the Ann Arbor Gate is arbitrary and capricious and unelected Staff has usurped the authority of the Town Council which is responsible for making political decisions that impact all Town residents. The Town Council recently sent the North 40 EIR back for further study due to the lack of sufficient analysis of traffic impacts and alternatives. The Town Council should likewise require that the EIR study the Ann Arbor Gate access as a means of restoring the residential character of the neighborhood to residents on Marchmont Dr. and surrounding streets. There is no legitimate reason why the Ann Arbor area residents' opposition to Hillbrook traffic should prevent the Town from opening this access to more fairly balance the burden of Hillbrook traffic on all surrounding neighbors. The Town Code, General Plan, and EIR standards obligate the Town to fairly apply the law to all Town residents. It is not Town Staffs role to determine the issue based on its assessment of "political feasibility." VII. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRECTION IN FAILING TO ACCURATELY APPLY TOWN CODE SEC.29.20.190, WHICH 14. Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 REQUIRES THAT IN ORDER TO APPROVE A REQUESTED CUP, THE PLANNING COMMISSION MUST DETERMINE THAT, "THE PROPOSED USE WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR GENERAL WELFARE." There is substantial evidence that in failing to address the use of the Ann Arbor Gate, the Planning Commission's decision is "detrimental to public health, safety or general welfare." Whether or not any enrollment increase is approved, use of the Ann Arbor Dr. Gate will solve a significant safety hazard and will benefit the public health, safety or general welfare. Use of the Ann Arbor Dr. Gate is necessary to eliminate a serious safety hazard to bicyclists and pedestrians using Marchmont Dr. to access the school. In 2013, Marchmont Dr. residents notified Hillbrook and the Town of serious safety concerns due to Hillbrook's push to get more of its students to walk on Marchmont Dr. to campus during times when there is heavy traffic and blinding sun on the hill up to Hillbrook. See Exhibit 3 attached. Residents implored the Town to permit Hillbrook students to use the far safer access to Hillbrook through the Ann Arbor Dr. Gate. In response, Town Staff stated: "First and foremost, walking and biking on the street, by both children and adults, is permitted in the Town of Los Gatos. Chapter 5 of the Town Code provides provisions for bicycles, including that they are permitted on streets; chapter 15 provides provisions for pedestrians, including that they may use the streets. In fact, the Town's General Plan encourages alternative modes of transportation, specifically for school children. " Exhibit 3. This serious safety hazard continues today. The EIR and October 6, 2014 Conditions of Approval fail to address the safety hazards on Marchmont Dr. in any way. In its drive to convince the Town that it will lessen its traffic impact, Hillbrook has placed even more students at risk navigating Marchmont Dr. on bikes and on foot. The new "Give 3 Feet Law" cannot be followed unless all traffic comes to a halt on Marchmont Dr. when bicyclists are present. That does not happen and there have been many near misses between bikes and cars on Marchmont Dr. Town Code does not exempt Ann Arbor Dr. from Chapter 5. There is no impediment to having Hillbrook students use the Ann Arbor Gate, and there is a significant safety advantage to having them do so. Most Hillbrook students who walk up Marchmont Dr. are dropped off elsewhere in the neighborhood, including at Blossom Hill Park. It is closer and safer for Hillbrook students to walk to campus on Ann Arbor Dr., which does have sidewalks, has no curves and no hill, and would be far safer than navigating Marchmont Dr. through excessive Hillbrook traffic. 15. Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 The bus drop off /pick up would also be far safer at Ann Arbor Dr. than at Blossom Hill Park, where the "Kiss and Ride" creates dangers for students on their way to and from local schools. In fact, creating a bus stop at Ann Arbor Dr. for the pickup and drop off of all Hillbrook bus riders would also eliminate the need for large buses on Marchmont Dr., where they can barely make it through the S curve. If the Town Council determines that Hillbrook's expansion is "essential or desirable" to the Town, the Town Council should require that the entire community work together to accommodate Hillbrook's traffic for the benefit of all residents and to lessen the safety risks for bikers and pedestrians. The incremental increase to Ann Arbor residents of 300 total trips for Hillbrook traffic per day is reasonable, and a long overdue, fair way to balance the burden among the entire community. VIII. NEIGHBOR APPELLANTS' PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WILL RESTORE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHILE ALLOWING HILLBROOK TO SUCCESSFULLY OPERATE AS A PK -8 SCHOOL. Rather than allow Hillbrook to cause further detriment to the zone by expanding its enrollment, the Town Council should require Hillbrook to roll back its impacts so as to restore the character of the Low Density Residential Zone. Now is the time for the Town to enact real, enforceable traffic mitigation in order to preserve our neighborhoods. The first step is to implement a full -day maximum daily trip cap that is specific, verifiable, not subject to manipulation and enforced. That is the only realistic means of protecting the neighborhood. The trip count must be tamper - proof, transparent and available to Town residents in real time, in order to be enforceable. Staff has expressed concern about having the time and resources to enforce a new Hillbrook CUP. (Staff Report, September 30, 2014, p. 10). Staffs comment highlights the need for clear, unambiguous and enforceable Conditions in the Hillbrook CUP. Neighbor Appellants have spent hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars counting Hillbrook traffic and documenting its detrimental impacts on the neighborhood. Neighbor Appellants have been subjected to a meaningless and unenforceable CUP Conditions for far too long. Neither the Town nor Neighbor Appellants should have to manage Hillbrook's traffic. That is the responsibly of Hillbrook. The fact is that even with increased busing, carpooling, and walking/biking, Hillbrook's overall traffic burden on its neighbors is still far too high. Hillbrook will push for averages. If the CUP allows for averaging of Hillbrook's traffic, whatever number is chosen for the cap will be ripe for manipulation and meaningless. Hillbrook has complete and unfettered control over its schedule and can manipulate its daily averages at 16. Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 will. Hillbrook can schedule as many "school days" as it wishes in which not all students are in attendance and thus easily manipulate an "average." There are straightforward ways to restore the neighborhood to its intended character while allowing Hillbrook to successfully operate. See Neighbor Appellants' Proposed Conditions of Approval - Redline, dated December 1, 2014, Exhibit 1. An enforced Maximum Daily Trip count of 781 total trips for all of Hillbrook vehicle traffic, with 481 daily trips, through the Marchmont Dr. Gate, will restore the neighborhood to its intended character while allowing Hillbrook to successfully operate. The Neighbor Appellants' proposal to limit Hillbrook's full day traffic to 781 total trips and allocate that number between the Marchmont Dr. Gate (48 1) and the Ann Arbor Dr. Gate (3 00) can finally achieve the real, enforceable traffic mitigation the Town and Neighbor Appellants' have been expecting of Hillbrook dating back to 1984. Allocating Hillbrook's traffic between the Marchmom Dr. Gate and the Ann Arbor Dr. Gate will finally result in an equitable sharing of the burden among Hillbrook's neighbors. A. HILLBROOK CAN ACHE.VE SUBSTANTIAL TRAFFIC M uGATION BY UPHOLDING ITS LANG- OVERDUE PROMISES. Hillbrook promised to implement a busing program in 2001. It was not until 2012, when it began to seek approval to expand, that Hillbrook actually began a voluntary busing program. Although morning busing seems to work well, ridership falls off in the afternoon and buses are less than half full and have frequently been empty. With mandatory busing both to and from school, Hillbrook can roll back its traffic to the levels consistent with the low density residential zone. The CUP need not mandate a specific level of bus use. By implementing an enforceable 781 daily trip maximum, it will be in Hillbrook's interest to mandate bus use by a large portion of its students. An equitable sharing of the Hillbrook traffic burden that would restore the residential character of the neighborhood and also enhance safety would be as follows: r Two weeks before Hillbrook conducted its traffic study on which it now relies for its enrollment increase, Hillbrook began to run two massive (78 person capacity) buses, fully loaded, for the last two weeks of school 2010- 2011. Those same buses continued to roll through the neighborhood throughout the 2011 -2012 school year with far fewer children riding. There were routinely 10 or fewer children on the buses in the afternoons. 17. Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 1. Marchmont Dr. Gate -Limit Hillbrook to a total of 481 daily vehicle trips (in and out of the Marchmont Dr. Gate combined) through the Marchmont Dr. Gate. 2. Ann Arbor Dr. Gate- Limit Hillbrook to a total of 300 daily vehicle trips (in and out of the Ann Arbor Dr. Gate combined) through a newly constructed Ann Arbor Dr. Gate. Using the Ann Arbor Dr. Gate access to mitigate the impairment on the Marchmont Dr. side of Hillbrook is the obvious solution. As with the Marchmont Dr. Gate, Hillbrook should be required to install an electric gate and counter at the Ann Arbor Dr. Gate to count both entering and exiting vehicles, up to a maximum of 300 per day. It would be up to Hillbrook to determine the best way to allocate the trips, but one idea is that Hillbrook require that all employee vehicles and midday visitors use the Ann Arbor Dr. Gate. Hillbrook employees could be given a key card for access via an electric gate and midday visitors would have to be buzzed in by office staff. 3. Allowing bikers and pedestrians to access Hillbrook through the Ann Arbor Dr. Gate would also allow Hillbrook to increase the number of bikers and walkers who could safely arrive and depart with no impact on its vehicle count. There are no sidewalks on Marchmont Dr. or the other streets Hillbrook traffic uses to feed into Marchmont Dr. Ann Arbor Dr. does have sidewalks. There are also sidewalks on Shannon Road between Blossom Hill Park and Ann Arbor Dr. 4. Hillbrook should be required to pay for a crosswalk and signage to be installed at Ann Arbor Dr. and Shannon Rd., and a crossing guard and signage should be posted on Shannon Rd. and Short Rd. alerting drivers that this is a school crossing zone. 5. Hillbrook should be required to post a monitor at the Ann Arbor /Wollin Way entrance every day during both the a.m. and p.m. peak periods to prevent unauthorized vehicle use of that access or dropping off on Ann Arbor Dr. or Wollin Way. Ann Arbor area neighbors are justifiably concerned that if the Ann Arbor Gate is opened to some traffic the policy will be abused and drivers would drive up and drop off students at the gate. The CUP should require Hillbrook to prevent drop off on neighborhood streets and include substantial fines for violations. Condition #22 b. 6. Prohibit Hillbrook from operating as an After - School Recreation Department. That use was never authorized, and it interferes with after- school busing and carpooling, causing an excessive traffic burden in the neighborhood in the late afternoons. The Los Gatos - Saratoga Recreation Department operates similar programs that Hillbrook students have access to. Condition #3. 18. Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 IX. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BECAUSE CERTAIN OF THE APPROVED CONDITIONS EITHER IMPLY OR STATE USES THAT ARE NOT PERMITTED FOR HR -1 PROPERTIES EVEN WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, AS REFLECTED IN THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TABLE IN CHAPTER 29.20.185 OF THE LOS GATOS TOWN CODE. B. CONDITION #3, USE AND HOURS of OPERATION 1. "Professional Development - Training for Hillbrook parents and Hillbrook faculty only." This activity is permitted to occur Monday through Friday, during the Academic Year, from 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., with vehicles off campus by 9:30 p.m., and during the summer from 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., with vehicles off campus by 6:30 p.m. This opens up the possibility of conferences, including during the summer time. Conferences are specifically prohibited because the Table of Conditional Uses in Town Code secs. 29.40.390 and 29.20.185 does not permit conference facilities on HR -1 zoned property. In addition, it is not clear whether these conferences are permitted in addition to the Evening/Nighttime events also listed, or whether any such Professional Development- Training for Hillbrook parents and Hillbrook faculty that go past 6:00 p.m. are to be included in the total number of permitted Evening/Nighttime events. At the very least, this provision should be clarified to state that if a Professional Development - Training for Hillbrook parents and/or Hillbrook faculty goes past 6:00 p.m. it is to be included as one of the ten permitted Evening/Nighttime "Special Events" events per calendar year, and that no such trainings are permitted to last beyond 1:00 p.m. during the summer. 2. Condition #3 states the use is a JK through 8'h grade school. In the Table of Permitted Activities, the school is permitted to have dance, art and other classes as "After School Activities." Town Code prohibits using the facility as an art, craft, music, or dancing school. Town Code secs. 29.40.390 and 29.20.185. Although Hillbrook currently offers after - school classes in these areas, it is not and should not be permitted to act as a recreation center and these recreation classes should not be permitted. The Los Gatos /Saratoga Recreation Department offers such classes in appropriately zoned locations. 19. Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 3. Condition #7- "Third Party Use /Rental /Lease" The Planning Commission approved CUP currently states, "Any third party use, rental, and /or lease of the campus is prohibited. It is not a third party use if the entity is under contractual agreement with Hillbrook School and payments for participation in the activity are paid directly to Hillbrook School." As currently drafted, Condition #7 permits leasing and renting all or part of Hillbrook's HR -1 property, as long as there is a direct payment to Hillbrook. The Table of Conditional Uses in Town Code secs. 29.40.390 and 29.20.185 does not allow conditional use permit holders to rent or lease their properties. Item (2) a. lists "commercial recreation and amusement establishment" as uses not even permitted with a Conditional Use Permit. According to their comments during deliberations, the Planning Commission determined that Third Party Use should not be allowed and intended to remove any potential loopholes in that language. Hillbrook has claimed that it may "partner with" various third parties without violating the Third Party Use prohibition. In a letter dated March 28, 2012 from the Town Planner to Hillbrook, the Town Planner stated, "This is a friendly reminder that the existing Conditional Use Permit does not permit the lease /rental of campus facilities to third parties. Therefore, the Steve & Kate program and the Santa Fe Leadership Center would not be allowed." Unfortunately, this "friendly reminder" came after Hillbrook violated the CUP by allowing these and other third party uses for the entire summer of 2011. X. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BECAUSE IT FAILED TO CONSIDER OR REQUIRE STUDY OF SIGNIFICANT DETRIMENTAL IMPACTS TO NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS OR WAYS TO ALLEVIATE THE ALREADY SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIRED RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT CREATED BY HILLBROOK'S OPERATIONS. The EIR did not address Town Code: Sec. 29.20.150, considerations in review of applications, which states: Considerations relating to traffic safety and traffic congestion. The effect of the site development plan on traffic conditions on abutting streets; the layout of the site with respect to locations and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian entrances, exits, drives, and walkways; the adequacy of off - street parking facilities to prevent traffic congestion; the location, arrangement, and dimension of truck loading and unloading facilities; the circulation pattern within the boundaries of the development, and the surfacing, lighting and handicapped accessibility of off - street parking facilities. a. Any projector development that will add traffic to roadways and critical intersections shall be analyzed, and a determination made on the following matters:... 20. Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 1. The ability of critical roadways and major intersections to accommodate existing traffic; ... 3. Regional traffic growth and traffic anticipated for the proposed project one (1) year after occupancy. The Final EIR failed to adequately assess existing traffic or traffic coming from Highway 85, Blossom Hill Road, or Short Road. The Final EIR also failed to assess how much of Hillbrook's existing or proposed traffic could access Hillbrook through a Gate at Ann Arbor Dr. XI. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BECAUSE IT CERTIFIED AN EIR THAT WAS BASED ON INSUFFICIENT AND INACCURATE DATA THAT FAILED TO ADEQUATELY ASSESS THE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT. Failure to Publicly Evaluate The Final EIR. The Planning Commission certified the EIR with no discussion at all, after midnight on October 7, 2014. In documents submitted to the Planning Commission, numerous residents cited deficiencies, including the following in the final EIR: 1. Inconsistency with the General Plan; 2. Inconsistency with the Town Code; 3. Lack of data for judgments about summer traffic and programming; 4. Insufficient and inaccurate data for conclusions about Hillbrook Average Daily Traffic ( "ADT "); 5. Frequent use of unreliable ADT numbers to draw significant conclusions; 6. Failure to look at the environmental impact of opening the Ann Arbor Dr. access to school traffic; 7. Unsupported assumption that the Traffic Demand Management Plan ( "TDM ") plan will reduce traffic; 8. Failure to address questions about flaws in the 2012 TJKM traffic study; 9. Failure to address adequately issues raised about emergency access on single- access streets like upper Marchmont Dr.; 21. Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 10. Misinformation and unsupported statements about critical issues; 11. Failure to respond to commenters' questions. XII. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BECAUSE THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION WAS BASED ON FALSE OR INNACCURATE DATA THAT WAS PREJUDICIAL TO NEIGHBOR APPELLANTS, INCLUDING: A. THE PLANNING CoNmsSIONERS RECEIVED INACCURATE INFORMATION FROM TOWN STAFF THAT WAS PRERJDICIAL AND LEAD TO DECISIONS THAT OTHERWISE WOULD NOT BE MADE. During the Planning Commissioners' deliberations in the meeting on October 6, 2014, the Town Planner provided at least two incorrect pieces of information. 1. In response to a Planning Commissioner's question as to whether or not Hillbrook had been in violation of its CUP, the Town Planner stated that at the March 18, 2013 Town Council meeting at which alleged Hillbrook CUP violations were reviewed, no violations were found. In fact, violations were found and Hillbrook was told to cease them: The Town Council found that Hillbrook's teacher training conferences, open to the general public, were not permitted and therefore it could not hold its proposed iPad conference or other teacher training conferences on campus. The Town Council also determined that interschool weekend sports tournaments Hillbrook had been holding were specifically prohibited and ordered the school to stop holding such tournaments. In addition, prior to the March 2013 Town Council meeting, neighbors alerted Town Staff to numerous additional CUP violation's by Hillbrook, including more than double the number of permitted nighttime activities, numerous unpermitted weekend activities and the school's failure to file any of the CUP required carpool reports from 2008 -2012. The Staff directly addressed some of those violations with Hillbrook, instructing Hillbrook to cease the violations. All of the CUP violations neighbors have brought to light should have been disclosed to the Planning Commissioners. The fact that neighbors had to police Hillbrook's CUP and get the Town to address the violations at all is important information for both the Planning Commission and Town Council. Subsequent to the March 18, 2013 Town Council meeting, a neighbor made a Code Compliance Complaint when it was discovered that Hillbrook had substantially exceeded its enrollment cap in 11 out of the last 13 years. That Complaint was not addressed by Town Council. 22. Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 In responding to the over enrollment Code Compliance Complaint, on May 22, 2014,Town staff stated, "staff intends to ask the deciding body in its consideration of the pending Conditional Use Permit application to consider a condition that monitors their enrollment to ensure on -going compliance with the CUP." Unfortunately, to date, Staff has not proposed any such enforcement mechanism. Staff did note in its September 24, 2014 Staff Report (at p.I 1), that, "based on the enrollment records collected by the CDE [California Department of Education - attached to the code compliance complaint filed by Reuel Warkov on May 15, 2014], the neighbors are correct that, in the past, Hillbrook School did exceed their enrollment limits." There is still no enforcement process in the Planning Commission approved CUP to insure that Hillbrook does not overenroll in the future. The Town Planner's inaccurate report to the Planning Commissioners that Hillbrook had not been found to have violated its CUP was misleading and prejudicial. The Planning Commissioners should have been given accurate information about Hillbrook's numerous, long- term, significant violations of its CUP. Hillbrook's failure to voluntarily comply with its CUP conditions explains why it is so important to Neighbor Appellants that the Town insures that the Conditions are explicit, specific, enforceable, and enforced. It is of great concern to Neighbor Appellants that Staff has not followed up on its commitment to recommend monitoring and enforcement provisions relating to the enrollment cap and other Conditions in a proposed Hillbrook CUP.B Neighbor Appellants have provided proposed terms for such Conditions (Exhibit 1,Condition #4; Condition # 8b) that should help address this concern. Neighbor Appellants are also greatly concerned that Staff has indicated that it may not have the resources to closely monitor and enforce the new Hillbrook CUP. Staff Report, dated September 30, 2014, p. 8, 10. Hillbrook's past behavior makes it clear that unless its compliance is closely monitored, it cannot be relied on to conform to the CUP Conditions it is obligated to meet. Land Use Goal LU -8 in the 2020 General Plan requires that the Town Staff ensure that the Hillbrook CUP is enforced. The Goal of LU -8 is, "To uphold and enforce adopted land use regulations." Policy LU -8.1 states, "Maintain a Code Compliance function to effectively enforce the land use regulations in the Town Code." 'The CUP should also require that Hillbrook specify the dates, times and impact of the 10 permitted Evening/Nighttime "Special Events," so as to insure that Hillbrook does not once again exceed the permitted number. 23. Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 Policy LU -8.2 states, "Town staff shall identify major violations (illegal units, sign violations, illegal uses, tree removals, grading violations, etc.) without waiting for public complaint. Town staff shall act on minor violations (illegally parked cars, boats, trailers and campers, etc.) based on public complaints. Additional violations that may be observed during investigation of a complaint shall also be acted on." 2. In response to a Commissioner's question about the amount of neighbor - generated traffic on Marchmont Dr., the Town Planner stated that the neighbor - generated traffic for upper Marchmont Dr., as reported in the EIR, was 67 daily trips. The Town Planner's information was inaccurate and substantially underreported the amount of neighbor - generated traffic on Marchmont Dr. The Town Planner's number was the amount of traffic that occurred between Karen Court (just outside of the Hillbrook gate) and the Hillbrook gate. Upper Marchmont Dr. and its adjoining courts have 34 homes. The Town Planner's response to Commissioners included only approximately five of these homes. Based on the ITE trip rate quoted by staff for a single family residence of 9.52 (Staff Report dated September 30, 2014, p. 11), the total estimated neighbor - generated traffic for upper Marchmont Dr. is 324 daily trips, not 67 daily trips as Ms. Savage reported to the Planning Commissioners. The Planning Commission and the Town Council should be apprised that with 880 daily vehicle trips currently approved for Hillbrook in the October 6`h CUP plus the estimated 324 daily neighbor - generated traffic on upper Marchmont Dr., the total daily trips on upper Marchmont Dr. will be 1,204, far above the 891 that the EIR states is a "significantly impaired residential environment" under the TIRE analysis. B. THERE WERE SEVERAL OTHER ERRORS AND PROCEDURAL. FLAWS THAT OCCURRED DURING THE PENDENCY OF HILLBROOK'S APPLICATION THAT ARE PREJUDICIAL TO NEIGHBOR APPELLANTS. The September 24, 2014 Staff Report to the Planning Commission, p.I states that the Application was "DEEMED COMPLETE: August 29,2014" and the "THE FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: February 28, 2014." If the final date to take action was Feb 28, 2014, why was action taken October 7, 2014? Given that action was not taken until after the allowed time, should not the entire process have to start over again? Hillbrook submitted a new Letter of Justification on Sept 17, 2014, after "the final date to take action," and two years after its Letter of Justification submitted on Sept 20, 2012. September 17, 2014 was also the last day to submit materials for the Planning Commission packet, thus preventing any reasonable response from neighbors. 24. Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 Hillbrook was also permitted to submit a Proposed Conditions of Approval document in mid - July 2014, which was accepted as a replacement for the 2012 Letter of Justification but without any justifications for the new proposed conditions. Nor were Hillbrook's July 2014 Conditions of Approval subject to any reasonable Environmental Review or analysis. The fact that the Application was not deemed complete until years after the September 20, 2012 date seems highly irregular. The EIR should not have proceeded until after the application was deemed complete. XIII. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BECAUSE CERTAIN OF THE APPROVED CONDITIONS FAIL TO PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF THE RESIDENTIAL ZONE IN WHICH HILLBROOK SITS. Although some of the conditions that the Planning Commission approved are necessary and appropriate as described below, some necessary conditions are not included that should have been included and in some of the approved conditions, there are errors, internal inconsistencies and lack of clarity. Attached as Exhibit I is a red -line of the Conditions of Approval Neighbor Appellants feel both are necessary and appropriate. A. CONDITIONS OF APPRovAL. CONrimoN #3 1. "School Instruction." D. 1 The hours listed in this item (7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) are not accurate. According to Hillbrook's September 20, 2012 Letter of Justification, "The school day begins at 8 am for grades 1 -8 and 8:15 am for JK/K. Dismissal times are staggered, with JK/K ending at 2:45 pm, 1 -4 at 3 pm, and 5 -8 at 3:15 pm." To accurately describe Hillbrook's permitted activities regarding "School Instruction," the hours for this activity type should be "8:00 a.m. to 3:15 p.m." 2. "Afterschool Sports and Other Competitions." p. 2. The description of this permitted activity is, "Any sports, competitive or not, and other competitions with at least one participating team from Hillbrook." The "Time of Year" is described as "Mid- August to Mid -June, maximum five times per week. No more than three outdoor events." 25. Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 It is not at all clear what is meant by "Maximum five times per week." The Planning Commission's intention was to limit Hillbrook to hosting no more than five games or matches per week total, only three of which may be conducted outdoors. The language in the approved condition does not accomplish that intention. Hillbrook could interpret the term "five times per week" to mean five days per week, which would have no impact on limiting Hillbrook's already excessive number of home games per school year. The language of this permitted activity in the column "Time of Year" should read, "Mid- August to Mid -June. Maximum three days per week. No more than two days per week with outdoor events." 3. "Hillbrook Faculty /Administrator Weekday Work," p. 3. This condition allows Hillbrook to conduct business until 9:30 p.m., every week night during the academic year. The CUP allows Hillbrook to have a staff of 80. No Nighttime Use, beyond the TEN permitted Nighttime Events, should be permitted, including Faculty /Administrator Work. Neighbors should not be subjected to nighttime weekday Hillbrook traffic of up to 80 vehicles on an unlimited basis. No typical school conducts nighttime faculty /staff meetings. Permitting these activities to occur past 6:00 p.m., expands the current limit of Ten Nighttime Activities to an unlimited number, and there is no way for anyone to police that. The campus should be quiet by 6:00 p.m. with vehicles off campus by 6:30 p.m., every evening, except for the ten permitted Nighttime Activities. 4. "Professional Development," n. 4 "Training for Hillbrook parents and Hillbrook faculty only." This provision allows this activity to occur until 9:00 p.m. with vehicles off campus by 9:30 p.m. during the Academic Year and until 6:00 p.m. with vehicles off campus by 6:30 p.m. during the summer. This provision appears to be in addition to the ten permitted nighttime activities and therefore allows for an unlimited number of nighttime activities "for Hillbrook parents" and faculty, and completely negates the limit of TEN evening/nighttime events." Under this provision, Hillbrook can hold adult classes or other gatherings for hundreds of parents /faculty, any weeknight during the academic year until 9:30 p.m. and any weekday during the summer until 6:30 p.m. 26. Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 It should be made clear in the Conditions of Approval, Condition #3, that any "Professional Development" that occurs past 6:00 p.m., shall be counted as among the ten permitted per calendar year "Evening/Nighttime activities," and that NO Nighttime Summer activities are permitted. B. COMMON OFAPPROVAL #7, P. 4,TFIDtD PARTY USF/RENTAL/LEASE This condition currently reads: "Any third party use, rental, and /or lease of the campus is prohibited. It is not a third party use if the entity is under contractual agreement with Hillbrook School and payments for participation in the activity are paid directly to Hillbrook School." The language of this condition is not only internally inconsistent and therefore meaningless, but utterly fails to accomplish what the Planning Commissioners intended, which was to tighten up and strengthen the current Hillbrook school prohibition against third -party uses. This third party use condition is wholly ineffective; the second sentence contradicts the first. In fact, the language of this condition opens up the Hillbrook campus to any third party use as long as Hillbrook has a contractual agreement with that third party and there is some payment from that third party to Hillbrook. The language as stated completely negates any protection to the neighborhood from what was intended to be a prohibition against Hillbrook allowing any third party uses of the campus. The whole point of prohibiting third party uses is to limit the amount of times the neighborhood is subjected to Hillbrook- related noise and traffic. The intent of the third party use prohibition is that the Hillbrook campus is intended to be used only for the 315 Academic Year Hillbrook enrolled students. When Hillbrook enrolled students are not using the campus, the neighborhood should be quiet. Allowing any third party rentals or "hosted" events at Hillbrook results in a substantial loss of enjoyment of Neighbor Appellants' property, as third party events would obviously occur after typical school hours and /or during the summer when Hillbrook is not using the campus for its own students. The noise concerns are particularly significant during the summer, when more of the third party activities take place out of doors and Neighbor Appellants wish to enjoy the peace and quiet of the residential neighborhood out doors on their property. In addition to noise, traffic and road safety concerns created by third parties not associated with Hillbrook, there are also security concerns, particularly for the Neighbor Appellants who share a fence with Hillbrook. 27. Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 Finally, Neighbor Appellants have property value concerns due to Hillbrook's attempts to use the property to the benefit of third parties. When Neighbor Appellants bought our homes, we were adjacent to a small country day school. Without permission or oversight, the school has grown, and the dynamic has changed. If Hillbrook is allowed to turn itself into an event or conference center or permitted to allow other programs or activities on the campus, both our property values and our quality of life in our neighborhood and on our quiet street will be irreparably deteriorated. The following language should be used in Condition #7 to protect the neighborhood from third party uses: "Any third party use, rental, and /or lease of the campus is prohibited, except that Hillbrook School may provide educational programs for its Academic Year enrolled students, or staff by contracting with a third -party instructor to provide services for the programs and by providing that all enrollment in any such program is counted in Hillbrook's enrollment cap (Condition #4) and limited to Hillbrook staff and that any fees for participation in such programs are paid directly to Hillbrook School." C. THERE ARE SEVERAL CONDITIONS THAT ARE ENiiRELY MISSING FROM THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, THE ABSENCE OF WHICH WILL CAUSE SERIOUS AND IRREPARABLE HARM TO NEIGHBOR APPELLANTS 1. Lack of Effective Enforcement The October 6, 2014 CUP, as written, is fundamentally flawed just like Hillbrook's current CUP. The new CUP lacks effective or required means of auditing compliance. The honor system on which the existing CUP is based has not worked. Numerous violations have been documented over the last decade. The revised CUP is based on this same honor system, and yet there is no reason to believe that Hillbrook will honor its new CUP terms. Based on recent history, the revised CUP will be equally violated. The Town Council must include required, effective Conditions for monitoring and compliance or Hillbrook will be free to ignore the Conditions and residents will be harmed. Several provisions should be added, including: a. Require that underground counting devices be installed and maintained by a third party at both the Marchmont Dr. and Ann Arbor Dr. Gates to count all vehicles both entering and exiting the campus. 28. Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 Currently, the counting device at the Marchmont Dr. Gate only counts vehicles exiting in the far right exit lane. All traffic entering and exiting through any lane must be counted in order to accurately maintain a count and implement an enforceable trip cap. Proposed Condition # 10 a. b. Require that the third party vendor collect, post and preserve the daily counts at both gates each day and that the vendor submit the all data to the Town and the Neighborhood Committee each month. Proposed Condition # 10 b. c. Require that the Town shall conduct routine unannounced full -day car counts at both the Marchmont Dr. Gate and the Ann Arbor Dr. Gate., at least three times per year. There needs to be independent confirmation that the Sensys counts are accurate and that the system is not susceptible to manipulation. Proposed Condition # 10 f. d. Require Hillbrook teachers to certify the enrollment numbers in their classrooms. Proposed Condition #4. e. Require Hillbrook to provide the Town and the Neighborhood Committee with a list of the Special Event Days along with its traffic management plan to be implemented on each of the Special Event Days no later than August 1 s` each year. Proposed Condition #8b. 2. No Drop Off or Pick Up Of Students on Neighborhood Streets- Revised Condition 414. Both Hillbrook and the Neighbor Appellants proposed a no -drop off /no parking provision for the CUP. Staff left that provision out of the Staff proposed conditions without comment. Without such a prohibition, the full day trip limit becomes meaningless. Parents can simply drive into the neighborhood and drop off and /or pick up students outside of the Hillbrook gates and not have those vehicle trips counted. A Condition as follows should be added in order to make the full -day trip cap meaningful: "There shall be no Hillbrook - related parking on upper or lower Marchmont Drive, its adjacent courts, Hilow Road, Stoneybrook Road, Englewood Avenue, Robin Way, Cardinal Lane, Topping Way, Ann Arbor Drive or Wollin Way. There shall be no picking up or dropping off of students or staff on the above -named streets at any time." 3. Summertime- Proposed Conditions 4b; 9. The Conditions of Approval, failed to distinguish between school year and summer impacts. Applying the same standards and imposing the same traffic burden on residents in the summer as during the school year causes a dramatic decline in Neighbor Appellants' quality of life. M Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 Hillbrook is not a year round academic school. The recommendation of the Planning Commission would allow 414 children at Hillbrook all year long. Neighbor Appellants strongly disagree with full -time summer use, and ask the Town Council to limit summer usage to 100 students on campus at any one time, sessions limited to mid -June to mid - August, and summer sessions ending at 1:00 p.m., for Hillbrook enrolled students. We believe summers should be limited to no more than six weeks total.9 Hillbrook, the Neighbor Appellants, and staff all proposed conditions for Hillbrook's summer use that would have limited traffic to fewer daily vehicle trips. Hillbrook's CUP Modification request for its summer activities was one half of the number during the school year. While Hillbrook's proposed summer trip cap number is still too high for Neighbor Appellants to have summertime peace and enjoyment, it is an acknowledgement that Hillbrook's summertime impacts on the neighborhood should be far less than what neighbors are subjected to during the school year. Neighbor Appellants' condition also contained specific time -of -use language. The three recommendations should have been considered. Instead, the Planning Commission lumped the whole calendar year together under one all- encompassing condition that fails to provide Neighbor Appellants with any peace, quiet, or safe enjoyment of the neighborhood during the summers. The Town Council should modify Hillbrook's CUP to explicitly protect residents' summertime quality of life and peace and enjoyment. Neighbor Appellants propose reasonable summer session limits on times of use, enrollment and traffic which are consistent with Hillbrook's summer use of the campus prior to 2009 and more consistent with the summer uses of local public schools. No Third Party Use should be permitted in the summer, including Breakthrough Silicon Valley. In order to afford neighborhood residents a well - deserved respite from the school year Hillbrook noise and traffic, neighbors propose the following conditions: 4 b. SUMMER - SESSION ENROLLMENT. The summer - session total enrollment shall be limited to 100 JK to 8`h grade students. Documentation listing the number of students enrolled at Hillbrook School in the summer session shall be supplied to the Town at least two weeks before the beginning of the summer session. 9. SUMMER SESSION TRAFFIC LIMITS. During the summer session the maximum number of vehicles entering and leaving the Hillbrook campus at the ' By contrast, St. Mary's School in Los Gatos offers just two weeks of summer school, Monday- Friday, with classes lasting from 9:00 a.m. — noon. 30. Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 Marchmont Drive gate shall not exceed 160 vehicle trips. The summer session, if any, shall occur over six contiguous weeks between the end of one school year and the beginning of the next. Summer session activities may occur only on Monday through Friday from 8:30 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. Drop -off and pickup shall each be limited to a one - hour periods of 8:00 A.M.-9:00 A.M. and 12:30 p.m. -1:30 P.M. The above proposed number of weeks and times of use are consistent with the uses during the summer time of the other local elementary and middle schools. In Los Gatos, the local elementary schools each host the Recreation Department Elementary Grades Summer School only once every third summer, and otherwise, there are few summertime activities being conducted. Even Fisher Middle School, which hosts the Middle School Summer School program each year, lasts only six weeks and ends each day by 12:30 p.m. Likewise, the Los Gatos High School summer school program ends at 12:35 p.m. and alternates between Los Gatos High School and Saratoga High School, giving those neighbors at least alternate years of peace. a. Breakthrough Silicon Valley Staff included the Breakthrough Silicon Valley ( "BSV ") program in the list of Hillbrook's "Permitted Activities," on page 3 of the October 6h Conditions of Approval that the Planning Commission approved. There was no discussion of BSV during Planning Commissioners' deliberations on October 61h. During the Public comment section, a Hillbrook spokesman said that the Town Council had "approved" holding the "Breakthrough Silicon Valley" program at Hillbrook in the summertime. There was indeed a Town Council hearing in March 2013 at which this issue was discussed. Unfortunately, Hillbrook supplied inaccurate information to Town Staff regarding the BSV program, claiming that BSV "is a Hillbrook program" and "is run by Hillbrook." Neither of those statements is accurate. See the attached Council Agenda Report, dated March 12, 2013, p.4 (Exhibit 4). The Staff report stated that, "Staff also determined that activities must be managed by Hillbrook School and that Hillbrook could contract out to provide certain activities under Hillbrook's direction and control ...; these would not constitute third -party uses." (Exhibit 4, p. 2). The Town Council accepted Staffs interpretation and allowed the BSV program at Hillbrook, based on the false information Hillbrook submitted. Staff determined that the BSV program was permitted under Hillbrook's existing CUP with the following statement, "Allowed: Programs for children in grades K through 8 are allowed and run by Hillbrook but may not exceed the maximum number of students." (Underline added). 31. Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 The Town Council accepted the Staff Report as accurate. The Town Council should remove "Breakthrough Silicon Valley" from the description of the "Permitted Activities" in the Conditions of Approval. BSV is not and has never been a Hillbrook program. BSV is a third party use which should not be permitted. According to its web site, BSV is part of the Breakthrough Collaborative, a national, organization founded in San Francisco in 1978. Breakthrough uses sites across the U.S. and in Hong Kong. See http://breakthroughsv.org/mission-and-historv/ According to the Mercury News 10, the Breakthrough program is active in 33 locations; the Silicon Valley program began in 2002 at San Jose Unified School District middle and high schools. In 2012, it added programs in the Franklin- McKinney School District. From BSV's website, the program is described as "a 6 -year long academic and college readiness program for talented and motivated junior high and high school students. From 70ito 12t' grade, students participate in a variety of summer and after school activities geared towards challenging students academically and preparing them for rigorous college —prep high schools and four -year colleges." BSV is open to students in the San Jose Unified or Franklin- McKinley school districts. BSV students do not apply to and are not enrolled in any program at Hillbrook; they apply to BSV. BSV defines the requirements for the program, the curriculum and decides who will be admitted. http: / /breakthrou hg sv.org /frequently- asked - questions/ Nor does Hillbrook select the teachers for the BSV program or run the program. The teachers apply to and are selected by BSV. BSV also determines which of the teachers it hires will be placed at Hillbrook. See http: // issuu. com / breakthrough - collaborative /does /viewbook_2015 One explicit aspect of the BSV program is teacher training. Hillbrook has also allowed BSV to use the campus for two weeks in the summer for teacher training for non - Hillbrook School teachers. "Program Overview: Breakthrough Silicon Valley has two interlinked, but separate program paths. One is geared towards preparing academically motivated middle and high school students for college. The other is geared towards training and motivating bright high school and college students to become educators. "11 Hillbrook was never authorized to act as a teacher training center, and Staff and the Town Council explicitly rejected that use in the March 2013 hearing, for other third party teacher 10 http:// www. mercurynews. com/ sanjose- neighborhoods/ci_21754411 /breakthrough- silicon - valley - part- national- mentoring- and - support http: / /breakthroughsv.org /our - program/ 32. Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 training programs Hillbrook had been allowing (Santa Fe Leadership Center and others- "Not allowed: Third Party lease. Adult programs for non - Hillbrook School teachers are not allowed under the existing CUP." (Exhibit 4, p. 3 -5). BSV is not "a Hillbrook program ", and is not "run by Hillbrook." It is a completely independent 501 (c) (3) organization and is a third party program that Hillbrook has let use the campus, even though third party uses are not permitted under either the existing or the proposed conditions in Hillbrook's CUP. BSV is obviously a worthwhile program. It is NOT a Hillbrook program; it is a third party use and should not be permitted at Hillbrook. This is another one of the many significant ways in which Hillbrook has disregarded the Conditions in its CUP to the detriment of Appellant Neighbors. Hillbrook's false statements to the Town about BSV, is yet another example of the lack of credibility Hillbrook has exhibited in connection with its CUP conditions. The Town Council should not turn a blind eye to Hillbrook's overreaching. The prohibition of Third Party Uses, dating back to 2001, was intended to protect the integrity, character, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood- "a low density" residential zone. Prior to these improper third party uses, Neighbor Appellants enjoyed a well- deserved break from early morning and late afternoon Hillbrook traffic in the summers. During the Planning Commission hearing on September 30, 2014, the Head of School Mark Silver told the Commissioners that Hillbrook "partners with" BSV. That is what Hillbrook said about "Steve & Kate's Camp" and a whole list of other Third Party Uses that Hillbrook was allowing but was required to cease. Exhibit 4, p.4. As further evidence that BSV is not a Hillbrook program, when on September 30, 2014, the Planning Commission asked the Hillbrook Summer Program Coordinator to describe the summer programs Hillbrook provides, she talked about the weeklong camps Hillbrook holds and said that Hillbrook had approximately 144 kids in Hillbrook's summer programs last summer (2014). She did not include the numbers for the BSV program: another approximately 120 Middle School students, approximately 30 High School and College age students, plus an unknown number of adult participants. The Hillbrook Summer Program Director DID NOT include any of the BSV participants in the numbers she presented the Planning Commissioners in describing Hillbrook's Summer Programs on September 30`h , because BSV is not a Hillbrook program. It is extremely disappointing and frustrating that Hillbrook cannot be relied on to provide complete or accurate data, even in a formal setting such as a Planning Commission hearing. 33. Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 The BSV summer traffic includes two large buses going up and down the hill before 8:30 a.m., 30 + other vehicles, and another 20 + students whose parents drive them to the program in the mornings, all beginning around 7:30 a.m. each weekday and continuing for 8 weeks, including two weeks of training. For much of the summer, Neighbor Appellants are awakened not by the birds, but by the traffic, including large buses and trucks, up and down Marchmont Dr. (approximately 74 vehicle passes in front of our homes all before 8:30 a.m.), just related to the BSV program. We have the same traffic again in the afternoons, between 4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. There are several large delivery and food service trucks and daily garbage truck trips required to serve the program. The BSV program also hosts events for families of the participants; bringing additional traffic to the neighborhood. On top of that, Hillbrook runs its own summer programs, bringing more traffic to the neighborhood in the hours between the morning and afternoon BSV traffic. BSV is a third party - And it diminishes residents' quality of life beginning early most summer mornings and late into the afternoons. Allowing Third Party uses, including BSV, would not be aligned with the intent of the CUP or with Town Code. 4. Necessary Definitions -The CUP lacks a definition of "ENROLLMENT," "STUDENT" and "ACADEMIC YEAR" "ACADEMIC YEAR ENROLLMENT" is defined as follows: The Academic Year enrollment shall be limited to 315 students. "STUDENT' is defined as "a child enrolled at any time in Hillbrook's Academic Year program, JK-8." "ACADEMIC YEAR" is defined as running from Mid- August to Mid -June. Documentation listing the number of students enrolled, per grade at Hillbrook School shall be supplied to the Town on a quarterly basis, at the end of December, March, June, and September for the next three months. 5. TDM MEASURES ARE NOT ADEQUATELY DEFINED The Planning Commission failed to include in its proposed CUP any enforceable provisions relating to traffic mitigation. Instead, it calls for implementation of "all measures in the 34. Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 Transportation Demand Management Plan prepared by Nelson \Nygaard and dated September 14, 2012. The Nelson\Nygaard "Final Plan" of September 14, 2012 contains only recommendations. It does not provide a comprehensive plan. The Planning Commission did not adequately review this "final plan." The following significant problems with the "final plan" need to be addressed in Hillbrook's new CUP: a. Participation should be defined. Are all parents required to take part in a mandatory program? Is daily participation required? Do parents need to participate both for morning dropoff and afternoon pickup? What is the definition of a carpool? When will buses be available? What are the bus schedules? The experience has been that there are far fewer bus riders and carpools in the afternoons, particularly in the upper grades. That is where Hillbrook wants to expand and where traffic has increased over the years, after the PM peak period. This is when residents want to be able to enjoy the neighborhood and Hillbrook should be required to limit its impacts after 3:45 PM, per the intent of the 2001 CUP. b. "Commit" needs to be defined. Again, are families committed to daily participation in the program? Does commitment include morning drop -off and afternoon pick -up? Currently, "commitment" means signing a form agreeing to participate in some form of traffic mitigation at some times c. Compliance needs to be better described. Who in the administration will monitor compliance? How will compliance be reported? Does compliance mean everyday participation during both drop -off and pick -up? What are the exceptions, if any? d. The TDM also has no provision for traffic mitigation during the summer. The Planning Commission should have provided specific provisions for summer traffic mitigation in the CUP. XIV. CONCLUSION In light of all of the deficiencies articulated above, Neighbor Appellants submit that the Required Findings in Town Code Sec.29.20.190 cannot be made with regard to the Conditions of Approval passed by the Planning Commission on October 6, 2014 and the approved CUP violates the Town of Los Gatos General Plan in numerous respects. Moreover, the EIR is 35. Neighbor Appellants' Supporting Documentation To Appeal of October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Decision Hillbrook School: CUP U -12 -002; EIR -13 -001 insufficient and failed to account for significant detrimental impacts of the Hillbrook expansion on Neighbor Appellants and should have been rejected. Hillbrook is a nonconforming use in a residential neighborhood that without authority has grown far beyond its original inception as a small country day school. Many Neighbor Appellants have lived in our homes for more than thirty years and this latest proposed incarnation of Hillbrook as a large, full -day, year -round school and facility impairs the integrity and character of our neighborhood, is not in harmony with the General Plan, and is not essential or desirable to the residents of the Town of Los Gatos. For these reasons, we request that the Town Council reject the Conditions of Approval passed by the Planning Commission on October 6, 2014, and approve the The Neighbor Appellants' Proposed Conditions of Approval, Exhibit 1. 36. Exhibit 1 NEIGHBOR APPELLANTS' Proposed Conditions of Approval December I, 2014 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - October 6, 2014 390 Marchmont Drive Conditional Use Permit U -12 -002 Environmental Impact Report EIR -13 -001 Requesting approval to modify a Conditional Use Permit to increase school enrollment and modify operations of an existing private school ( Millbrook School) on property zoned HR -1. It has been determined that this matter may have a significant impact on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). APNs 532 -10 -001 and 532 -11- 011. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Hillbrook School/Mark Silver TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Division 1. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions of approval listed below. Any changes or modifications shall be approved by the Community Development Director, the Development Review Committee, the Planning Commission, or Town Council, depending on the scope of the changes. 2. EXPIRATION: The Master Plan approved May 7, 2001 (Resolution 2011 -048) is vested. The Conditional Use Permit modification will expire two years from the approval date pursuant to Section 29.20.320 of the Town Code, unless the approval has been vested. Operation of the school is considered vesting. 3. USE AND HOURS OF OPERATION: The approved use is a junior kindergarten (JK) through eighth grade (8th) private school, including activities associated with operations of a JK through 8th private school listed in the table below and subject to the limitations contained within these conditions of approval. Hillbrook's Permitted Activities Activity Type Description Hours Days of the Time of Year Week School Instruction to children in 7:30 a.m. to Monday Mid - August to Instruction Junior kindergarten H= 0g3:15p.m. through Mid -June through grade eight Friday 1. NEIGHBOR APPELLANTS' Proposed Conditions of Approval December 1, 2014 2. �. including but lie! Afief Seheel liniked to ' ,_ C....:., parr to M°n7- - thFaughiitiviticx Mid August tte Mid June Nveodworking, ..,a a..,., r .. ..re"ea if students. Y Mid - August to After School Any sports, competitive Mid -June. or not, and other After class, up Monday Maximum€rve- Sports and competitions with at least to 6:00 p.m. through tiaresthree days Other Competitions one participating team Friday per week. No from Hillbrook more than three two days per week with outdoor events. After School Childcare for After class, up Monday Mid- August to Care students enrolled at to 6:00 p.m. through Mid -June Hillbrook School Friday Board of Trustees Mid - August to meetings, Hillbrook Monday Mid- June)4ear Daytime School Parent 7:30 a.m. to through +eund events Council meetings, 6:00 p.m. Friday speakersfor 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 Summer Hillbrook parents, speakers for Hillbrook p•m• faculty Including but not limited to back to School Nights, Hillbrook parent education 6:00 p.m. to Evening/ programs, Hillbrook 9:00 P.M. Monday Mid - August to Nighttime School Parent Council (vehicles off through Mid -June Events_ meetings, winter holiday campus by Friday " S recial concert, Family Fun 9:30 p.m.) Event Night. Maximum of ten Days") per ealeridaFyeatAcademic Year. Any activity extending beyond 6:00 PM shall be considered a nighttime activity. 2. NEIGHBOR APPELLANTS' Proposed Conditions of Approval December 1, 2014 3. 7:30a.m. to One weekend Open 39:OOp.m. Saturday and Open House House per calendar (vehicles off Sunday October year. campus by 39:30p.m.) A tournament is a series of 7:30 a.m. to Volleyball and contests/matches /games 93:00 p.m. Saturday T4ee -Two Basketball between two or more (vehicles off Saturdays per Tournaments schools /teams one of campus by 3:30 Academic Year which must be Hillbrook m. School. 8:00 a.m. to Monday 5:00 p.m. through Including but not limited Friday to gardening and janitorial Grounds and services. These aetivities Saturday -artd- facilities do fiat , ,.,t against the suigday, Year Round maintenance maxilflum ten pe- ealen ar except that °° o,... evening,/nighttime 9:00 a.m. to no outdoor eats 4:00 p.m. grounds maintenance on the weekends. 7:30 a.m. to Hillbrook 96:00 p.m. faculty /administrator (vehicles off Academic Year work, including Hillbrook campus by Monday Hillbrook faculty /administrator 69:30 p. in. through Faculty/ meetings, ;a- p .t a --a, f4 a � Friday a.m. to Administrator ,, ,,., a..., _g t,, c the- Weekday Y eekday ...t must- 36:00 p.m. Work „a„ by 9.00 _ .__ (vehicles off Summer e,,,,i campus by 36:30p.m.) weekend work for Hillbrook Hillbrook faculty and 7-389:00 a.m. to Faculty/ Hillbrook 36:OOp.m. Saturday and Academic Year Administrator administrators. No (vehicles off Sunday Only Weekend classes, instruction. campus by Work meetings, conferences or 36:30p.m.) other group activities. 3. NEIGHBOR APPELLANTS' Proposed Conditions of Approval December 1, 2014 4. NUMBER OF STUDENTS: a_ ACADEMIC YEAR ENROLLMENT: The Academic Year Enrollment — Formatted: Li: shall be limited to 315 Students. "Student means: a child enrolled at ally 1 + Nurr v at: I +Alignme time in Hillbrook's Academic Year program, JK -8. The "Academic Year" is Indent at: 0.75 defined as running from Mid - August to Mid -June. Hillbrook shall provide an Formatted: Fc Affidavit to the Town from each homeroom teacher for all grades JK -8 in the form of Attachment A. each year, on or before September 1. All students enrolled during the Academic Year shall be accounted for in the Affidavits required in this condition. If any students are added to any classroom after the September Affidavit is signed such that the total number of students is increased, the homeroom teacher is required to submit a Supplemental Affidavit in the form of Attachment A. within five week days after the increase The maximunq liumbef of ad .. Felled WillhFook ,.a dent.. shall he limited to 415 he table below, . reyided L1:11hi -aak Seheel meets the «.....:.. uni daily eount vF 880 trips based on Fnenthly menitei:ilig mid eamplianee fer the fiist year, evert, iwa Formatted: R ffienths for the seeend year, and every th..ee mentl... iheFeafte. -. Formatted: Li: b. SUMMER ENROLLMENT: The summer- session total enrollment shall be Level: 1 +Nun at: 1 + Alignmf Indent at: 0.7� 0 Hillbrook -run programs for Hillbrook enrolled no more than six students, including but not contiguous weeks Summer Monday Mid -June t limited to soccer camp. between the end through Program Camp Acorn, drama camp, of one school Friday Mid-August year and the and Spanish immersion cam be rg.nnirt of fthe next from silieen Valley viricvn�T. X8:30 a.m. to 61:00 p.m. 7:30 a.m. to 64:00 p.m. (vehicles off Academic Year campus by Training for 64:30p.m.) Monday Professional Hillbrook parents and through Development Hillbrook faculty Friday only. 7:30 a.m. to 61:00P.m. (vehicles off Summer campus by 16:30p.m.) 4. NUMBER OF STUDENTS: a_ ACADEMIC YEAR ENROLLMENT: The Academic Year Enrollment — Formatted: Li: shall be limited to 315 Students. "Student means: a child enrolled at ally 1 + Nurr v at: I +Alignme time in Hillbrook's Academic Year program, JK -8. The "Academic Year" is Indent at: 0.75 defined as running from Mid - August to Mid -June. Hillbrook shall provide an Formatted: Fc Affidavit to the Town from each homeroom teacher for all grades JK -8 in the form of Attachment A. each year, on or before September 1. All students enrolled during the Academic Year shall be accounted for in the Affidavits required in this condition. If any students are added to any classroom after the September Affidavit is signed such that the total number of students is increased, the homeroom teacher is required to submit a Supplemental Affidavit in the form of Attachment A. within five week days after the increase The maximunq liumbef of ad .. Felled WillhFook ,.a dent.. shall he limited to 415 he table below, . reyided L1:11hi -aak Seheel meets the «.....:.. uni daily eount vF 880 trips based on Fnenthly menitei:ilig mid eamplianee fer the fiist year, evert, iwa Formatted: R ffienths for the seeend year, and every th..ee mentl... iheFeafte. -. Formatted: Li: b. SUMMER ENROLLMENT: The summer- session total enrollment shall be Level: 1 +Nun at: 1 + Alignmf Indent at: 0.7� 0 NEIGHBOR APPELLANTS' Proposed Conditions of Approval December 1, 2014 limited to 100 JK to 8°i grade Hillbrook students. Documentation listing the number of students enrolled at Hillbrook School in the summer session shall be supplied to the Town at least two weeks before the beginning of the summer session. 2015,9016 UHO-33 3" 2nn I�-7 ''M'^ 33 381 °PT°� 504� UHe-31 4-4 5. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES: Maximum number of employees/teachers /interns /student teachers/contract workers shall not exceed 80. If parking is required to accommodate guests, visitors, or events, staff shall be limited to a number that can be accommodated based on Town Code parking requirements. Of this number, the afterschool maximum number of employees on site during activities in the gymnasium which draws an audience shall not exceed ?. 6. DELIVERY HOURS: Deliveries and garbage pick- u12.shall only occur between 7:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. 7. THIRD PARTY USE /RENTAL /LEASE: Any third party use. rental, and /or lease of the campus is prohibited. except that Hillbrook School may provide educational programs for its Academic Year enrolled students or Academic Year staff by contracting with a third -party instructor to provide services for the programs and by providing that all enrollment in any such program is counted in Hillbrook's enrollment cap (Condition #4) and any fees for participation in such programs are paid directly to Hillbrook School. 8. MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DAILY VEHICLE TRIPS: Academic Year: The 5. NEIGHBOR APPELLANTS' Proposed Conditions of Approval December 1, 2014 total number of d a i I v vehicles trips entering and exiting the campus at both the Marchmont Gate and the Ann Arbor Gate combined shall not exceed S89 781. ehieles p ant to the foil ° °�: Hillbrook shall limit its daily vehicle trips at the Marchmont Gate to no more than 481. including both entering and exiting trips. Hillbrook shall limit its daily vehicle trips at the Ann Arbor Gate to 300, including both entering and exiting trips. a. aefivities are held b. Exception - "Special Event Days ": The school may select up to 10 days per A c a d e m i c Y e a wear to renie ,° c...m the maximum xceed the maximum, in recognition of evening/nighttime events, which are not representative of typical daily operations. but which are Permitted Activities consistent with this Conditional Use Permit ( "Special Event Days'•). On those up to 10 Special Event 9. MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DAILY VEHICLE TRIPS: Summer Formatted:Ir Session; During the summer session, the maximum number of vehicle trips entering and Formatted: F< leaving the Hillbrook campus at the Marchmont Drive Gate shall not exceed 160. The summer session, if any, shall occur over no more than six contiguous weeks between the end of one school year and the beginning of the next. Summer session activities may occur onh, on Monday through Friday from 8:30 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. Drop -off and pickup shall each be limited to a one -hour periods of 8:00 A.M. -9:00 A.M. and 12:30 12.m. -1:30 P.M. 109. MAXIMUM DAILY TRIPS MONITORING- Both Marchmont Drive Gate and Ann Arbor Drive Gate: At the applicant's expense, the maximum daily trips will be monitored in the following manner: a. An electronic, underground coulter shall be installed that transmits vehicle counts both entering and exiting Hillbrook at both the Marchmont Drive Gate and the Ann Arbor Drive Gate to a third party. b. The third party vendor shall collect, post and preserve the daily counts at both - Formatted: tr gates each day and the vendor shall submit the all of the data to the Town and shall - ..end the data to flieT,.wa to a designated neighbor member of the Neighborhood Committee every month for the first year, every two months for the second year, and every three months thereafter. c. The Town's traffic consultant shall review the trip count data to determine compliance with the Maximum Number of Daily Vehicle Trips. d. The Town shall invoice the applicant to pay for the traffic consultant's work. e. This monitoring is required for the duration this Conditional Use Permit is in effect. f One week during the fall semester. one week durin the he spring semester and one week during the Summer, without prior notice to Hillbrook, the Town will NEIGHBOR APPELLANTS' Proposed Conditions of Approval December 1, 2014 conduct full day counts to confirm the accuracy of the tube counts at the Marchmont Drive and Ann Arbor Gates. The Town shall invoice Hillbrook and Hillbrook shall pav for those independent counts. 10. NEIGHBORHOOD COORDINATION: The applicant shall communicate and coordinate with the neighborhood in the following ways: a. A neighborhood newsletter shall be provided by mail, email, and /or on a publicly accessible area of the Hillbrook School website. b. A schedule of events, including dates and times, shall be provided to the neighborhood, by posting on the Hillbrook website accessible to the public, at the beginning of every school year. The applicant shall mail the schedule of events to the neighbors at the beginning of the school year. c. The applicant shall conduct a quarterly neighborhood meeting facilitated by an outside consultant (paid for by Applicant) experienced in facilitation of groups with competing interests and viewpoints. The purpose of the meeting is to engage the surrounding neighborhood in discussion related to the operation of the school site and any concerns the area residents may have. Notification of the neighborhood meeting shall include notices mailed to owners and occupants on upper and lower Marchmont Drive, its adjacent courts, Hilow Road, Stonybrook Road, Englewood Avenue, Robin Way, Cardinal Lane, Topping Way, Ann Arbor Drive, and Wollin Way. A list of attendees with addresses shall be kept by the facilitator and a written report of discussion points shall be provided to the school and to interested neighbors, and posted on the school website. Items for discussion shall be accepted electronically up to 72 hours prior to a meeting. d. Any resident wishing to receive notifications by mail and /or email can submit a written request to the Hillbrook School Traffic Coordinator, 11. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMITTEE: The applicant shall establish a Neighborhood Committee comprised of two Hillbrook School Trustees, the Head of School, the Traffic Coordinator, and four representatives from the neighborhood, chosen by neighbors. The Neighborhood Committee shall meet monthly for the first 24 months to discuss issues of concern. The meeting minutes will be posted for the public or the Town's review on the Hillbrook School website. The committee shall agree to a revised meeting schedule after the first 24 months. 12. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN: The applicant shall implement all measures in the Transportation Demand Management Plan (attached as Exhibit A) prepared by Nelson/Nygaard and dated September 14, 2012. Any revisions to the plan shall require review and 7. NEIGHBOR APPELLANTS' Proposed Conditions of Approval December 1, 2014 approval by the Director of Community Development and the Town Engineer. 13. PARKING: All parking shall be accommodated onsite. Parking at and shuttling from Calvary Church is permitted provided Calvary Church's Conditional Use Permit continues to allow it. 14. PICK -UP AND DROP -OFF AREA: The pick -up and drop -off area for all students staff and deliveries must be maintained with five (5) lanes within the Hillbrook gate. There shall be no Hillbrook- related parking on upper or lower Marchmont Drive, its adjacent courts, Hilow Road, Stoneybrook Road, Englewood Avenue, Robin Way, Cardinal Lane, Topping Way, Ann Arbor Drive or Wollin Way. There shall be no picking up or dropping off of students or staff on the above -named streets at any time. 15. GYMNASIUM DOORS AND WINDOWS: The loading doors on the Ann Arbor side shall be closed at all times whenever activities are being held inside the gymnasium. The other doors and windows in the gymnasium shall be allowed to remain open during activities. 17. MUSIGSOUND AMPLIFICATION: amplified. One amplified 133 event Graduation Ceremony. Music from live bands shall not be is permitted per year in connection with the 19. SQUARE FOOTAGE: The maximum structural square footage is 55,715 square feet as approved by the Master Plan on May 7, 2001 (Resolution 2011- 048). The existing campus is currently 52,683 square feet and an additional 3,032 square feet is permitted in the library and cafeteria /art classrooms with an approved Architecture and Site application. 20. BUILDING FOOTPRINTS: The footprints of the future buildings may be required to be modified during the Architecture and Site approval process to reduce tree impacts. 21. NONCOMPLIANCE PROCESS: If Hillbrook violates any of the conditions of Ell - -- Formatted:Ir 0.06 ", Space & 0.44 ", Left NEIGHBOR APPELLANTS' Proposed Conditions of Approval December 1, 2014 approval, staff shall enforce the Conditional Use Permit pursuant to the Town Code, or a new compliance process established by Town Council, whichever is more restrictive. 22. PENALTIES FOR EXCEEDANCES OF THE MAXIMUM DAILY TRIP CAP: a. If the Town's Traffic Consultant's review of the trip cap monitoring reports reveals that the number of trips exceeds the maximum daily trip cap, the applicant shall pay a penalty of $1,000.00 per excess trip. per day. b. For any violation of Condition #14, the applicant shall pay a penalty of $1,000, per incident per day. be. If the Town's Traffic Consultant's review of the trip cap monitoring reports reveals that the number of trips exceeds the maximum daily trip cap for a second consecutive monitoring period, the applicant shall pay a penalty of $5,000.00 per excess trip, per day. de. If the Town's Traffic Consultant's review of the trip cap monitoring reports reveals that the number of trips exceeds the maximum daily trip cap for a third consecutive monitoring period, the applicant shall pay a penalty of $10,000.00 per excess trip. pper day and the following Academic Year's maximum enrollment ineFease shall be reduced by 10 students. ed. Penalty money shall be paid to the Town and used toward neighborhood traffic /pedestrian improvements as determined by the Town's Community Development Director and Town Engineer in coordination with the Neighborhood Committee. 23. ONE -YEAR REVIEW: Staff shall review the use for compliance with the Conditional Use Permit one year from the date of approval. Staff shall determine if there are any issues with the use and present their findings to the Planning Commission at a public (nearing. The Planning Commission may choose to require subsequent one -year reviews. 24. TOWN INDEMNITY: Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115 requires that any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement from the Town shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Town and its officials in any action brought by a third party to overturn, set aside, or void the permit or entitlement. This requirement is a condition of approval of all such permits and entitlements whether or not expressly set forth in the approval, and may be secured to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney. _ a Attachment A to Hillbrook School Conditional Use Permit- Condition #4 Hillbrook School Teacher Affidavit Regarding Student Enrollment- September (Required to be signed by each homeroom teacher, grade PK -8 and submitted to the Town on or before September 1 each Academic Year, Pursuant to Conditional Use Permit U -12 -002 Town of Los Gatos Resolution I, , am a grade teacher employed by Hillbrook School for the Printed Name List Grade Academic Year. I hereby swear, under the pains and penalties of perjury, that there are currently students in my class. Total Number I understand that Student Enrollment at Hillbrook is limited by law and that 1 am obligated to submit a Supplemental Hillbrook School Teacher Affidavit to the Town, addressed to: Code Compliance Officer, Town of Los Gatos, 110 E. Main St. Los Gatos, CA 95030; and entailed to: codecompliance @losgatosca.gov , within five days, after additional students are added to my class. Signature Date Supplemental Hillbrook School Teacher Affidavit Regarding Student Enrollment (Required to be signed by each homeroom teacher, grade PK -8 and submitted to the Town within five week days after additional students are added to the teacher's class increasing the number of students beyond the number reflected on the September Affidavit, Pursuant to Conditional Use Permit U -12 -002 Town of Los Gatos Resolution 1, am a grade teacher employed by Hillbrook School for the Printed Name List Grade Academic Year. I hereby swear, under the pains and penalties of perjury, that there are currently students in my class. Total Number I understand that student Enrollment at Hillbrook is limited by Town law and that I am obligated to submit additional Supplemental Hillbrook School Teacher Affidavits to the Town, addressed to: Code Compliance Officer, Town of Los Gatos, 110 E. Main St. Los Gatos, CA 95030; and emailed to: codecompliance @losgatosca.gov , within five days, each time after additional students are added to my class. Signature Date Exhibit 2 Im Reuel J. Warkov 269 Marchniont Dr. Tel: 408.460.9004 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Fax: 408.358.4494 Email: RWarkov@gtnail.com May 15, 2014 Mr. Greg Larson, City Manager Robert Schultz Town Attorney Steve Leonardis, Mayor Town of l.os Gatos 110 Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95032 Re: Hillbrook School Conditional Use Permit Violations- Over Enrollment Gentlemen, I submit this letter as a Code Violation Complaint concerning the Hillbrook School's violation of its current CUP Condition # 4, which states, "ENROLLME.NT. The enrollment shall be limited to 315 students." Neighbors have long suspected that Hillbrook was in violation of its Enrollment Cap, but had no Hay to police that. Neighbors recently discovered that California law (California Education Code Section 33190) requi res private schools offering or conducting a fW] -time elementary or secondary level day school for students between the ages of b and 18 to file a "Private School Affidavit" with the California Department of Education. A Private School Directory website lists private schools that filed the annual Private School Affidavit at: lft://www.ede.ca.aov/ds/si/p Above the electronic signature on the Private School Affidavit is the following statement, "By submitting this form and the electronic signature attached hereto, 1 declare under the penalty of pegury and the laws of the State of California that 1 am the owner or other head of the school, and the information contained herein is true, accurate, and complete." For each school year since at least 2001.02, Hillbrook School reported its enrollment numbers for grades K to 8 to the State along with the total number of students enrolled in those grades. Junior Kindergarten (JK) enrollment is not reported in the Private School Affidavit, but there is a column in the Affidavit for "Ungraded" that appears, in some years, to contain Hillbrook's JK counts. Mr. Greg Larson May 12, 2014 Page 2 Exhibit 1 is a table of the number students enrolled per year in 1- hllbrook's grades K though 8, as reported by Hillbrook in its Private School Affidavits filed with the State of California for school years 2001 -02 through 2013 -14. The Affidavits Hillbrook submitted to the State from 2001 through 2013 are attached as Exhibits 2 -1.4. It appears that Hillbrook reported the number of its JK students fbr the years 2008 -09 and 2013 -14 in the "Total Ungraded" column of the Affidavit. Hillbrook's JK students arc otherwise not included in the totals. According to Hillbrook's website describing the JK class. "Class sire is limited to no more than ten or 1 I students." However, in Hillbrook's 2013 Private School Affidavit, Hillbrook reported that were 12 in the "Ungraded" column. In Hillbrook's report to the Town dated January 10, 2014, there were 13 students in the JK class. In its 2008 Affidavit, Hillbrook listed B in the "Ungraded" column. As reflected in Exhibit 1, Hillbrook exceeded its CUP Enrollment Cap for the 2006 -2007 and 2007 -2008 school years, even without its JK class included. The 2008 -2009 count of 325 also exceeded the 315 limit, but it contained what looks to be the JK count for that year in the Total Ungraded column. If one presumes a JK count of 12 for each year I li l lbrook did not include any students in the "Ungraded" column, Hillbrook exceeded its 315 Enrollment Cap for the 2012-2013 school year and every other Year since 2001 except 2002-2003. Over ten years, Hillbrook enrolled 125 students more than its CUP maximum. At tuition of more than $20.000 per child per year, Hillbrook garnered more than 2.5 million dollars due to its violations. All of this assumes that the numbers in Hillbrook's Private School Affidavits are reliable. Unfortunately, there is evidence that even those numbers are unreliable and likely understate Iiillbrook's actual enrollment numbers, even though Hillbrook submitted its Affidavits "under the penalty ofpegury.- For example, in its 2010 -2011 Affidavit. Hillbrook stated that there were 20 students in its 8a' grade class. However, in Mark Silver's letter to neighbors in the Spring of 2011, he included a photograph of the 8 °i grade graduates reflecting that there were actually 31 students in Hillbrook's 8's grade class in 2010 -2011. Exhibit 15. Given that there is clear evidence that Hillbrook has routinely violated its CUP mandated Enrollment Cap, the Town should immediately begin an enforcement action and require Mr. Greg Larson May 12, 2014 Page 3 that Hillbrook provide the Town with its actual enrollment records to document Hillbrook's true enrollment numbers from 2001 - the present.I Hillbrook has demonstrated that it cannot be relied on to comply with its CUP mandated Enrollment Cap. The Town must take action to enforce llillbrook's CUP, as it would any other ordinance of the Town, The routine nature of these violations indicates that they were knowing and wilful. Once the full extent of Hillbrook's over enrollment violations is known, given Mllbrook`s blatant and repetitive violations of its Enrollment Cap, the Town should impose a substantial fine on Hillbrook to penalise Hillbrook for its past violations and to discourage future over enrollment violations. Given that Hillbrook has gamered at least 2.5 million dollars of ill- gotten gain from these violations, the Town should impose a fine on Hillbrook of like amount.2 In light of Hillbrook's blatant refusal to abide by its CUP mandated Enrollment Cap, the Town should also deny outright Hillbrook's request for additional enrollment in its current CUP application. In addition, in its new CUP, the Town should require that Hillbrook supply the Town with its list of enrollees, by grade each year before the start of the academic year, and include substantial penalties for non - compliance. While I have heard that the Town is short on resources to enforce CUP's. the fines that should be levied in this matter would more than cover the expense of enforcement. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to advise me of the Town's plan to remedy these violations. Sincerely. 1�, � U, Reuel J. Warkov Cc: LG CATS Exhibits 1 -15 'According to Town Planner Jessica Savage, the Town has not required Hillbrook to submit documentation or proof to the Town of its enrollment figures since August 30, 2001. Neighbors requested that Ms. Savage require Hillbrook to provide its enrollmem figures from August 30, 2001 to the present, but the Planner declined to require Hillbrook to do so. As a result of neighbor's inquiries, the Town did request that Hillbrook supply the Town figures regarding its current enrollment, which Hillbrook provided to the Town on January 10, 2014. 2 The City of Palo Alto recently fined the Castilleja School $236,000 for similar violations. M O N d N LI W V y O .0 V 0 V r0 r+ Z k zs 0 i a Zo V � 9 Q � � P ° Q N yr E Y� w U b Of N � A r CX 3 Ns L L � L E m O ti eVa O c O _ 3r U N C N M M QQQ O m oOfi � O � r G Q N m r � O F c � 0 �L i0 T C y ~CC s L �sE3a�o m C� ea d N t0 a N Y e O -' .o V G v .a Nry wrr u V FOw L _ o a W " p0 a a E E F W M M N N M N — M M M M M M M M M � dp 4 Y } } .F r Ii Y Y �, °— ^ •x, -�, I o F r _ M N M M N M M M O M th+1 M ry�j M M M h M h M N M O W W q M M M E M W M h M M M M M M M h M M M M e N ^V M N M O M h M Q M h M M M W M h M h M W M M M ° W N V 7 L e D� o 0 0 "� 0 0 0 o N p0 po pc ppo Op` N O •�`, N N N N N N N N N N N N a K 0 i a Zo V � 9 Q � � P ° Q N yr E Y� w U b Of N � A r CX 3 Ns L L � L E m O ti eVa O c O _ 3r U N C N M M QQQ O m oOfi � O � r G Q N m r � O F c � 0 �L i0 T C y ~CC s L �sE3a�o m C� ea d N t0 a N Y e O -' .o V G v .a Nry wrr /Nate S010015 AllidaVlt Conttfthati011 (GA tJC[ri 01 1:011 t1On) nitp:11wwwJ.cOc.ca.guv/p5 vluwiunxL,V lu.asp: tu—yo"0 A Search E Adv An<M I Sae MA, i A -2. fnOar aorne » SpeWkted Pm9rans » Private Schools . "utements w Prware School ARltlavx n Adidavlt Conflnnatbn Farm Private School Affidavit Confirmation 2010 -11 Thank you for sutxldtfing your Private School Affidavit online. This is your Private School Affidavit Certification, Please pnnt this oa0e, and maintain a hardcopy for a period of three years. Do NOT mail a copy, to the Callfomfa Depertm nt of Education. Form Submitted: 1011812010 3:06:23 PM j Coldinrntlon: 96363 Page Oanw%t*d: 5/1212014 11:13:49 AM I Fr EomFr fun (�9* Sedan 46222: This Yes Is'... a private full - lime... school... '... [that[...offegsl instruction in the several branches of study required to be taught in public schools of the state....(that offers this) instruction... in English (, and that keeps[...attendance [records[.. '.. School Information 1 Name of School IHIIIbrook School j f2. CDE- assigned 14 digit COS code if one 143695266979322 was previotrery assigned _._.— ^_ _-- ---- - - - - -- ----------------- 3. County in which school is located Sama Clara 4. Public school district in which school is I Lob Ga Gatos Uroon Elementary located 15. Street Address (P.O. Box is not 1300 Marchmont Drive acceptable 6. City Los Gatos, CA 95032 7. Sdool Telel# one Number !4 56.6116 ---- - - - - -- S. School E-mad Address _ cthoryealtillitxook.org 9. Optional E4nall Address i 10. Malting Address (H different) 11. Mailing City ' 112. Type of Scholl _. __..._._.;coeducational j13. School Accommodations Day Only 14. Do you often Special Education ,NO instruction or services? - -�— 15. Range of grads opened - Lowesit�K Highest: 6 16. High Scholl Olplorne Offered - - — NO -� -- 117. Classification of school Non-Rsligious — Prior Year School Information Has this school ever filed a Private ool Affidavit under a different school Former name of school (0 'Yee wered to previous question) of 4 512212014 11:14 AM wale Schools Affidavit ConlirmaLion (CA wept of L011cation) i20. Has this school changed public school No dWridli? ...... 21 Former public school district (if -Yes" answered to previous question) Statistical Information nttp://wwwj.cae.ca-gov,'psa- viewiorrazu maspnu-yisiw 22 Range of students' ages Youngest 4 years, 9 months (Youngest may be no younger than 4 years Oldest 14 ,and 9 months) Enrollment on a singie date October Grade 1NUMber of Pupils, 1. 15, 2010 (NOTE: Do not report Pre -school enrollment; pre - schools that do not offer Second . - - -- rade r kindergarten should not file Ws Pak) Third Grade F 377 _ - -- Fourth Grade 1 40 Fifth (jradel 37 Sixth Grade Sevemh Grade Ell Tenth Graded 0 --&,anlh Glade i Ungraded Elementary 0 rumi(— co d- I led Secondary o e n F Total Enrollment IS Number of Tweft Grade Graduates In is 9-2010 School Year Number of School Siaft T Staff Type Fui"me Teachers Part-time Teachers f Aarrarnairstors Other Staff Other Staff" incluth Administrative Staff - ------------ - Number of Staff 42 3 5 10 s instructional sides. therapists, secretaries, etc. 26. Site Administrator IWS Christine Thorpe �27._jJ�JmhS �WrTtfie _jAdministnallor I ---- Sii -- ,28. Director or Principal Officer Name Mr. Me 1W 29 Director or Principal Offiber Position [Headmaster 130. Director or Principal Officer Address !300 Marchmont Drive COS 62t0S. 31. Director or Principal Officer City CA 96032 132. Director or Principal Officer E-mail rrisilWrahlilbrook org School Records The person named as Custodian of Records 1>010, maintains attondance records required by EC section 48222 and the records of courses of study, names, addresses, and educational qualifications of the faculty, as required by subdivisions (f)(2) and (3) of EC section 331190. Such records are true and accurate and are accessible at the place or through the Person listed here. 33. Nam of Individual %vtno is Custodian Ms Blanche Gonzalez "am il=so Records f r - (Lo-- 1300 Marclimont Drive 34 Address cation of Records) of 4 5/120-014 11:14 AM rivate SCII(MAS Allidavit Confirmation (L:A LX-pt of IAdCBnOn) nape owww ,j.ufa.ca.govrpsarvrewtunucu h wasp uu -vaav� 35.. City Gatos, CA 95032 ',36. E -mail Address I bgonzalez®hilibrook.org I Tax Status of School 137. Tax - exempt, nonprotf status under Section 501le)(3) of lie 1954 U.S. lydamal Revenue Gods - Yes Tax - exempt, nonprofit status under Section 23701d of the California Revenue and Taxation Code - No Property tax exemption under Section 214 of the California Revenue and Texaaon Code - No None of the above - No Acknowledgements and Statutory Notices -YES" indicates your understanding of the statement and your school's compliance. 38.YES All Private School Affidavits are public documents viewable by the public. 39,YES The Private School Affidavit must be filed by persons, firms, associations, partnerships, or corporations offering or conducing full-time day school at the elementary w high school level for students between the ages of six and eighteen years of age 40.YES Preschools should contact the Community Care Licensing Division (COLD) of the California Department of Social Services. Contact CCLD at 916 - 2294530 or contact a regional office. 41-YES The Affidavit is not a license or authorization to operate a private school. 42-YES The Private School Affidavit does not indicate approval. recognition, or erbonsemenl by the state. Filing of this Affidavit shalt not be interpreted to mean, and it shall be unlawful for any spool to expressly or implledly represent by any means whatsoever, that the Stale of Califomia. the Superintendent of Public Instruction, the Slate Board of Education, the CDE, or any division or bureau of the Department, w any accredi ing agency has made any evaluation, recognition. approval, or endorsement of the school or course unless this is an actual fact (see F-C 3ecrign ,'{3i!)Q). 43.YES Private school authorities are responsible for inthating contact with the appropriate local authorities (city andlor county) regarding compliance with ordinances governing health, safety and fire standards, business licensing. and zoning requirements applicable to private schools. 44.YES Vvften a school ceases operation. every effort should be made to give a copy of pupils' permanent records to parents or guardians. If records cannot be given to the parents or guardians, it is recommended that the school's custodian of records retain the records permanently so that former pupils may obtain copies when needed for future education, employment, or other proposes. 45.YES Retain a copy of this document for a period of three years. 48.YES Filing a Private School Affidavit is cwt equivalent to obtaining accreditation. A Private School Affidavit does not signify that any accrediting agency has made any evaluation. recognition. approval, or endorsement of the school or courses offered by the school. 47.YES A private school shall not employ a person who has been convicted of a violent or serious felony or a person who would be prohibited from employment by a public school district pursuant to EC Section 44237. This school is in compliance with EC Section 44237 to the extent that 0 applies. 48.YES The students enrolled in this private school and included in the school's enrollment total are full -time students In this school and are not enrolled in any other public or private elementary or secondary school on a run -time basis. Electronic Signature By submitting this form and the electronic signature attached hereto, I declare under penalty of pejury and the laws of the State of California that t am the owner or other head of the school, and the information contained herein is true, accurate, and complete. lNeme of comer or other tread of school Mark Silver Title Head of School _._._.____.1408;__.__. Telephone Number 358 -8118 axt 300 Electronic Signature Birth Month "'"" Not displayed for security purposes EleMame Signature Birthday ""' Nd daptayed for security purposes; Electronic Signature - Question jWfal is your favorite sport? Electronic Signature - Answer ""' Not displayed for seemly purposes Farm Submitted: ] 10118!2010 3 :08:23 P—M�tI I CorMi�n 9/3213 I Page Gerlera 5/1212014 11:13:4:49 AM II California Department. of C�du:nrion of 4 5112. +2014 11:14 AM We will also be hosting our Hillbrook summer camps once again, beginning in June and running through August. Rest assured, we will inform every camper of the traffic rules on Marchmont and the need to be respectful of our neighbors when traveling to and from camp. You can also expect to see traffic attendants standing along Marchmont in the morning as a visual reminder to slow down and drive carefully. If you have any concerns during the summer, please don't hesitate to contact our Director of Summer Programs, Elizabeth Dietz at 356 -6116, ext. 513, or email edietz@hillbrook.oro. As we've shared in previous newsletters, we hope to use them as a means of keeping you informed about things that are happening at the school and ensuring that we keep the lines of communication open with everyone in the neighborhood. If you would prefer to receive the newsletter electronically, please e-mail our Communications Associate Mary Babbitt at mbabbitt@hillbrook ora. As a final note, I want to extend an open invitation to any and all of you to visit our campus and meet with me whenever you have an opportunity. I am finishing my second year as Head of School and I remain eager to reach out to our community and to ensure that Hillbrook remains a valued asset within the neighborhood. We were delighted to have celebrated the school's 75th Anniversary earlier this month. It is a major milestone and we are proud of Hillbrook's deep roots in our community. My family and I look forward to being a part of both Hillbrook and Los Gatos for many years to come. Mark Silver, Ph.D. Head of School Hillbrook's Graduating Class of 2011 Exhibit 3 - -- Original Message-- - From: Jennifer Savage <isavageCo?losgatosca.gov> To: Barbara Dodson (btdodson(aaol.com) <btdodson( aol.com> Cc: Mark Silver (msilver0hillbrook.oro) <msilverehillbrook.orq> Sent: Wed, Sep 18, 2013 2:44 pm Subject: RE: A Serious Safety Issue for Hillbrook School and Local Public School Students Dear Barbara and Members of LG Cats, Thank you for your email. We appreciate your concerns and your awareness of the activities in your neighborhood. First and foremost, walking and biking on the street, by both children and adults, is permitted in the Town of Los Gatos. Chapter 5 of the Town Code provides provisions for bicycles, including that they are permitted on streets; chapter 15 provides provisions for pedestrians, including that they may use the streets. In fact, the Town's General Plan encourages alternative modes of transportation, specifically for school children. You and your fellow neighbors are a big piece of the solution as are the parents, administrators, and children of Hillbrook School and surrounding schools. We encourage you to work with all parties - parents, administrators, children, and neighbors - for the safety of everyone. Second, thank you for the solution you presented. You are very familiar with the fact that the existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Hillbrook School prohibits the use of the Ann Arbor gate. The condition that prohibits the use cannot be changed without a CUP modification. You are also very familiar with the fact that Hillbrook School is currently going through a CUP modification. Through this process, the idea of opening the Ann Arbor gate has been and will be explored. You are also familiar with the history of the CUP and the history of the condition that does not permit the use of the Ann Arbor gate for regular Hillbrook School access. Based on that history of the Ann Arbor gate, it may not be viable to open its use even through the CUP modification process. However, we anticipate that you will continue to raise the suggestion of opening the Ann Arbor gate for Hillbrook School use through their CUP modification process. Your suggestion will be included in the package of material presented to the Planning Commission for a decision on Hillbrook School's CUP modification. What can you do if you still have traffic safety concerns? If you are witnessing a safety violation, please contact Los Gatos Police Department at 408.354.8600. If you feel that a crosswalk is needed or would like to suggest a school route for improvements funded by a grant, please visit the Town's website regarding School Routes and Pedestrian Safety: http: / /www.losgatosca.gov /index.aspx ?nid =1093 You can work with the schools to educate parents, administrators, students, and neighbors. Your organization, LG Cats, presents a wonderful opportunity to inspire and sustain a neighborhood traffic safety education program. To help get you started, please explore the Street Smarts website and resources: http: / /www.getstreetsmarts.org/ . Street Smarts provides a number of resources to educate adults and children to get "smarter about traffic safety" and encourage good driver, pedestrian, and bicyclist behavior. These are resources that your organization can use for your neighborhood traffic safety education program. Thank you again for contacting the Town about your concerns. We look forward to celebrating the outcome of your efforts towards educating parents, administrators, students, and neighbors in traffic safety. Sincerely, Jennifer L. Savage, AICP Associate Planner Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department phone: 408.399.5702 website: www.losgatosca.gov /planning From: Barbara Dodson [btdodson @aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 3:30 PM To:BSpector Subject: A Serious Safety Issue for Hillbrook School and Local Public School Students September 11, 2013 Mayor Barbara Spector Los Gatos Town Council 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, California 95030 Subject: A Serious Safety Issue for Hillbrook School and Local Public School Students Dear Mayor Spector: Increased Hillbrook School foot and bike traffic has introduced a serious safety issue for both Hillbrook and local public school students. We think consideration of this issue cannot be delayed until the Planning Commission addresses the Hillbrook School expansion plans later in the fall. The following is an explanation of the problem as we see it, and a suggested solution that should be implemented as soon as possible. The Problem Since last spring, Hillbrook School has attempted to reduce school traffic by encouraging its students to walk and bike to the school located at the end of Marchmont Drive. Many parents drop their children at the Blossom Hill Park parking lot on Shannon Avenue. From there the children proceed by foot or bike onto Hilow Ave and Marchmont Drive to the Hillbrook School. A number of parents accompany their children from this point and from other points in the neighborhood, adding to the foot traffic. While we hope that an ever increasing number of Hillbrook students will continue to walk and bike to school, this has introduced a very serious problem. Hillbrook is putting its own students in harm's way by having them walk and bike on roads with no sidewalks and with very heavy auto traffic going to both Hillbrook and local public schools. The school is also adding to the danger for local students proceeding on foot and bike to public schools. Marchmont Drive east of Hilow presents a particularly serious safety problem because it is a winding, hilly street with the morning sun reflecting in drivers' eyes as they proceed east on Marchmont to the school. The Solution A clear solution is to open the Ann Arbor gate to foot and bike traffic as soon as possible. Both Ann Arbor Drive and Shannon Road have sidewalks. Students dropped off at the Blossom Hill Park parking lot can proceed on sidewalks east on Shannon Avenue to sidewalks on Ann Arbor Drive, and then through the Ann Arbor gate. Students leaving after school by foot and on bikes can use the same route. This route is also slightly shorter than the route students currently use. To see this route, go to http: / /mapq.st /15UuG5n <http: / /mapq.st /lSUuG5n> Since all traffic into the Hillbrook School must currently use the Marchmont Drive gate, there will be no auto and bus traffic entering and leaving through the Ann Arbor gate. This is a much, much safer route for students. Furthermore, it directs student foot traffic away from local public schools, thus having the added feature of improving safety for public school students walking and biking on Hilow Road and Shannon Avenue to local public schools. To see the route Hillbrook students are currently using, go to http: / /mapq.st /laoBQ6N <http: / /mapq.st /laoBQ6N> <http: / /mapq.st /laoBQ6N> Ann Arbor Drive is a public, not private, street and should be just as accessible to Hillbrook students as is Hilow Road and Marchmont Drive. There is no reason why the gate on Ann Arbor Drive cannot be open to foot and bike traffic immediately. We urge that the Town Council take action on this issue as soon as possible. Respectfully, Members of LG Cats: Joe and Sheila Sordi Patti Elliot Reuel Warkov Barbara and Don Dodson Erik Alberts Steve and Susan Beritzhoff Mark and Sue Jamieson Burr and Susan Nissen Kathleen and Mark Willey Renee and Noel Preaseau Ali Khani Cindy and Steve Vindasius Ed Lozowicki Judy Parkman Jim and Jorja Silva Bill and Debbie Wagner JoAnn and Randy Pham Hu Wang and Qing Liu Tom and Erin Wentzien Heather Dal Cielo Willem Dirven Joe and Michele Regan James and Sharon Elder Robert and Donna Wallerstein cc: Dr. Mark Silver, Jennifer Savage, Steve Leonardis, Diane McNutt, Joe Pirzynski, Marcia Jensen Exhibit 4 # COUNCIL D, REPORT DATE: MARCH 12, 2013 TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL FROM: GREG LARSON, TOWN MANAGER MEETING DATE: 03/18/2013 ITEM NO: q SUBJECT: HILLBROOK SCHOOL PUBLIC DISCUSSION DISCUSS NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS AND STAFF INTERPRETATION OF HILLBROOK SCHOOL'S EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. RECOMMENDATION: Accept staff's interpretation of the existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and direct staff to continue working with the applicant to provide evidence that Hillbrook School programs and operations are consistent with the CUP. Alternatively, if Council does not concur with some or all of staff s interpretations, Council may direct staff to enforce the existing CUP in a different manner. BACKGROUND: During verbal communications at the June 18, 2012, Town Council meeting, neighbors raised concerns regarding Hillbrook School, located at 300 Marchmont Drive. The neighbors requested that Council review the school's CUP modification application and alleged violations of the existing CUP (last page of Attachment 3). The Council meeting on March 18, 2013, will serve as a public discussion of the existing CUP. The meeting is not to discuss the revocation of the CUP, nor to discuss the pending application for a CUP modification. The meeting allows the Town Council to review neighbors' concerns, discuss the status of alleged CUP violations, and Town staff s interpretation of the existing CUP conditions of approval. After receiving input from the neighbors, Hillbrook School, and staff, the Town Council may determine that no additional action is required or a different interpretation of a condition(s) is warranted. PREPARED BY: Todd Capurso, Director of Community Development Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager_ Town Attorney _Finance NADEV\TC REPORTS@A l3UiUlbmk.3.18- 13.doox PAGE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: Hillbrook School Public Discussion March 12,2013' DISCUSSION: This report discusses a chronological record of recent responses to neighbors; current complaint issues; staff determinations regarding the current complaint issues; what Hillbrook has completed; and the status of the existing CUP modification application. A. Chronological Record Subsequent to a neighborhood meeting Hillbrook School staff held in June of 2011 to discuss future plans to amend their CUP, the Town began receiving neighborhood concerns about the proposed amendment and complaints about their existing CUP. The first complaint was received on June 30, 2011, which dealt with traffic concerns and CUP violations in regards to traffic counts and leasing to third parties. A chronological record of staff responses to these complaints for 2011 is included as Attachment 1. Since 2011, staff has met individually with Hillbrook School staff and several Marchmont -area neighbors on numerous occasions, has met with Ann Arbor -area neighbors two times, has had numerous email and phone correspondence with Hillbrook School staff and neighbors, and facilitated one mediation session between Hillbrook School staff and Marchmont -area neighbors. B. ComDlaim Issues Staff has received multiple written communications from concerned neighbors. One of the neighbors submitted a table of alleged violations that concisely compiles and summarizes the neighbor's concerns (Attachment 2). The other written communications are available in the public record located at the Community Development Department. C. Staff Determinations Staff reviewed the table of alleged violations along with several other written and verbal complaints from the neighbors and their interpretation of the CUP conditions of approval. Staff reviewed Town records for past communications, Planning Commission. and Town Council meeting minutes and reports, and letters of justification for previous Hillbrook School applications. These records were made available to Hillbrook School staff and neighbors. Finally, staff reviewed recent written communications from Hillbrook School that describe Hillbrook School's understanding and position on its existing CUP conditions of approval. Staff determined that the existing CUP allowed activities for children in grades K through 8, subject to the conditions of approval, including a maximum number of students, and a maximum number of vehicle trips during specific hours. Staff also determined that activities must be managed by Hillbrook School and that Hillbrook School could contract out to provide certain activities under Hillbrook's direction and control, just as the Town and many organizations contract for specific services; these would not constitute third -party leases. Staff determinations for each of the alleged violations are below. It is important to note that neither the neighbors nor Hillbrook School agree with all of staff s interpretations. PAGE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: Hillbrook School Public Discussion March 12, 2013 Sports Campus California Assoc. of Independent Schools ** Allowed: The existing CUP does not prevent Hillbrook students playing another team on the Hillbrook campus. Allowed: The existing CUP allows Hillbrook students to play sports against another team. Resolved: Number of nighttim activities exceeded maximum number allowed (10 per year). corrected. Hillbrook to motuae aescnpuon of sports programs in CUP modification application to clarify how these activities will continue to meet the requirements of the Hillbrook to include description of weekend activities in CUP modification application to clarify how these activities will continue to meet the requirements of the Hillbrook to include description of nighttime activities, including Since defining hours of nighttime and continued monitoring to ensure compliance, in CUP modification application to clarify how these activities will meet the Not allowed: Adult programs for non - Hillbrook Schoolteachers are not allowed under existing CUP. Hillbrook to include description of adult education programs in CUP modification application to clarify how these activities could meet the requirements of the CUP Saso High School Not allowed for children in grades 9 None, because Hiubroox scnoom P7ep ** through 12 or if run by third party. does not offer Saso High School Now High School Prep programs for Prep at this time. children in grades K through 8 are slowed if run by Hillbrook School. solved: Hillbrook has restored Hillbrook shall to continue to Carpool'mg providing twice yearly carpooling provide carpooling reports. Staggered Start and End re orts. Allowed within the specified peak Hillbrook to include description of school hours in CUP times hours, modification application to clarify how Hillbrook will continue to meet the requirements of the CUP. After School Programs Allowed: Programs for children in grades K through 8 are allowed, but Hillbrook to include description of after school programs in CUP may not exceed the maximum modification application to clarify how these activities will continue allowed number of students. to meet the requirements of the Sports Campus California Assoc. of Independent Schools ** Allowed: The existing CUP does not prevent Hillbrook students playing another team on the Hillbrook campus. Allowed: The existing CUP allows Hillbrook students to play sports against another team. Resolved: Number of nighttim activities exceeded maximum number allowed (10 per year). corrected. Hillbrook to motuae aescnpuon of sports programs in CUP modification application to clarify how these activities will continue to meet the requirements of the Hillbrook to include description of weekend activities in CUP modification application to clarify how these activities will continue to meet the requirements of the Hillbrook to include description of nighttime activities, including Since defining hours of nighttime and continued monitoring to ensure compliance, in CUP modification application to clarify how these activities will meet the Not allowed: Adult programs for non - Hillbrook Schoolteachers are not allowed under existing CUP. Hillbrook to include description of adult education programs in CUP modification application to clarify how these activities could meet the requirements of the CUP Saso High School Not allowed for children in grades 9 None, because Hiubroox scnoom P7ep ** through 12 or if run by third party. does not offer Saso High School Now High School Prep programs for Prep at this time. children in grades K through 8 are slowed if run by Hillbrook School. PAGE 4 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: Hillbrook School Public Discussion March 12, 2013 Center For Teaching llowed for "Trainee" teachers: HJllbmok to include description Excellence ** Hillbrook may hire teachers and of program in CUP modification teaching assistants. application to clarify how this activity will continue to meet the r uirements of the CUP. Breakthrough Silicon Allowe d: Programs for children in Hillbrook to include description Valley ** grades K through 8 are allowed and of program in CUP modification run by Hillbrook but may not exceed application to clarify how these the maximum number of students. activities will continue to meet the requirements of the CUP. Steve & Kate's Not allowed: Third party lease, None. This program is not Camp ** exceeded maximum number of offered at Hillbrook School at this students, drop off and pick up hours time. did not meet the intent of approval re ardin re latin traffic counts. Hillbrook Summer Allowed: Programs for children in Hillbrook to include description Camps grades K through 8 are allowed but of summer activities in CUP may not exceed the maximum modification application to clarify number of students. how this activity will continue to meet the requirements of the CUP. Way To Go lA lowed: Programs for children in Hillbrook to include description Foundation, Inc. ** grades K through 8 and run by of program in CUP modification Hillbrook are allowed, but may not application to clarify how this exceed the maximum number of activity will continue to meet the students. requirements of the CUP. Playful People Allowed: Programs for children in Hillbrook to include description Productions ** grades K through 8 and run by of program in CUP modification Hillbrook are allowed but may not application to clarify how this exceed the maximum number of activity will continue to meet the students, re uiiements of the CUP. Santa Fe Leadership Not allowed: Third party lease. Hillbrook to include description Center (SFLC) Adult programs for non - Hillbrook of adult education programs in Conference** School teachers are not allowed CUP modification application to under existing CUP. clarify how these activities could meet the requirements of the CUP modification. John Hunter Master Not allowed: Third party lease. Adult Hillbrook to include description Class ** programs for non - Hillbrook School of adult education programs in teachers are not allowed under CUP modification application to existing CUP. clarify how these activities could meet the requirements of the CUP modification. *The activity title is based on the table provided by neighbors that is included as Attachment 2. * *Refers to CUP condition of approval regarding leasing to third parties. PAGES MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: Hillbrook School Public Discussion March 12, 2013 D. WbAA Hillbrook has completed As a result of staff s interpretations, Hillbrook School has: Canceled Steve and Kate's Camp from their summer activities; Removed Santa Fe Leadership Conference from the Hillbrook campus; Removed the John Hunter Master Class from the Hillbrook campus; and, Included a request to clarify what activities may be included in the CUP modification application, including summer activities and adult education. In addition, Hillbrook participated in a mediation session with the neighbors. The mediation session resulted in a list of possible solutions that could address some of the neighbors' concerns. Hillbrook School prepared an analysis of those solutions for further discussion with the neighbors. Unfortunately, the Hillbrook analysis was not acceptable to the neighbors and no further mediation between Hillbrook School and the neighbors has occurred. E. Conditional Use Permit Modification Application Status A focused EIR is currently being prepared for the Conditional Use Permit modification application. It is anticipated that this application will be scheduled for a Planning Commission hearing no earlier than Fall 2013, Based on current interpretation issues, as part of this modification, staff s goal is to modify several existing CUP conditions to provide better clarity on the intent of the conditions. CONCLUSION: pursuant to Town staffs interpretation of the existing CUP, there are no current violations for Hillbrook School. Subject to alternative direction from Council, Town staff would continue to work with Hillbrook School and the neighbor's to address potential violations. It is important to note again that neither the neighbors nor Hillbrook School agree with all of staffs interpretations. After receiving input from the neighbors and staff, the Town Council may determine that no additional action is required or a different interpretation of a condition(s) is warranted. Attachments: 1. Chronological History for 2011 2, Conditional Use Permit Table of Violations received April 26, 2012 (nine pages) 3. Resolution 2001 -48 (Architecture and Site Conditions are excluded from the attachment) with Exhibit A (Conditional Use Permit Conditions of Approval) PAGE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: Hillbrook School Public Discussion March 12, 2013 Distribution: Mark Silver, Hillbrook School, 300 Marchmont Drive, Los Gatos, CA 95032 Patricia Elliot, 269 Marchmont Drive, Los Gatos, CA 95032 Barbara Dodson, 239 Marchmont Drive, Los Gatos, CA 95032 TC:JS:ct Nt\DEV\TC REP0RT9a013W1J1brook.3dat13.dm This Page Intentionally Left Blank