Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
12-04-1991 City Council Agenda packet
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM d e MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 4, 1991 yQ,� CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager` SUBJECT: Reclassification of the Assistant Engineer Position Recommended Motion: Approve Reclassification Report Summary: The position of Assistant Engineer became vacant in October. In order to give some flexibility in hiring for this one position classification, we are proposing the creation of the classification of Associate Engineer. This will allow us to recruit more broadly, and the position can be filled at either the Assistant or the Associate level, depending upon qualifications. In addition to a Civil Engineering degree, the proposed job specification for Assistant Engineer requires one year of professional experience, and the Associate requires three years. Since the current job specification for Assistant Engineer requires two years experience, we are recommending that the present salary range be adjusted downward by 3% for the Assistant level, and up by 3% for Associate. If we hire at the Assistant level, the incumbent would be eligible to move to Associate upon reaching the required experience level. Prior to making this recommendation, staff conducted a survey of engineering positions in other agencies in the County and believe that these levels are consistent with other agencies and will satisfactorily maintain internal relationships with other City staffing. Fiscal Impact: Plus or minus 3% for one position, depending on whether new employee is at Assistant or Associate level. Attachments: Revised Job Descriptions Revised Salary Schedule Motion and Vote: ASSISTANT ENGINEER Revised December, 1991 DEFINITION The Assistant Engineer performs professional level engineering duties in connection with public works construction and maintenance projects and private land development. Work is performed under general supervision of the City Engineer. DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS This is an entry -level professional classification. It is distinguished from the class of Associate Engineer primarily through the level of professional work experience. This class is distinguished from the class of Senior Engineering Technician primarily by the requirement for a degree in Civil Engineering. This class is flexibly staffed with Associate Engineer and the incumbent may advance to the higher level after .gaining the additional experience which meets the qualifications for the Associate level. EXAMPLES OF WORK The duties listed below represent examples of work performed and are not all- inclusive of duties which are or may be assigned to this classification. o Prepares designs, plans, specifications and cost estimates for various Capital Improvement and maintenance projects relating to streets, storm drains, parks and city -owned facilities. o Performs contract administration and construction management activities on Capital Improvement and maintenance projects. o Oversees the activities of professional consultants retained by the City to perform design services on City projects and other professional work related to special studies. Develops Requests for Proposals, participates in negotiations with and the selection of consultants, and administers consultant services agreements. o Assists with the development of the Engineering department's annual budget and update of the five year Capital Improvement Plan. o Works closely with the Engineering inspectors to ensure compliance with City standards and requirements for the construction of City projects. Performs routine field inspection of projects as necessary. o Performs review of land development applications and improvement plans for compliance with City standards. o Performs assessment district engineering work in connection with the City's Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District. o Performs studies and prepares reports as requested. ASSISTANT ENGINEER OUALIFICATIONS Knowledge Of: Engineering principles and practices applicable to municipal public works; contract adminstration procedures and construction practices; and regulatory requirements of federal, state, and local agencies which impact public works projects. Ability To: Accurately prepare and interpret plans, specifications, estimates and reports; make accurate engineering computations and drawings; correctly apply and administer applicable standards and regulations; administer and inspect public works projects; work effectively with a wide variety of individuals and groups; and communicate effectively in writing and verbally. Education and Experience: Sufficient education and experience to satisfactorily perform the duties of this classification. A typical qualifying background would be possession of a Bachelor's Degree in Civil Engineering and one year of professional civil engineering experience. Possession Of: Valid California Driver's License ASSOCIATE ENGINEER December, 1991 DEFINITION The Associate Engineer performs professional level engineering duties in connection with public works construction and maintenance projects and private land development. Work is performed under general supervision of the City Engineer. The Associate Engineer may oversee the Capital Improvement program and may direct the work of lower -level engineers or technicians. DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS This is an experienced -level professional classification. It is distinguished from the class of Assistant Engineer primarily through the level of professional experience required. This class is distinguished from higher -level professional engineering classes by the lack of any regular supervisory and administrative responsibilities. Registration as a Professional Engineer is desirable but not required at this level. EXAMPLES OF WORK The duties listed below represent examples of work performed and are not all inclusive of duties which are or may be assigned to this classification. o Prepares designs, plans, specifications and cost estimates for various Capital Improvement and maintenance projects relating to streets, storm drains, parks and city -owned facilities. o Performs contract administration and construction management activities on Capital Improvement and maintenance projects. o Oversees the activities of professional consultants retained by the City to perform design services on City projects and other professional work related to special studies. Develops Requests for Proposals, participates in negotiations with and the selection of consultants, and administers consultant services agreements. o Assists with the development of the Engineering department's annual budget and update of the five year Capital Improvement Plan. o Works closely with the Engineering inspectors to ensure compliance with City standards and requirements for the construction of City projects. Performs routine field inspection of projects as necessary. o Performs review of land development applications and improvement plans for compliance with City standards. o Performs assessment district engineering work in connection with the City's Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District. o Performs studies and prepares reports as requested. ASSOCIATE ENGINEER QUALIFICATIONS Knowledge Of: Engineering principles and practices applicable to municipal public works; contract adminstration procedures and construction practices; and regulatory requirements of federal, state, and local agencies which impact public works projects. Ability To: Accurately prepare and interpret plans, specifications, estimates and reports; make accurate engineering computations and drawings; correctly apply and administer applicable standards and regulations; administer and inspect public works projects; work effectively with a wide variety of individuals and groups; and communicate effectively in writing and verbally. Education and Experience: Sufficient education and experience to satisfactorily perform the duties of this classification. A typical qualifying background would be possession of a Bachelor's Degree in Civil Engineering and three years of increasingly responsible professional civil engineering experience. Possession Of: Valid California Driver's License (Registration as a Professional Civil Engineer in the State of California or an Engineer -in- Training Certificate is highly desirable.) Effective December 1, 1991, the following positionsin the City service are assigned to the following ranges, and shall be paid at the rate of compensation shown below. RANGE 65 107 114 87 114 120 102 114 62 114 56 85 14 94 94 89 38 94 94 69 84 117 114 76 98 76 92 65 94 114 94 69 84 89 56 89 POSITION Account Clerk Accountant Administrative Assistant Admin. Secretary Assistant Engineer Associate Engineer Assistant Planner Associate Planner Build. Maint. Custodian Building Inspector Clerk Typist Community Service Off. Custodian Aide Deputy City Clerk Facil. Maint. Leadworker Irrigation Specialist Japanese Grdn. Caretaker Japanese Grdn. Special. Parks Maint. Leadworker Parks Maint. Worker I Parks Maint. Worker II Plans Examiner Public Works Inspector Recreation Prog. Coord. Recreation Supervisor Secretary Secretary to City Manager Senior Clerk Typist Senior Comm.Serv.Off. Senior Eng. Tech. Street Maint. Leadworker Street Maint. Worker I Street Maint. Worker II Street Maint. Specialist Switchbd. Opr /Reception. Volunteer Coordinator A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step F Step G Step H Step I Step J Step K Step 1952 2000 2049 2100 2152 2205 2259 2316 2372 2431 2491 2964 3038 3112 3190 3268 3349 3431 3517 3603 3693 3783 3178 3257 3337 3420 3504 3591 3679 3771 3863 3959 4056 2429 2490 2551 2614 2678 2745 2812 2882 2953 3026 3100 3178 3257 3337 3420 3504 3591 3679. 3771 3863 3959 4056 3373 3458 3542 3631 3719 3812 3905 4003 4100 4203 4305 2820 2891 2961 3035 3109 3187 3265 3346 3428 3514 3599 3178 3257 3337 3420 3504 3591 3679 3771 3863 3959 4056 1894 1942 1989 2039 2088 2141 2193 2248 2302 2360 2417 3178 3257 3337 3420 3504 3591 3679 3771 3863 3959 4056 1784 1829 1874 1920 1967 2016 2066 2117 2169 2223 2277 2381 2441 2500 2563 2625 2691 2757 2826 2894 2967 3039 1173 1202 1232 1262 1293 1326 1358 1392 1426 1461 1497 2604 2669 2735 2803 2871 2943 3015 3090 3166 3245 3324 2604 2669 2735 2803 2871 2943 3015 3090 3166 3245 3324 2478 2540 2602 2667 2732 2800 2869 2940 3012 3087 3163 1492 1529 1566 1606 1645 1686 1727 1770 _1813 1859 1904 2604 2669 2735 2803 2871 2943 3015 3090 3166 3245 3324 2604 2669 2735 2803 2871 2943 3015 3090 3166 3245 3324 2031 2082 2132 2186 2239 2295 2351 2410 2468 2530 2592 2358 2417 2476 2537 2599 2664 2729 2798 2866 2937 3009 3274 3356 3438 3524 3610 3700 3790 3885 3980 4079 4179 3178 3257 3337 3420 3504 3591 3679 3771 3863 3959 4056 2177 2232 2286 2343 2400 2460 2520 2583 2646 2713 2779 2710 2778 2846 2917 2988 3063 3137 3216 3294 3376 3459 2177 2232 2286 2343 2400 2460 2520 2583 2646 2713 2779 2553 2617 2681 2748 2815 2885 2955 3029 3103 3181 3258 1952 2000 2049 2100 2152 2205 2259 2316 2372 2431 2491 2604 2669 2735 2803 2871 2943 3015 3090 3166 3245 3324 3178 3257 3337 3420 3504 3591 3679 3771 3863 3959 4056 2604 2669 2735 2803 2871 2943 3015 3090 3166 3245 3324 2031 2082 2132 2186 2239 2295 2351 2410 2468 2530 2592 2358 2417 2476 2537 2599 2664 2729 2798 2866 2937 3009 2478 2540 2602 2667 2732 2800 2869 2940 3012 3087 3163 1784 1829 1874 1920 1967 2016 2066 2117 2169 2223 2277 2478 2540 2602 2667 2732 2800 2869 2940 3012 3087 3163 Effective June 27, 1992, the following positions in the City service are assigned to the following ranges, and shall be paid at the rate of compensation shown below. RANGE POSITION 65 Account Clerk 107 Accountant 114 Administrative Assistant 87 Admin. Secretary 114 Assistant Engineer 120 Associate Engineer 102 Assistant Planner 114 Associate Planner 62 Build. Maint. Custodian 114 Building Inspector 56 Clerk Typist 85 Community Service Off. 14 Custodian Aide 94 Deputy City Clerk 94 Facil. Maint. Leadworker 89 Irrigation Specialist 38 Japanese Grdn. Caretaker 94 Japanese Grdn. Special. 94 Parks Maint. Leadworker 69 Parks Maint. Worker I 84 Parks Maint. Worker II 117 Plans Examiner 114 Public Works Inspector 76 Recreation Prog. Coord. 98 Recreation Supervisor 76 Secretary 92 Secretary to City Manager 65 Senior Clerk Typist 94 Senior Comm.Serv.Off. 114 Senior Eng. Tech. 94 Street Maint. Leadworker 69 Street Maint. Worker I 84 Street Maint. Worker II 89 Street Maint. Specialist 56 Switchbd. Opr /Reception. 89 Volunteer Coordinator &AAscO 1214Igi A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step F Step G Step H Step I Step 2031 2082 2133 2186 2239 2295 2351 2410 2469 3085 3162 3239 3320 3401 3486 3571 3661 3750 3308 3390 3473 3560 3647 3738 3829 3925 4020 2528 2591 2655 2721 2787 2857 2927 3000 3073 3308 3390 3473 3560 3647 3738 3829 3925 4020 3511 3599 3687 3779 3871 3968 4064 4166 4268 2935 3009 3082 3159 3236 3317 3398 3483 3568 3308 3390 3473 3560 3647 3738 3829 3925 4020 1971 2021 2070 2122 2174 2228 2282 2339 2396 3308 3390 3473 3560 3647 3738 3829 3925 4020 1857 1904 1950 1999 2048 2099 2150 2204 2257 2478 2540 2602 2667 2733 2801 2869 2941 3013 1220 1251 1281 1313 1345 1379 1412 1448 1483 2711 2778 2846 2917 2988 3063 3138 3216 3295 2711 2778 2846 2917 2988 3063 3138 3216 3295 2579 2644 2708 2776 2843 2915 2986 3060 3135 1553 1591 1630 1671 1712 1755 1797 1842 1887 2711 2778 2846 2917 2988 3063 3138 3216 3295 2711 2778 2846 2917 2988 3063 3138 3216 3295 2114 2167 2219 2275 2330 2389 2447 2508 2569 2454 2515 2577 2641 2705 2773 2841, 2912 2983 3408 3493 3578 3668 3757 3851 3945 4044 4142 3308 3390 3473 3560 3647 3738 3829 3925 4020 2266 2323 2379 2439 2498 2561 2623 2689 2755 2821 2891 2962 3036 3110 3188 3265 3347 3429 2266 2323 2379 2439 2498 2561 2623 2689 2755 2657 2724 2790 2860 2930 3003 3076 3153 3230 2031 2082 2133 2186 2239 2295 2351 2410 2469 2711 2778 2846 2917 2988 3063 3138 3216 3295 3308 3390 3473 3560 3647 3738 3829 3925 4020 2711 2778 2846 2917 2988 3063 3138 3216 3295 2114 2167 2219 2275 2330 2389 2447 2508 2569 2454 2515 2577 2641 2705 2773 2841 2912 2983 2579 2644 2708 2776 2843 2915 2986 3060 3135 1857 1904 1950 1999 2048 2099 2150 2204 2257 2579 2644 2708 2776 2843 2915 2986 3060 3135 J Step K Step 2592 3937 4221 3227 4221 4481 3746 4221 2516 4221 2370 3163 1557 3460 3460 3292 1982 3460 3460 2698 3132 4349 4221 2892 3600 2892 3391 2592 3460 4221 3460 2698 3132 3292 2370 3292 2531 3844 4121 3150 4121 4374 3657 4121 2456 4121 2314 3088 1520 3377 3377 3213 1934 3377 3377 2633 3057 4246 4121 2823 3514 2823 3311 2531 3377 4121 3377 2633 3057 3213 2314 3213 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2- '2Q MEETING DATE: December 4, 1991 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager SUBJECT: CDBG Funding of Food Bank Construction Project Recommended Motion: Approve Revised Work Plan and Confirm Saratoga's Commitment to the Project. Report Summary: The City Council allocated $25,000 of 1991/92 Community Development Block Grant funds to the Second Harvest Food Bank of Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. The funding was for assistance in the construction of a new 60,000 sq. ft food distribution center in San Jose. The City of San Jose and several other of the smaller cities which are part of the Urban County also allocated funds. Due to some misunderstanding, the contract for the construction was let and work begun without proper compliance with Davis Bacon and CDBG requirements. Therefore, the City of San Jose and the non entitlement cities who still wish to participate will use their allocated funds for items that are integral to the facility but not part of the contract for the actual construction. This includes landscaping, refrigeration system, parking lot paving, and similar eligible items. The County will continue to coordinate the project for the participating cities, but is asking for confirmation from the local authorities that they wish to continue in the project. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: None Motion and Vote: AGENDA ITEM SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Z 1 1 1 AGENDA ITEM 7/4 MEETING DATE: CITY MGR. APPROVAL ..,446g6 ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager's Department CSO Division SUBJECT: Declaration of Existence of Nuisance Conditions at 12901 Pierce Road, Saratoga, California Recommended Action: Conduct a public hearing and adopt resolution declaring public nuisance at 12901 Pierce Road, Saratoga. Report Summary: Since 1964, Mr. Michael Bullock has collected numerous inoperative vehicles, and vehicles parts thereof, on his property located at 12901 Pierce Road, Saratoga, California as a hobby. The storage of these vehicles and parts thereof, were discovered by the Planning department in January 1991 while a field investigation for a Zoning Variance was conducted. At this time there were approximately 100+ vehicles stored upon the 1.75 acres of land. The Planning department recommended that the property be cleared of all inoperative vehicles as a condition of the Variance in March 1991. A follow -up field investigation in November 1991 revealed despite some effort to remove approximately 70 vehicles, there are numerous large stacks of dismantled vehicles parts and 20+ inoperative vehicles still stored upon the property. The adoption of this resolution will be the initial step in having the City remove the inoperative vehicles, vehicle parts thereof, and garbage, and assess the costs for such work against the property as an assessment pursuant to City Code Article 3 -15. The proposed resolution will constitute a finding and declaration by the Council that a public nuisance exists upon the property. Notice of this declaration is given to the property owner (by mail, posting and publication), who may object to the proposed abatement at a hearing scheduled for this purpose on January 15, 1992. Following the conduct of this hearing, the Council may then order the abatement work to be performed. Upon completion of the abatement, a report of costs will be furnished for confirmation by the Council and Assessment against the property as a lien. Fiscal Impacts: None. City costs incurred in cleaning up the property will be reimbursed as a special assessment to be collected with the property taxes for the site. Attachments: Proposed resolution; Staff report dated 11/20/91, and File V -91 -002 Notion an d Vote: SECTION: 10 1-1:511:00 INCIDENT REPORT To NJ/U R bb 1 TF,lDF NCI E. or intort V C �rp RPP (J EM ENT w O FOLLOW-UP E (S) SUSPECT OR SUBJECT (V) VICTIM (W) WITNESS (R/ P) REPORTING PARTY N. E) 6121(..A..ticx.. D OB HOSE T�EPH v ADDR1 Sy� 1 E /7 f ���I t -i !`�1 --�I BUSINESS TELEPHONE C M DOB HOME TELEPHONE ADDRESO Or y .20.7-64.57 NAME DOB HOME TELEPHONE ADDRESS BUSINESS TELEPHONE NAME DOB HOME TELEPHONE ADDRESS BUSINESS TELEPHONE DAY/ ID ATE TIME OCCURRED i I/JThRIPORTED SOURCE DATA ENTRY BY IO LOCAT OF OCCURRENCE: 12C1 Pl ��/f/� �`��j REPORT FORMAT: 1) SUSPECT DESCRIPTION 5) STATEMENTS 2) SUSPECT STATUS 7 FOLLOW -L'P 3) NARRATIVE 7) CASE STATUS 4) PHYSICAL EVIDENCE ice. 1 lb 4OMM Alif SERVICE OFFICER c� '6 6v it. 1 g 6 I.D. DATE/ IME W EN Mr,17 cD2 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 SARATOGA INCIDENT REPORT NO. 91 -12 -001 (S)BULLOCK, MICHAEL SUMMARY: On November 8, 1991, my office was notified by the Planning Department, that several municipal code violations existed at 12901 Pierce Road. They requested that I follow up on the case. Upon investigation, I was advised that the BULLOCKS had applied for a variance in January 1991. When the Planning staff conducted a field inspection of the residence, they discovered that the applicant was storing approximately 100 or more inoperative, abandoned vehicles on the property. A condition of the variance, was to remove these vehicles from the property, and bring the lot into compliance prior to zone clearance. On March 13, 1991 the Planning Commission passed Resolution No.V -91 -002, which granted the variance to the BULLOCKS, with the provision recommended by Planning staff. The BULLOCKS were advised that if the violations were not cleared within 90 days from the hearing, the matter would be turned over to the CSO Department for enforcement action. On November 14, 1991 at 1435 hrs I made contact with the BULLOCKS at their residence. Mrs. BULLOCK told me that she and her husband were trying to comply with the Planning Commissions provisions, and had already removed approximately 70 vehicles from her property. They intend to have the lot cleared by the end of March 1992, so that they can start construction on their home by the beginning of April 1992. She stated that the clean -up had been a major task for them to accomplish, and will continue to fully comply. I asked to see the rear yard, to check on the progress since March 1991. The property is a rectangular shape and measures approximately 1.75 acres. The majority of the property can not be seen from the street. To the rear of the house is the driveway. Mr. BULLOCK repairs his vehicles in this area. There were many tools, and auto repair equipment,and the driveway was stained with oil. In the backyard, I observed that there were approximately 20+ inoperative vehicles left on the property,and there were several large piles of vehicles parts throughout the entire yard. (e.g. tires, transmissions, car doors, moldings, seats, windows, hubcaps, windshield, and other assorted car parts.) It looked very similar to a salvage yard. There were also 2 large stacks of dry bushes, tree trimmings, and piles of discarded car upholstery, that posed as an immediate fire hazard. Mr.BULLOCK informed me that since 1964, his hobby has been collecting classic Imperials. Over the years his hobby, grew to a collection of over 100+ cars. He stated that he dismantled most of the vehicles and the put the usable vehicle parts into orderly piles. The remaining cars he is trying to sell. Some auto parts are covered with sheds or tarps. The majority of the parts are out in the open. I took (16) pictures of the property. I advised the BULLOCKS that their first priority should be to remove the immediate fire hazards that I had pointed out. I advised the BULLOCKS, that I would take my findings back to the City Manager for his recommendations. I also informed the Planning Department to contact them regarding the status of their variance. On November 15, 1991 the City Manager was advised of the conditions of the BULLOCK property. His recommendation was to send this complaint to the City Council for abatement proceedings. He stated that the property is in violation of Saratoga Ordinance 9- 55.010, which deems these conditions as a public nuisance, and pose as a potential danger to the public health, safety, and welfare. CASE STATUS: The case is sent to the City Council to declare 12901 Pierce Road a public nuisance. The violations are as follows; 1. 9- 55.010 SA ORD accumulation and storage of abandoed, wrecked, dismantled, or inoperative vehicles, or parts thereof, on private property. INFRACTION and a public nuisance. 2. 7- 05.050 SA ORD accumulation of garbage for more than one week. INFRACTION and a public nuisance. 3. 17- 3(a)(2) SA ORD no person shall cause, suffer, or permit the storageof hazardous materials, in a manner which causes an unautorized discharge of hazardous materials or poses a significant risk of such unauthorized discharge. MISDEMEANOR and a public safety hazard. END of REPORT b EB CCA R. SPOULOS #100 Senior Community Service Officer 11/20/91 Date: 1 (4 c' Time: 1 3 o hr s Location: I vLCI D f "Pi rc� 1Q-ct SCCra:1 --0 Case Number: a 12- 001 I CSO Assigned: 5 c 5 t t C( Camera used: t e` .,4 -7 Film type: 3S rnry) 2476,6„.. Film processing company: photo D1' u.7e, _UP (i73 stf'Ge_s'rc Neg.# Date Time CSO Location Description i 1 04 i431 ''lOO w pvrop. li E)!Y1Cf rcJttVe V at( -1 ra i Pub i2-- I 5 1433 li t 1 e dcr doors l -F►- -t 14:51 Seim yvt C- L► W ti1 t.(eVas /15abu 7 tL3 N. ZTA-- (3)r) Tercet t ve, k`-ek' A 1 0- 1 Rear tP `i I n cpeyal t Ve, vo k, q 1457 to q,' a l (t i no peizt1-Ve_ it -eft 1 1 1V 1 1 1'..Y N 9f &(Ls (Dorciv 02 00 12- 1`f 1 .r tTvudcLLL L 3vY SSibiS 1 3 icte- Vtrl LI p Le_ Zvi W(Y i 4 1" DarK_ cf G t. 0 c i(lorra- v ver 1 J 1 Pir dMujcu ctri\telua.LI Dlyetrdeci rhater 1 G i s H H Parts Gt i--Ia r i r 1 Rear anVeL( cam( and dt yL 4;if 14 A. L P rt 1-i t, 9Cu-ba c 1 5 r Car C ITY O S ARATO GA PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE LOG C -‘7 1G Qi E 44- t‘ 14- kiruic.1 74 1 c2(2-- pu ?.,?_A c? d 1)7, h? 4 id. t *(2-101-id, ei OP File No. V -91 -002; 12901 Pierce Road STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential PARCEL SIZE: 75,181 s.f. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Flat MATERIALS COLORS PROPOSED: Structure Stucco siding to match existing with sand stone wainscotting Window and Glazed metal sash windows Roof Wood shake LOT COVERAGE: HEIGHT: SIZE OF STRUCTURE: SETBACKS: Front: Rear: Right Side: Left Side: PROPOSAL CODE REQUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE (40 14'6" (26') 14,652 s.f. (19 Existing Floor Area: 4,063 s.f. Accessory Structures: 3,262 s.f. First Floor Addition: 682 s.f. Total Floor Area: 8,007 s.f. 7080 s.f. 67 ft. Front: 30 ft. greater than 100 ft. Rear: 50 ft. 10 ft. Right Side: 20 ft. 15 ft. Left Side: 20 ft. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Variance request to allow a 404 s.f. room addition to encroach 10 ft. into a 20 ft. required side yard setback per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The addition follows the existing, nonconforming wall line of the house. The subject property is within the R -1- 40,000 zone district. Discussions The proposed addition to this residence will include a walk -in- closet and master bathroom. The new construction would be located at the northwest corner of the existing house. The variance request is to allow this addition to encroach 10 ft. into the required 20 'ft. side yard setback. The applicant feels that the encroachment is unavoidable due to the physical layout of the home. The Bullocks have stated in the attached Variance Findings Supplement that the existing floor plan is such that requiring them to relocate the addition to a conform- ing location would be a hardship.. If the applicant were to put the File No. V -91 -002; 12901 Pierce Road addition in any other location, they would block the views off of the porch /sitting area. They feel their request is reasonable as the addition follows the existing wall line of the property. To deny their application the Bullocks feel would be a denial of privileges enjoyed by other home owners in the area who have similar setbacks. Staff has not received any objections to this proposal from the neighbors. Included in this application, but not necessarily a part of the Planning Commission review is a proposal to enclose an existing 277 s.f. patio. Staff finds the enclosure to be consistent with the City Zoning Regulations and therefore has no issue with the proposal. Staff has two concerns with this proposal. The first being that the proposal exceeds the allowable floor area by more than 1,000 square feet. When staff conducted their site visit, they noticed a handful of accessory structures which were not indicated on the site plan. These structures are old and dilapidated and generally consist of nothing more than four posts in the ground with a corrugated plastic roofs. According to the City's Building Code, these structures are considered permanent structures and therefore would need to be included as floor area. The applicant has not included these structures as floor area. Several years ago this property was a horse ranch and the majority of these accessory structures have been on the property since that time. The accessory structures which have been indicated on the site plan total 3,262 square feet. This brings the proposal over the allowable floor area by 927 square feet. The current site plan does not include the structures observed by staff. Staff feels that several of these structures could be removed without any great loss to the applicant. Staff could support this variance only with the condition that the applicant submit a new site plan indicating all of the accessory structures and the square footage of each. The applicant must indicate all structures to be removed and thus bring the floor area into compliance with what is allowed which is 7,280 square feet. This will be included as a condition of approval" in the "Resolution. The?- ',staff has with this proposal is the fact that the atoning_' .a prox m telly loo'' o mob 1nopera- t v e 4 ofr his r' property: In accordance with Article 9 -55, section .010, .040, .070, of the City Code (attached), the storage of abandoned vehicles is considered a public nuisance and is injurious to the public health, safety and welfare and must be abated. The illegal storage of these vehicles posed a real dilemma for staff. Based on this gross violation and the potential danger the cars posed to the public health, safety, and welfare, staff initially considered not processing the application until the cars File No. V -91 -002; 12901 Pierce Road had all been removed from the property. Staff made the decision to conside;,the application on its own merit with the recommenda- tion that_the be brought into conformance prior to zone clearance or within 90 days of this hearing, whichever comes first. Staff felt that the granting of the Variance Resolution would serve as a motivater, encouraging the applicant to clear up a serious violation thus avoiding City nuisance abatement proceedings. Staff further recommends that prior to Zone Clearance,• the site be inspected and evaluated by the Environmental Programs Manager for the purpose of evaulating possible hazardous conditions. Staff has incorporated these recommendations as conditions of approval in the Resolution. If this violation is not cleared up within 90 days from the date of this public hearing, the matter will be turned over to the Community Service Department for enforcement action to abate a public nuisance. Conclusion: Staff agrees that this variance request is minor and that the proposed addition would not likely cause any negative impacts on the existing residents. Staff feels that they are able to make the necessary findings to recommend approval of the variance. A strict and literal interpretation the Zoning Ordinance would force a larger side yard setback then presently exist. Physical circumstances also exist which generally do not apply to other properties in that the addition aligns with the wall line of the existing building. In addition, the adjacent residence along the south property line has a 20' tree lined access corridor which must be left undeveloped for access to the back property. The neighboring residence is another 20' from that point, providing a 40' set back from the Bullocks property. In the past, the Planning Commission has found such a request to be reasonable and has granted approval for such a variance when it is for the continua- tion of an existing wall line. Staff recommends approval of this application with the conditions that the applicant comply with all of the conditions of the Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the application by adopting Resolution V -91 -002. RESOLUTION NO. V -91 -002 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Bullock 12901 Pierce Road WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Variance Approval of Bullock; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support his said application, and the Planning Commission makes the following findings: A strict or literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Ordinance in that it would force a larger setback then presently exists on the property. Exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances exist that are applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district in that the existing house already encroaches 10' into the required side yard setback, and the addition would follow the existing wall line of the house. Granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same zoning district in that other proper- ties in the areas have similar setbacks. Granting the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that the proposal is simply involves a small addition to an existing house. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of for variance approval be and the same is hereby granted subject the following conditions: File NO. V -91 -002; 12901 Pierce Road AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A incorporated by reference. 2. The total gross floor area for all structures shall not exceed 7,280 square feet. 3. All of the inoperative, abandoned vehicles must be removed from the property prior to zone clearance. 3. Applicant must submit a new site plan indicating all accessary structures and their square footage indicating those structures to be removed, in order to bring the parcel into compliance with the allowable floor area requirement. 4. Prior to Zone Clearance, the applicant shall notify the Environmental Programs Manager to schedule a site inspection. 5. Non compliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit, Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250.00 shall be payable to this City per each day of violation. Section 2. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. Section 3. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 4. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 5. The applicant shall affix a copy of this resolu- tion to each set of construction plans which will be submitted to the Building Division when applying for a building permit. Section 6. Unless appealed pursuant ,to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this resolution shall become effective ten (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 13th day of March, 1991, by the following vote: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 741 AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 4, 1991 CITY MGR, APPRO �n,,r�? V. ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager SUBJECT: Request to Authorize 8K /3K Run on May 3, 1992 Recommended Motion: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 4,0 Approve in concept the holding of a foot race as proposed on May 3, 1992, conditioned on compliance with all requirements of the City's Special Events Ordinance. Approval includes authorization for the City Manager's Office to issue a Special Events Permit when it is determined that all conditions have been satisfied. Report Aummary: The Christa McAuliffe School Parent Faculty Group is requesting authorization to hold their second 8K /3K run in the neighborhood of the school on Sunday, May 3 1992, from approximately 9:00 to 11:00 a.m. The race would be limited to 600 participants, and proceeds from the race will benefit the children at Christa McAuliffe elementary school. Maps outlining the route are attached. Last year, the first time this event was held, there were some concerns about resulting traffic hazards on Prospect Road. This time the route has been altered for the 3K walk and other modification have been made to address these concerns. The requirements for a Special Events Permit include the following: 1) payment of a $60 non refundable filing fee; 2) payment of $250 fully refundable cleanup deposit; 3) assumption of financial responsibility by the race sponsor for law enforcement personnel which may be required; 4) a Certificate of Insurance naming the City of Saratoga as a primary insured party for at least $1,000,000 in liability coverage; and 5) a completed Indemnity Agreement. Fiscal Impact: None are anticipated. Attachments: 1. Maps showing route of foot race 2. Information from Sponsor responding to special events permit conditions. OPP ASCEAtS I ON .44 orm'Itill 4 1 ear Nom um 81s 5 T4RT peT4 IL. 64.r Ro4D RUN TO THE STARS 8K G4gtof70V 1. NOV 2 0 1991 Responses to "Summary Of Conditions Events Permit" A. The Christa McAuliffe PFG would like to put on an 8K (5 miles) and 3K (2 miles) running Road Race as a Fund Raiser for the school. B. The event would be held on Sunday, May 3rd, 1992 at 9:00 am (3K) and 9:30 am (8K) and would be completed by 11:00 am, possibly earlier. C. The sponsor of the event is the Christa McAuliffe PFG. D. Event contacts are: Hank Lawson 12375 Farr Ranch Rd Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 446 -9063 (home) (408) 432 -4180 (work) (408) 446 -9060 (FAX) Charmaine Morris 1126 Steeplechase Ln Cupertino, CA 95070 (408) 255 -4326 (home) E. Check for $60 enclosed (filing fee, non refundable). F. Check for $250 enclosed (clean -up deposit, fully refundable). G. We anticipate 500 -600 participants and another 200 volunteers and spectators. H. The attached course maps were submitted and approved by the Westside Sheriff's Office for the 1991 event and will be submitted for the 1992 event. The maps show where the runners will run, where Course Marshals will be stationed and how runners will be moved to the starting line and removed off of the course once they are finished. We do not anticipate having to close off, or even a partial closure, any on the roads in order to run this event (although caution will of course be in order). 1. Traffic will be allowed on the streets prior, during and after the event. The runners will only be on the street from the hours of 9:00 am to 10:30 am. 2. There is sufficient parking on the school grounds and the surrounding area to handle the number of participants that we anticipate. We will be turning the school athletic field into a parking area. 3. Emergency vehicles will have total access to the event and it's surrounding areas. The start and finish areas have been chosen for easy access. I. Currently, Christa McAuliffe renting an additional 4 sufficient for the number of plan on having (if needed). has 10 toilets. We also plan on Port -O- Potties which will be participants /spectators that we J. There will be mineral water (bottles) apples, bananas, oranges (whatever Petrini's donates), muffins coffee cake (thanks to Hobees) and yogurt, hopefully (from Yoplait). The volunteers will ensure that the fruit is washed and then sliced up for the runners. The water yogurt are self contained and will be put out on a table for the runners to take. The coffee cake will be a SHEET CAKE that will be cut and served with napkins by the volunteers. All food will be picked up a day or two prior to the event with the exception to the coffee cake which will be picked up the morning of the event. K. There will be nothing for sale at this event, with the possible exception of left over race T- Shirts. At this time we do not know who that vendor will be, but will forward the information as soon as it is decided. T- Shirts would be sold in the area of race registration which is by the playground area. y( L. There will be one loud speaker in order to handle general announcements prior to the event and for the awards ceremony. This will be located in the race registration area. There is a possibility that a band, playing "Classic" Rock Roll, might be performing. If so, they would not begin until 10:00 am (at the earliest) and would be finished by 12:00 noon (at the latest). They would also face towards Prospect Rd so as not to bother the surrounding neighborhood. They performed last year and the City suggested where they should be located (the same location we propose this year) and we did not receive any complaints from the music. M. The race flyer will state all conditions of the race for which this permit is being issued. If there are any additional requirements that come to light after the race flyer has been printed, those conditions will be made known to the participants on the morning of the event. General liability insurance is handled by Evergreen Insurance Service. A rider to the current policy has been purchased and sent to Todd Argow, or his equivalent, as the representative for the city of Saratoga. The Indemnity Agreement has been filed out and is attached. P. It is understood that the Christa McAuliffe PFG is responsible for any reimbursements to the City of Saratoga in regards to security, traffic control and law enforcement expenses that are associated with this event. I have been in contact with the Westside Sheriff's Office and we feel that the cost of Sheriff's Deputies will not exceed $100 to handle the above mentioned. Q. See attached map layout for all information. R. No portion of this event will be run over a State Highway. Ray Iida June 20, 1991 City Of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Iida, I would like to extend m thanks to May 1991 to discuss possible improvments for you 1992 version with me "Run To The Stars" race. To recap what we agreed to: 1) Have the 8K race start 30 minutes after the start of the 3K race to further eliminate any congestion on Propect Rd. 2) Alter the 3K course to stay off of Prospect Rd completly. 3) Block off one lane on Prospect, between Miller and Brookglen (on the Crista McAuliffe school site side). 4) If appropriate and needed, staff with two traffic officers, one on the corner of Prospect and Titus and the other where needed. I'm sure that with the changes implemented, we will be able to avoid any potential problems that might arise with the growth of this event. We'll be in touch with you in Feb '92 for our annual event. Sincerely, AA J■\ Hank Lawson Co -race Director "Run To The Stars" 12375 Farr Ranch Rd Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 446 -9063 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2 64 MEETING DATE: December 4, 1991 ORIGINATING DEPT. City Clerk SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Ki../ AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. 2 t SUBJECT: Resolution Ordering Abatement of a Public Nuisance by Removal of Hazardous Weeds Recommended Motion: Adopt resolution ordering abatement. Report Summary: The attached resolution represents the second step in the weed abatement process for this season. The County has sent the owners of the parcels requiring weed abatement notices informing them that the weeds must be abated, either by the owners or by the County. The notice also informed them that they may present objections at tonight's public hearing. Fiscal Impacts: None to City. County recovers costs from administrative portion of fee charged. Attachments: Resolution. (List of parcels requiring weed abatement is available at City Clerk's office.) Motion and Vote: Printed on recycled paper. OEU7 off 0 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 December 4, 1991 To: City Council -From: City Manager Subject: Revisions to Cellular Telephone Transmission Facility Regulations On November 6, 1991, the City Council received my memorandum suggesting several changes to the current regulations governing cellular telephone facilities. This matter was to be considered by the City Council on December 4th, subsequent to its decision on the GTE Mobilnet appeal which was heard on November 20th. At the November 20th hearing the City Council denied the Mobilnet appeal. That decision did not alter the suggested changes proposed in the November 6th memorandum. Accordingly, it is recommended that the planning staff and the Planning Commission be instructed to revise the regulations applying to cellular telephone facilities to: 1. make all future cellular telephone sites conditionally permitted uses, limiting antenna height to 60 .feet and on findings which include no health risk from RF radiation, interference with other electronic equipment and no negative visual impact 2. limit sites to the P -A and C zones 3. require a variance for any antenna height in excess of 60 feet. 1 12/44 0 11! Harry j016.hrp Attachment: November 6, 1991 Memorandum eacock, City Manager 7.A COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman 1 Printed on recycled paper. Calve oo 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (4081867 -3438 {Y1i i::r.ei::':. ^.f I November 6, 1991 To: City Council From: City Manager Subject: Cellular Telephone Transmission Facilities Regulations COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman Background: In February 1991 the City Council enacted an ordinance which regulated the construction of cellular telephone communications facilities operated by public utilities. The ordinance made such facilities permitted uses in the P -A (Professional Administrative Office) zone and the C (Commercial) Zone Districts of the City provided the antenna did not exceed 40 feet in height. Such facilities were also allowed as conditionally permitted uses in the same zoning districts where the antenna was higher than 40 feet. Any antenna height in excess of 60 feet would also require a variance as well as a Condition Use Permit (CUP). The ordinance also established minimum setbacks as follows: Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Any property line adjacent to a residential district 25 feet 10 feet 25 feet 40 feet Since the enactment of the ordinance, one such facility has been permitted. It is located next to Lawrence Expressway between Prospect Road and Saratoga Avenue. A second facility, located on Highway 85 between Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga Creek has been denied by the Planning Commission and is currently on appeal to the City Council. Mr. Whetstone and others have petitioned the City Council to repeal the existing ordinance and replace it with an ordinance which takes into account RF radiation, potential interference with nearby electronic equipment including computers, and negative visual impact. In his memorandum to the Council of October 16, 1991, the City Attorney advised the City Council on this matter. Subsequently, the City Manager corresponded to Mr. Whetstone transmitting a copy of the memorandum. In r6sponse Mr. Whetstone has reiterated his request. j Page 2 Analysis: Obviously the City Attorney and Mr. Whetstone have differing points of view toward the importance of not repealing the existing ordinance. After reading the "interim order" of the PUC supplied by Mr. Whetstone but previously analyzed by Mr. Riback, it is clear to me that: 1. The PUC prefers to have local regulations handle facility development issues, if possible. 2. Environmental review should be undertaken regarding any application whether locally or to the PUC in the absence of local regulation. 3. At a minimum, the PUC should be notified of any application and be asked to review and comment on a) public convenience and necessity, and b) the scope of environmental review. 4. There is a strong indication that residential areas are not encouraged as facility sites. I have discussed Mr. Whetstone's letter with Mr. Riback and we agree that: 1. The current ordinance should not be repealed but should be amended to: a. make all cellular sites subject to a CUP regardless of antenna height, b. continue to limit sites to commercial and office districts, and c. require a variance for any antenna height in excess of 60 feet. This would insure that each application be considered a discretionary act requiring at least a Negative Declaration or an EIR based upon initial environmental review. The issues raised by Mr. Whetstone can, in my view, only be determined on a case -by -case basis regarding the proposed location of a site and the makeup of the surrounding environment. It also means the burden of proof as to environmental impact remains SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 11 AGENDA ITEM 4 (7. MEETING DATE: December 4, 1991 CITY MGR. APPROVAI4'G` ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering SUBJECT: 4th Street Sidewalk Capital Project No. 958: Notice of Completion and Budget Adjustment Recommended Action: 1. Authorize staff to record the Notice of Completion for the project. 2. Adopt resolution increasing project budget by $10,000. Discussion: Ambo Engineering, Inc. has completed all work on the 4th Street Sidewalk, Capital Project No. 958, to the satisfaction of engineering staff. Consequently, the Council should accept the project as complete and authorize staff to record the attached Notice of Completion for the project. Additionally, it is recommended that the Council adopt the attached Budget Adjustment Resolution which would increase the project budget by $10,000. The additional funds are required to accommodate the base contract amount of $17,738, plus approximately $4,600 in changes which were authorized to better transition the lower end of the sidewalk into Parking District #1. Lastly, approximately $2,700 was expended for design and construction staking services which were not included in the original project budget because staff initially contemplated performing that work in house, but was unable to do so. Fiscal Impacts: The adopted budget contains $15,000 in Capital Project No. 958. Actual project expenses will be approximately $25,000. Attachments: 1. Notice of Completion. 2. Budget Adjustment Resolution No. 91 -46.5. Motion Vote: Recording requested by, and to be returned to: Saratoga City Clerk 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, California 95070 ATTEST: NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the work agreed to be performed under the contract mentioned below between the City of Saratoga, a municipal corporation, whose address is 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070, as Owner of property or property rights, and the Contractor mentioned below, on property of the Owner, was accepted as complete by the Owner on the 4th day of December 19 91 Contract Number: Contract Date: September 18, 1991 Contractor's Name: Ambo Engineering Contractor's Address: 34151 Zwissiq Way, Union City, CA 94587 Description of Work: 4th Street Sidewalk Capital Project No. 958 This notice is given in accordance with the provisions of Section 3093 of the Civil Code of the State of California. The undersigned certifies that he is an officer of the City of Saratoga, that he has read the foregoing Notice of Acceptance of Completion and knows the contents thereof; and that the same is true of his own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated on information or belief, and as to those matters that he believes to be true. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California on 19 Grace E. Cory, Deputy City Clerk Gov. Code 40814 CITY OF SARATOGA BY: Larry I. Perlin City Engineer RESOLUTION NUMBER 91 -46.5 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS AND AMENDING THE F.Y. 1992 BUDGET WHEREAS, it has been recommended by the City Manager that the following transfer of appropriations and increase in the present budget appropriations be made: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the budget of the City of Saratoga adopted by Resolution 91 -46 be amended as follows: Transfer: 10,000 from (0001 -2000) GENERAL FUND BALANCE 10,000 to (9010- 4510 -0958) CONTRACT SERVICES Purpose: To provide funding for the costs of the 4th Street Sidewalk project. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 4th day of December, 1991 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: DEPUTY CITY CLERK 1 MAYOR MEETING DATE: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM December 4, 1991 ORIGINATING DEPT: Finance Department /City Manager SUBJECT: Request for Proposal Computer Network System Administration Recommended Action: Approve the attached Request for Proposal Network System Administration. Report Summary: The City has installed a Novell Arcnet Lan which currently serves the Building, Engineering, Planning and Community Service departments. Technical management of the Network during this installation period has been provided by the supplier as a part of the purchase contract. A permanent arrangement regarding technical support and management of this shared function is required to ensure the integrity and availability of the City's networked system and its shared databases. We are seeking an outside consulting team to provide the technical expertise which does not exist within the current organization structure and staffing of the City. The Request for Proposal will be advertised locally for a period not to exceed two months. Proposals are due no later than 2/05/92. Approval of selection of the consultant will be scheduled for the Council meeting of 3/04/92 Fiscal Impact: Cost is totally dependent upon the services required of the consultant, the hours of support to be provided, and the in -house support we can provide. A minimum of 8 hours per week will be required on an ongoing basis, with some startup time for consultant orientation to our system. A fulltime position, at 40 hours per week, to fulfill these requirements would cost an estimated $50,000 to $60,000 plus benefits per year. There is no provision for the cost of this consulting contract in the current budget. Attachment: Request for Proposal Network System Administration. Motion and Vote: 0 1 CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NETWORK SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION The City of Saratoga requests proposals for Network System Administration. The City's Computer Network is a newly installed Novell Arcnet LAN serving the Building, Engineering, Planning and Community Service Departments. Other departments to be added to the Network are City Manager, Finance, Recreation and Maintenance. The City has selected the following software options for its Network: Lotus 1 -2 -3, WordPerfect 5.1, and MicroPlan GTS applications. The City has established a management committee to define Network standards and set policy. This committee will work with the consulting team in implementing and controlling Network applications. The members of the Network System Administration Committee are the City's: Assistant to the City Manager, Finance Director and Chief Building Official. SCOPE OF WORK To ensure the integrity and availability of the City's network and its data, the City of Saratoga desires to establish a formal network management function that addresses the Security, further development and Administration of the Network. Network Security must be designed to provide adequate access controls and protection for software and data files against loss, unauthorized use and /or contamination. Network Administration will include activities, such as (but not limited to): Configuration and design of the Network Software and workstation installation Access Control Network performance monitoring and evaluation Network diagnostics Disaster recovery Identification of User's Training Requirements Recommendation of compatible hardware replacements Disk Management COMPUTER ENVIRONMENT COMPUTER LITERACY (EXPERIENCE) Computer Literacy varies widely among the staff of the City of Saratoga, ranging from the menu dependent novice to users familiar with DOS and Disk Management. While all departments have Personal Computers and use various software applications within their department, most staff have an operational expertise which enables them to accomplish only the usual tasks associated with their job. 1 The City does not have a Management Information Systems Manager, a Computer Programmer or a Computer Operator on staff. The following City staff have developed a level of expertise with Lotus, Quattro Pro, Paradox and /or DOS, which enables them to act as a limited resource to other staff members: Finance Director, Accountant, Maintenance Director, Chief Building Official, and Code Enforcement Clerk. The City desires to supplement its in -house capabilities with the services of a consulting team which has proven technical expertise, good interpersonal skills and a demonstrated ability to determine the needs of an application opportunity or situation. Most database applications (Finance, Maintenance, Recreation, Code Enforcement and Building) have developed out of need; through Licensing Agreements with the Application Developer; or with outside consulting and /or volunteer customization of database applications. Most of the PCs listed (including those connected to the Network) have database, spreadsheet and word processing applications installed on their hard drive. All clerical staff of the City have received training on WordPerfect 5.1 and have access to Videocassette training from LearnKey on both WordPerfect and Lotus. Novell Netware S.F.T. V2.15 Novell Lan Space Novell Lan Spool Network System Management NETWORK SYSTEM The City of Saratoga maintains shared software and datafiles on a Novell certified Network File Server connected to 24 PCs and 3 Printers. Network File Server Hardware consists of: VICTS 386/33 8MB RAM 64K CACHE File Server System 1.44 mb 3.5" floppy Ultrastore 12f, 32k Cache ESDI Controller Card Monochrome /MGP MAXTOR 8760E, 660MB, 16.5ms ESDI w /Ultrastore 12F Controller EVEREX EXCEL 125 Internal Tape Backup 125MB 9600 Baud Modem Network File Server Software includes: 2 WordPerfect 5.1 Network File Server S/W WordPerfect 5.1 Network W/S 5 -Pac License Microsoft Windows 3.0 Lotus 123 Ver. 2.2 Norton Utilities 5.0 Microplan GTS Software (including Technical Services Contract): Microplan GTS Buildtech Microplan GTS Landtech Microplan GTS Plantech Microplan GTS Codetech PCs Networked are as follows: Engineering Department 286/20MHZ W /2MB RAM, 1.2MB floppy, 72MB HD, DOS 4.01 Building Department 386/25MHZ W /2MB RAM, 1.2MB floppy, 40MB HD, DOS 4.01 386/25MHZ W /2MB RAM, Diskless, DOS 4.01 386/25MHZ W /2MB RAM, Diskless, DOS 4.01 Z W/1MB RAM, 1.2MB floppy, 33MB HD 286/12MH PPY, HD, DOS 3.3 Planning Department 386/25MHZ W /2MB RAM, Diskless, DOS 4.01 286/12MHZ W /1MB RAM, 1.2MB floppy, 80MB HD, DOS 3.3 286/12MHZ W /1MB RAM, 1.2MB floppy, 40MB HD, DOS 3.3 286/12MHZ W /1MB RAM, 1.2MB floppy, 40MB HD, DOS 3.3 286/20MHZ W /2MB RAM, 1.2MB floppy, 120MB HD, DOS 3.3 City Manager's Office 386/33MHZ W /2MB RAM, 1.2MB floppy, 40MB HD, DOS 4.01 286/12MHZ W /1MB RAM, 1.2MB floppy, 40MB HD, DOS 3.3 386SX /16MHZ W /1MB RAM, 1.2MB floppy, 40MB HD, DOS 4.01 To Be Networked in Phase II: City Manager's Office 286/12MHZ W /1MB RAM, 1.2MB floppy, MB HD, DOS W/640K RAM, 2 -356K floppies, diskless 8088/12MHZ W /640K RAM, 2 -356K floppies, 30MB HD, DOS 3.21 386SX /16MHZ W /4MB RAM, 1.2 1.44MB floppies, 40MB HD, DOS 4.01 Finance Department 386SX /16MHZ, 1MB RAM, 1.2MB floppy, 40MB HD, DOS 4.01 286/ MHZ, W /640K RAM, 1.2MB, 356K floppies, 20MB HD, 10MB BACKUP, DOS 3.3 Maintenance Department 286/16MHZ, W /2MB RAM, 1.2MB floppy, 40MB HD, DOS 3.3 286/12MHZ, W /1MB RAM, 1.2MB floppy, 32MB HD, DOS 3.3 Parks Recreation Department 8088/12MHZ, W /640K RAM, 356K floppy, 30MB HD, DOS 3.2 8088/12MHZ, W /640K RAM, 356K floppy, 30MB HD, DOS 3.2 CONTENT OF PROPOSAL Your Proposoal must contain the following elements: Table of Contents Letter of Transmittal addressing the following elements: Understanding of the work to be performed -From your interviews with City staff and your evaluation of the areas specified in this RFP, what is your estimate of support the City will require in terms of Hours and level of expertise? Commitment to meeting the needs of the City- -How will this consulting assignment fit with your commitments to other firms? Can you be "on call" if required? Names of Proposer's Spokesperson Proposed Fee Schedule Hourly rates by category of support. Profile of Consulting Team Local, Regional or National Consultant -What form of organization are you: Corporation, Partnership or Sole Proprietorship? Services Managed from what office -Are you situated locally? Number of staff, by classification, assigned to that office Types of Services performed by that office Experience with Networked Systems Identity and relevant experience of staff to be assigned as Consulting personnel List of Services Provided to Municipalities Proposed Consulting Contract Include an executable copy of your proposed contract. 4 Submission of completed proposals 2/05/92 Recommendation of Net. Sys. Admin. Committee 2 /19/92 Selection of Consulting Team 3/04/92 Selection of the Consultant will be based on a combination of the factors included in your proposal, upon recommendation of the City's Network System Administration Committee. The selection process will include interviews of prospective Consultants. The City retains the absolute right to reject any or all proposals. Sincerely, Patricia Shriver Finance Director RFP TIMELINES 5 Printed on recycled paper. ZI\ S'E) UELVW 04 0 '0 o C� M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tsvia Adar, Associate Planner 1 r DATE: December 4, 1991 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman SUBJECT: AZO -91 -001; Amendment to Zoning Ordinance to Allow Three Stories at the Senior Project at the Former Paul Masson Site The owner of the former Paul Masson site requests to modify previously approved plan for the senior housing project on the site. The proposed modifications include a change to the maximum height of the structures from two -story to three story. Currently the MU -PD zone district standards for the site, allow two -story and maximum height of 30 feet. Therefore, a zone ordinance amendment is necessary to accommodate the request for three -story and 45 ft. height. The Planning Commission considered the application in a number of meetings. On 11/13/91, the Planning Commission made the decision with a vote of 3 -1, to recommend that the City Council deny the request for zone change. The recommendation was based on the following findings: 1. The air quality report does not provide a conclusive research which assures that the health of the seniors will not be affected by the air pollution from Highway 85. 2. The proposed three -story height is excessive and is not compatible with the low profile character of Saratoga's residences and neighborhoods. 3. The proposed height is not consistent with the City's General Plan. 4. The economical viability is in question without a potential operator. Air Quality Reports In response to the Planning Commission's direction, a number of air quality reports were prepared by LSA, a private consulting firm, hired by the City. The reports include projection of air pollution levels after the construction of Highway 85 and the short and long term health effects. Staff report dated 11/13/91, including all of the reports provided by LSA, is attached for the City Council's review. Previous staff reports and Planning Commission minutes are also attached. Project Consistency with the General Plan Policies The City's General Plan includes many policies related to preservation of the City's character. Some of these policies are: LU.5.0 related to compatibility of new development with the surroundings, LU.6.2 related to prevention of adverse impacts of new projects, LU.8.0 preservation of residential character, and CI.4.0 preservation of the scenic views from streets. These policies, however, do not specifically restrict additional height as long as the development is compatible with its surroundings and is designed to minimize the visual impacts. Currently there are a number of existing projects throughout the city which exceed the height limitation for their zone district but have no adverse visual impact. Therefore, project height in excess of the zone district limitation, if designed appropriately, may comply with the General Plan goals and policies. The only General Plan policy which specifically deals with height limitation throughout the City, is the policy on page 3 -5 in the Land Use Element. This policy reads: "No structure shall be over two stories in height except for structures located within the Village boundaries as defined in the Village Area Plan. In the Village, structure height will be limited based on compatibility with existing structures and the natural environment." This policy allows three -story structures only in the village. If the City Council determines that the requested height for three stories on the former Paul Masson site is consistent with the General Plan goals and objectives, and that the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance can be approved, then the General Plan policy related to the height limit should be amended as follows: No structure shall be over two stories in height except for structures located within the Village boundaries as defined in the Village Area Plan and within the senior housing at the former Paul Masson site located at Saratoga Avenue. In the Village and the senior housing at the Paul Masson site, structure height will be limited based on compatibility with existing structures and the natural environment. This amendment will allow flexibility in structure height only for the Village area and the Paul Masson site and will continue to restrict the general height throughout the City to two story. The determination of the height limits on these two sites would be based on compatibility with the environment. Due to the complexity and controversy of the project, the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan amendments were not processed together. The procedure for General Plan amendment requires the Planning Commission review and recommendation and should be done prior to adoption of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Alternatives: The City Council has a number of action options: 1. Follow the Planning Commission recommendations and determine that the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment related to the change of height is in conflict with the City's policies, is not compatible with the City's character and, therefore, deny the requested amendment. No further City Council or Planning Commission action is necessary in this case. 2. The City Council may find the Zoning Ordinance change consistent with the General Plan goals and objectives, the project can be designed to minimize adverse impact and to be compatible with the City's and neighborhoods' character. In this case, staff should be directed to process the General Plan amendment through the Planning Commission in accordance with the Government Code, Section 65354. The Planning Commission recommendations for General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments will be brought back to the City Council for final decision. Attachments: 1. Staff report dated 11/13/91 including air quality reports 2. Staff report dated 9/20/91 3. Planning Commission minutes from 9/25/91, 9/3/91 (study session) 7/24/91 4. Correspondence previously submitted STAFF REPORTS Printed on recycled paper. Background Project Discussion 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOG.A, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tsvia Adar, Associate Planner DATE: November 13, 1991 SUBJECT: ZC -91 -001 and SM -91 -003; 13150 Saratoga Avenue Senior Project at the former Paul Masson site COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman The applicant is requesting to modify the senior housing portion of previously approved site development plans at the former Paul Masson site. The proposed height of the structures in the modified plans requires an amendment to the height limitations prescribed for the MU -PD zone district designated for this site. This application was last discussed by the Planning Commission at the 9/25/91 meeting. At that meeting the Planning Commission declined the request for amendment to the zoning ordinance by a tie vote. The application was continued to the 10/9/91 and then to the 10/23/91 meeting for re -vote. The Planning Commission also directed that additional information on air quality and health effects of carbon monoxide should be prepared. However, continuation of the application was required from the 10/23/91 meeting, in order to comply with the procedural requirement for public renoticing following a tie vote, and to reopen the public hearing. There are three major issues related to the proposed modification which require the Commission's consideration: 1. The appropriateness of three story structures on the subject site: The applicant requests approval of this modification, since the potential facility operator found this layout to be the only feasible alternative from operational and economical standpoints. 2. Zoning Amendment: The proposed height exceeds the allowable height and the two -story limit in the MU -PD zone district. Amendment to the zoning ordinance is required to allow a maximum of 45 ft. and three -story structures on the site. 3. Air Quality and Health effects: The air quality factor and the short and long term health effects as a result of the construction of Highway 85 next to the project should be reviewed and considered. Following the Commission's direction, additional air quality studies and a health impact report were prepared by a private consultant, LSA. The reports are attached for the Planning Commission's review. Amendment to MU -PD Zone District A conceptual plan was submitted for Planning Commission review in July 1990. This plan modifies the original senior housing project which consists of two -story structures. The plan includes two and three -story structures of a maximum height of 46 ft. In response to the Planning Commission's concerns, the applicant submitted revised elevations reducing the maximum height of the structures to 44 ft. A second alternative was also prepared which cut the rooflines and reduced the height to 42 ft. The applicant feels that the 44 ft. alternative can achieve better design and less bulky appearance. However, the 42 ft. height is structurally possible and the applicant is willing to comply with this last restriction if directed by the Commission. Since the change to the zoning ordinance requires a more involved process, staff recommends that the Commission allow some flexibility in setting the height restriction. This may prove to be beneficial for the project design and appearance. Therefore, the height restriction on the resolution for the proposed zoning ordinance amendment is 45 ft. The fundamental question at this stage is whether the Planning Commission feels that the inclusion of three -story structures for senior housing on the former Paul Masson site is appropriate. Is the proposed height compatible with the character of Saratoga, Saratoga Avenue, adjacent land uses, and with the future highway and interchange? The answer to this question should consider the character and site conditions after construction of Highway 85 and the interchange which will have significant impacts on the site and the surrounding area. Visual, noise and air quality are some of the major impacts on the site. It appears that sufficient information related to the review and determination of appropriate height restriction is currently available to the Commission. The actual height of the structures can and should be revisited at the design review level for the project. The Commission has the authority to deny a project which meets all the zone standards but does not comply with the required design review findings. The Commission also has the ability to further restrict the height of the structures at the project review level, if the design appears incompatible. Air Ouality Studies Following the Commission's direction, additional air quality studies, and health effect studies were prepared. LSA, the private consulting firm, prepared additional reports in accordance with the scope of work approved by the Planning Commission. A copy of the Scope of Work is attached. Four separate documents cover all the air quality issues specified in the Scope of Work. The first is "Extended Carbon Monoxide" report dated March 1990. The second is a report dated August 1991, which includes recalculation of carbon monoxide levels at different building elevations. The third is a letter from Dr. Rodney Beard, hired by LSA, covering short and long term effects of carbon monoxide on elderly and ill people. The last letter dated 11/6/91 covers the remaining air quality issues specified in the Scope of Work, including comparison of exterior and interior levels of CO, federal, state and local standards, and a discussion of mitigation measures to reduce the interior levels of carbon monoxide. After careful review of the material and discussions with the consultants, the following conclusions are noted: 1. The methods and models used for measuring and projecting carbon monoxide levels provide reliable results. The models establish safety factors which take into consideration a margin of error. The projected CO levels in the air, based on these models take the worst case situation and add the safety margin. Therefore, the levels provided through the models could be higher than the real conditions, but no lower. 2. The projected levels show no violation of any federal, state or local standards at any location on the Paul Masson site or at any height at or above ground. 3. The CO levels vary at different locations on the site and different building heights (20' versus 39'). However, the difference is insignificant and ranges from 3 ppm to 6 ppm which are all below federal and state standards. 4. The interior and exterior levels of carbon monoxide and other air pollutants may vary slightly, but not significantly enough to reduce health effects. 5. No effective filtering methods or systems are available which can significantly reduce the interior carbon monoxide levels. While the projections of carbon monoxide levels are fairly definite and reliable, the studies related to the health effects are limited and less conclusive. However, certain conclusions can be drawn in relation to the short and long term health effects on the human body in the presence of different carbon monoxide levels, and for people of different ages and activity levels. 1. Although all levels of carbon monoxide may have some long term effects on humans, studies indicate that levels of 2% and higher of COHb in the blood system have been shown to have measurable negative effects on human life. 2. The worst projected condition of CO levels on the site may cause COHb levels below 2 3. The air quality reports indicated that the project site, adjacent to the future highway, is not risk -free. However, based on the available studies, the danger of the CO level projected at the site is not high. It should be noted, however, that all available studies have a certain level of inaccuracy and uncertainty. 4. The health effect of low COHb levels on old and /or sick people was found to be somewhat greater than on healthy, young people. However, the COHb levels found in young, physically active people was found to be higher than in old persons. In dealing with the air quality issue, the Commission's decision may be based on the available, although limited, information and studies. A senior housing project has been previously reviewed and approved for the site. The air quality reports show no indication that the proposed project modification will present different air quality conditions or impacts on the site, structures, or on the seniors who will occupy the facility. Site Modification The proposed modification is related to the senior housing portion of the project located on the 11.07 acre portion of the site. The plan as presented to the Commission at this stage is a conceptual plan. A site plan, rough elevations drawings, and partial cross section were submitted for the Commission's review. The intensity of use in the modified plan is similar to that of the approved plan and will consist of: Patio homes 17 units Condominiums 192 units Personal care facility 40 beds Skilled nursing facility 80 beds (23 approved) (185 approved) (32 approved) (45 approved) The layout and design of the structures are different on the modified plans. The applicant submitted two alternatives. The first placed the three -story structures adjacent to Saratoga Avenue. The second revision mitigates the visual impact from the street by moving the proposed three -story structures further from Saratoga Avenue and placing a row of two -story townhouses along Saratoga Avenue. The height of the three -story structures was reduced from 46 ft. to 44 ft. An alternative for a 42 ft. high structure was also presented by the applicant. Since the plans are conceptual, the Planning Commission should focus on the adequacy and acceptability of the presented concept. If the conceptual plan is approved by the Planning Commission, the applicant should be directed to prepare detailed plans for the Commissions review and consideration. At the detailed review process, the Commission may further discuss the layout, design, and height of the site development plan and structures. Since further review is required for the project, no resolution for site modification is attached. Conclusion and Recommendations The Planning Commission has the following alternatives: 1. To determine that the proposed three -story structures are incompatible with the character of the City and the adjacent neighborhoods, and thus recommend to the City Council that the requested zone change and the site modification be denied. 2. To determine that the concept of three stories is acceptable and refer the application to the City Council for zone amendment and with recommendations for approval. Following adoption of the zone amendment by the City Council, the Commission may proceed with the review of detailed plans. Attachments: 1. Resolution ZC -91 -001 2. Air Quality Reports dated 3/2/90, 8/27/91, 10/22/91 11/6/91 3. Scope of Work from Air Quality Consultants, LSA 4. Correspondence RESOLUTION NO. BC •91 •001 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 15 •21 OF THE CITY CODE TO ESTABLISH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT FOR SENIOR HOUSING AND CARE FACILITIES IN THE MIXED USE•PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONE DISTRICT WHEREAS, the City Council has by majority vote indicated that the former Paul Masson Champagne Cellars site is an appropriate location for a full service senior housing and care facility; and WHEREAS, the City Council also would support by a majority vote a three -story structure for a senior housing and care facility; and WHERE, the Planning Commission has received testimony and has reviewed the previous reports, minutes, and resolutions to find that increased building height is necessary to produce an economically feasible project; and WHERE, the Planning Commission finds that the existing provisions of the MU -PD zone district enables the Planning Commission to review architectural and site plans to minimize the impact of increased height on the surrounding community. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council the following: Section 1. Section 15- 21.091 of the City Code is hereby added to read in full as follows: 15 21.091 Height of Structures Containing Senior Housing and are Facilities The maximum height of any structure or structures providing housing and medical care shall not exceed three stories or 45 feet; provided, however, that a multiple use planned development permit pursuant to this Article has been duly issued by the Planning Commission. Resolution No. ZC -91 -001 Section 2. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga on the 23rd day of October, 1991 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission Chairperson, Planning Commission isa EXTENDED CARBON MONOXIDE MODELING STUDY LES MAISONS PROVENCAL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT /REZONING PREPARED FOR CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING DEPARTMENT 13777 FRUITVALE SARATAGO, CA 95070 PREPARED BY LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 157 PARK PLACE PT. RICHMOND, CA 94801 (415) 236 -6810 LSA PROJECT IICIS902 March 2, 1990 EXTENDED CARBON MONOXIDE MODELING STUDY LES MAISONS PROVENCAL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT /REZONING INTRODUCTION LSA Associates, Inc. prepared the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Les Maisons Provencal project. The EIR addressed a number of potentially significant environmental issues identified in the Initial Study prepared by the City of Saratoga. On the subject of air quality, the EIR found that existing and future violations of the federal and State eight -hour average carbon monoxide (CO) standards were probable in the vicinity of the Saratoga /Cox intersection, north of the project site, but that the area affected by those CO standard violations would not include any of the project site. The EIR also summarized the air quality findings of the Route 85 Transportation Corridor Protect FEIR because a proposed extension of State Route 85 would pass immediately south of the project site. That FEIR estimated that the worst -case one -hour and eight -hour CO levels near the edge of the freeway right -of -way in the year 2010 would be at most 17.1 ppm and 8.8 ppm, respectively. Thus, no violations of the one -hour and eight -hour CO standards (20 ppm and 9 ppm, respectively) were predicted in the freeway vicinity. Although the Les Maisons Provencal EIR was certified by the City of Saratoga in December 1988, questions still remained about the severity and extent of CO concentrations on the Les Maisons Provencal site. Consequently, the Saratoga City Planning Department asked LSA Associates to perform more detailed on -site CO modeling studies. STUDY METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS Much information pertinent to answering the outstanding questions concerning future CO levels on the Les Maisons Provencal site can be provided by the CALINE4 computer model. CALINE4 is a line source dispersion model developed by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Given input data on CO emission rates, meteorological conditions, and local source geometry, the model can estimate ambient CO effects of those sources at chosen receptor locations. However, CALINE4 alone can not provide complete estimates of the total CO concentration at any location. The total CO concentration is made up of two components: a local component, which includes the effects of vehicular traffic on nearby roadways, and a background component, which includes the cumulative effects of other more distant sources. CALINE4 is useful only for estimating local components. Model input for this comes from project- specific traffic studies, site plans, and emission rate data available from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2 lsa (BAAQMD). Information on CO background is obtained from long -term ambient monitoring. The CALINE4 runs for this study were initialized with local traffic data provided by the project traffic consultant, the Goodrich Traffic Group, and with Route 85 traffic data obtained from Caltrans. CO sources and receptor locations were encoded using the most current freeway geometrics from Caltrans and project site plans provided by the project sponsor. The worst -case meteorological profiles used were recommended by Caltrans in Air Quality Technical Analysis Notes, the standard reference on CALINE4 modeling. CO emission factors and CO background components were taken from the BAAQMD's Air Quality and Urban Development: Guidelines for Assessing Impacts of Projects and Plans. The modeling results are presented graphically in the accompanying figures. Tables of model input and output are included in the Appendix. SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY FINDINGS A glance at the CO contours drawn on the figures is sufficient to show that no violations of the one -hour or eight -hour CO standards are predicted on the Les Maisons Provencal site. One -hour CO concentrations would never be higher than half that standard (20 ppm), while eight -hour CO concentrations, although closer, would never be higher than 90% of the standard (9 ppm). If CALINE4 predictions could be accepted with perfect confidence and if exposure to air pollutants were absolutely safe below a known threshold, no further discussion would be needed. However, these findings need to be interpreted in light of what is known about the accuracy of the CALINE4 model and the toxic effects of CO exposure. Before the CALINE4 model was released for general use, Caltrans conducted its own field studies and considered the results of studies by other agencies (i.e., General Motors and the Illinois EPA) to gauge model accuracy. The results of these studies are summarized in CALINE4 A Dispersion Model for Predicting Air Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadways, Caltrans, June 1989. In that document, plots of CALINE4 predicted concentrations show a good correlation with measured concentrations, but the margin of error is relatively large. Put more quantitatively, a CALINE4 predicted concentration would have a 75% chance of being within a factor of two of the true pollutant concentration. Thus, a CALINE4 prediction of 4 ppm could do no better than show that a concurrent measurement would yield a concentration anywhere from 8 ppm to 2 ppm. To understand the significance of the CO exposure levels for prospective residents of Les Maisons Provencal, one needs a better understanding of how air quality standards are set. The Clean Air Act specified that federal ambient air quality standards should be set to protect those people most susceptible to ill effects of exposure (e.g., asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise). 1 playa or m. SCALE IN FEET 0 50 100 E lsa 200 t, Route 85 LES MAISON PROVENCAL SITE WORST CASE ONE -HOUR AVERAGE CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATION YEAR 2010 5 lSa State ambient air quality standards, established under the Mulford Carrell Act, have a similar intent. These standards were set after health experts looked for evidence of the onset of identified air pollutant exposure symptoms in many statistical studies of human populations and laboratory animals. The standards are set at their present levels because health experts found evidence of the onset of identified exposure symptoms in the subjects studied when ambient levels exceeded those standards. However, the standards do not guarantee that no one will ever suffer from those exposure symptoms if ambient levels are less than the standards. They also do not guarantee protection from all as yet unidentified effects of air pollutant exposure, particularly from long -term effects of low -level exposure. Accepting the above mentioned margin of error in the CALINE4 model, one could not confidently rule out violations of the eight -hour CO standard in the southernmost 100 -200 foot strip of the site bordering the Route 85 right -of -way. Since all of the senior housing and personal care /skilled nursing facilities are located on the southern portion of the project site, the most sensitive resident population would be located in the area most susceptible to potential CO standards violations. Even if standard violations did not occur, the elevated CO concentrations caused by Route 85 would largely affect the southernmost portion of the site and burden the senior residents with an additional, but perhaps unquantifiable, measure of risk. APPENDIX CALINE4 INPUT AND OUTPUT 6 lsa A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. 0. P. Q. R. Quitol Quito2 Saral Sara2 Sara3 Sara4 Coxl Cox2 Cox3 Cox4 Fruit Rt651 Rt853 Rt852 Sara2a sara2b sara3a sara3b MIXW L R STPL DCLT ACCT SPD EFI IDT1 IDT2 LINK (M) (M) (M) (SEC) (SEC) (MPH) NCYC NDLA VPHO (G/MIN) (SEC) (SEC) A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. 0. P. Q. R. REPORT FOR FILE 1e. 1. 5_..e Variables U= 0.5 M/S BRG= 180.0 DEGREES CLASS= G STABILITY MIXH= 1000.0 M SIGTH= 10.0 DEGREES LINK DESCRIPTION RECEPTOR 1 RECEPTOR 2 RECEPTOR 3 RECEPTOR 4 RECEPTOR 5 RECEPTOR 6 RECEPTOR 7 RECEPTOR 8 RECEPTOR 9 RECEPTOR 10 RECEPTOR 11 RECEPTOR 12 RECEPTOR 13 RECEPTOR 14 RECEPTOR 15 RECEPTOR 16 RECEPTOR 17 RECEPTOR 18 RECEPTOR 19 RECEPTOR 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X 57 171 288 400 171 286 343 171 286 400 171 229 286 343 400 286 400 343 343 400 2. Link Description LINK COORDINATES (M) EF H X1 Y1 X2 Y2 TYPE VPH (G /MI) (M) 1143 1314 1143 400 AG 1143 400 1143 -1372 AG 1143 1314 400 457 AG 400 457 120 138 AG 136 -122 -572 -514 AG -572 -514 -1372 -1257 AG 1372 686 229 572 AG 229 572 400 457 AG 400 457 514 400 AG 514 400 1143 400 AG 572 -514 -572 -1372 AG 1372 1372 -743 629 AG 0 0 1372 -743 AG -743 629 0 0 AG 0 0 60 69 DP 60 69 120 138 DP 0 0 -68 -61 DP -68 -61 -136 -122 DP .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 3. Receptor Coordinates Y 0 -57 -114 -171 114 229 286 0 0 0 57 114 171 229 229 57 57 114 -57 -114 Z0= VD= VS= AMB= TEMP= 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 50.0 CM 0.0 CM /S 0.0 CM /S 0.0 PPM .10.0 DEGREE (C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2453 2370 2860 2204 2204 1375 1500 1500 1157 428 1285 8580 8470 8660 2204 2204 2204 2204 30.6 30.6 19.3 19.3 12.7 12.7 19.3 19.3 19.3 24.2 15.5 8.2 8.2 8.2 19.3 19.3 12.7 12.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 3.0 -6.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 W (M) 12.6 12.6 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.6 19.2 43.0 43.0 43.0 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MODEL RES. FOR FILE c:leemalaf PRED •WIND COCN /LINK CONC BRG (PPM) RECEPTOR (PPM) *(DEG)* A B C D E F G N RECPT 1 4.5 127 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 2 3.8 128 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 3 3.4 128 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 4 3.1 129 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 5 2.2 31 0.1. 0.0 0.8 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 RECPT 6 2.1 30 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 RECPT 7 2.1 29 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 8 2.0 132 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 9 1.6 137 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 10 1.4 139 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 11 1.7 297 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 RECPT 12 1.7 296 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 RECPT 13 1.6 28 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 14 1.6 26 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 15 1.5 292 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 RECPT 16 1.5 297 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 RECPT 17 1.3 141 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 18 1.4 294 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 RECPT 19 1.7 135 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 20 1.9 134 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PRED *WIND COCN /LINK CONC BRG (PPM) RECEPTOR (PPM) "(DEG)* I J K L M N 0 P RECPT 1 4.5 127 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 2 3.8 128 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 3 3.4 128 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 4 3.1 129 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 5 2.2 31 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 6 2.1 30 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 7 2.1 29 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 8 2.0 132 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 9 1.6 137 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 10 1.4 139 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 11 1.7 297 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.5 RECPT 12 1.7 296 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 RECPT 13 1.6 28 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 14 1.6 26 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 15 1.5 292 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 RECPT 16 1.5 297 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 RECPT 17 1.3 141 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 18 1.4 294 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 RECPT 19 1.7 135 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 RECPT 20 1.9 134 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 PRED *WIND COCN /LINK CONC BRG (PPM) RECEPTOR (PPM) "(DEG)* Q R RECPT 1 4.5 127 0.0 0.0 RECPT 2 3.8 128 0.0 0.0 RECPT 3 3.4 128 0.0 0.0 RECPT 4 3.1 129 0.0 0.0 RECPT 5 2.2 31 0.0 0.0 RECPT 6 2.1 30 0.0 0.0 RECPT 7 2.1 29 0.0 0.0 RECPT 8 2.0 132 0.0 0.0 RECPT 9 1.6 137 0.0 0.0 RECPT 10 1.4 139 0.0 0.0 RECPT 11 1.7 297 0.0 0.0 RECPT 12 1.7 296 0.0 0.0 RECPT 13 1.6 28 0.0 0.0 RECPT 14 1.6 26 0.0 0.0 RECPT 15 1.5 292 0.0 0.0 RECPT 16 1.5 297 0.0 .0.0 RECPT 17 1.3 141 0.0 0.0 RECPT 18 1.4 294 0.0 0.0 RECPT 19 1.7 135 0.0 0.0 RECPT 20 1.9 134 0.0. 0.0 .tlicbael (;.Cc 1 -1 "7 La crainc G>nnic tincher _here G,: Richarci (,r. :•sera Rater Harris .•tr: H' :yi.'.tascn Robert Hrubes Gina f :ir:c'k Benson Lee Rob .11cC.:nn Sabrina \'ickoils Beth Ruion 1Lzrrt,tcne Perri .4 nthonl' Pe:ros .roll' Rutiell De.171 tt "111 :.IIlls fill Wilson LSD August 27, 1991 Mr. Steven Emslie Planning Director City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Steve: 157 R :rk Place T'ieni +one 415 2 36 -6810 Pr. Richmond, C.tlifornea 94801 Facsimile 115236 -3480 Subject: Recalculation of Chateau Masson carbon monoxide (CO) levels to reflect the local effects of elevating the building ventilation intakes and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD's) most recent information on regional CO exposure At your request, LSA carried out a computer analysis of the severity and extent of CO exposure on the site of the former Paul Masson winery as a result of the proposed extension of State Route 85. The CALINE4 computer model, developed by the California Department of Transportation Caltrans), was used in that study; it was initialized as recommended by Caltrans and the calculated CO values were supplemented by CO background information provided by the BAAQMD. The study was submitted to the City Planning Department in March 1990. To summarize the most important findings of that study, no occurrences of either one -hour average or eight -hour average CO standard violations were predicted for on -site, near ground -level receptors (at an "average nose height" of about 5.5 feet). However, the uncertainties inherent in model performance and human reaction to CO exposure were also pointed out. This subsidiary information also merits summary. Considering the proximity of predicted eight -hour CO concentrations in the southernmost portion of the project site to the 9 ppm federal/State standard and given the intrinsic predictive limitations of the model (as exhibited by Caltrans' calibration studies), the possibility of standard violations in the southernmost 100 to 200 foot -wide strip of the site could not be categorically ruled out. But even if CO standard violations never occur on -site, the presence of State Route 85 would guarantee a persistent, lower -level CO exposure to the future population. Data on the environmental health effcuw of CO indicate that there may not be a clear F_narnnntent.ti .issessntenr li.tn_ 'or!.t::nn Cn gn.ecr: •t Resource.tl.nt,ttieinenr (,oninninz:: Planning Restortrn;i: threshold below which the adverse symptoms of CO exposure never manifest themselves. Since our last submittal, new information has come to light concerning project design, specifically the developer's proposal to provide ventilation air for the senior housing units and the nursing care facility exclusively through roof -top intakes. Model initialization recommendations and future CO background characteristics have also been modified by the BAAQMD. Consequently, I have rerun CALINE4 for elevated receptor points (20 feet and 39 feet, which, according to the developer, correspond to the roof heights of the proposed structures), higher wind speed (1 meter /second instead 0.5 meter /second), lower atmospheric stability (Class F instead of Class G), and lower CO background (1.8 ppm instead of 2.7 ppm). The attached Figures 1 through 4 present the predicted one -hour and eight -hour CO concentrations at 20 -foot and 39 -foot elevations, respectively. As you can see, the new runs predict future CO levels significantly lower than last year's results. It now appears very unlikely that CO concentrations at elevated receptor points over any built -up portion of the site could exceed the eight -hour CO standard, even if the potential "factor of two" modeling error talked about in the previous report were assumed to occur. I must continue to point out, however, that the presence of State Route 85 would still be responsible for a measurable CO exposure increment which could conceivably have adverse effects on some of more sensitive individuals who may reside on- site. I hope that this new information will be of value to the Planning Commission in its consideration of project approval. Sincerely, Geo Hornek Project Manager cc: Bill Scott, Chapman Wilson, Inc. CtO I vINTie ti Q.vO Pi, .4'14&_ .,'a.• ate 4,.'--- rvs•w.4.ae`_ i 1' no UTE &Da .e' 64.1:1 41..1 .pt W W1. CHATEAU MASSON SITE PLAN A .n co•oo...w u.r• le m -.r••• .un.•011 8 .•-.....tl.. 00.9.0112 •1111.10111:11.1•11•111 snowl o—.•o.n D M1.0 .TOn.n C cowo.. .u..o.. -Stun• 3ppm AF O 4p ,se 1 5ppm 6ppm LSD Scale in feet 0 100 Figure 1 Chateau Masson Site: One -hour CO Concentration Year 2010 20' Receptor Height, BAAQMD Modeling Assumption with 1.8 ppm Background j LA ���_�am ∎••am -ea •G .mw mss .:_tsawtl i.0 0 0 s.t jr a s ek j i s.-a e 0oo t. AOt °Pvas:- aetpewivooet+ii.: lO 0 vdp OaOUT00 CHATEAU MASSON SITE PLAN A w5 co.00 0... orr5 1.151 •-Lr0.• •unol.a5 55 -NL SKILLED .5.5.. I•cWT 11 -1110.n a1 a5515TIO LInA Mae II-5705n O n Lane SOWN a -.ro.n C CONKING SYIL01.5 1 -•105• 3ppm A N v 4 ppm Sppm 1 08-28-01 (C1S902) LSA Scale in feet o 100 Figure 2 Chateau Masson Site: Eight -hour CO Concentration Year 2010 20' Receptor Height, BAAQMD Modeling Assumption with 1.8 ppm Background le -fery.• n near .e 1540 .o J I I~ 4 I..p.. .t OaQW1i'il 115 KW[ CHATEAU MASSON SITE PLAN A .n coMeo.Na a .1.,S 111 3-9•011, .aWflS 9 S1 -ell Sallee ...Sae aS°am n -era.n 1e ■S01e,e0 LIMN 01N11•epa•1 11 M,m MOIR*11- 6,0.1•1 C CO..o.6 S111101N 1- 1,011, ti• Botj 4ppm —Sppm 08 -28 -01 (CIS902) LSA Scale in feel o 100 Figure 3 Chateau Masson Site: One -hour CO Concentration Year 2010 39' Receptor Height, BAAQMD Modeling Assumption with 1.8 ppm Background J "'FP` m *m w f4 OO I.4 6 4 t-'"It OaII) QDTOE 115 a b Os i1J d .6141_ o ,~O° Odss: q Ita .0 1 I CHATEAU MASSON SITE PLAN A w• cu.•O11u. u1T• 1107 1- •roll. •PIP.o• 8 •11-171 ••Into .001011 •1.ItT 11 -0,0.17 40-1111101151110 aIY11q SINS ...TOM. t1 Mno 000..0-11PIn C 600.000 .01010 0 -•7007 A 3ppm O H AVEN� 4ppm 08 -28 -01 (CIS902) LSD Scale in feet 0 100 Figure 4 Chateau Masson Site: Eight -hour CO Concentration Year 2010 39' Receptor Height, BAAQMD Modeling Assumption with 1.8 ppm Background OLD, SICK PEOPLE AND CARBON MONOXIDE Rodney R. Beard, M.D., M.P.H. The following comments are based on 50 years of experience in occupational and environmental medicine, including observations of workers exposed to carbon monoxide (CO), laboratory experimentation with CO in animals and humans, and continuing participation in the development of air quality standards for CO in the State of California. The latter has included close association with the staffs of the California Department of Health Services, the California Air Resources Board, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, with 15 years of membership on the District's Hearing Board, ended in 1989. An extensive review of medical reports about CO published within the past five years has just been completed. Questions about the hazards of carbon monoxide exposure at a "life care" senior retirement center proposed for development in Saratoga were brought to me by Mr. Geoffrey Hornek of ISA, in connection with the Environmental Impact Report prepared by his organization. I read his two estimates of predicted worst -case carbon monoxide concentrations for the site, and discussed the methods he used with him. I am not expert in air pollution modeling, but have some familiarity with the process, and I found no reason to doubt his competence or the accuracy of his predictions, a conclusion supported by the opinion of the District Air Pollution Control Officer, Mr. Milton Feldstein. My comments are based on those predictions. The earlier estimates showed a maximum 8 parts per million (ppm), 8 -hour average, and 9 -10 ppm, 1 -hour average, in the skilled nursing care area. The more recent estimates show a maximum of 5 ppm, 1 -hour average, and 4 ppm, 8-hour average, in the same most critical area. I was asked to interpret the health consequences of the predicted concentrations for a population of nursing home residents of ages up to or beyond 90 years. There are no medical reports which are directly addressed to this question; no one has studied carbon monoxide effects in this age group, to my knowledge. It is necessary to reason from observations made in younger people in some very specific circumstances. Most of our information has been derived from experiments made on healthy young persons, mostly males, but there are highly significant observations from middle -aged people with atherosclerotic heart disease. The problem can be approached from the answers to three questions: Wbat levels of carbon monoxide in the blood have been shown to be harmful? In answer to the first question, at the outset, it should be recognized that there is no amount of CO, however small, that is beneficial to human life; it is a toxin for which there is no recognizable "no effects" level. However, the 10/22191(B: \CIS902\CO.RPT) 1 LSA Associate; Inc practical question is, "How much is too much for exposure to CO is practically unavoidable. It is generally accepted by physicians who are knowledgeable about CO that in healthy people no symptoms or obvious behavioral changes are observed as a result of short exposures to CO if the blood level does not exceed 10 percent carbon monoxide hemoglobin (COHb). Some specialists say 20 percent COHb is the critical level. However, there have been some reports of minor effects observed with lower levels of CO exposure and lower COHb levels. CO, when inhaled, is absorbed into the hemoglobin of the red blood cells, like oxygen. However, CO is more firmly bonded to the hemoglobin than oxygen (at least 220 times more firmly). Consequently, there is less hemoglobin available for transporting oxygen from the lungs to the brain, the heart, and other tissues; if two-thirds of the hemoglobin is occupied by CO, death by asphyxia is likely. When a person is removed from exposure to CO, the hemoglobin gradually releases its CO to be breathed out by the lungs; this process can be speeded up by administering oxygen, because the oxygen competes with the CO for attachment to the hemoglobin molecules. With respect to the central nervous system, in 1967 Beard and Wertheim reported that there was impairment of the ability to recognize differences in short intervals of time when COHb was estimated to be below 2 percent, and despite the authors' warning that, because of certain flaws in the experiment, these data should not be used for setting air quality standards, the Environmental Protection Agency chose to be guided by this in setting the National Ambient Air Quality Standard at 9 ppm averaged over 8 hours. (The California standard had previously been set at 10 ppm, averaged over 12 hours, essentially the same.) Well- designed, carefully executed experiments by Benignus, et al., failed to confirm this work, and in 1979 the EPA reported that decrements in vigilance were not observed with COHb levels below about 5 percent. Subsequent experiments by Beard and Grandstaff showed slightly impaired visual functions and increased response time at less than 3 percent COHb. Recent reports from Benignus' laboratory have included a small increase in tracking errors with increasing COHb levels from 5.6 to 16.6 percent, not statistically significant; evidence that visual functions were not impaired at about 17 percent COHb; absence of effects on reaction time and visual evoked potential in young and elderly men with 5 percent COHb; and absence of symptoms (headache, dizziness, nausea) in young men with 16 percent to 23 percent COHb; slight decreases in compensatory tracking scores were observed with exposures to CO over time which led to 8.24 percent COHb, but there were no significant alterations of monitoring behavior (a similar experiment by Putz et al. had shown some small effects at 5.1 percent COHb). Effects on cardiovascular functions may have been of greatest interest. A series of reports by Aronow et al. in Los Angeles during the 1970s, and by Anderson et al., indicated that persons with coronary artery disease and angina pectoris developed pain sooner when they exercised in an atmosphere containing CO 10/22/91(B: \CIS902\CO.RPT) LSA Associates, Inc than when similarly exercising in clean air. The apparent COHb levels were below 3 percent, as low as 2 percent. (Further, although it was not recognized at the time, the true COHb levels were probably considered lower than those reported.) However, there were flaws in some of these reports which led to their being rejected as guides for setting the air quality standard. This led to a carefully designed cooperative study of CO effects in persons with coronary artery disease. This was carried out at Johns Hopkins Medical School, Rancho Los Amigos Medical Center (Downey, CA), and St. Louis University Medical School, with statistical and data management participation by the Harvard School of Public Health, quality control by Arthur D. Little, Inc., and a reference laboratory at St. Louis University. This study reported in 1989 by Allred et al. confirmed that ill effects occurred in persons with coronary artery disease at COHb levels of 2 percent and they were more pronounced at 3.9 percent COHb. These COHb levels were accurately measured. In light of these observations, it would appear to be prudent to avoid CO exposures that raise the COHb concentration to 2 percent or more, and to allow a margin of safety. The safety margin cannot be large, because there is an inherent production of CO within the body, such that about 0.6 percent or more of COHb is normally found. In the series reported by Allred et al., the average levels observed after an exercise period, breathing room air, was about 0.62 percent with Standard Errors of the Means (SEM) of 0.04 to 0.06. Individual variations ranged from 0.2 percent to 1.3 percent. In this review, attention has been centered on exposures to low CO levels of several hours duration, these being considered to be more germane to the problem under consideration than brief exposure. One hour exposures in the range of 10 ppm are unlikely to cause perceptible effects unless the exposed persons are exercising very heavily. Wbat is tbe probability of those levels being reached in humans, given tbe predicted concentrations of CO? Considering the second question, the probability of reaching a 2 percent COHb, given the concentrations predicted for the project under consideration, reliable data for this low level are quite limited. Accurate measurements at such levels are difficult. Several reports which purport to give this information are questionable because of dependence on an unreliable spectrophotometric method. However, EPA has estimated that an 8-hour exposure to 9 ppm of CO, with light or moderate activity, would result in a COHb concentration of 1.4 percent. In 1965, Coburn, Forster and Kane derived a formula for the computation of predicted values of COHb from the CO concentration, exposure time, respiratory activity, and other factors. This formula has been tested repeatedly 10/22/91(B: \C 1S902\CO. RPT) 3 LSA Associate; Inc at various levels of COHb from about 5 percent and higher, and has been found to be highly reliable. However, it has not been checked at low CO levels. Peterson and Stewart applied this formula to produce the accompanying graph (A), which indicates an increase of COHb of about 1 percent in 100 minutes with a CO level of 8.7 ppm, and a final concentration of 1.5 percent after 5000 minutes (83.3 hours). One way to determine the level of COHb in the blood is to measure the concentration of CO in the air in the lung alveoli. This has been tested repeatedly and has been found to be reliable in normal persons. Wald et al. tested the accuracy of this method recently, and found a correlation coefficient of .97 (a value of 1.0 indicating perfect prediction). A graph of their findings is shown (B), and it suggests that the value at 2 percent COHb is about 12 ppm of CO. This work is open to question because the authors failed to describe the method they used to measure the COHb in their blood samples. A similar study by Saloojee et al. claims a correlation coefficient of .98. However, they used technique for measuring COHb in the blood which tends to give falsely high readings at very low values, and it is not clear that they were aware of this. Their graph (C) shows that when COHb is about 2 percent, the CO level in the alveolar air is about 12 ppm. Also, Levesque et al. have shown that a 10 ppm increase in inspired CO for 90 minutes is associated with an increase of 1 percent in COHb under conditions of extreme exercise (ice hockey), and Horvath and Bedi observed that healthy young men breathing 9 ppm of CO for 8 hours showed an increase of 0.2 percent to 0.7 percent in COHb, with intermittent exercise or without. Wbat is the applicability of such knowledge to an aged population? The third question cannot be answered with the degree of certainty one would like, but it can be interpreted with some degree of satisfaction. It is clear that people whose blood circulation is impaired by atherosclerosis are susceptible to effects of CO when they undertake even moderate exercise, but the CO serves to exaggerate the effects, not to cause them. Most aged people have impaired circulation. Effects have been observed with 2 percent COHb and higher. Old age does not cause anemia, and there are conflicting reports about the prevalence of anemia in old people, but it is widely accepted that mild anemia occurs commonly in this group, some estimates being as high as one -third; such anemia is often associated with other chronic diseases. There are also a few people afflicted with primary anemias, which can cause increased production of CO within the body. In anemic states, any amount of CO intake is undesirable. However, if the COHb level does not go over 2 percent, the effect is not likely to be perceptible. 10/22/91(B: \CIS902\CO.RP1) 4 LSA Associates, Inc Central nervous system effects are seen with CO levels much higher than those predicted for the situation under discussion, but there is only one reported study in old people. The rate of uptake of CO is proportional to the amount of air breathed per minute, and hence to the level of physical activity; this is less in the aged than in the subjects of the studies reported herein. Also, it has been said that the predicted maximum CO levels will occur in the evening, when physical activity is relatively low. Impaired pulmonary function decreases the rate of uptake of CO; many aged people have impaired pulmonary function. This pulmonary impairment also slows the rate of excretion of CO, but the net effect, over a span of a few hours, is to diminish the maximum level of COHb attained. The predicted CO levels are for "worst -case" conditions, and are not likely to be encountered frequently. The ill effects of CO can be countered by increasing the concentration of oxygen in the inspired air. 1022/91(B: \c 1s902\CO. RP1) C 8 A J I ni If r os )�0•u•wq 15 2 10 9 r a 7 's 6 3 2 0 8 r •0. )o. :0. 0 O 0 E y s, 1, tl a u a 10; 40.1.100 11 4 6000111/4141 V SO0000 40 VS Ch 3004I/140 CC 0040' 0 6% Y co 0 A07 In1 iONO 0 2 1 5 639100 2 3 4 t a KCO 2 S+ 5;00 Exposure duration, minutes rm. 2. Carboxyhemoglobin levels for man as a Function of cxpceure duration and of CO concentrauon determined by sotvmg the CFK cquauon. 0 Fig 2 Relationship between alveolar as CO concentration and COND. o, 0 o foe 00 COME +6 n00110910616 IIIur)Ilon CO•• 1• •••••I••••• ••1•160•4 e 11 A Elnpnys•nIa o pptleny •NpT01 SRIOINb '000 000 !000010 :0000.0 100 00* 00 00l• 0 10 20 20 z.0 SO 60 7p 90 0; j0,a0 co t tbn I -1 tdre LSD November 6, 1991 LS?! itswinur b:<. Enun,nnlcni....9M.. .n:cvtt i,A7s1Nt'.'.t:.w Ltri:i'urt r,rty; E rt l aW, P7 i r; Lt /1,.: z' Ms. Tecvia Adar Planning Director City of Saratoga 13777 Frultvale Avenue Saratoga,, California 95070 Subject: Response to the Scone of work for an r Ouallty Study for a Sen ousin Pro ect at the ormer Paul Masson Site Dear Ms. Adar: The above-mentioned Scope of Work was faxed to me on September 10, 1991 by the former Planning Director, Mr. Stephen i:mslie. It was my opinion then that, of the issues which the Scope raised, those concerning the worst -case exterior/interior carbon monoxide (CO) exposure of the senior residents and the correlation of those levels with identified health effects were, by far, the most important. Below I summarize the findings to date on CO exposure and effects and on all other topics mentioned in the Scope: Wbat worst -case exterior CO concentrations would be experienced on the former Paul Masson site? This question has been addressed in two CO modeling studies. The first, entitled Extended Carbon Monoxide Modeling Study, which was submitted to the Planning ucpartmenc in March 1990, spetificd the on -site, worst -ease CO levels which would be experienced near ground level (at an "average nose height" of about 5.5 feet). The second, a letter report to Steve Emsile dated August 27, 1991, identified the on-site, worst -case CO levels at 20 feet and 39 feet, heights which were specified as likely elevations for building ventilation intakes. Both studies have been reviewed and were found to be acceptable by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Wbat worst-case interior CO concentrations would be experienced inside the senior housing and skilled care facilities proposed for the former Paul Masson site? Each individual building has a characteristic average interior air turn over rate (specified as a certain number of air changes per hour). Naturally ventilated Aiit•.rto rd, C.tli /orttt,r `t's✓+'�t 7ileE +butte'11.5 2.4o t1,410 livisi+nik 415 2.k ?.fNQ buildings usually have a relatively Dow air turn -over rate. M a consequence, the average interior concentration of an air pollutant infiltrating from an exterior source would be less than its average outside concentration. Mechanically ventilated buildings usually have a higher air turn -over rate; here average interior and exterior air pollutant concentrations are more nearly equal. For the proposed development, a mechanical ventilation system is planned. Therefore, it would be prudent to assume that interior CO concentrations throughout the buildings would rapidly equilibrate to the CO concentration experienced at the air intake locations. What air pollutants other than carbon monoxide are regulated by federal, state, and local standards and what are those standards? It would be no exaggeration to say that there are hundreds of distinct chemical compounds which would have adverse health consequences if a person inhaled any of them in sufficient quantity. However, there are relatively few that are commonly emitted in large enough amounts to pose significant daily health threats to large segments of this county's population. At present, the federal and/or State governments consider ten compounds to be significant enough health threats to have merited the establishment of compound specific ambient air quality standards (note: an ambient standard is an upper bound on the allowable concentration of a substance in the air) relative to a specified exposure time). A table identifying those compounds and their established ambient standards is attached. Motor vehicles are major sources of air pollutants nationwide. Of the air pollutants they emit, CO is the compound emitted in the largest amount and it represents the major direct health threat to people unduly exposed. What are the abort- and long -term effects of exposure to elevated carbon monoxide concentrations? Dr. Rodney Beard has addressed this issue (at least, to the degree that he feels it can be) in Old. S People and Carbon M_ a a report submitted to the Planning Department on October 22, 1991. Dr. Beard will be attending the Planning Commission meedng on November 13 to present his findings and to answer any questions on his conclusions. What steps can be taken to reduce carbon monoxide concentrations inside the proposed senior housing units and skilled care facilities? Short of sealing the building and providing a completely self contained air recirculation system (much like those in operation on submerged nuclear submarines), there is no way to prevent CO from infiltrating the buildings; devices which would effectively remove CO from the outside air are not available. The proposed scheme for elevating ventilation intakes to roof -top levels and locating them as far from the south boundary as possible would be beneficial to interior CO levels, however. The decrease of ambient CO levels 2 with vertical and horizontal separation from a roadway has been demonstrated by monitoring and modeling. Wbat sources inside the proposed senior boating units and skilled care facilities migbt emit air pollutants and what could be done to reduce their emissions to acceptable levels? The most common interior air pollutants have been identified and mitigation measures for them have been developed. Formaldehyde an organic chemical which can be emitted from certain types of building materials, insulation, etc. Problems can be avoided by eliminating formaldehyde- containing materials and/or assuring adequate ventilation. Radon a naturally occurring radioactive gas which can infiltrate buildings through the soil on which they are built. Problems can be avoided by careful selection of the building site and/or by assuring adequate ventilation. Particulates most commonly small- diameter suspensions of common building materials, such as asbestos, fiberglass, etc. Problems can be avoided by using alternative materials and/or assuring adequate ventilation. I am forwarding this information to you in advance of the next Planning Commission meeting so that you may review it anti circulate it to the Commissioners. If you see the need for any revisions, please do not hesitate to call. Sinn y, Geoff Hornek Prof Manager 3 Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards National Standards Ceneentntlorh Method Primary' 8 1eon4ar Method 0A8 ppm (150 vgrin3) MindMot Photometry 0.12 P011 (233 ugrm3) Same a Primary Std. Ed"lens 0unit:runascam, Carbon trtonomial a I_. 0.0 ppm (10 mgnn3l NOA•dispetsive Mtarod (NOM (10 m 1113) W NOrh- dispersive Infrared SWctrosoeor (AMA) t How ZO OW (23 mpm,31 33 ai 0111m (40 mgrnr3l Nitrogen 11iame Arousal Average Gui Plwe mew a, 0.033 ppm 000 *1113) Sane as Primary SW. Gas Pews Ctamsurrinesdencs 1 hour p,� ppm (470 iagmt3) Sulfur Donne Annum Average Uttravioist Ruorescenoe 80 ugnn3 (0.03 ppm) pttrerosoanitine P (0.5 24 Haw O.35 ppm 8 (131 u• 1 3 65 u Om+3 (0.14 own 3 Hour 1300 ugnn3 ppm) 0.21 para (6 55 vgntt3) !Summed Particulate Manor P4 1 0 Annuli 30 wattt3 ft» Saul", reM High Volume Sampler d Gralamenle Analysis mortis! Sopa/anon .ed GtavimsuiC Analysis 50 Ygfm3 :so ugnns Same u Primary Standard Annual Arithmetic Minn 50 vg/m3 Suuates 24 Hour 25 uwm3 Turbidlmatne llanum Sulfate Atomic Absorption Imo 30 day Average 1.3 ugrrn3 Atonic Absorption Calendar Warm 1 s u5" Same as pnmary Std. Hydrators sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 pp" (42 V1113) p Alt Basin VM71 C ons, (ehloreeprane) 24 four 0.010 ppm la uvrm3) M Karam ameum to eatineson meiflraent dw pvrrdle■ *hare is w ao afore 70 p« eeedrdanos will ARS Tartar Bag CoMesaon. Case Chrometeeraohy promo en Of 0.29 per tdotnear de nsiabw Menlelry 1 +n magma v. Tahoe Visibility Parnciu 0 8 ftahr (10 ern to 0 0111. PST) Applicable Only in the Lake Carbon Manama a heir loam (7 n+grrn3) NDA a protium en of 0.07 per km iloeer d e wove hvl11diry Maa.trremant M AM` V, Visibility ROduerba 1 0 pettielea a fo t,b am ,o 6 pm. PST) Ins cent amount rDn meant due to oafad *ton .n i a ion than 70 percent. accordance with AR8 152 State of California Air Resources Board Ambient Air Quality Standards Publlabob by the ARe /Public information OAYC. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1- hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended par- ticulate matter —PM,o and visibil- ity reducing particles, are values that are not to be exceeded. The sulfur dioxide (24- hour), sulfates, Lake Tahoe carbon monoxide. lead. hydrogen sulfide. and vinyl chloride standards are not to be equaled Or exceeded. 2 National standards, other than ozone and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic means, are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given In paren- theses are based upon a reference temperature of 25° C and a ref- erence pressure of 760 mm of mercury. All measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25° C and a reference pressure of 760 mm of mercury (1,013.2 millibar); ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume. or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. Any equivalent procedure which can be shown to the satisfaction of the Air Resources Board to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used. NOTES: 70 P 03 e National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. Each state must attain the primary standards no later than three years after that state's implementation plan is approved by the Environ- mental Protection Agency. 6 National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipaated adverse effects of a pollutant Each state must attain the secondary stand- ards within a "reasonable time" after the Implementation plan Is approved by the EPA. Reference method as described by the EPA. An "equivalent method" of measurement may be used but must have a "consistent relationship to the reference method" and must be approved by the EPA. At locations where the state stand- ards for ozone and/or total sus- pended particulate matter are violated. National standar& apply elsewhere. This standard is intended to limit the frequency and severity of visibility impairment due to regional haze and is equivalent to a 10-mile nominal visual range when relative humidity is less than 70 percent This standard is equivalent to a 30- mile nominal visual range when relative humidity is less than 70 percent 153 1991 OVERVIEW SCOPE OF WORK FOR AN AIR QUALITY STUDY FOR A SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT AT THE FORMER PAUL MASSON SITE The Planning Commission is considering a senior housing and care facility adjacent to State Route 85 now under construction. The Planning Commission wants a quantitative analysis discussing potential effects of carbon monoxide exposure on a sensitive elderly population. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission approved a two -story senior project at this location in 1989. Due to a variety of factors, including economic feasibility, the developers have proposed a two and three story project composed of the following uses: 1. Patio Homes 2. Condominiums 3. Common Facilities 4. Skilled Nursing and Personal Care The project is located immediately adjacent to State Route 85 at its interchange with Saratoga Avenue. Future freeway off -ramps will be adjacent to the southern project boundary. ISSUES 17 units 192 units 18,000 sq. ft. 42,000 sq. ft. In an effort to decide the fundamental land use question regarding the appropriateness of a senior care facility adjacent to a source of air pollution, the Planning Commission seeks the following responses: 1. Projected interior levels of carbon monoxide after Route 85 is constructed for all proposed structures using the most accurate methods available. 2. Projected exterior levels of carbon monoxide after Route 85 is constructed throughout the project site using the most accurate methods available. 3. Explanation of the State, Federal and Local air quality standards for all known pollutants including carbon monoxide. 4. Discussion of the short and long term health effects of exposure to elevated levels of carbon monoxide. 5. Recommendations to reduce interior levels of carbon monoxide in all structures including reference to mechanical filtration systems. 6. An analysis of the interior sources of air pollution and the recommendation of mitigation measures to reduce these interior sources of air pollution. TIME FRAME The Planning Commission is expected to reach a decision on this project on September 25, 1991. The Air Quality report is considered to be critical to the Planning Commission in reaching its decision regarding the appropriateness of the site for the proposed use as well as the establishment of effective conditions of approval. The response should be addressed to the attention of: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Attachments: 1. Site and Architectural Plans 2. Air Quality Study prepared by LSA and Associates 3. Planning Commission Staff reports NOTE TO COUNCIL MEMBER F. L. STUTZMAN COPIES TO; Rodney Beard, MD (Stanford) Acting City Planning Director G. Hornek, LSA Associates Dear Dr. Stutzman: Saratoga Area SENIOR COORDINATING COUNCIL P. 0. Box 3033 Saratoga, California 95070 E C E I V E p (408) 867 -3438 fit. 257 OCT 2 8 1991 October G4, i 1 PLANNING DEPT Subject: Air Quality Risks Prospective Retirement Complex at Masson Site This is in follow -up to our discussions earlier this week. The issue of air quality at the site was not addressed at last night's Planning Commission hearing, since the subject was not agendized with advance notice to the public. Dr. Beard, who was present, did not have the opportunity to offer commentary. However, he and I held a short but (in my opinion) productive discussion afterward. 1. I am enclosing a photocopy of a paper he prepared on the subject. 2. He and you (again in my opinion) have considerable common ground in your background and thinking. a. You both have done considerable study of the physiological impact of carbon monoxide on human organs. b. You both agree that the principal issue here is the long term effect of CO on elderly people. You both agree that not enough scientific research has been done to permit a precise assessment of the effect. You both agree that some negative effect is present, and the vital question is "how much You appear to hold differences in the matter of degree, with your concern about risks being somewhat greater than his. In my opinion, the best answers to the question of degree will be based on the judgement of experienced medical practitioners who are knowledgeable in this field (of which the two of you are examples). I ventured a guess to Dr. Beard that if the two of you could engage in further "one on one" discussion, you might find more common ground and be able to narrow your differences still further. I further asked him if he would be willing to engage in such a discussion if you felt it might hold promise of good results. His answer was "yes If you believe further discussion might prove helpful, I suggest that you phone Dr. Beard to discuss arrangements (at 415 723 5546). The Planning Commission hearing has been rescheduled for November 13. 4 A. J. Beverett Chairman, Housing Committee ted on recycled paper. M EMORANDUM uaz 1:3777 FRUIT. ALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 To: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: STEPHEN EMSLIE PLANNING DIRECTOR DATE: September 20, 1991 SUBJECT: STATUS OF SENIOR PROJECT AT THE PAUL MASSON SITE The Planning Commission last discussed the senior project at its September 3, 1991 study session. At that meetin Planning Commission reviewed revised architectural and site plansedeveloped by the prospective operator to reduce the three story appearance from Saratoga Avenue. In addition, the Commission directed that air quality data previously generated for this project be au to include interior carbon monoxide levels, discussion of long term o health effects and the feasibility of filtering carbon d from living areas. monoxide Since this meeting, the prospective operator, Summit Corporation has withdrawn from the project. The owner of the project, Dividend Development is considering proceeding with the air requested. The owner has expressed an interest inutility studies story senior complex without an operator. pursuing the s This turn of events presents several distinct policy questions that the Planning Commission should consider. Staff can identify the following concerns that the Commission may wish to address at this juncture: 1 Does the uncertainty over the operator of the senior facility indicate that the project has inherent economic infeasibility? For the last two and a half years, the owner of the property has been unsuccessful in locating either a for profit or non- profit operator for the senior project. At the initial project approval, the City directed the owner to prepare feasibility study to discuss the viability of e the COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Mono Francs Stutzman project. The results of the study indicated that the market for the project was indeed deep, but that architectural modifications were necessary to ensure a livable and a consequently successful project. The need for a three story structure was recommended by the study as a measure to ensure the feasibility of the project. When the project was initially approved, over two years ago, it was done in the absence of a known operator. The Planning Commission expected that project modifications would be likely when an operator arrived on the scene. The withdrawal of Summit Corporation essentially places the City in the same position it was when the project was first approved. It is more than probable that the project will require modification due to the needs of an operator when and if one is found after project approval. 2. Can the air quality issues be addressed to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission with the final project configuration being uncertain? The owner, Dividend Corporation has expressed concern with' reimbursing the City for the costs of the air quality study. Staff proceeded with the air quality study with the commitment of the operator to reimburse the City for expenses incurred. Now that the owner is the sole project proponent, a commitment to underwrite the study has not been made. From a planning perspective, the air quality issues depend on the precise setbacks and architectural elevations. A study prepared for the designs prepared for the former prospective operator may require revision as the result of a modified project proposed by a future operator. 3. Does the Planning Commission have sufficient information to render a decision on the request for a zoning amendment to allow three stories? Knowing that a majority of the City Council supports a zone amendment to increase the height restriction, and that the Council seeks the input of the Commission regarding the architectural issues associated with a specific design, the Commission could consider the zone change independent from the issues of a specific design. However, the Commission has indicated that the architecture plays an important role in a decision to increase the allowable height of the project. 4. Does the Planning Commission have sufficient information necessary to decide the fundamental land use of the site? The senior project in this location has produced meaningful concerns and questions from the Saratoga Senior Coordinating Council regarding the suitability of this site for senior purposes. The City has expended considerable effort in tephe locating suitable alternative sites with no acceptable alternatives forthcoming. The City spent over a year studying the possibility of locating the project at the Oddfellows site only to conclude that the site is incompatible with the low density nature of the surrounding community. If a senior project does not proceed at the Masson site, it is likely that the City will not contain a senior project in the foreseeable future. Staff finds that the recent withdrawal by the prospective operator should provide the impetus to conclude the land use issues and to proceed with the implementation of the re- development of the former Paul Masson Winery with or without a senior in this location. c_ Planning Director JUL- 23 -'91 13:33 ID:TECHTONIGPACK ASSOC TEL NO:408 730 -0702 Mr. Dick Oliver Dividend Development Corporation 3600 Pruneridge Avenue Santa Clara, California 95051 Re: Traffic Noise Reelections off of Building Facades Dear Dick: 1030 E. DUANE AVENUE. SUITE F SUNNYVALE, CA94066 EDWARD L. PACK ASSOCIATES, INC. Acoustical ConsultQnt4 TEL: 408-730.5574 FAX: 408.730.0702 July 23, 1991 1090 P02 Pursuant to our phone conversation today and a review of the cross- section of Highway 85 and the adjacent residential areas, the reflections of traffic noise off of 3 -story buildings on one side of the freeway impacting residents on the opposite side are negligible. The direct sound path from the freeway centerline to the existing residences is approximately 350 ft. The reflected sound path, which travels from the freeway, bounces off of the building facade and back to the residences, is approximately 950 ft. The difference in sound level between the direct component and the reflected component is: 15 log 350/950 -6.5 dB. And, this is only true if nearly all of the sound travelling north is reflected, i.e., the building facade is very tall (100 ft. or so). Host of the sounds from the freeway will pass over the tops of your buildings. A small fraction of sound will reflect and most of that reflected sound will travel high above the ground (angle of incidence equals angle of reflection). JUL- 23 -'91 13:34 ID:TECHTONIC/PACK ASSOC TEL NO :408 -73 0702 #090 P03 JKP:dn -2 It is uncommon for reflective sound components off of a barrier on the opposite side of a roadway to be really noticeable unless the barrier and the mound receiver are very close to the roadway and each other. That is, the ratio of direct component to reflective component must be at least 0.63:1. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, EDWARD L. PACK ASSOCIATES, INC. October 2,1991 To Mrs Karen Tucker Planning Commissioner Saratoga City Hall Allendale Ave Saratoga,Ca 95070 From: Mrs M Spiro 19753 Minocqua Ct Saratoga,Ca 95070 Dear Mrs K.Tucker, M Spiro after reading today's West Extra Section I have decided to write to you to support you in your opposition to a three -story height development housing project on the Paul Masson Champaigne Cellars site. I think it will destroy the site,it is too dense 192 condos,21 houses and 40 bed facility is just too much and it will greatly increase traffic in that already destroyed area of the new freeway .I pay very high price to live in Saratoga because it is quiet,serene and relatively free of traffic and frankly said I don't want to see it destroyed I am also tired of the greedy developers who want to cram either too many houses on the lots or build too huge houses on small lots or destroy countryside like the illegal grading of hillsides in 1989. I am glad that you are opposing this terrible development You have my support. Thank you. Sincerely, October 3, 1991 City of Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Planning Commissioners, This letter is to express our opposition to the proposed three story structure to be built on the former Paul Masson site. Please note we are not opposed to the senior housing facility itself, but to the request to amend the height limitation to allow a three story structure. As bordering neighbors we would like to see a maximum of two story structures on this property. Part of the joy of living in this neighborhood is its country feel, peacefulness, and privacy. We feel a three story building would seriously alter our privacy and view of the landscape. Please oppose the three story structure and maintain the neighborhood as we enjoy it now. Sincerely, C s David and Victoria Kramer 13103 Montrose Street Saratoga, CA 95070 C AA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES P.C. MINUTES, 9/25/91- UNAPPROVED Gary McDaniels, 204 Campus Way, Modesto, representing the sign company, stated that the proposed sign was designed with State weight and measures standards; the current sign does not conform with the State standards; in designing the sign, they tried to incorporate existing building materials. Frank Rodriguez, 12625 Saratoga Avenue, spoke against the use permit in general. Shelley Williams, Brookridge Drive, Saratoga, spoke in favor of the use permit, adding that there is a need for service stations in that area and the conditions described by neighbors are for the property owners to control. MOTION to close the public hearing at 10:00 p.m. M/S Durket /Tucker Ayes 4 Noes 0 Absent 3 MOTION to continue the application for the sign modification and direct staff to begin revocation proceedings to allow for testimony from both side on December 11, 1991. M/S Durket /Forbes Chair Caldwell indicated she would like to deal separately with the issues of the sign modification and the use permit. Commissioner Forbes suggested continuing for 90 days and then proceed with revocation hearings. CALL FOR THE QUESTION Planning Director Emslie reported that it will take approximately 45 days to get the procedure in order and initiate the investigation. He indicated we are looking at November 13, sooner if possible. 10. SM -91 -003 Dividend Development Corp.(Owner); Chapman ZC -91 -001 Wilson (Applicant), 13150 Saratoga Ave., request to modify previously approved site development plans for the senior housing portion of the former Paul Masson site. The applicants propose the following on an 11.07 acre parcel located on the southerly half of the Masson site zoned MU -PD: A. 192 condominium units B. 21 patio homes 10 Ayes 4 Noes 0 Absent 3 C. 40 beds personal care D. 80 beds skilled nursing In addition, the owner and applicant are requesting to amend the height limitation prescribed for the MU -PD zone district. The owner and applicant request a maximum height of 46 feet to allow a three -story structure. This would exceed the 30 foot, two -story limit prescribed for the MU -PD zone district (cont. from 7/24/91). Planning Director Emslie gave the staff report, indicating staff has concerns with the fact that the prospective operator, Summit Corporation, has withdrawn from the project, and because of the need for an operator, there is no assurance the project will go forth. Mr. Emslie reviewed the air quality concerns of the Planning Commission in regard to this project and the issue of the proposed change in the height of this structure. Planning Director Emslie further stated that the developer would like approval of the zone change to the 45 ft. height limit. Chair Caldwell opened the public hearing at 10:18 p.m. Dick Oliver, Dividend Development Corporation, addressed the Commission regarding his company's commitment to the City in relation to this project; still feels this is a good project for the City; feels there is a feeling that this site should not be for a senior citizen facility. Mr. Oliver expressed concern over the continued delays in not getting on with the project, indicating they are looking for a spirit of cooperation, and direction to go forward with the project. Mr. Oliver indicated he would like some definitive guidelines from the Commission and would like to see approval of a three -story structure. Commissioner Durket inquired why Summit withdrew,and Mr. Oliver responded that it was because the project was not progressing. When asked if Summit would be interested if the project is approved, Mr. Oliver responded that Summit has stated they are out of the picture but if approval is given, they are willing to talk about getting back into it. Planning Director Emslie gave an update, indicating that the consultant has identified a medical expert that can provide health information in relation to the air quality issue and that it would take approximately 1 1/2 days for review. Mr. Oliver stated he would be happy to work with staff in that direction; if there are serious health problems it would certainly change his and the City Council's opinions. In regard to the three -story design, Mr. Oliver reported that the last design was done at the request of the City Council. 11 Bill Scott, Chapman Wilson Inc., addressed the Commission indicating that the State will not allow the project to be built until 60% of the units are sold and in order to proceed with the State, specific information is needed from the City. Chair Caldwell asked Mr. Oliver if his desire was for the Planning Commission to pass on the three -story issue absent the air quality issue and Mr. Oliver responded that he did not feel the three -story plan adds to the health risk. Shelley Williams, Brookridge Drive, Saratoga, spoke in favor of this project, indicating it was close to shopping, transportation and various other activities and would be a good location for a senior project. Stan Powell, 12636 Barritz Lane, spoke in favor of the project. Peter Leslie, 13100 Saratoga Avenue, spoke against the project, stating it was ill prepared. Ray Passatino, Saratoga Avenue, spoke against the three -story aspect of the project. Dave Kramer, 13103 Montrose, indicated he would like to see the structure kept to two stories. MOTION to close the public hearing at 11:11 p.m. M/S Tucker /Forbes Ayes 4 Noes 0 Absent 3 Commissioner Durket asked if the zoning is changed to allow a three -story structure could it be changed back and Planning Director Emslie responded it can be changed anytime, but we cannot condition the zoning. Commissioner Durket further stated that there were three members of the Commission that were not present to give their views on this matter. MOTION to direct staff to prepare a resolution along the lines of the draft zoning ordinance that conditions the height of a structure tied to a senior facility only (up to 45 ft.). M/S Durket /Forbes Ayes 2 Noes 2 Absent 3 It was noted no action was taken due to a tie vote. MOTION to continue SM -91- 003 /ZC -91 -001 to October 9, 1991 for consideration of a three -story structure. 12 M/S Caldwell /Durket DIRECTOR'S ITEMS 1. Accumulated' notes from the Circulation Element update workshops dated 7/23, 7/30, 8/13 and 8/20 for Planning Commission review and comment. Planning Director Emslie stated he would make sure that these are only notes; they were presented because the Planning Commission requested a list. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Durket announced the resignation of Planning Director Emslie; addressed the issue of late meetings inquiring if an earlier adjournment time could be considered. It was the consensus of the Commission that would not allow time to hear all items. Chair Caldwell asked about the signs for Heritage Lane and Mr. Emslie responded the Heritage Committee has to approve and will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Chair Caldwell also asked about the recommendation from the Planning Commission regarding the trees along Saratoga Avenue. Mr. Emslie responded that the arborist is currently working on it. Commissioner Forbes stated he would like to see landscape plans submitted with every design as part of the application procedure. COMMUNICATIONS Written Ayes 4 Noes 0 Absent 3 1. City Council Minutes 8/6 and 9/4/91 2. Planning Commission Study Session Report 9/17/91 Oral City Council ADJOO [EWT MOTION to adjourn at 11:35 p.a M/8 Tuakar /Durket Ayes 4 Noes 0 Absent 3 13 DATE: PLACE: TYPE: CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Tuesday, September 3, 1991 7:30 p.m. Community Center, Arts Crafts Room, 19655 Allendale Ave. Adjourned Regular Meeting The meeting is a study session between applicants, interested citi- zens, staff to discuss continued applications, advance planning projects and general planning issues. The Planning Commission has a policy that no decisions will be made at these sessions. A written report will be made of the proceedings. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION 1. 7:30 p.m. DR -89 -041.1 DIVIDEND DEVELOPMENT former Paul Masson site Route 85 Saratoga Avenue. The study session is to allow the Developer to present revised site and architectural plans to address Planning Commission concerns raised at the 8/22/91 study session. Chair Moran welcomed the public and indicated the Commission's desire to receive information from the developer and the public. The Planning Director provided an overview of the revised site and architectural plans, the air quality reports prepared by the developer, and the study of the City Air Quality Consultant. He then responded to questions from the public and Planning Commis- sion. Dick Oliver presented the approved plans and a conceptual drawing showing expansion of the approved plans to three stories. Col. Barco mentioned that the precedent for a three story struc- ture was dangerous. He also admonished the Planning Commission to arrive at its decision independently and allow the Council to reach its own decision. Mr. Dennis Favero listed his concerns that the project has not been adequately studied: 1. Traffic, parking and impact on neighborhoods 2. Commissioner Tucker's concerns 3. Economic solvency of the developer 4. Precedent of a three story The Planning Commission then explored the following concerns with Mr. Favero: 1. Air Quality Study need independent study prior to Planning Commission approval. 2. Demolition The City needs to exercise its authority to hasten demolition. 3. Visual impact consider using a model to explore relation- ship with neighbors. 4. Parking Garage can the garage be lowered in spite of eco- nomic or functional concerns. Mr. Andy Beverett discussed the concerns which are as follows: 1. Air Quality: There is a need the air quality concerns. Senior Coordinating Council's for medical evidence to address 2. Santa Clara AMA will discuss the effects of CO on the elderly at their 9/18/91 meting which can be done prior to Planning Commission approval. 3. Need to have more studies to eliminate the ambiguity in air quality studies. Vic Monia suggested that the staff contact applicable agencies and boards to determine how standards are determined. A resident suggested that the metered on and off -ramps should be considered for air quality. The Planning Commission requested that staff prepare scope of work for next Planning Commission Meeting. Consider constructing a model and /or site poles. 2. 8:30 p.m. DIX DR -90 -021 15406 Madrone Hill Drive The applicant has submitted revised plans reflecting a substan- tial reduction in floor area, height and decking from the origi- nally approved plans. The Planning Director reviewed the revised plans submitted by the applicant to scale back the initial approved plans. After considering various options to notify the neighbors of the downscaled plans, the Planning Commission concluded that the reduced proposal could undergo administrative approval. ADJOURNMENT 9:00 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MEEm July 24, 1991 6. DR -89 -041.1 SM -91 -003 ZC -91 -001 SD -89 -006.1 Page 5 Dividend Development Corp., Owner: Chapman Wilson, Applicant; 13150 Saratoga Ave., request to modify previously approved site development plans for the senior housing portion of the former Paul Masson site. The applicants propose the following on an 11.07 acre parcel located on the southerly half of the Masson site rezoned MU -PD. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated July 4, 1991. The Public Hearing is being conducted to consider several proposed modifications to the approved Dividend Development reuse of the former Paul Masson Champagne Cellar site on Saratoga Avenue. The applicants are requesting modifications including a revised building footprint to reconfigure the condominium units, patio home units, and skilled nursing facility and the personal care facility. They have requested deletion of conditions requiring the $10,000 security deposits for the northerly conventional town home portion of the site. (The Commission, in granting approval of the original project required a deposit of $10,000 per condominium on the close of escrow, to be deposited with the City. The applicants are requesting, this evening, an extension of the tentative map and design review approval beyond the August 23 expiration date in order to locate a qualified operator to staff the facility once it is constructed. Staff recommended a study session be scheduled approximately four weeks after tonight's public hearing to receive reports in response to the concerns presented tonight. The Planning Director indicated that it may be possible to construct a 3 -story building in a 36 maximum building height. Chr. Moran opened the Public Hearing at 8:15 p.m. The Applicant, Mr. Dick Oliver of Dividend Development Corp., reported the request for the extension of the tentative map is because of market conditions and lender reluctance to fund the project start at this time. Part of that reluctance is because there has been no progress on the senior site for the past two years. He recalls to the Commission that 19 months ago Council requested that he delay the senior site activity while they investigated the possibility of the Oddfellows site. This has caused his corporation a severe economic hardship and a loss in lender confidence which has been frustrating and very damaging to the corporation. He stated his corporation has been very cooperative with the City and requested a waiver of the provision which penalizes his corporation by requiring the $10,000 deposit on each condominium. He implores the Commission to act on these two requests tonight. Mr. Oliver reviewed the site plan in detail stating that the EIR report is fully compatible with the project. The only question is the increase in height. He said he does not believe an additional EIR is necessary. He reported that the results from the research completed by Mr. Edward Pack, sound consultant, indicate the potential noise impact as negligible, if at all. He presented the Commission with a letter from Mr. Pack. Mr. Oliver stated he is of the understanding that Council unanimously approved a three -story building as appropriate, and understood the vote to be a direction to the Planning Commission and staff to change the ordinance zoning on this specific site to three story. He is of the understanding the Corporation was directed to proceed with PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIt Page 6 July 24, 1991 building of the elderly project on the site. This opened the door for the corporation to talk with people who had previously indicated the project would not work. Subsequently, a qualified operator with experience and skills in the area of assisted living and skilled nursing has become interested in the project. Discussion was held regarding the reasons the operators felt the skilled nursing and assisted living would be more economical on one level. The preference is for a smaller footprint for the condos to eliminate lengthy hallways and space between common areas. Discussion included questions regarding placement of the senior facility on the site, specifically as relates to the potential for carbon monoxide from the Highway 85 Interchange and Saratoga Avenue. Mr. Oliver felt that the operator and developer can mitigate the issue to acceptable levels. He read verbatim from the Cal Trans Report that it has been concluded that EPA believes the air quality concerns have been largely satisfied with supplemental environmental information which was reviewed. There was lengthy continued discussion regarding clarification of instructions from the City Council to the Planning Commission at the time the Council held its Public Hearing on the issue. Mr. Emslie stated his opinion that Council indicated its willingness to support a proposal for a three -story site and ask the Planning Commission to consider amendments to the MU -PD Zone to allow this but did not direct the applicant to propose a specific project. Mr. Oliver disagreed and reiterated his recollection. He also stated one Councilmember requested and was given clarification that if the height was increased, then the density would be increased because they go together. Additionally, he stated Council directed the corporation to expedite the matter with the City Planning Commission and staff to obtain the developer /operator. Chr. Moran declared a recess at 8:50 p.m. Upon returning, the same members and staff were present. Mr. Samuel Watt of Los Angeles, the Architect for the proposal, presented the information about the project which he believes will be done correctly. He reviewed the advantages of the three -story concept including the low visibility of the building after landscaping is completed, that there will be shorter distances for residents to travel and more green area and open space than the previous proposal. Regarding air quality, he stated mitigation measures will be included in the design such as charcoal filters in the air filtration system of the entire project. An additional report from an environmental consultant to supplement the existing report will be presented to the Commission. He further stated that the developers will implement specific recommendations to reduce air pollution inside the facility. Com. Favero requested the report on the issue which Mr. Oliver agreed to provide. Mr. Watt reviewed the concerns regarding the mitigation of parking, height and the emergency access. The emergency access in intended to be used only in cases where regular access is unavailable. Responding to Com. Favero, Mr. Emslie clarified that the 30 foot height would be in conformance with the zoning. Chr. Moran opened the Public Hearing at 8:32 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MBETII Page 7 July 24, 1991 Mr. Andrew Beverett, representing the Saratoga area Senior Coordinating Council, agreed that Council's charge to the Planning Commission in this matter appears to be unclear. He believes the charge was to re- examine the appropriateness of the Masson site as a proper location for a senior retirement facility. He held Mr. Oliver in high regard, agreed the delays have created a negative impact on the Dividend Corporation and stated the seniors felt the Oddfellow's 16 acre site was the best location for the facility and that the Masson site is below second best. He expressed the concerns with pollution and health factors. He requested that City staff be directed to explore whether there are other suitable locations for the senior retirement center and asked whether the City will take steps to ensure that an operator of the facility is experienced, reliable and has a good track record and adequate financial resources. He spoke of two financial options that may work and called for an expeditious resolution to the matter. Com. Favero requested further information on citizen' concerns with the site so he can understand how widespread the concerns are. In response to Com. Caldwell, Mr. Beverett confirmed that earlier in this decade, SASCC was in full support of the facility at the Masson site. However, initially, it was not known there would be an entrance and exit at Saratoga to the freeway and did not know Councilmember Stutzman would speak out so strongly about the affects of the carbon monoxide to seniors and the interchange issue. In response to the City Attorney, Vice Mayor Monia responded that he will only assist in clarifying the issues which the Planning Commission seem to be confused over. He implored that everyone be supplied with the Minutes of the Public Hearing conducted by the Council on that issue. He stated his understanding of the direction to Council is more in line what Mr. Oliver spoke of this evening; that Council looked favorably on a three -story and if necessary a zone ordinance change to accommodate a three -story unit on the site. Also there were a number of other items Council had asked staff to look into one of which was that a professional engineering firm come in to present the report as to the air quality standards and what would be done for mitigation. Testimony was received at Council's Public Hearing which indicated that carbon monoxide would probably increase more from the building materials used in building the site than would be created by the Highway 85 traffic and that by through proper air filtration the levels would be reduced below what it is today. A number of groups addressed the Council on the issue, including a group of physicians, had no preference as to the site for the facility and the Paul Masson was adequate as far as they were concerned. 80% of the people who spoke supported the Paul Masson or Oddfellows site. In response to Com. Caldwell, Councilmember Monia stated that because the social need exists for a facility of this type, it is his understanding the approval of the three -story is specifically for this site and for the purpose of a senior facility only. Mr. Mike Specman of Montrose Street spoke of his personal need for a senior care facility in the area, the need for air quality. He felt a three -story would be an eyesore, expressed concern with loss of some of the mature pine trees. He said he could not see how a three -story 46 foot high structure could comply with the approval requirements. Ms. Peggy Corr of DeHaviland Drive, a 27 year resident of Saratoga, reported on a survey where approximately 100% of the seniors did not believe anyone would notice the three -story structure. She does not believe the three -story approval would be PLANNING COMMISSION MEETII Page 8 July 24, 1991 setting a precedence and believes it is a real need and believes the facility will be a great asset to the community. She stated there are many disappointed seniors because of the delays and pointed out existing three -story facilities in the surrounding areas. Mr. Ray Pasintino of Saratoga agreed that the emergency access was a requirement by the fire marshall. He opposed the height factor of a three -story in Saratoga. BOGOSION /DURKET MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:10 P.M. PASSED 5 -0. Chr. Moran read verbatim, a comment from Col. E.T. Barco of Saratoga. He expressed objections to the three -story facility relative to noises from the interchange, the incompatibility of the proposal with the surrounding area. He recommended the Commission not approve the proposal and recommended there be another survey among the seniors to determine how many would live in the facility if it were built. He sympathized with the developers for delays. Chr. Moran read verbatim, comments from Com. Tucker regarding parking, request for a supplemental EIR, to re- address the General Plan policies relative to the new proposal, specifically, regarding compatibility. She expressed concern that the height requirement as requested tonight will require a change to the MU -PD and is concerned with the emergency access as well as park easements, noise impacts to nearby neighborhoods and traffic congestion information on Saratoga Avenue. Com. Favero requested a copy of Com. Tucker's assessment for the Commission. Responding to Com. Durket, Mr. Emslie reported the tentative map expires August 23, 1991. Therefore, according to regulations the Commission could consider the extension of the map until August 28 which is the first regular meeting following the expiration date. Having three stories enhances the economic feasibility and there now are people who are interested in developing the facility. He recommended the Commission hold off on a decision on waiving the $10,000 per escrow fee until the design issues are resolved. Com. Favero stated he would prefer to see a definitive, economic, financial analysis, which clearly points out the economic returns to the operator, internal investment, internal return, discounted cash flows, reasonably evaluated by a certified public accountant, in 10, 15, 20 year time frames before making a decision. Com. Bogosian stated he does not see the need for a new EIR, he would like to see the Council Minutes of the Public Hearing referred to by Councilmember Monia, and stated he did not see a drawback to voting on the extension tonight. he agreed that the information should be analyzed before the vote on the waiving of the $10,000. He stated he would like to see a report on some of the issues raised tonight brought back in a packet to Commissioners. He felt the extension could be voted on at the next meeting. Com. Caldwell agreed with Com. Favero's request for independent analysis of the air quality issue. Another issue not raised is that of how the applicant is moving forward on the demolition of the site. She requested identification of a date certain by which demolition will be complete. Chr. Moran stated her concerns are future total anticipated traffic along Saratoga Avenue in the next 4 to 5 years. Sidewalks, access to shopping, and parking PLANNING COMMISSION MEETII July 24, 1991 Page 9 facilities. She said she would like more detail about why the nursing facility needs to be one -story and more information on the sound walls. Mr. Emslie recommended that staff will make a determination if a supplemental EIR is necessary. He summarized as follows. Commissioner concerns are: The need for economic analysis; need to evaluate the design issues in conjunction with the consideration of the developers request to delete the deposit; air quality study to include the effects of mitigating factors, review of interior design materials and layout as contributing factor to air quality, review of visual impacts; reducing the building height to mitigate visual impacts, include traffic analysis that will quantify the interchange; analysis of all traffic improvements on Saratoga Avenue, analysis of access of residents to off -site facilities, parking ratio analysis and adequacy of parking provided in comparison to similar sites and similar size communities, include the fact that the nursing home is open to the public; explore the need for a one -story senior facility analysis by senior consultants, document the need for additional open space in the facility, analysis of visual impact of sound walls on the Freeway and Saratoga Avenue and the adequacy of existing visual buffers, kitchen odors. Staff would also report on a date by which demolition will be completed. Staff will provide an analysis of land use implications of developing the site along the freeway. In response to Com. Caldwell's question regarding Com. Tucker's request to see the track record of the Operator, Mr. Emslie stated the Commission has stayed away from that as a planning issue; the project is to be looked at on the basis of a land use planning agency. Mr. Oliver reiterated his request for approval of the extension of his map. Staff felt the exception could be made in this case due to the length of time that has transpired. DURKET /CALDVELL MOVED TO APPROVE THE EXTENSION OF SD-89 -006.1 FOR ONE YEAR. Com. Favero questioned the rationale for approval for one year rather than two years. Mr. Emslie explained the map act provides for a tighter time frame for extensions to enable the City to periodically re- evaluate the project for its compliance with changing land use conditions or zoning conditions. He states that as there are many points under discussion, he would consider an extension for only 6 months. THE ABOVE STATED MOTION IS VOTED UPON AND PASSED 4 -1 (Favero voted no). DURKET/CALDVELL MOVED CONTINUANCE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING TO AUGUST 28 WITH A STUDY SESSION ON OTHER ITEMS DISCUSSED THIS EVENING TO AUGUST 20. PASSED 5 -0. 7. -024 McKenzie 14678 Oak St., request for design review approval to UP -91 -0s demolish an existing one story structure and construct a new 2,866 V -91 -007 sq. wo -story residence on a 7,530 sq. ft. parcel per Chapter 15 of the 1 ..e. Use permit approval is requested to allow a detached garage to :ted within a rear yard setback. Variance approval is also requested to the garage to encroach 3 ft. into a required 6 ft. side yard setbac Planner Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated Ju 1991. The plans conform with all applicable city code development regulations with CORRESPONDENCE FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS Nov. 08. 1991 Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 SUBJ Paul Masson Site Hearing Nov. 13, 1991 Sirs: rrew1 �3 RECEIVED NOV 1 2 1991 PLANNING DEPT. Being unable to attend the meeting on the 13th, I wish to present my opposition to this development modification, namely the in- crease in the number of condominium units and the maximum height increase. No where in Saratoga are three -story buildings presently allowed, and I am not in favor of "opening" the gate to this and the floc; of builders that will follow, requesting the same, if this is approved! Keep the condo count at the 128 units originally approved, and at the two story, 30 foot limit. I have attended earlier meetings on this subject. These people do not give a "fig" about Saratoga. They have admitted that this increase is only to rake in more money, saying that two -story condos just aren't feasible. They also admit that they have not polled the neighborhood like the nice single -story business office complex did before it was built at the corner of Cox and Saratoga Avenues. Lots of people in the surrounding area are against this develop- ment. Everyone is against the three story, 46 -foot height request! Sincerely, ames K. Turke 19908 Vineyard Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 1 �9 1 August gib, t r Saratoga Planning Commission 1377' Fruitvale Avenue aratoga, CA 95070 Dear Panning Commission Members: RECEIVED AUG 2 7 1991 PLANNING DEPT. ;hank !jou for the opportunity to address the important issues being c.,ns tiered by your committee. We are neighbors of the Masson /Dividend development project. We monitored the progress in the newspaper, neighborhood rumors, and ith visits to your committee proceedings. Certainly, something has to be lone with the Masson /Dividend development project property. Time marches �n .ynr; careful punning is necessary to determine the best use. As voiced at your meeting on July 24, 1991 by neighbors and family members, we have deep reservations of some of the dialogue expressed that evening. Let us list our concerns which are not in any relative order: 1) Vandalism and degradation of the property. The property is an eyesore to the neighborhood. Vandalism is rampant, causing concern of our family's safety and security of our adjoining property. This is Dividend's responsibility. 2) Clean air. We think this concern prompted the look at the Odd Fellows alternative. We don't see how this concern should change especially with Highway 85 next door. 3) Three story building proposal. This is unacceptable. Highrises were never in the original plan. This is the epitome of bait and switch tactics. This is totally our of character with anything we've seen in Saratoga. By allowing a three story project to be built, you will be setting a precedent of the entire city of Saratoga. The view of the beautiful foothills will be blocked even from our second story vantage point. 4) Parking. Adequate parking must be provided or the overflow of barked cars will certainly end up lining the curbsides of Saratoga Avenue. I n closing, we believe a senior care facility and senior housing proier_t would compliment our neighborhood whether it is with Dividend Development or another reputable developer. Since Dividend seems to have such financial diviculties, perhaps it is time for them to cut their losses and Trove on thus paving the way for another develpment company who can keep the city of Saratoga's best interests in forefront of their minds. Theresa and her family have called this home for three generations. We your committe will protect our neighborhood by the laws and insights you possess. If we may be of any assistance, please contact us. See you at the next Planning Commission meeting. Best Regards, Peter :J. Leslie Saratoga Area SENIOR COORDINATING COUNCIL P. O. Box 3033 Saratoga, California 95070 (408) 867 -3438 Fat. 257 July 17, 1991 Chairperson, Saratoga Planning Commission Copies to: Saratoga City Council City Manager City Planning Director Subject: Life Care Retirement Facility in Saratoga At its June 5th meeting, the City Council directed the Planning Commis- sion to reexamine the appropriateness of the Masson Champagne Cellars site as a location for a Life Care retirement facility. It has been suggested that we enumerate for you some of our major concerns in the hope that you will assign responsibility for investigation to the Planning Director or another appropriate person or group. Our concerns are stated in the form of questions, with accompanying brief commentary. 1. Would some other location be more appropriate than the Masson Champagne Cellars site? Some of the disadvantages of the Masson site (including pollution, health risks, noise, congestion and dirt) are of serious concern to some City Council members and seniors. In meetings of the Odd Fellows Site Study Group it was repeatedly stated that there are a number of other locations more appropriate than the Odd Fellows site. Now would seem a highly appropriate time to review the matter. 2. Regarding the Masson location: a. Would it be possible, through negotiation, to get the deed restriction on the "north" portion of the Masson site removed to permit relocation of the retirement center on the side away from the freeway? If so, would the developer agree to this? We have rumors (but know of no specific reports) that the grantor of the deed is not very receptive to a restriction removal. Has this been authenticated? Would he feel differently if he knew that a retirement center would prob- ably contribute additional business (in the net) to the medical offices across the street? b. Will a second professional opinion be obtained on whether carbon monoxide screening equipment is feasible in a commercial install- ation without incurring unacceptably high costs? If feasible for a portion of the senior facility, would it afford sufficient overall protection? (In a work session sometime ago, "experts" from ABAG and Cal Berkeley indicated that it is feasible to perform such screen- ing in the laboratory but not in a large installation. In the June 5th hearing, one commentator indicated that such equipment is inexpensive to acquire and operate. Which is correct 3. Will the City take steps to insure that an operator of a Life Care facility is experienced, is reliable, has a good track record, and has adequate financial resources? Other factors being equal, our predisposition is to favor pro- fessionally managed affiliates of religious organizations. In the institutions we have examined, such organizations have appeared to meet our criteria remarkably well. 4. Will care be taken in weighing the impacts on prospective Life Care residents of two ownership /financing options: the "initial fee" option; and the "equity based" option? Each of these two options has its advantages and disadvantages. An important advantage of the initial fee option is that it typically requires much lower "move in" cash outlays (1/3 to 1/2 of that of the "equity based" option). On the other hand, the "equity based" option brings to residents the advantages of legal ownership of a residence unit plus income tax advantages that may in some cases be substantial. A SASCC representative can discuss details with those concerned. These are typical of the concerns felt by our officers and directors. As you may be aware, we have expressed them before to various City representatives at various times. We would be glad to conduct further timely discussions with you, with the Planning Director, or whomever else you designate. You will note that we have postponed comment on size, layout and functional considerations pending receipt of further information. Elizabeth Replogle President A. J. Beverett Chair, Housing Committee July 15, 1991 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Attn: Mr. Stephen Emslie Planning Director Subj: DR- 89- 041.1, SM -91 -003, ZC -91 -001, SD -89 -006.1 DIVIDEND DEVELOPMENT CORP: OWNER: CHAPMAN WILSON: APPLICANT, 13150 SARATOGA AVE, APN'S 389- 11 -11, 12, 13 14. Sirs: Because of an already scheduled trip, I will not be able to make the July 24th 7:30 pm meeting on the above subject. My primary objection is the height amendment requested by the applicant. The present MU -PD zone district height limit of 30 feet has been adhered to by the surrounding residential proper- ties. To allow a height increase to 46 feet would be totally out of context with those areas. THIS IS A NICE RESIDENTIAL AREA, NOT A HIGH -RISE AREA! LET'S KEEP IT THAT WAY. If my property value plummets due to this very high density project (if approved as requested by the applicant), I am going on notice that I will seek relief in the courts. Secondly, of grave concern, is the added traffic the autos associated with 192 condos and 21 patio homes, not to mention visitor traffic and parking for a 120 bed nursing facility. All of this in 11 acres! That's well over twice the auto traffic for the condos and patio homes alone, compared to nearby townhouse and condo complexes, not counting visitor traffic and parking for a 120 bed nursing facility. It is hope that the Planning Commission will seriously consider the negative effect this project, as presently requested by the applicant, will have on the surrounding area and Saratoga over- all. Regards, James K. Turke 19908 Vineyard Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 6:),E) NOV 2 7 1991 November 25, 1991 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, 95070 Dear Council Members: I am responding to the announcement that the Council is considering amending the current maximum height limit, specifically regarding the former Paul Masson site on Saratoga Avenue. Near us is a recently constructed church which "stands out like a sore thumb" in our area. Not because the building is ugly, it is not; in fact, it's architecture is _quite pleasing. However, it is taller than any building in the surrounding area and definitely does not enhance the rural, single /double story atmosphere which most Saratogans wish to preserve. The proposed height amendment, to 45 feet (instead of the current 30 foot limit), will have the same unpleasant effect. We desperately need senior housing in Saratoga and I for one, am in favor of providing more appropriate residences for them; we can and should, accomplish that without compromising S aratoga's ambiance. Our residents did not move here to see "high rises" -even short ones. We moved here because we like the low profile and the community atmosphere and we wish to preserve it; it is one of the few communities in the South Bay which still creates a feeling of rural charm and small town neighborliness. Tall structures of any kind destroy that atmosphere. Please deny the request of the Dividend Development Corporation for an amendment to the height limit in the MU -PD district. The development of that property, with senior housing, can be accomplished without compromising Saratoga's desire to maintain its rural, low profile, close knit atmosphere. Sincerely, Mrs. Marcia Fariss 18983 Saratoga Glen Place Saratoga RE: Paul Masson Zoning Amendment Saratoga Area SENIOR COORDINATING COUNCIL P. 0. Box 3033 Saratoga, California 95070 (408) 867 -3438 Ext. 257 November 26, 1951 TO SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION Subject: Retirement Facilities Masson Champagne Cellars Site We understand that the developer is appealing to the City Council the Planning Commission's recent decision that effectively precludes con- struction of any three -story structures on the site. Accordingly, since the subject of retirement housing will shortly come before the City Council, it would appear appropriate to provide an update on the Senior Coordinating Council's general position on senior retirement facilities in Saratoga. 1. We continue to believe there is a strong need for such housing in the City. In the City Council's deliberations on the Odd Fellows site, clear evidence of this need was presented, along with strong support from civic, religious and commercial organizations throughout the City. 2. However, the Senior Coordinating Council is not making any recom- mendation "for" or "against" the use of the Masson Champagne Cellars site for a retirement complex. 3. We hold some serious concerns about the appropriateness of this site and the prospective plans for developing and operating the facility. You may share some or all of these concerns. if you do and if you are unable to resolve them to your satisfaction, you will ultimately need to consider alternative uses for the site. 4. Our concerns, along with explanatory commentary, are shown in the attachment to this memorandum. We are sometimes asked what we believe to be a valid question: "Why didn't you express these concerns in prior years during earlier stages of investigation of the site The answer is that some of the factors causing the concerns were not fully brought out until more recent phases of the investigation. We believe that those of you present back then will understand. Please let us know it you have questions or comments. A. Beverett Chair, Housing Committee Xr-e- E zabeth Replogle President 6'8 1. Health Risks. Appendix 1 CONCERNS RELATING TO MASSON CHAMPAGNE CELLARS SITE As you know, our principal concern here is whether carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from auto exhausts will constitute unacceptably high health risks in the long term to frail and elderly residents (whose average age is expected to be 82 years). (Please note the underscoring of long term and frail and elderly. (Much of the evidence that has come to our attention deals with short term effects on younger people.) Engineering Evidence. Your attention is first called to the engineering projections of the quantities of carbon monoxide at the site in a future year after the freeway is in operation (as prepared by the firm of LSA Associatres). These projections show the CO concen- trations to be within State standards (up to 9PPM 8 hour standard). We believe the reliability of these projections should not be accepted categorically before examining two important factors: (1) shortcomings of the mathematical model used in preparing the predictions; and (2) uncertainties relating to some of the inputs used in the exercise. The engineering report associates the reliability of the projections made through use of the model with a statistical confidence level of 75% (which appears very low) and a margin of error factor of 2. As an example, the author can be 75% confident that a projection of 5 PPM at a given location will be accurate within 2 1/2 PPM and 10 PPM (if all other factors remain unchanged see below). Such a qualification can leave prospective users with room for doubt. Inputs to the model must by their very nature reflect considerable uncertainty: Examples: (1) The Traffic Forecasts. (Could actual volumes be 25% above or below forecast? Choose your own margins). (2) Assumed Speeds. It is our understanding that the author assumed an average auto speed of 40 MPH. Emissions per auto mile at this rate of speed are much smaller than those of low speeds (such as those of stop and -go traffic at peak times on the freeway and on Saratoga Avenue). (3) Auto Size, Engine Design and Fuel Characteristics. We are not aware of the author's assumptions relating to these factors. (4) Roof Level Air Intake. It has been represented that CO levels at rooftop height (30 feet or are substantially less than at ground level at the same location. We have heard conflicting evidence to the effect that: when wind direction is from the freeway toward the building(s), ground level CO concentrations along with the air will be swept up to the top of the building and into the air intake. Accordingly, any errors that might be associated with the input infor- mation can serve to compound errors associated with the shortcomings of 1 the model itself. It is our impression that the LSA analyst used the best state -of- the art analytical tools available to him. This does not negate the fact that his end results can leave room for honest doubt about the seriousness of the risks involved particularly among the age groups that will take the risks. Medical Evidence. Our chief sources of medical information come from Saratoga's Dr. F. L. Stutzman and from Dr. Rodney Beard, Professor of Preventive Medicine Emeritus at Stanford, who is an advisor to the consulting firm of LSA Associates. Dr. Stutzman has eminent credentials in the field of thoracic surgery (see his curriculum vitae) and in the treatment of geriatrics (having treated hundreds of such patients). Although we are not aware of all of Dr. Beard's credentials, we understand that he is in the field of Public Health and has not been in clinical practice. Dr. Stutzman and Dr. Beard agree that there are no reliable formal studies that indicate what the long term effect of even low levels of carbon monoxide might be on frail and elderly people. As lay people, our only recourse is to consider the judgement of those most exper- ienced in thoracic and geriatric medicine. It is a matter of record that Dr. Stutzman is strongly and gravely concerned about what he considers to be the adverse effects of long term CO exposure to the frail and elderly at the site. Dr. Beard appears to feel considerably less concern. If our understanding is correct, he feels that the projected CO levels are not excessively high. We hope the foregoing will help you understand why seniors contemplating a move to a retirement complex may have what they believe to be reasonable doubts about carbon monoxide health risks that could affect their physical well being and length of life. As City representatives, you face the question of whether the issue should be resolved by subjecting senior residents to such risks as may be present (as you evaluate them). 2. Noise In its Environmental Impact Report, the firm of LSA Associates predicted a sound level at the site in excess of 45 decibels, the maximum allowable in residential areas under present Saratoga standards. We do not know the extent to which the sound levels might be reduced inside the buildings through the use of insulation. Will any estimate of this be made available? Will the quantity and kind of noise be sufficient to annoy or cause a health problem to oldsters who have moved from a quieter neighborhood? Another question of recent origin is whether the 12 foot sound walls on the opposite side of the freeway could cause annoying reflections that go above the adjacent 12 foot walls and directly toward the upper floor(s) of building(s). We have no evidence on this factor. 3. Outdoor Activities 2 Our visit to other retirement facilities indicates that a considerable number of seniors like outdoor activities, such as shuffleboard, swimming and poolside lounging, flower and vegetable gardening in small plots, walking, sunning and the like. Will the smog and noise problems be serious enough to create a need for serious curtailment of such outdoor activities? 4. Affordability. The ownership /financing arrangements required for entry by senior residents, as presently planned by the prospective operator, will in' our opinion preclude occupancy by a number of Saratoga seniors who might feel themselves able to afford other arrangements. Under the present plan, residents would be required to purchase an equity ownership of their residence unit (plus an undivided interest in common facilities). Two other complexes on the Peninsula have such an arrangement (one in San Mateo and the other being the Forum in Cupertino). To our knowledge, all others now in operation allow residents to move in under an "advance fee" arrangement. Without going into great detail, the "move in costs to residents under the two plans can be roughly approximated by comparing costs now quoted by organizations with facilities now under construction: the Forum in Cupertino and the Terraces in Los Gatos. Such a comparison for a party of two in a medium priced two bedroom unit are as follows: 5. Marketability Forum (equity ownership): $400,000 plus Terraces (advance movein fee): $200,000 minus In some cases, the movein cost differential can be partly offset by rollover of capital gains on the "old" home; in such instances the capital gains tax liability can be postponed (but not excused). In other cases, such an offset can not be made. (Tax advisers should be consulted in individual cases). To the extent that a forced equity ownership /financing requirement with its cost differential should be a significant factor in causing present Saratoga seniors to decide not to move into the facility, the operators will find it necessary to look for wealthier seniors from outside the City. Although outsiders obviously can not be excluded, how much "importing" would be compatible with the City's expectations? If the concerns expressed in this letter should be confirmed by future events, how marketable would the facility be to seniors (a) who can afford it and (b) who have been living in quiet and relatively low -level smog concentrations? Although we can not answer this question, we believe it is a realistic 3 one; and it is doubtless of interest to the prospective operators. 6. Puilding Height Considerations At the present writing, the Planning Commission has in effect denied the applicant's request to remove a two -story height limitation that now exists. The City policy reflected in the Planning Commission's decision has been one of the causes of turndowns by a number of prospective operators approached by the applicant. The applicant has appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council. We do not know what the result will be. 7. Other Possible Sites We have a number of times suggested that the City explore other possible sites for a retirement center, with the realization that circumstances might prevent the use of these sites. To our knowledge, the City has not seen fit to take any action on this suggestion. We have taken the liberty of making an exploratory inquiries to individ uals representing the owners of two such properties: The Kerwin Ranch property (at the junction of Saratoga and Fruitvale Avenues) The Sisters of Notre Dame property (beyond Madronia cemetary) The individuals contacted felt that they could not give an answer reflecting policy without a formal inquiry by the City or another appropriate party. They could envision some constraints that might preclude any successful negotiation for a sale. At the same time, they would not "close the door" to the possibility of such a socially desirable use. Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners Association December 4, 1991 Ms. Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk City Council City Offices of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Paul Masson Site Proposed Modification to Height Limits Board of Directors' Statement of Position and request that Council uphold Planning Commission's denial. Honorable William Kohler, Mayor We, the duly elected Board of Directors of The Saratoga Park Woods Homeowner's Association, in a meeting held December 3, 1991 have unanimously agreed that our representation of the ap- proximately 380 homeowners should be expressed before this Coun- cil. We commend the Planning Commission for their findings and denial of that modification to the height limitation being sought in the development of the former Paul Masson Site. We further wish to express our request and recommendation that the Council sustain their Planning Commission's position, assert that such a modification to the present height limitation could NOT provide for findings that the proposed project: Avoids unreasonable interference with views or privacy, Preserves natural landscape, Minimizes perception of excessive bulk, or Is,compatible in bulk height with surrounding structures, and that such an appeal for a reversal of the Planning Commission's decision is wholly unjustified nor warranted. We respectfully, request that this communication be read aloud and appreciate the Council's only justifiable position of sustaining the Planning Commission's earlier denial. With sincere regards,- Arthur L. Bliss, for The Board of Directors Dear Council Members: As citizens of Saratoga we are opposed to the proposed plans to permit the establishment and development of three or more story structures at the Paul Masson site for any reason or purpose. We request that the Council deny the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow a 45 foot, three story maximum height limit rather than the current 30 foot, two story limit in the MU -PD zone district. PETITION TO THE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL PERTAINING TO PAUL MASSON SITE (1 ZL 116 Z I`dC,23 Saratoga Address i 1 ?tzg'' zzlz__&4 7a,/ Gum /1 1 Fig /7 /az k2- Dear Council Members: As citizens of Saratoga we are opposed to the proposed plans to permit the establishment and development of three or more story structures at the Paul Masson site for any reason or purpose. We request that the Council deny the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow a 45 foot, three story maximum height limit rather than the current 30 foot, two story limit in the MU -PD zone district. -J041.4. 7;4 yr PETITION TO THE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL PERTAINING TO PAUL MASSON SITE Signature Saratoga Address f e J T 9647 /9 b k s' Vm.Lae+_td l� ig7,f 19 7/ /1 1ye)7 791-a /f Dear Council Members: As citizens of Saratoga we are opposed to the proposed plans to permit the establishment and development of three or more story structures at the Paul Masson site for any reason or purpose. We request that the Council deny the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow a 45 foot, three story maximum height limit rather than the current 30 foot, two story limit in the MU -PD zone district. PETITION TO THE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL PERTAINING TO PAUL MASSON SITE Saratoga Address (q10 3 V'6'12 4"-)b- es' '1 3I- v, gA0 LV szvn o4c 0,4 Dear Council Members: As citizens of Saratoga we are opposed to the proposed plans to permit the establishment and development of three or more story structures at the Paul Masson site for any reason or purpose. We request that the Council deny the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow a 45 foot, three story maximum height limit rather than the current 30 foot, two story limit in the MU -PD zone district. Si nature PETITION TO THE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL PERTAINING TO PAUL MASSON SITE Saratoga Address L27 1- x /1.0_i jl l0 i f) 4 Cyd:4Z MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL DATE: August 3, 1987 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: REPORT ON SENIOR HOUSING BACKGROUND 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 One of the "to do" items resulting from the City Council's FY86- 87 policy development retreat was an analysis of potential senior housing sites in Saratoga. This task was assigned to the Planning Department. To accomplish this work task, planning staff prepared a comprehensive report on senior housing for the Planning Commission to review. The report contains extensive background material, including demographic information, a discussion of a questionnaire on senior housing needs /preferences distributed earlier this year, a brief history of senior housing issues and an analysis of the City's existing regulations relating to senior housing. A discussion on the identification of potential sites completes the report. The Planning Commission reviewed the report at four meetings two regular meetings and two Committee -of- the -Whole study sessions), the minutes of which are attached. Staff was directed to make revisions to the report to incorporate both public and Commission input and concerns. The attached report incorporates all of the suggested revisions. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission believes that the issue of identifying potential senior housing sites in Saratoga must be considered within the context of the City's adopted General Plan. The Commission has evaluated the potential for senior housing throughout the City and has determined that most of the remaining vacant parcels in the flat areas of the City are either in agricultural use under Williamson Act contract or located in R -1 districts. Such parcels cannot be considered for senior housing development because of their location in or proximity to established single family residential neighborhoods, their R -1 or A zoning and General Plan designation, and their location in planning areas which have specific policies restricting such development. The Commission's recommendations regarding this issue are as follows: 1) The Planning Commission reaffirms the following land use and housing goals and policies in the Saratoga General Plan regarding the protection of single family residential Staff Recommendation neighborhoods: GOALS: Y CHUEK HSIA PLANNING DIRECTOR LU.8.0 AND H.6.0 Affirm that the City shall continue to be predominantly a community of single family detached residences. H.2.0 Maintain and enhance the character, quality, and livability of the city's residential neighborhoods. POLICIES: LU.8.1 AND H.6.1 Existing non developed sites zoned single family residential should remain so designated. H.2.6 Maintain the general low- density character of existing single family residential areas. 2) Sites that are suitable for higher density senior housing developments in Saratoga are currently zoned and designated by the General Plan to allow for such use. The Planning Commission has identified two such sites, the Paul Masson site on Saratoga Avenue and a 9.7 acre P -A zoned parcel directly across Saratoga Avenue from the Masson site. Staff recommends the City Council accept the report and recommendations from the Planning Commission and__decide whether or not to conduct a public hearing on this issue. Attachments: 1) Report on senior housing 2) Minutes from Planning Commission meetings of June 24, June 30, July 14 and July 22. PAUL MASSON SITE IN OPPOSITION OF ZONING AMENDMENTS FAVORING DEVELOPERS AT THE EXPENSE OF SARATOGA CITIZENS NEIGHBORHOODS PAUL MASSON SITE PURPOSE OF PRESENTATION TO REMIND THE COUNCIL OF THE MANY REASONS NOT TO ALLOW HIGH DENSITY THREE STORY COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES IN A SARATOGA RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD PAUL MASSON SITE NOT THE BEST OR FIRST CHOICE FOR SENIOR CARE FACILITY o ODD FELLOWS NEIGHBORS REJECTED DEVELOPMENT o NOW COUNCIL PUSHING PET PROJECT ON YET ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD o MORE SUITABLE SITES AVAILABLE MANY SENIORS OBJECT TO THIS LOCATION o ALREADY VERY BUSY AND CONGESTED o SAFETY, TRAFFIC, HEALTH MAJOR CONCERNS o HIGHWAY 85 ON OFF RAMP MAGNIFY THE PROBLEMS PAUL MASSON SITE NEIGHBORS IN STRONG OPPOSITION El Quito Park Homeowners Association Opposed Vast Majority of Vineyards Residents Opposed Saratoga Avenue Residents Opposed Formal Citizens Petition Opposed to Three Stories Unnecessary High Density Excessive Noise Loss of View Shed Atrocious Architecture Inadequate Parking within Development Air Pollution Loss of Neighborhood Character 24 Hour A Day Traffic PAUL MASSON SITE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED AGAINST AMENDMENT 3 TO 1 SIGNIFICANT FACTORS TRAFFIC STUDIES NOISE STUDIES ARE OBSOLETE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY FINDINGS HAVE BEEN IGNORED PAUL MASSON SITE PREJUDICIAL BEHAVIOR COUNCIL REFUSED THE PLANNING COMMISSION THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE ECONOMIC CLAIMS OF APPLICANT COUNCIL DENIED COMMISSION THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER OTHER RELEVANT ISSUES COUNCIL HAS SHOWN UNCONSCIONABLE FAVORITISM TO A SAN JOSE DEVELOPER AT EXPENSE OF SARATOGA CITIZENS PAUL MASSON SITE DEVELOPER'S QUALIFICATIONS 0 SEVERE FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES Foreclosure Litigation by RTC (Business Journal) Numerous Open Liens (D B) Past Due Debts (D B) Development Work Halted by Banks (D B) Lowest Financial Rating Within Their Industry (D B) Negative Net Worth (D B) 0 VERY LIMITED EXPERIENCE! 80% Business Single Family Homes (D &B) 0 UN WILLING TO COMPROMISE WITH PLANNING COMMISSION ON DESIGN REVIEW ISSUES PAUL MASSON SITE COUNCIL'S CHOICE IS SIMPLE CAPITULATE TO THE ECONOMIC OBJECTIVES OF A SAN JOSE DEVELOPER UNDER THE GUISE OF DOING SOMETHING GOOD FOR SENIORS OR DENY AMENDMENT FOR 3 STORIES 45 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT WORK WITH ALL SARATOGA CITIZENS TO ACHIEVE A REASONABLE SOLUTION AND ARRIVE AT A FAIR COMPROMISE ACCEPTABLE TO THE NEEDS OF SENIORS AND THE NEIGHBORHOODS INVOLVED Printed on recycled paper. November 27, 1991 To: City Council From: Deputy City Clerk Subject: Minutes concerning Paul Masson Project 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman At the Council's request, attached are the minutes from Council meetings where the Council discussed the Paul Masson project. They cover the period from December 7, 1988, when the Council first considered the general plan amendment and rezoning for the site, to November 12, 1991, when the air quality issue was placed on the agenda (but not considered). Also attached are the names and addresses of those who spoke at the meetings; they have been sent agendas of the December 4 meeting. The names and addresses were taken directly from the minutes. Because the minutes clerk may not have been able to hear the information correctly (or read the public participation cards correctly), the information was checked through the telephone book and the reverse directory in cases where it appeared to be inaccurate. Not all the questionable addresses appeared in these sources, but the list has been made as accurate as possible. 1. Roll Call S. Oral Cossunicationa xIaUTEB SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Tuesday, November 12, 1991 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Senior Day Care Room, Community Center, 19655 Allendale Ave. TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting /Jt. Meeting with Planning Commission The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Councilmembers Anderson, Clevenger, Monia, Stutzman and Mayor Kohler were present. Planning Commissioners Bogosian, Durkett, Favero, Moran and Tucker were present. Staff members present were: City Attorney Riback, City Manager Peacock, Interim Planning Director Eisner. 2. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda The City Clerk reported that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 8. The notice of adjournment from the November 6 Council meeting was properly posted on November 7. 3. Presentation by Linda Bchild -Jones on Riparian Protection "Once a River" Ms. Jones, Committee on Green Foothills, presented the video, which discusses preservation of creeks in the Santa Clara Valley through the history of the Guadalupe River. Intent and policies in Saratoga's General Plan and Northwest Hillside Specific Plan are good, but there have been few ordinance revisions which actually implement the policies. Ms. Schild -Jones cited several examples for the Northwest Hillside Specific Plan. Councilmember Monia asked if there were any models from other cities which could assist the City in translating policy into practice. The answer was yes, and a copy of a recent study can be sent to the City. As far as enforcement is concerned, establishing a fixed setback solves many problems in trying to determine how close development can come to creeks without causing damage. 4. Air Quality Paul Masson Mayor Kohler stated that since the Planning Commission will hear this matter on November 13, it would not be proper to discuss the specifics of the report at this time. It was submitted to the Council and the Commission for information only at this time. a. It was requested that the Committee for Green Foothills be contacted by the City to see if "Once a River" could be made available for showing on KSAR. The City Manager is to follow up. b. Commissioner Bogosian asked about dealing with design review applications where the conditions of the subdivision included limiting the height of structures above a certain elevation. Should the Commission be following the decision of prior commissions or be willing to be more flexible in the permitted height. The City Attorney indicated that if the condition is set by the subdivision, it must be adhered to unless there is a change made to the condition by going through the proper process to change the condition. The City Manager indicated that in his view it is legitimate to consider such issues as grading, prominence and viewshed to determine City Council Minutes 2 August 27, 1991 It was agreed that the mitigation agreement should be developed and approved by the Planning Commission between approval of the tentative map and submittal of the final map to the City Council. If field conditions indicate a substantive change to approved plans and mitigations is necessary, the Planning Commission would review necessary changes and approve amended plans and an amended mitigation agreement. 5. Post Development Approval Conditions meeting the requirements of other agencies and their impact on post approval changes to plans. The staff discussed the issue of post project approval requirements and conditions of other agencies which can require changes to approved plans. It was agreed that early stage communication with such agencies is needed, requesting a more detailed review so that potential conditions can be factored into the decision making process. Staff to take care to see this is accomplished. 6. Senior Housing Facility at the Paul Masson site on Saratoga The Council and Commission discussed the issue of revisions to the Senior Housing facility plans. On advice of the City Attorney, Commissioner Favero stepped down from discussion on this matter because of a potential conflict of interest because he owns property in the vicinity of the site. It was agreed that the zoning change for three stories should go forward at the same time with the project revision proposal, the developer to take the risk in each case. 7. 1991 Pavement Management Program Authorization to Advertise for Bids CLEVENGER /ANDERSON MOVED TO AUTHORIZE ADVERTISING FOR BIDS. Passed 5- 0. 8. Closed Session Item on Cocciardi Litigation ANDERSON /MONIA MOVED TO PLACE THIS ITEM ON THE AGENDA. Passed 5 -0. The Council instructed the City Attorney to proceed with cases as directed by the City Council. 9. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 Respectfully submitted, Avenue Harr R. Peacock City Clerk p.m. City Council Minutes B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Page 3 August 7, 1991 Andrew Steel, Brockton Lane, commentedon the overpass structure across Cox Avenue. Talked with special office regarding the responsibility of a professional engineer assuring seismic studies are met. We were not advised of this structure. Anybody in the area of the fence can look into my yard. 1) Richard E. Oliver, Dividend Development, 1600 Pruneridge Ave., Santa Clara 95051, requesting Council to give direction to Planning Commission regarding Paul Masson site. Mayor Kohler sugg ested that tae Planning Commission not move on this item in a fast manner. Councilrnem:^er Stutzman inquired abc•ut air quality, and Mr. Oliver advised a consultant has been hired to examine this issue. Favero comments that economics are not a basis for granting a variance. ANDERSON MONIA MOVED TO PASS THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM MONIA TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 2) Declaration of fiscal interdependency by the Cities, Counties and School Districts of the Bay Area ABAG Task Force on Unity for Fiscal Reform. Recommended Action: Endorse both documents as requested by the Association of Bay Area Governments. CLEVENGER /MONIA MOVED APPROVAL TO ENDORSE BOTH DOCUMENTS. PASSED 5 -0. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Report on Skateboard Park from Maintenance Director (continued from 7/17) Mr. Bill Sousa, 13830 Saratoga Avenue, is opposed to the park. The decibel reading is above the residential level. This will require additional revenue to build police. Mr. David O'Connor, 13818 Saratoga Avenue, is also opposed to the park. It will attract additional people and traffic, but also boom boxes and stereos. The neighborhood is a wonderful place for his school age children to grow up in without this influrnece. There are existing programs to be involved in. He is opposed to the park. Mr. Sousa also commented that there is quite a bit of danger in this sport even with protective gear. Mr. Barry Ford, 13838 Saratoga Avenue, is also opposed to the park. He comments that the bank on his side is lower and all potential visitors can look directly down on to his particular property. Council Chairperson Kohler stated that of the three (3) sites, this was the only site that appeared feasible.Councilmember Clevenger comments that there was little enthusiasm from the Youth Commission. Councilmember Anderson states it was difficult for the younger children to enjoy. There were no special hours for them to use the Congress Springs skateboard area and they had to wait on the fringe hoping to get a turn. She states there was also problems with beer on the premises. Councilmember Stutzman states his concern that if the Council does not go through with this program it will be just one more incident where the youth have been given nothing. It may produce a number of youngsters who feel the City never offered them anything. ANDERSON /MONIA MOVED TO REQUEST PARKS RECREATION TO LOOK AT ALTERNATIVE SITES INCLUDING WEST VALLEY COLLEGE. 3- 2. DELETE AS BID ITEM ALSO. COUNCILMEMBERS KOHLER AND STUTZMAN OPPOSED. City Council Minutes 5 June 5, 1991 In response to Councilmember Anderson's question Mr. Miller explained the marketing strategy to rent the buildings. ANDERSON /MONIA MOVED APPROVAL TO RECEIVE AND FILE REPORTS AS INFORMATION. PASSED 5 -0 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8:58 P.M. A. Senior Housing Task Force Report Mr. Peacock informed the Council of the Written Communications received since the agenda was sent to the Council: Kenneth Meeker Shane Woolsey Len Feldheym Bob Flora Jeanne Holst Gordan Hanson Eric Morley Richard Kaufman The public hearing was opened at 8:58 p.m. Mr. Andy Beverett, 19597 Via Monte Dr., Representing Senior Coordinating Council of Saratoga, noted that the issue of this hearing is action by the City Council to authorize change to the General Plan and Zoning. Mr. Beverett explained their concept of a Life -Care facility and the amenities available with the facility as well as a skilled nursing unit. Mr. Beverett noted there is a strong need for a life -care facility in Saratoga. He noted there is a waiting list in surrounding communities for occupancy in a life -care facility. He feels the Odd Fellows site is appropriate. He noted there is a height limitation on the Masson site and air pollution are critical factors. He noted that some medical practitioners believe that the high levels of carbon monoxide from auto exhaust can pose health risks. Also numerous individuals are concerned about the marketability of this site and the impact on surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Beverett stated that the Housing Committee felt a Life -care center would enhance a neighborhood. Mr. Beverett went on to reiterate his comments as outlined in the staff report. He noted there is much public support for the life care center and urged strong consideration for Council to support it. Councilmember Monia questioned the issue of 2 and 3 story buildings and a "needs analysis He noted there is a site approved by the city for a life -care center. In response to Councilmember Monia's questions Mr. Beverett stated that after discussions with the developer they were in favor of a 3 story structure. He noted, regarding the "needs analysis in his opinion he covered many needs in his presentation. Dr. Henry Drinker, 14711 Fruitvale, representing physicians in Saratoga, noted that Saratoga need to keep seniors in the City, therefore a life -care facility is needed. He noted seniors will seek housing, companionship as well as health care. Dr. Drinker shared excerpts from other physicians in Saratoga in support of a life -care facility. In response to Councilmember Anderson's question Dr. Drinker stated the physicians have no preference as to the site. Ms. Betty Eskeldson, 12638 Radoyka Drive, noted the support from churches and synagogues for a life -care facility. Ms. Eskeldson quoted letters from church members. She noted seniors have to leave Saratoga to find housing and the community has an obligation to provide for seniors. Personally she favored the Odd Fellows site. She noted the churches did not specify which site was more appropriate, but the majority of the Senior Ministry Board favored the Odd Fellows site. Ms. Gladys Armstrong, 20462 Chalet Lane, League of Women Voters, City Council Minutes 6 June 5, 1991, spoke in support of the life -care facility. She presented a petition from citizens in Saratoga urging the City Council to take action to provide a life -care facility. She noted the League believes senior housing should be provided and zoning restrictions should be lifted as needed. Ms. Mary Moss, 110 Wood Rd., Los Gatos, noted she could not remain living in Saratoga as there are no facilities for seniors. She spoke in support of a life -care facility and seniors in Saratoga have to seek care in surrounding cities. She noted she has no preference as to the site. Ms. Marjorie Bunyard, 12625 Miller, American Association of the University of Women, noted that people like to live in their community. She stated people work and get involved and a life care facility is needed. Ms. Marilyn White, 20811 Canyon View Dr., representing Soroptimist International club noted seniors want to stay in Saratoga and the Organization stands behind a life -care facility. She noted personally she prefers the Odd Fellows site, but the Organization has no preference. Ms. Jacqueline Welch, 20925 Jacks Rd., representing Citizen of the Year, presented a petition urging a life -care facility in Saratoga. She noted seniors need companionship of others and the assurance of care for seniors is needed. Ms. Marguerite Fischer, 14520 Fruitvale, noted she lives in Fellowship Plaza, but it does not provide life time care. She expressed concern regarding traffic increase with the life -care facility. She noted the present site needs to be upgraded. She noted she is not opposed to a life -time facility, but feels it is too many units. Ms. Faith Schmidt, 19964 Mallory Ct., representing Housing and Homeless Coalition of Santa Clara, noted the primary objective of the coalition is to provide support and education to communities for a regional approach to solving California's housing needs. She noted State Law mandates senior housing when the need arises. The Coalition supports the housing needs of seniors and the life -care facility, but have no preference to a particular site. Ms. Gertrude Welch, 1229 Naglee Ave, San Jose, Santa Clara County Council of Churches, Director of Affordable Housing Program, noted there is concern regarding senior housing throughout the County and the lack of senior housing in Saratoga. She spoke in favor of the Odd Fellows site. In response to Councilmember Anderson's question Ms. Welch stated after hearing the arguments on both sites they prefer the Odd Fellows site and hope affordable housing will be provided on this site. She stated HUD's definition of affordable housing is not over 30% of income. Ms. Welch stated they are interested in rental units. Mr. Calvin Hamick, 15440 Quito Rd., noted there are senior housing facilities in neighboring cities which are available. Mr. Charles Hecker, 1939 Crisp Ave., objected to the General Plan change to permit a life -care facility on the Odd Fellows site. He noted the Masson site has already been approved and is more appropriate. Ms. Marydee Urbano, 14520 Fruitvale Ave., stated a senior facility is needed in Saratoga. She noted the Odd Fellows site is the only home in California for retirement for Rebeccas and Odd Fellows. She stated the zone change is needed, but this should not be developed on the Odd Fellows property. Mr. Shelley Williams, 11951 Brookridge Dr., noted the need for senior care in Saratoga. He noted seniors need to be close to activities and feels the Odd Fellows site is too remote. In City Council Minutes 7 June 5, 1991 response to Councilmember Kohler's question, Mr. Williams did not feel the freeway is an obstacle. He did not feel the value of homes would reduce because of the senior housing. Mr. Kenneth Meeker, P.O. Box 669, Lewiston, representing Odd Fellows, reiterated the history of the Odd Fellows home. He feels with this project they are combining two objectives. The citizens of Saratoga want what is best for residents and the Odd Fellows want to build a facility which would be a benefit to the City. He noted they are willing to listen and work with the citizens of Saratoga. Mr. Don Richiuso, 19303 Chablis Ct., Neighborhood Task Force, reiterated the letter submitted by neighbors as presented in the staff report. They feel any increased density on the Odd Fellows site is inappropriate. The neighbors feel the General Plan should be adhered to; the 10 acre Rogers and Brooks parcel should be built out with nine homes only, as approved; there are other sites in Saratoga which should be considered if there is a need for a senior care facility. Councilmember Anderson stated the senior housing should not be limited to Saratoga citizens only. Mr. Jeff Schwartz, San Marcos Rd., noted the neighbors are not opposed to a senior project, but don't see any proof for the need. They are opposed to higher density on the Odd Fellows site, but would like to see improvements on the site. He noted alternative sites should be considered. Mr. Schwartz noted there are openings at senior care centers in surrounding cities. He discussed the carbon monoxide levels at the Masson site and how these could be reduced. Councilmember Monia requested that Mr. Schwartz submit the list of available sites to staff. Councilmember Anderson questioned the green belt on the Odd Fellows site, Mr. Donovan, Rogers Brook, Inc., noted there will be a green belt around the bulk of the property with an open space for a driveway and a parking lot. Ms. Margaret Russell, 12776 Saratoga Glen Ct., noted she was a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee and a consensus was reached that the Odd Fellows Site should remained as zoned. She stated special interest groups should not be able to change the General Plan. Ms. Dora Grens, 13451 Old Oak Way, noted she was on the General Plan Committee and a consensus was reached to leave the Odd Fellows site as zoned. She felt the General Plan should not be changed. Mr. Ralph Masscillio, 19271 San Marcos Rd. expressed concern regarding the probability of physical alteration of San Marcos Road if development on the Odd Fellows site proceeds. He also expressed concern regarding increase of traffic. Ms. Sheila Swanson, Member Odd Fellows Senior Housing Focus Group, noted the neighbors want to protect their neighborhood from high density. She noted development on the Odd Fellows site will increase traffic and senior housing should be developed in areas zoned appropriately. She requested the Council deny the proposed plan for additional high density, but the neighbors have no objection to remodeling the Odd Fellows site. She also requested the Odd Fellows submit a Master Plan. Mr. Herb Radding, 14050 Chester Ave., presented a petition from neighborhoods surrounding the Odd Fellows site. The petition requested the following: the current zoning be adhered to; the existing City Council ruling that phase III of the San Marcos Heights Development consist of nine homes on 10 acres with access to the Odd Fellows site to represent their part of burden sharing from this project; modernization and /or home repair only; preserving the current care and quality of the neighborhood. City Council Minutes 8 June 5, 1991 Mr. Edmund Kartcher, 14266 Granite Way, read a letter as presented to the Councilmembers expressing concern regarding increase traffic with the increase population of the site. He stated if there is a need for senior housing the open space around the library should be considered as well as other sites. Ms. Mildred Simons, 14755 Aloha, noted the need for a senior care facility in Saratoga. Mayor Stutzman closed the public hearing at 11:00 p.m. Vice Mayor Kohler felt alternative sites in the City should be addressed. He noted the seniors are important and a life -care facility is needed. Councilmember Anderson noted the reason for considering the Odd Fellows site is because of the Height limit on the Masson site. She expressed concern regarding the size and price of units on the Masson site. Councilmember Anderson stated the Odd Fellow site is larger and hoped a wider variety of units and prices could be developed on this site. She did not feel there would be a large traffic impact on surrounding neighborhoods as most of the seniors would use the shuttles provided by the center. She noted that three story structures should be considered for the Masson site. Councilmember Monia noted the City Council do care about senior development and support it. He noted there is a need for senior care, but to what urgency is still questionable. If a need is proved a General Plan change can be made. Councilmember Monia went on to say that seniors are not bad neighbors and the council have a responsibility to govern the city and follow certain documents unless they find certain situations to deviate from that and at this time he does not support a deviation from the General Plan because there are no findings. He spoke in support of abandoning the Odd Fellows site and leave the zoning as is. With regards to the 3 story issue on the Masson site, he noted this is a possibility. Councilmember Clevenger mentioned outside influences she had been in contact with and has a positive feeling about life -care centers. She noted the number of aging Saratogans would be candidates for a facility and the number of seniors attending this hearing is proof for a need. With regards to the site she spoke in favor of the Odd Fellows site, but is still prepared to vote for a 3 story structure at the Masson site. She expressed concern regarding the carbon monoxide levels at the Masson site and noted a decision has to be made to develop the Masson site or the Odd Fellows site. Mayor Stutzman stated this issue is both a political and emotional problem. He believes the Masson site is not appropriate for a life -care center. He noted the City looked into the possibility of removing Carbon monoxide from the air and it proved to be very expensive. He noted the Odd Fellows did not propose the development for their site, but were willing to support it. Mayor Stutzman noted the need for upgrading of the Odd Fellows property and hoped the life -care facility would be an asset to the community. He stated as there is no support from surrounding neighbors he would respect the General Plan which is unfortunate as there is a need for senior care in the City and land is becoming scarce to develop such a facility. Mayor Stutzman suggested the Old Masson Vineyard for a facility with the necessary amenities provided, if this is not possible Mayor Stutzman suggested putting this issue on the ballot for the whole of Saratoga. He stated he cannot vote for the Odd Fellows site as he must uphold the General Plan. Councilmember Anderson noted the City Council can vote to put an issue on the ballot. Vice Mayor Kohler noted that with regards to the ballot, it can't be too specific and there is a general consensus that senior City Council Minutes 9 June 5, 1991 housing is needed. He noted he is willing to work on a 3 story structure at the Masson site. Following discussion, MONIA /KOHLER MOVED TO DECLARE THE ODD FELLOWS SITE IS INAPPROPRIATE TO INCREASE DENSITY AND THAT THE ISSUE CONCERNING THE POSSIBILITY OF A LIFE CARE FACILITY IS ALSO INAPPROPRIATE. PASSED 3 -2 (CLEVENGER, ANDERSON OPPOSED) Councilmember Anderson suggested discussing a scaled down project on the Odd Fellows site. Councilmember Monia did not feel this is necessary. Councilmember Clevenger noted there is a social obligation and noted her reason to vote against the motion is if the requirements to make the Masson site acceptable fall through, she would like the option to fall back on the Odd Fellows site as a senior care facility is needed. MONIA /KOHLER MOVED TO REAFFIRM THE GENERAL PLAN WITH REGARDS TO THE ODD FELLOWS SITE. 2 -3 (CLEVENGER, ANDERSON, STUTZMAN ABSTAIN) Mr. Peacock suggested the Council direct staff to review the density at the Masson site and to look at the issues of air quality as well as the economics. ANDERSON /MONIA MOVED THAT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDER THE MASSON SITE AND VERIFY A 3 STORY STRUCTURE. PASSED 5- 0 Mr. Richard Oliver, owner of the Masson site, suggested that the motion reflect the council's support a 3 story configuration and increased zoning to make the Masson site feasible. B. Actions with respect to tentative map approval for a four lot subdivision at 22631 Mt. Eden Rd. (Applicant /appellant, E. Sung; Owner, Stella Investment Co.) (SD87- 008.1) 1) Appeal of denial of request for extension of tentative map approval 2) Request for Final Map Approval Item B 1 2 was withdrawn at the request of the applicant. C. City of Saratoga 1991 -93 Budget, including consideration of: 1) Gann appropriations limit; 2) continuing necessity of hillside traffic impact fee; 3) authorized employees, salaries and classifications; 4) resolution establishing schedule of fees pursuant to Saratoga City Code; 5) Review of Capital Improvements Plan 1991 -1996 Mr. Peacock noted there are a number of issues to consider including fee resolution; budget; capital improvements plan to approve at the June 19th meeting. Mr. Peacock noted any modifications to the rubbish rate will be heard on July 3, 1991. The public hearing was opened at 12 a.m. MONIA KOHLER MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO THE JUNE 19 MEETING AND DIRECTED STAFF TO PREPARE THE NECESSARY RESOLUTIONS INCLUDING THE CHANGES FOR HAKONE GARDENS. PASSED 5 -0 7. D. Ex Parte Communication Disclosure Policy This item was continued to the June 19th meeting E. Memo Authorizing Publicity for Upcoming Hearings Landscaping and Lighting District; Noise Ordinance; R- 08 Ordinance MONIA /KOHLER MOVED TO APPROVE AUTHORIZING PUBLICITY FOR UPCOMING HEARINGS. PASSED 5 -0 '1 City Council Minutes Page 2 May 14, 1991 It was agreed chat standards for arterials and collectors should be illustrated in the Circulation Element. 8. Dividend Proposal for Paul Masson Status and Prospects The Planning Director briefed the Council and the Commission on the status of progress in developing the site under the current approved plan. An alternative plan is now being proposed for the site if senior housing will not or cannot be built. The developer asked for concurrence to continue. Councilmember Monia asked for an update on the inventory of senior housing in the surrounding area by staff for the hearing on this matter. Mr. Oliver brought up the issue of weed abatement on the Beauchamps Park for 1989. 9. Circulation Element and the necessity to conduct further studies of specific streets Discussed under Item #7. 10. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Harry R. Peacock City Clerk City Council Minutes 2 June 20, 1990 Mayor Clevenger asked for comments from Councilmembers, there were none. The public hearing was opened at 8:05 p.m. There was no public testimony; the public hearing was closed at 8:05 p.m. 1) Resolution adopting the revised budget for fiscal year 1990 -91 MOYLES STUTZMAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2575.20. Passed 4 -0. 2) Resolution setting the appropriation limit MOYLES STUTZMAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2662. Passed 4 -0. 3) Resolution on Management Salary Schedules PETERSON /STUTZMAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 85 -9.82. Passed 4 -0. 4) Resolution on Classifications and full -time positions in the City Service STUTZMAN /PETERSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2663. Passed 4 -0. 5) Resolution on Part -Time Salaries PETERSON /STUTZMAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2664. Passed 4 -0. 6) Resolution on Basic Salaries and Employment Classifications MOYLES /PETERSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 85 -9.83. Passed 4 -0. 7) Resolution continuing imposition of traffic impact fee in the NHR Zoning District PETERSON /MOYLES MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2665. Passed 4 -0. B. Resolution adopting fee structure for public disturbance (second response) ordinance. City Manager Peacock reviewed the staff report from the Community Services Director, Todd Argow relating to second response to public disturbances indicated in Section 6- 15.130 of the City Municipal Code. The public hearing was opened at 8:07 p.m. There being no public testimony, it was closed at 8:07 p.m. PETERSON /MOYLES MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2621.2. Passed 4 -0. C. Report of the Planning Commission on alternative master plans for a senior facility at the Odd Fellows site prepared and reviewed at the direction of the City Council. City Manager Peacock reviewed the submittal of a letter from Mr. James R. Rogers, dated June 20, 1990. Planning Director Emslie summarized the report from the Planning Commission noting Phase III of the San Marcos Heights Subdivision is considered an alternative site for the proposed development of a senior facility. He stated that the Commission expressed three concerns regarding use of the former Paul Masson Champagne Cellars: 1) air quality, 2) affordability, and, 3) proximity to Route 85. E. T. Barco, 19101 Camino Barco, addressed the Council expressing concerns of senior citizens. He stated that Odd Fellows site is the best choice and notes the following concerns relative to the site: assisted care facility is needed potential traffic impact needs to be mitigated building height is too extreme for a residential area no three -story structure should be considered, since doing so would create a precedent for the City City Council Minutes 3 June 20, 1990 Edmond Carcher, 14622 Granite Way, reminded the Council of the City's commitment to the Odd Fellows; further, he requested that the City drop the expansion project in respect of past general plan policies. He pointed out two major concerns, access and compatibility with the surrounding residential properties. Frances Matise, resident of the Odd Fellows home, briefed the Council on the current status of Odd Fellows homes, expressing that although upgrades should be done, the number of residences would not increase, therefore, traffic impacts would be minimal. Her fear related to what will happen to current residents during the process, specifically, if they will be moved out. Marguerite Fisher, 14520 Fruitvale Avenue, requested adequate senior facilities that would provide for such things as recreation, shopping and the creation of an art studio. She requested preservation of the existing barn. She noted that Federal funds are available for things of this nature, discussed the hardships to seniors, and opposed a three -story structure due to the earthquake potential. Keith Gordon, 20299 Flower Drive, on behalf of the Saratoga Senior Coordinating Council, stated that the project needs to be economical and feasible for everyone. He supported a three -story structure and discussed the environmental concerns expressed in the staff report. Jeff Schwartz, San Marcos Road, discussed the projection regarding the need for housing for 300 elderly residents. He questioned consistency with the General Plan and the studies done by developers. He pointed out that the size of a project in a residential area is inappropriate and asked for clarification relating to who is pushing development of this facility. He noted his support for needed revisions to the current facility, as long as there are no environmental impacts, and requested that it remain the same in size. Suzan Maseillo, 1927 San Marcos, neighboring resident to the Odd Fellows Home, pointed out that San Marcos is a privately owned road and that changes in the Odd Fellows' driveway will impact the neighbors. Dick Oliver, Dividend Development Corporation, Developer of the Paul Masson Site, stated that he was asked last October to delay project development of the Paul Masson site while the City explored the possibility of using the Paul Masson site for a senior facility. He noted that concerns expressed by neighboring residents could be mitigated by adequate planning. He believed that the. Senior Coordinating Council is the force behind the development of this type of senior care facility. He noted that the Odd Fellows site is a better site for this type of facility and requested input from the City regarding whether a need exists for a three -story structure, and asked the City to consider the delay imposed upon the development corporation. He discussed the desirability of a full care nursing facility, stating that this would require a three -story structure on the Paul Masson site. If there is opposition to a three -story structure, a full care nursing facility could not be built. However, a senior facility without nursing care could be built in a two -story configuration. Councilmember Peterson asked about the two new senior complex developments in Cupertino and Los Gatos and whether Mr. Oliver's market survey indicates a need for full care senior facilities in Saratoga. Mr. Oliver stated that the surv.l indic:.t= that there is the need for an equity base but that the market will not support a full service senior facility for five years. Bob Swanson, Crisp Avenue, expressed his concern stating that it is misleading to indicate that density would be enhanced if the project were to be placed on the Odd Fellows' site; the real issue is that the land is zoned R -1 and the General Plan allows for nine houses to be placed on this site. Dora Grens, 13460 Old Oak Lane, agreed with Mr. Swanson's comments regarding consistency with the General Plan. Vic Monia, Granite Way, stated that Mr. Oliver's report is very 1 City Council Minutes 4 June 20, 1990 misleading. He noted that there is less land available at the Odd Fellows site than on the Paul Masson site. He discussed the value of the properties and asked why Mr. Oliver should be allowed to change the zoning rather than reduce the number of units he is willing to place there. Ronald Cooke, 236 Brockton Lane, reviewed current housing needs, the population, proportion of home owners, average income, and population of aging citizens within the City of Saratoga to illustrate the need for a senior care facility. Further, he discussed alternative housing for this population and documents provided to the Planning Commission relative to the need for senior care. He made three requests: compliance with the General Plan housing element, revision of a 150 unit proposal and rezoning to provide that a substantial part of the property at Paul Masson be dedicated for senior care. He reminded the Council that the Odd Fellows citizens have every right to have senior facilities upgraded. Robert Barton, consultant retained for the Odd Fellows Home, clarified that the site under discussion is 27.5 acres; land proposed for development by Rogers and Brooke is an additional 10.5; a full study is needed before any action can be taken; and the central building and the infirmary on the Odd Fellows are in need of replacement. Mayor Clevenger closed the public hearing at 9:00 p.m. Councilmember Stutzman explained technical language presented in the environmental study and noted problems relating to the Paul Masson site, particularly air quality and amounts of carbon monoxide. He noted that the air quality standards contained in the report are based upon present levels. City Manager Peacock suggested that the Council consider Item No. 8 D in conjunction with this issue since it is relative to air quality. D. Report of the Planning Commission on air quality issues in connection with proposed senior project at Paul Masson site on Saratoga Avenue as required by conditions of approval. Planning Director Emslie discussed the Planning Commission report r sting to the air quality analysis, noting that the Commission feels thaC no modifications are needed for the proposed project. Jeff Hornick, LSA Associates, Inc., noted that levels of carbon monoxide that people can tolerate depends on the time of exposure, and that the calculations regarding pollution dispersement may have a margin of error. He mentioned the State and Federal air quality standards for amount of exposure and stated that no standard has been accepted by the Health and Welfare Department. Planning Director Emslie stated that the Planning Commission accepted the report based upon the findings and recommended that the City Council work with the existing plan and utilize areas of the site for ventilation. The public hearing was opened at 9:15 p.m. Mr. Barco, 19101 Camino Barco, stated that air pollution is not the only concern; that the Council should consider the noise pollution that the Paul Masson site will experience with the completi ^c Rcii *c. AC; that if a three -story structure is built there the freeway sound will loop back into the neighboring residential areas. He noted his experience with ventilation systems and stated that the recommended system will not work. Vic Monia, 14665 Granite Way, suggested that, if the Council desires to approve the proposal at the Paul Masson site, the developer reverse the plan, placing the senior center closer to Cox Avenue. He cautioned the Council against approving a project that is on the record as a possible health hazard and suggested that the land be used for open space. Mr. Oliver informed the Council that the former owner added a deed City Council Minutes 5 June 20, 1990 restriction that would prevent any health facility being built near Cox Avenue. The public hearing was closed at 9:27 p.m. Mayor Clevenger noted that the issue relates to the level of risk people are willing to take; she supported a full care senior facility in Saratoga, and noted that although there are problems with both possible sites, this type of facility is needed, and there is no other land available. Councilmember Stutzman suggested that the Paul Masson site would provide an excellent opportunity to study how much carbon monoxide is tolerable; however, people would be at risk and, he would not support placement of a care facility at the Paul Masson site; that the studies were done five years ago; and that Mr. Oliver is not trying to push this development, but rather responding to our wishes. Further, he indicated that the Odd Fellows site is preferable and that there is a need for skilled nursing care in the City of Saratoga. Councilmember Peterson stated that he will be looking forward to living in a complex with little upkeep as he ages and that a senior facility could be built at the Paul Masson site without continued care. Councilmember Moyles noted that the plan would require amendments to the General Plan which would be difficult, but the need exists and he urged the Council to take action to provide a facility for seniors somewhere. Mayor Clevenger noted personal experiences with nursing homes and looked forward to providing citizens with a place that they can live in dignity which continued care provides. She requested that the report from the Planning Commission be accepted and that the Paul Masson site remain a consideration for the project. Councilmember Stutzman disagreed with this request. PETERSON MOYLES MOVED TO ACCEPT THE REPORT FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS FULFILLING THE AIR QUALITY IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENT. Passed 3 -1 (Stutzman opposed). MAYOR ORDERED THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NO. 8 C, BE REOPENED AND CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF JULY 24TH, 1990. The meeting was recessed at 9:47 p.m., and reconvened at 10:00 p.m. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approval of Minutes 6/6 Mayor Clevenger returned to Item 3 A, approval of the minutes of June 6, 1990, and suggested an amendment be made to page 3, last paragraph, to indicate that Councilmember Anderson spoke on the issue of leafblowers. Councilmember Moyles requested that the minutes be amended to illustrate his concurrence with Councilmember Stutzman regarding his building comments. STUTZMAN /MOYLES MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AM.eziunu. raaavu 4 -0. B. Approval of Warrant List MOYLES /STUTZMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE WARRANT LIST. Passed 4 -0. C. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda The City Manager states that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 15, 1990. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Planning Commission Actions, 6/13 Noted and filed. City Council Minutes this area. 7 October 3, 1990 Councilmember Monia volunteered to serve on a committee and work with staff to pursue this matter. B.J. Stewart, 12517 Palmtag, Saratoga, addressed the Council. She pointed out that the crime rate can be expected to go up as soon as the freeway and interchange are in place. CONSENSUS FOR COUNCILMEMBER MONIA TO PURSUE THIS ISSUE OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS. C. Overview of Paul Masson senior care facility approval on Saratoga Avenue Report from Planning Director Planning Director Steve Emslie reviewed the Staff Report dated September 28, 1990. Councilmember Anderson suggested that the developer remove all cottages and put in at least 50 units of assisted housing. She feels that commercial use in that specific area should not be ruled out. Councilmember Monia conveyed that commercial development should not be an alternative because of potential traffic impact. Councilmember Kohler concurs that it is inappropriate to put in any commercial development. Discussion continued. MONIA /KOHLER MOVED TO RECEIVE AND FILE. PASSED 4 -0. D. Tenancy of VITA Portion of former Library Building (continued from 9/19) Possible presentation by VITA Mr. Peacock announced that the matter is to be continued to the next Council meeting at VITA's request. 7. NEW BUSINESS PASSED 4 -0. A. Adoption of Policy and Procedures Statement for Grants for the Performing Art ANDERSON MONIA MOVED TO ADOPT STATEMENT AND DIRECTED STAFF TO PUBLICIZE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1991. B. Publicity for Upcoming Hearings Giberson Appeal of Birenbaum Project; Transit Alternatives; Zoning Ordinance Amendments Mayor Stutzman suggested that notice on the Giberson Appeal include residents on Peach Hill and Glen Una. C. Resolution 2689 Appointing Youth Commissioners ANDERSON /KOHLER MOVED TO APPOINT COMMISSIONERS. Councilmember Monia stated he will be voting for the resolution, but he wants the record to reflect that he did not participate in the selection of students from Saratoga High School as he has family members there who applied for the positions. However, Mr. Monia did participate in the selection of students from other schools. Mayor Stutzman proceeded to items following public hearings on the agenda. 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS A. Tract 7770 Investigation Committee Work Program Progress Report INFORMAL MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Tuesday, January 9, 1990 6:00 p.m. PLACE: Community Center Arts and Crafts Room, 19655 Allendale Avenue TYPE: Study Session Joint Meeting with Planning Commission and Heritage Preservation Commission 1. Joint Meeting with Planning Commission The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Councilmembers Anderson, Peterson, Stutzman and Mayor Clevenger were present; staff members Emslie and Peacock were present; Planning Commissioners Burger, Harris, Kolstad, Moran, Siegfried, Tappan and Tucker were present. Diane Carstens of Gerontological Research Services reviewed the market analysis for senior facilities and answered questions on the data and the conclusions of the research. One focus was on the need for assisted living and in what context. Conclusion is for assisted living as a service not as a facility. It is the consensus of both Commission and Council that a retirement community is desirable for Saratoga, but the demographics can support only one such community. There was the opinion expressed by Diane that the Dividend site has a size constraint to provide all the facilities expressed as desirable by the research. On the other hand, nearness to shopping would be superior. Location near the freeway is also a negative in some people's consideration. Mr. Beverett indicated that many more people would prefer the Odd Fellows environment to the Paul Masson environment. Consensus that staff is to work with property owners in developing concepts for an integrated facility on the Odd Fellows and San Marcos property for presentation to the Planning Commission and the public at a future public hearing. Time is of the essence. Staff may propose use of outside resources but will need Council authority to appropriate funds for the purpose. 2. Joint Meeting with Heritage Preservation Commission Commissioners Ansnes, Cameron, Davis, Koepernik, Mitchell and Peck were present. Staff member James Walgren was present. A. Usage of Warner Hutton House Staff to develop proposed uses for the space and have it reviewed by the Commission for its recommendation prior to the plan being approved by the City Council. B. Funding for Publication of Heritage Resource Inventory Commission needs about $6,000 more to do the job in addition to the $5,000 state grant, $5,000 in staff in kind services and $5,000 in Heritage Commission fund raising funds. Council agrees to provide funds above the 10,000 hard dollars for completion of the book as long as the cost is justified. Should be brought to Council as a budget adjustment. 6 0 6/7/89 7 A. Reports from Individual Councilmembers 1) Anderson contact with potential developers and /or operators of senior continuing care facilities for Masson Property on Saratoga Avenue Dick Oliver, a principal of Dividend Development, explained the difficulties his company was having in finding an operator for the subject property. A market survey is being prepared, he said, but close of escrow on purchase of the property from Seagram's was to take place in September, and he did not feel sure that he could finish the process in time. The main concerns of operators with whom he had spoken, he said, were that a density of about 300 rather than 260 was required, and full -care nursing facilities were difficult to manage. Andrew Beverett, representing the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council, stated that a full -care facility would be highly desirable; a third story would be acceptable if necessary to attract an appropriate operator. He wondered if the Council as well as the Planning Commission could be involved in the process. He did not favor an operator named Cortese because they were a rental operation. Mayor Anderson asked whether the Council wished to consider sending a delegation to encourage Mr. Cortese, a southern California businessman, to take on the project. She noted that Cortese would require mandatory life care insurance policy. Councilmember Peterson expressed objections to the Commission or Council's becoming involved in the matter, feeling that the market would take care of the problem. He believed that the Council should make it known that they would be flexible and work with the developer and the operator and were willing to raise the height to three stories and the density to 300 units as long as the whole concept worked. Councilmember Stutzman said he believed the rate was probably overpriced for the location; he felt the Council was being pressured into a position to support the developer in intensifying the density of the project. Councilmember Moyles stated that the Council had already conceded the zoning; he would consider a third story if the Planning Commission approved it, but he would not allow the Council's planning to be driven by the date of escrow. He did not favor having the Council intervene in the process, believing that finding an operator should be left to the developer and the seniors, who had the strongest motivation for doing so. There was consensus to take no action as a Council, but to allow the developer and the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council to continue to attempt to find an operator. Mayor Anderson advised the developer to be extremely specific in the market survey. Other Councilmembers Reports Councilmember Moyles reported on a recent reception held by the Hakone Foundation Board, saying that several important people were interested in joining the to -be- expanded Hakone Foundation Board. He requested that Mayor Tamiaki of Muko -shi be sent a ceremonial copy of the page of the budget showing the allocation for Hakone Gardens. Mayor Anderson then reminded councilmembers to submit any comments they might have on the County General Plan. Councilmember Moyles agreed but suggested the Council follow Supervisor McKenna's lead as to the timing and coordination of the process. Mayor Anderson requested that the staff send Assemblyman Quackenbush a letter of thanks for a gun bill which included a 15- day waiting period for delivery of a gun after purchase. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 9 DECEMBER 21, 1985 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mayor Anderson commented as follows: Issue required consideration of the site's appropriateness for residential, agricultural or park use Task Force did not foresee vacant land for the remaining years of the Williamson Act Contract Past difficulties to creating a park were no longer relevant; site was available for public use Objected to the San Jose Mercury News editorial entitled, "Too late for a park" Park use was feasible for the neighborhood in question Traffic experienced in the past need not reoccur as the intention would be to open the park as an educational resource; impacts could be alleviated while maintaining the site as a garden The record did not show that neighbors had protested the use of this site as a public use If the Williamson Act Contract were not rescinded, the issue of the loss of a $360,000.00 contribution and the offer of matching funds had been raised In addition, the statement was made that the City would have more control of development occurring on -site; in the view of the Planning Commission Chair, there would be no appreciable difference between a nine lot subdivision and what the Commission might approve in the future The question regarding a possible loss of contribution and matching funds was a tough choice for the Council On the other hand the City had an opportunity to preserve the parcel in some form of open space; such required further study Ad Hoc Task Force Committee did not make a recommendation; such was not possible with the make -up of the Committee; however, the majority saw the potential of this parcel as a City park It pained her to see the lost opportunities to acquire this parcel; however, if the property was to be acquired now, the parcel would have to be purchased Urged the Foundation not to limit options for the sale of the property to the current proposal Asked for time to explore options including Community Gardens and a variety of park uses Wished further study to be conducted and the voters to have an opportunity to make a decision If the property could not be secured, then Councilmember Peterson's suggestion was excellent In response to Councilmember Peterson's questions, Mr. Housrath responded that the Board of Directors of the Nelson Foundation had not had a chance to consider the Councilmember's proposal and he was not authorized to speak for the Board on this matter. Councilmember Moyles advised proponents of preservation open space they were doing serious harm if they discussed a condemnation process to acquire this land, as stated in the Draft Report. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT DESIGNATING THE FLORENCE NELSON PROPERTY MEDIUM AND VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Failed 2 -2, Mayor Anderson, Council member Clevenger dissenting. Break: 11:22 11:40 P.M. B. Request for Certification of Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Amendment and Rezoning of Property for former Paul Masson Winery site at 13150 Saratoga Ave. The proposal is to amend the land use element of the General Plan from M to MU -PD and rezone the property from L -1 to MU -PD. (Applicant, Les Maisons Provencal) (GPA 88- 002; ZC 88 -001) (Continued from December 7, 1988) Planning Director Emslie reviewed the Memorandum of December 7, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 11:42 P.M. Mr. D. Reinhardt, Managing General Partner, Les Maisons Provencal, deferred to other speakers: Mr. Andrew Beverett, Senior Coordinating Council, presented the Board of Director's letter urging certification of Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and approval of the Application. Mr. Ernest Card cited Bay Area Air Quality Management Reports which listed the number of days with excessive carbon monoxide levels; methods to reduce excessive levels were reviewed. Councilmember Clevenger provided recent information from the Bay Area Quality Management District and concluded that the care facility should be placed furthest from Route 85. The EIR did not address these concerns; in fact, the EIR seemed to operate from a position that the proposed project would not significantly impact carbon monoxide levels in the area rather than the potential impacts of air pollution on the residents. Such concerns had to be addressed in the final EIR. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 21, 1988 Page 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Dennis Reinhardt commented as follows: Applicants had investigated the economic feasibility of installing a system to reduce carbon mon- oxide levels; they had not yet identified a practical application despite contacts all over the country Conversations were held with experts in the pollution control field; experts were astonished that the levels found in the area adjacent to Route 85 or in the South Bay area were an issue Typical levels of carbon monoxide of concern to the experts were significantly higher; applicants had not found one facility that screened out carbon monoxide at the levels found in the area While the technology was available to screen out the carbon monoxide levels found in the area, it would not be economically feasible to do so There was controversy among medical professionals regarding the levels of carbon monoxide unhealthy for an individual; there was no The Route 85 interchange at Saratoga Ave. wa becoming the t� pr oblem of Applicants; h e di no wish this to be so; he submitted that the interchange would reduce the carbon monoxide levels One intended mitigation measure was to locate air vents away from Saratoga Ave. and Route 85 There was no reason to expect carbon monoxide, which was lighter than air, to disperse un -site Confirmed that Applicants accepted all mitigations recommended in the EIR Applicants would work with the City and the Air the installation of a rmnitoring station at Management District to pursue Smoking would be prohibited or located away from the skilled nursing facility; gas appliances, pilot lights would not be used project site Applicants would continue to do whatever possible to reduce carbon monoxide levels on -site Councilmember Clevenger cited the letter of the Air Quality Manac„t District in the Environmental Impact Report; Mr. Reinhardt responded that Applicants had not intended to address air pollution problems in the Cox Ave. area. The Councilmember questioned whether Applicants would do the modeling suggested in the EIR; City Manager responded that the October 10th letter from LSA Associates addressed the concern. Mr. Reinhardt reviewed the mitigation measures Applicants intended to undertake to ensure a low- ering of the carbon monoxide levels on -site. MOYLES CLEVENGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 12:27 A.M. Passed 4 -0. Councilmember Moyles felt the EIR presented was adequate; information available indicated that mitigation measures were being applied to a prudent standard. He concurred with the decision of the Planning Commission and the recommendation of Staff. The City Attorney suggested that a 1 ecommendation be sent to the Planning Commission regarding the Council's concerns on the placement of the air vents and asked that such be incorporated as part of the review of the Conceptual Development Plan. MOYLES/PETERSON MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2538 CERTIFYING AN ENV IRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE LES MAISONS PROVENCAL AT 13150 SARATOGA AVE. Passed 4 -0. PETERSON CLEVENGER MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2539 AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AND TEXT TO ACCOMMODATE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FORMER PAUL MASSON WINERY SITE ON SARATOGA AVENUE (APN 389 -11- 04, 05, 08, 09, 010). Passed 4 -0. PETERSON /CLEVENGER MOVED TO INTRODUCE ORDDIAIICE CERTAIN TERRITORY OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AND AMENDING THREZONING IN MAP, APN 389- 11 -04, 05, 08 -10. Passed 4 -0. The Public Hearing on the following Items was opened at 12:31 A. M. C. Ordinance Amending City Code Relating to the Vesting of Tentative Maps as applied to Commercial Projects. City Attorney reviewed a Repo on Application of Vesting Tentative Maps to Commercial Projects. TION 14-80.010 RELATING TO TO TINE INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE S TT T LE ON LNDING SEC TITLE ONLY. Passed 4 -0. TIME: PLACE: TYPE: MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 13, 1988 Community Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue Adjourned Regular Meeting /Joint Meeting with Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council The meeting was called to order at 7:37 p.m. Roll Call: Councilmembers Clevenger, Moyles, Peterson, Stutzman, and Mayor Anderson' present. Representatives of SASCC present: Paul Bowlin, Maurice Cozel, Robert Boswell, Joe Eskeldson, Keith Gordon, Phyllis Dolloff, Andy Beverett, Olga MacFarlane, Rita Pennington Joint Meeting with SASCC Paul Bowlin introduced SASCC board and staff present and outlined operations of the Senior Center and Senior Day Care facilities and programs through SASCC. Olga MacFarlane described the general operations of the Senior Center programs and membership in SASCC. Phyllis Dolloff discussed the work of the Health Committee and the health programs provided through the Senior Center. Saratoga pioneered functional health screening, which has become a model for other agencies throughout the County, state and the nation. Andy Beverett discussed fund raising projects and senior housing in the City. Pledges and commitments have come in to meet the $65,000 goal to help finance the expansion of the Senior Center. Senior housing will grow as a problem for Saratoga and the Masson senior housing proposal as critical for meeting this emerging social need as the City enters the 1990's. Paul Bowlin presented the proposed budget for the Senior Center. The proposal calls for an increase from $59,000 to $62,000 over the current fiscal year. A $35,000 grant from the City, the same as the current year, is proposed. Rita Pennington, Adult Day Care Center Administrator, discussed the adult day care program. Program will be one year old in January. Serves 21 persons, average age 84 75% are female and 50/50 ambulatory. 90% are Saratoga residents. Program is planned to expand to 16 persons and three days a week by July 1, 1989, and 20 persons by January 1, 1990. Licensed for 30 persons. Dr. Robert Boswell discussed the problems of bringing the program up to its full potential to make it as cost effective as possible. Council asked for statistics on costs for this program and other programs in other cities so the Council can compare the development of the Saratoga Program with others. The proposed budget was presented at $91,000 compared with $60,000 for the first year by Keith Gordon. A grant of $30,000 is being requested from the City, up from $20,000 for the current year. Cost projected at $6.75 per visit hour for upcoming year. Review of Masson Conceptual Design Plan Council agreed that the project as currently presented is satisfactory. However, the problem of air quality at the assisted living facility needs to be addressed to the satisfaction of the City Council. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 3 DECEMBER 7, 1988 COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC Continued Mr. James Towery, President, Santa Clara Co. Bar Association, summarized that the justice system had seriously deteriorated; the efficiency of the court system rested on trial court funding. Col. E. T. Barco presented a copy of the San Jose News article, "A Fair Hearing" and stated that he would defer his comments to another Meeting due to the length of the agenda. Mr: Dennis Varni, Green Valley Disposal Company, requested representation at San Jose Plan- ning Commission on December 14, 1988, to support the expansion of the Guadalupe landfill. Councilmember Peterson will represent the Council at this hearing. Mr. Norman Bowman, Post Commander, San Jose Post 89, American Legion, reiterated the request stated in their letter listed under Written Communications of the agenda. Mr. Keith Adamson, Grand Master of Odd Fellows of California, reviewed services offered to the community by the Odd Fellows; he asked that they be allowed to continue holding such events. Mayor Anderson proceeded to Public Hearings. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Request for Certification of Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Amendment and Rezoning of Property for former Paul Masson Winery site at 13150 Saratoga Ave. The proposal is to amend the land use element of the General Plan from M to MU -PD and rezone the property from L -1 to MU -PD. (Applicant, Les Maisons Provencal) (GP 88- 002; ZC 88 -001) Planning Director Emslie presented the Memorandum of December 7, 1988, Mr. Malcome Sprau, LSA Associates, was available for questions on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). City Attorney advised that rezoning an adjacent site was not under consideration at this hearing. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:46 PM. Mr. Andy Beverett, Senior Coordinating Council, heartily endorsed the Planning Commission's recommendation to certify the Environmental Impact Report for the Les Maisons Provencal site. Col. E. T Barco, Camino Barco, Saratoga, commented as follows: Location of the proposed senior citizen complex was the wrong place Traffic already bad, would be made worse as a result of this project Air Quality was already not in conformance with State standards EIR did not address the effects of a Route 85 interchange on Saratoga Ave. Asked that the EIR be sent back for further study of the above issues Asked that before project approval, there be a contract with a continuing care administrator Ms. Peggy Corr, Senior Coordinating Council, stated that when studied years ago, a central location for the senior complex was decided upon; the property in question was the site chosen. Similar facilities in the area were consulted and seemed to have no objection to the proximity to freeways. Ruling out a senior facility for air pollution was a "tempest in a teapot." PETERSON /CLEVENGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:55 P.M. Passed 4 -0. Councilmember Peterson asked Mr. Sprau to address the concerns raised by Col. Barco. Mr. Sprau stated that in a Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Report, a letter dated October 10, 1988, addressed the effects of traffic, air quality and noise generated by a freeway interchange adjacent to the project. Conclusions of the Supplemental Report were summarized. In response to Mayor Anderson, Mr. Sprau stated that air quality impacts were predicted using computer models based on known generation rates; field samples were not taken. Councilmember Clevenger commented as follows: Reviewed the history of this project during the past five years After study, a commitment was made to developing a senior citizen complex on this site In the meantime, Route 85 and an interchange in Saratoga became a reality The question at hand was, is this still a suitable site for the complex originally planned MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 7,1988 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Clevenger continued as follows: Seniors still felt this was a proper site for location of a complex; however, controversy existed The best place might be the country but most seniors did not want to move away from the City Saw no reason to alter the decision already made; the need for senior housing still existed In addition, the majority of Saratogans had voted to have an interchange at Saratoga Ave. EIR said in effect, that there was no other use for the site which created less traffic; project was possibly the best use of the site insofar as not creating more traffic than 26 acres would generate Felt that the project under consideration would not have a deleterious effect Cited Bay Area Air Quality Management District letter and asked the City do everything possible in the way of mitigations for residents; consideration to be given to special ventilation systems Stated that she would vote to certify the Environmental Impact Report Councilmember Stutzman commented as follows: Recognized that his comments may not be well received However, after the practice of medicine specializing in the respiratory system and the elderly, he felt the proposed location was not suitable for the elderly The elderly and children were designated in the EIR as "receptive sensors" i.e., they were pre- dominantly affected by substances such as carbon monoxide; properties of such described The EIR did not adequately address the impact of the freeway on these elderly people Effect of carbon monoxide on the elderly was not well studied; carbon monoxide was a cum- ulative substance in the body; possible side effects were described While a senior citizen complex was needed in Saratoga, this was the worst possible site for such Would not accept the EIR if the Report did not address the issue raised Mitigations addressed some impacts; however, carbon monoxide could not be filtered out with- out a prohibitive financial cost Asked that a monitoring station be located in Saratoga Mayor Anderson questioned the EIR, 10., Jnternal Circulatiop; Mr. Sprau responded while not a site planner, the parking currently proposed was insufficient. The Mayor questioned (d) &Whig Spay statement that the proposed Route 85 freeway and the southern site boundaries had inadequate spacing. Mr. Sprau responded that this statement was included in the EIR prior to any negotiations on the right -of -way and purchase of property; the statement was no longer up to date. Mayor Anderson commented as follows: Was concerned that the traffic study conducted had not been based on a Route 85 interchange With respect to air quality, she preferred that figures presented be based on field measurements rather than on computer generated models Once the air quality baseline was established, including the Route 85 interchange in Saratoga, then recommendations on mitigations could be addressed and costs projected Was not prepared to certify the EIR until concerns raised could be addressed While unfavorable to commercial development on -site, she had concerns about senior housing Site proposed for senior housing provided amenities such as proximity to shopping, transpor- tation, medical facilities and community activities; there were no other sites like this one Wished to insure that individuals defined as sensitive receptors were protected and that.suitable requirements be placed on the building of this facility to properly filter the air PETERSON /CLEVENGER MOVED TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING AN ENVIR- ONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE LES MAISONS PROVENCAL AT 13150 SARATOGA AVENUE. Failed 2 -2, Mayor Anderson, Councilmember Stutzman dissenting. Mr. Sprau, LSA Associates, provided information on methodology of measuring air quality; they could not provide the data requested to assist the Council in their decision by going out and taking samples. He confirmed that a year or more was required to obtain field surveys. Councilmember Peterson felt it would be unfortunate to delay the project a year. Councilmember Stutzman reiterated that he felt that the issue had not been property studied. Mayor Anderson asked that LSA Associates provide more information on impacts of air pollution on the elderly and present ways to mitigate these impacts. Councilmember Clevenger concurred. The City Manager noted that the task of the consultants (LSA Associates) was to recommend addi- tional mitigation measures to be applied to construction of the facilities to insure that the interior air quality would be acceptable. Mr. Sprau added they could not provide the information requested by the December 21st Meeting. MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 5 DECEMBER 7,1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Dennis Reichardt, Managing General Partner, Les Maisons Provencal. noted the severe tune constraints in negotiating the site in question and asked for the earliest possible hearing date. As presented, Applicants were prepared to adopt every mitigation measure contained in the EIR; if further mitigation measures were added, Applicants would have to be prepared to accept such. Councilmember Stutzman stated that if carbon monoxide levels in the complex could be mitigated to levels found at a one mile distance from the freeway, he was prepared to certify the EIR. Mayor Anderson was prepared to vote on the EIR with the additional information requested; Councilmember Peterson added that this was one of the best EIR's he had ever seen. Riid Card questioned Councilmember Stutzman on figures presented on the affinity of oxygen versus carbon monoxide; the Councilmember requested references cited by the speaker. Application to be brought back at the December 21st Meeting due to the lack of certifying the EIR at this hearing. Report from LSA Associates to be presented January 4, 1988. Break: 9:35 9:50 P.M. B. Appeal of design review approval to construct a 988 sq. ft. second story addition in the R- 1- 40,000 zoning district at 19521 Douglass Lane. (Applicant, Leckrone; appellant, 5150 Homeowners Assn.) (DR 88 -079) Planning Director Emslie reviewed the Memorandum of December 7, 1988. The City Attorney noted that CC&R's were a private contract in which the City was not involved; the claim that the City violated the Architectural Control Committee of the CC&R was not an issue before the Council. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:55 P.M. Mr. Ken Rothmuller, President, 5150 Homeowners Association, commented as follows: Presented area slides and a model of the Leckrone house with proposed second story addition Reviewed the character of the homes in the area and the provisions of the CC&R's Residents concerned about this Application were not present at the Planning Commission Hear- ing since they were unfamiliar with the process; in addition, plans of the proposed addition was not available to the Homeowners Association until the Commission hearing Cited the character of homes in the area and reviewed the changes for the Leckrone's home Unlike many second story additions which were used for bedrooms and had limited usage during the day, the Leckrone second story addition would be used as a family /recreation area A balcony, visible from the adjacent street and to the immediate neighbor, was to be added Excessive bulk: the addition would create and an abrupt transition in the roof line Privacy impacts to the rear yard neighbor were cited Landscaping was required by the Planning Commission to address privacy and view impacts; however, this remedy only covered up the problem and further contributed to the view impact The majority of home owners voted that this design was inappropriate for the neighborhood CC&R's were not executed as required and the plan was contrary to Design Review Guidelines Mr. Edward Hinshaw, 19576 Kenosha Ct., Saratoga, respectfully disagreed with the City Attorney's comments. He reviewed the history of the CC&R's, noting that the City imposed the such upon the home owners. He submitted that the CC&R's were relevant to this issue. Ms. Leander Nandis, Real tor, stated that the view of the Santa Cruz Mountains from the Welch's home would be impaired; trees would not mitigate the Toss of the view. If the CC &R's did not protect the Welch's, then who would they protect? Buyers of one acre properties typically wished an unobstructed view and privacy; the addition as proposed obliterated the Welch's privacy. Ms. Glenda Rossi, Kenosha Ct., Saratoga, requested information on the plans approved by the Planning Commission; she now opposed the addition proposed. There were no other second story additions over garages or second story decks on existing homes. Mr. Leckrone, Applicant, commented as follows: Did not wish to address issues concerning the Architectural Control Committee of the CC&R's Cited examples of a 200 ft. distance similar to what existed between the Welch's and his home Portion of the addition visible over the existing vegetation toward the Welch's home, was a 'window of approximately 10 ft. high and 15 ft. long at a 200 ft. distance Andrew Beverett Betty Eskeldson Bud Card Calvin Hamick Charles Hecker Dick Oliver Dividend Development Don Richiuso Dora Grens E. T. Barco Edmund Karcher Faith Schmidt Frances Matise Gertrude Welch Peggy Corr GGG Gladys Armstrong Henry Drinker Herb Radding Jacqueline Welch Jeffrey A. Schwartz Keith Mildred Gordon Kenneth Meeker Margaret Russell Marguerite Fischer Marilyn White Marjorie Bunyard Mary Moss Marydee Urbano Mildred Simons Ralph Susan Masiello Ronald Cooke Sheila Swanson Shelley Williams 19597 Via Monte Saratoga CA 95070 12638 Radoyka Saratoga CA 95070 20116 Chateau Dr. Saratoga CA 95070 15440 Quito Rd. Saratoga CA 95070 1939 Crisp Ave. Saratoga CA 95070 3600 Pruneridge Ave.Santa Clara CA 9505 19303 Chablis Ct. Saratoga CA 95070 13451 Old Oak Way Saratoga CA 95070 19101 Camino Barco Saratoga CA 95070 14622 Granite Way Saratoga CA 95070 19964 Mallory Ct. Saratoga CA 95070 Odd Fellows HOme Saratoga CA 95070 1229 Naglee Avenue San Jose Ca P.O. Box 371 Saratoga CA 95070 20462 Chalet Lane Saratoga CA 95070 14711 Fruitvale Saratoga CA 95070 14050 Chester Ave. Saratoga CA 95070 20925 Jacks Rd. Saratoga CA 95070 19281 San Marcos Rd.Saratoga CA 95070 20299 Blauer Dr. Saratoga CA 95070 P.O. Box 669 Lewiston CA 12776 Saratoga Glen Saratoga CA 95070 14520 Fruitvale Saratoga CA 95070 20811 Canyon View. DSaratoga CA 95070 12625 Miller Saratoga CA 95070 110 Wood Road Los Gatos CA 95030 14520 Fruitvale Ave.Saratoga CA 95070 14755 Aloha Saratoga CA 95070 19271 San Marcos Rd.Saratoga CA 95070 19263 Brockton Lane Saratoga CA 95070 19305 Crisp Ave. Saratoga CA 95070 11951 Brookridge Dr.Saratoga CA 95070 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SECTION 15- 21.090 OF CHAPTER 15 OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CITY CODE PERTAINING TO HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES IN THE MU -PD (MULTIPLE -USE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT GA The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Section 15- 21.090 of Chapter 15 of the Saratoga City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "The maximum height of any structure in a multiple -use planned development shall be forty -five feet and no structure shall exceed three stories. The height of any new structure shall be approved by the Planning Commission upon a determination by the Planning Commission that the proposed height is consistent with existing structures and the natural environment in the surrounding neighborhood." SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption; provided, however, that Section 1 of this ordinance is inconsistent with current policy set forth in the land use element of the City of Saratoga General Plan and therefore, Section 1 shall not become operative unless and until an appropriate amendment to the General Plan rendering Section 1 consistent with the General Plan, is adopted by this Council and becomes effective. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga held on the day of 1991, by the following vote. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk December 11, 1991 mnrw \273 \ord \bldgheit.msr MAYOR Memo: To: Stan Eisner. Acting Planning Director, City of Saratooa From: Dick Oliver. Dividend Development Corporation Re: Paul Masson Elderly Pro.iect!MUPD Zoning Date: December 5, 1991 I appreciate the work that the Plannino Staff has put into this project. The process has been lengthy, and there has been a number of different members of the City Staff. and Planning Commission members, who have worked on the project. This has made continuity somewhat more complex, but is something we all learn to live with. I would just like Your files and the record to clearly show that: 1. Dividend has requested a change in the height limit to three stories. I understand that this will require both a modification to the General Plan and to the MUPD Ordinance. 2. Dividend has requested a increase in the density. I understand that this will require a modification to the MUPD Ordinance. Please refer to the minutes of the June 5, 1991 City Council Meeting, and note that in reference to MY comments, the typist used the phrase "increased zonino" when in fact MY comment at that meeting was "increased density Thank you. 3. Please refer to MY letter to Steve Emslee. dated June 10, 1991, wherein 1 attempted to set out in some detail the modifications being requested by Dividend, which included both the height and density increases, among other items. These requests are all still important to us. 4. I do understand that if the Council determines not to permit an increase to three stories. that some of the other requests I have made may be moot, but I would like the opportunity to review the entire matter after the Council makes its decision on the height issue. 5. Regardless, I do want to be sure that all notices are properly and timely made, that all necessary findings are made, and most importantly that the public does have the opportunity be heard on all the issues. RECEIVED DEC °61991 PLANNING DEPT. June 10, 1991 Steve Emslie Planning Director City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 1 DI V• I D E' N: D RE: Paul Masson Dear Steve: Based on the decision reached by the City Council on June 5, 1991, we request the following: 1. Please withdraw our application for an amendment to the senior site to permit 68 individual lots. It is our understanding that by rejecting the Odd Fellows site and re- confirming the desire to have the Paul Masson site developed with a higher density senior facility, our request of March 5, 1991, is not appropriate. Inasmuch as no formal hearings were heard on this matter and no staff reports prepared, we request a refund of the $345 application fee. 2. We renew our request for a two -year extension to all our existing approvals, as outlined in my letter of April 26, 1991, and again on June 3, 1991. The present difficulty in obtaining financing, the as yet unrecovered market, and the length of time to obtain future approvals of a revised senior facility all point to the necessity of this extension. 3. We request that the time period commencement of the senior facility, as set forth in the last paragraph of Section E of Resolution DR -89 -041 (on page 4, thereof) be extended by changing "If construction of Phase 2 is not commenced within 5 years from the date of issuance of the Planned Development permit..." to read: "If construction of Phase 2 is not commenced within 5 years from June 5, 1991... The reason for this request is that we were asked by the City to hold off on pursuing the senior site in September of 1989 while the Odd Fellows site was considered and the final decision was not made on the Odd Fellows site until June 5, 1991. If this should be addressed later, please advise. 4. We request that the staff proceed to process a change in the existing MU -PD Ordinance, as suggested by the City Council on June 5, 1991, in the following respects: a. Section 15- 211.040 under Senior Citizen housing; increase the density to 30 units per acre and clarify that "exclusive of any area occupied by medical area includes skilled nursing or assisted living facilities which would not count in the density calculation." I interpret that to mean that, as to the Paul Masson site, the entire 11 acres is used to determine a maximum density of 330 dwelling units, Dividend Development Corporation, Corporate Office, 3600 Pruneridge Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95051, (408) 246 -5001, Fax: (408) 296-8450 Mr. Steve Ernslie June 10, 1991 Page 2 and that the number of skilled nursing rooms and assisted living rooms are not included or counted as units and are therefore in addition to the 330 dwelling units that would be permitted under this increased density. RBO /jw /28 113 r,^ D V•I D. E. N D b. Section 15- 212.090, under Height of Structures, be amended to provide that height of structures may be increased to 42 feet and three stories for any use designed for senior citizens, including dwelling units, skilled nursing and assisted living, and common area uses related thereto. c. Section 15- 21.110 under Off street parking and loading facilities. Add a sentence which provides essentially as follows: "The Planning Commission may authorize a lesser number of parking and loading facilities in any use relating to senior citizens upon a showing, to the satisfaction of the Planning commission, that a lesser number of parking spaces is sufficient. d. Section 15- 21.050. Add a provision that would permit the Planning Commission to allow a greater coverage for senior and related facilities. e. Section 15- 21.060. Add a provision that would permit the Planning Commission to allow a reduction in set backs against public streets for senior and related facilities. Note: On the existing approved plan, the set back along the freeway and Saratoga Avenue was approved at substantially less than 50 feet at a few locations. Steve, it may be better to affect some of the changes I suggest by merely clarifying the language of Section 15- 21.090 (Modification of standards) to specifically state that modifications are most appropriate with a proposed senior and related uses. I welcome your input and comments. It is important to schedule the extension inasmuch as August is fast approaching and summer vacations can cause unexpected delays. Very truly yours, DIVIDEND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION D4A Richard B. Oliver Senior Vice President '3 10 '4l CuiI 04044)xifs vp6Uvu V' at Me. a aslhn as /'o 1W SID"- hwr Ctui c b 6111 o wed 614 i5Yerl e-K Paul wL .s' cn-, S r'a- 5 nao re_9(:da r 9(: of ode 9Q resMh OIis vv) 5u-Ch 674 Cam s Yhaf a,Uvu -Sar a' yo u tfs airtd- s r vat) eke vaLufia v© 1� cr `rr' �fit /sly 4. (a- hee atilk. 6116 a ,(2a-7). 11'wiekl 2-o34 u l3rtxU�c� P�i�r rvutt.iftta_lt, vir& f4 v otz itiNvmamacr 4.0 -ii/Le, C Q apterapil (406370 -OG w 1 19a o ,0- DEC, 5 1991 December 17, 1991 Mayor Willem Kohler City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 SASCC P.O. BOX 3033 SARATOGA, CA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 EXT. 257 Dear Mayor Kohler and Members of the City Council: DEC 18 1991 The Board of Directors of the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council has voted unanimously at its December meeting to send this letter regarding a Senior Continuing Care Retirement Facility on the Paul Masson site. The Board of Directors of SASCC strongly preferred and still prefers the Odd Fellows site. We are greatly encouraged by the overwhelming public support of the community for such a facility as demonstrated in the written evidence of twenty physicians, three churches, twenty former Saratoga Citizens of the Year, the A.A.U.W. League of Women Voters and other local organizations and individuals. In as much as the Odd Fellows site is not available, we endorse the development of a full continuing care facility at the Paul Masson site, and express our position as follows: 1. We are concerned that the proposed number of skilled nursing beds planned for the continuing care retirement facility makes it appear more like a nursing facility. 2. We support a two story structure provided it is economically feasible for the. developer. 3. We will support a three story structure in order to achieve the goal of a Senior Retirement Continuing Care Facility in Saratoga. 4. Our support is qualified by needed assurance of a reliable experienced operator with a proven track record. We still reiterate concerns expressed in a letter of November 20 to the City Council from President Elizabeth Replogle and Andrew Beverett, Housing Chair, including concerns related to long term exposure to air quality and noise at this site. We still do not know enough about the project's amenities and costs to potential residents. Sincerely, El' abet Replog President RES -NO Saratoga NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT Dividend Development Co. 3600 Pruneridge Ave. #340 Santa Clara, CA 95051 DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 Senior Housing, 13150 Saratoga Avenue (former Paul Masson site) The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation, has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow a height limit of 45 ft. 3 stories in the MU -PD zone district instead of 30 ft. 2 stories current standard. REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION The change to the height limit within the MU -PD zone will allow approval of structure height of a maximum of 45' and 3 stories subject to the findings that the structures are compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods and the natural environment and results in no adverse environmental impacts. Executed at Saratoga, California this 11th day of December, 1991. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING 6f� File No. AZO -91 -001 DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER 4scrAJ-e Plom4w DECEMBER 18, 1991 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA GREETINGS THERE APPEARS TO BE A CONCENTRATED INVESTIGATION CONCERNING THE AIR QUALITY OF ONE OF THE LOCATIONS CONSIDERED FOR A SENIOR FACILITY WHILE OTHER LOCATIONS ARE COMPLEATLY IGNORED. THERE SHOULD ALSO BE CONCERN FOR THE PRESENT AND FUTURE AIR QUALITY CONDITIONS AT THE ODDFELLOWS HOME? CONCERNING THE FUTURE WITH THE EVENTS THAT OCCURRED THIS LAST FALL, COUPLED WITH SARATOGA'S OWN ORDINANCE- DEFINITION OF A "STADIUM LOGIC SEEMS TO SAY THAT THERE APPEARS TO BE A STADIUM IN THE HEART OF SARATOGA JUST TO THE NORTH OF THE ODDFELLOWS. SO BE IT! THE ORIGINAL PLANS CALL FOR A SEATING CAPACITY BETWEEN 5,000 AND 6,000. AFTER A POPULAR BENEFIT PERFORMANCE, THERE MAY EASILY BE OVER 3000 VEHICLES ALL TRYING TO LEAVE AT THE SAME TIME. YOU END UP WITH A MONSTROUS GRID -LOCK UJITH ALL THESE ENGINES POURING OUT POISONOUS GASSES. IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT THESE ENGINES ARE, FOR THE MOST PART, IDLING. IF THIS HAPPENS DURING THE LATE SPRING, SUMMER OR EARLY FALL THERE IS A CONSTANT NORTH TO SOUTH WIND CARRYING THESE POISONS SOUTH OF THE CAMPUS WHICH INCLUDES THE ODDFELLOWS FACILITY. I THINK YOU SHOULD NOT IGNORE THIS CONDITION. AND CONCERNING THE PRESENT....AT THAT LARGE AND SUCCESSFUL DANGEROUS MATERIAL PICK -UP, THE CARS ENTERED ACROSS FROM DOUGLASS LANE, THE ROAD TURNS NORTH AT THE STADIUM AND GOES THE LENGTH OF THE CAMPUS. THERE WAS SUCH A TURNOUT THAT THIS ROAD WAS FILLED IMMEDIATELY AND BACKED UP ONTO FRUITVALE. TO ALLEVIATE THIS TRAFFIC HAZARD, BOTH LANES WERE USED ON THE PERIMETER ROAD, THEREBY DOUBLING THE NUMBER OF POISON MAKING ENGINES. AND WITH THE WIND BLOWING FROM NORTH TO SOUTH, THESE GASES WERE CARRIED DIRECTLY TOWARDS THE ODDFELLOWS. THE TURNOUT WAS SO LARGE THAT THIS CONDITION EXISTED MOST OF THE DAY. AND NO ONE EVER TOLD THE ODDFELLOWS ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON. I THINK THAT YOU SHOULD AT LEAST ADDRESS THESE SITUATIONS. YOURS TRULY BERT MARTEL SARATOGA (0 December 16, 1991 Dear Councilman Monia; As a resident o Saratoga and neighbor to the Paul Masson property, I would ask you to reconsider the informal approval that was given to Dividend Corp. to build a three story senior center. There are many reasons why our family would be against changing the zoning requirements. first is the visual detriment it would lend to the area. Just four tenths of a mile down Saratoga Avenue is the city sign and four tenths of a mile from the Masson property begins "Heritage Lane" of Saratoga. To put a three story structure on the main entrance to the city is incongruous to what the city normally stands for, or the reason for its current zoning laws. It makes no sense not to have the same laws and regulations apply uniformly to the major sections of the city. Secondly, there seems to be mixed messages of conformity with regards to height limitations and aesthetic visual impact. The City Council recently reject the request for the cellular tower in the village area because "of the visual impact and "unresolved health issues These towers were only 40ft. The request for the zone change at the Masson site is 45 ft. Why is there a difference now except for the usual politics. The issues are the same, why not the principals of decision making. I agree that Saratoga needs Senior Housing and I understand the political ramifications of this decision. I am also sensitive to the time that this project has been given and the time constraints now placed on Mr. Olive, council members, and the City. I hope that consistent, fair and good sense prevail at the December 18th meeting. Please don't sell out the City of Saratoga and all the areas that it encompasses. Sincerely, Mike Spe an 13214 Montrose St. Saratoga, CA. 95070 December 17, 1991 Mayor Willem Kohler City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Gentlepersons: LEN u~u~o� v u��.��o n�~ v n�o Architect/Planner/Economist As a citizen of Saratoga since 194B and being involved in the practice of architecture and planning, I feel compelled to speak out once again regarding our city's respu/`sibility to its senior residents. You will not from my previous correspondence that I have fo&lOwed 'the city's involvement, first regarding the Paul Masson site� the Odd Fellows site, and now again the Paul Masson site. I was distressed that the Planning Commission voted against the latter after hearing experts in the field report that the location would not be detrimental to the aging population. There is no question that Mr. Oliver of DividencrDevelopmenthas been most gracious in his cooperation with the city at SOME considerable financial hardship. Good architeccure and landescape planningeould overcome most of tne objections of the neighbors.. Usom of berms'would provide lower grade lines. Massive planting would visual'and acoustical barriers from the highway. Health care lities would Pe part of a mini community. There is no reasOn why�Baratoga cannot have an attractive addition that would be aestnetical%y pleasing, even with three stories" -Don't let this opportunity pass. Sincerely yo4rIm 20184 FRANKLIN AVE, SARATOGA, CA 95070 (408) 867-3930