HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-06-1994 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA,Q �S 246
0
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Saratoga City Council
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
FROM: Paul L. Curtis, Community Development Director
DATE: April 6, 1994
Karen Anderson
Ann Marie Burger
Willem Kohler
Victor Monia
Karen Tucker
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Concept Plan
PD -94 -001, Greenbriar Development Company
(Former Paul Masson Winery Site, 13150 Saratoga Ave.)
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council take one of the following
actions:
1. Deny the appeal thereby confirming the Planning
Commission decision finding that the Concept Plan does
not totally meet the objectives of the Specific Plan,
specifically that the common open space requirement is
not met and that the house sizes are too large in
proportion to the lot sizes; or
2. Approve the appeal thereby overturning the Planning
Commission decision by finding that the Concept Plan is
consistent with the Specific Plan and the overall land
use objectives for the area; or
3. Continue the public hearing and refer the item back to
the Planning Commission for comment on new information or
changes made to the plan after the March 8 Planning
Commission decision (the Planning Commission would then
forward those comments back to the City Council for final
action).
Project Description:
The proposed project consists of the development of the 24 acre
site with 95 single - family, detached residences on a 28 ft. wide
loop road system. The lots average approximately 7,700 sq.ft. and
will be developed with two -story homes containing approximately
Printed on recycled paper.
Page Two
PD- 94- 001; Greenbriar Dev. Co.
April 6, 1994
3,653 sq.ft. (which includes the three -car garages). The typical
lot will provide a house front yard setback of 26 -76 ft. from the
curb and a 5 ft. side yard (10 ft. total between houses) . As part
of the design requirements of the Specific Plan, common open space
is proposed in the form of a landscaped linear pathway (i.e.
meandering sidewalk) on one side of the loop road and a common open
space adjacent to the Route 85 sound wall. The total proposed
common space is 4.32 acres (which includes some Cal Trans property
inside the sound wall adjacent to Route 85) where the Specific Plan
and MU -PD zoning require 4.78 acres.
The MU -PD Zoning District requires .a two -step approval for
development. The first step is consideration of the Concept Plan
which is. only an indication to the applicant that the City is
initially receptive to the proposed development.without extensive
time and expense necessary to prepare detailed plans. .The second
step is approval of the Final Plan which provides all the
information in the Concept Plan in its finalized and detailed form.
This application is for the Concept Plan.
Background:
On August 4, 1993, the City Council approved a Specific Plan for
the subject property (Resolution No. 93 -046 adopted October 6,
1993). The purpose of the Specific Plan was to identify major
concerns that would need to be addressed in an application and to
provide an opportunity for the City to state what land uses would
be most appropriate on the site and adjacent to surrounding areas.
Neighborhood meetings and public hearings before both the Planning
Commission and City.-Council-resulted in a- Specific Plan (and the
retention of the MU -PD zoning) emphasizing the desire for a mixed
use development while providing for a single land use (e.g. all
single- family residences) if the single use plan was exceptional.
On March 8, 1994, the Planning Commission denied an application for
a single use project (95 single- family residences on detached
lots). By a 6 -1• vote, the Commission denied the requested
conceptual approval of the development plan following public
hearings held on February 1 and March 8.
Planning Commission Discussion:
The majority position of the Commission felt that the Concept Plan
was unacceptable for several reasons. The overall concern of the
Commission majority was that if a single use plan was to be
considered, it must be exceptional. The MU -PD zoning allows a
single land use provided the project meets the community needs,
Page Three
PD -94 -001; Greenbriar Dev. Co.
April 6, 1994
that it is compatible with the character of Saratoga and that it is
an asset'to the City. Specifically, Section 15-21.010(b)&(c)-of
the MU -PD Zoning Ordinance addresses the need for flexibility of.
land uses and design and a variety in development patterns of the
City (e.g. mix of house sizes, one and two -story residences, etc.) .
While the Commission felt that there were several good features in
the proposal, large two -story homes with three -car garages (3,600
sq.ft. avg.) on -small lots (7,700 sq.ft. avg.) with 5 ft. side
yards did not constitute an exceptional plan. The Commission
majority felt that without the exceptional plan for the single use
project, the applicant should not be able to take advantage of the
flexible (i.e. mixed use expectation) development standards.
Therefore, without the exceptional plan, the large homes should be
on 10,000 sq.ft. lots.- Even then, these homes would be in excess
of allowable floor area standards adopted for the City's single -
family residential zoning districts.
By comparison, a- standard 10,000 sq.ft. lot in an R -1 District
would allow a maximum of 3,200 sq.ft. of floor area. An 8,000
sq.ft. lot would allow a maximum of 2,880 sq.ft. of floor area.
The, Commission majority accepted the single use concept and
encouraged the applicant to consider a mix of one and two -story
residences with wider side yards and smaller floor areas to
alleviate the "over- built" and large building mass of all two -story
homes. The linear pathway and common open space as required by the
Specific Plan was not enough to offset the total two -story
development on small lots. In short, the Commission majority found
an inconsistency between the project and the character of Saratoga.
In addition, the entire Commission (including the single minority
vote) stated that the McFarland Ave. pedestrian access and
perimeter road buffer and 4.78 acres of common open space should be
provided as required by the Specific Plan. The applicant had not
included the McFarland Ave. improvements and had proposed
approximately 4.32 acres of common open space.
The applicant stated that they would prefer not to increase the lot
area or reduce the unit count or floor area and, therefore, did not
wish to have the hearing continued to consider plan changes. The
applicant requested that a decision be made on the submitted plan.
The Planning Commission then denied the submitted Concept Plan.
(note: Attached are the approved minutes of the February 1 public
hearing. Also attached are the draft- minutes of the March 8 public
hearing. The Planning Commission will review the March 8 minutes
at their meeting of April 5 and any corrections will be presented
to the City Council at the April 6 public hearing.)
Page Four
PD -94 -001; Greenbriar Dev. Co.
April 6, 1994
Public Comment:
Approximately 100 people attended the March 8 public hearing with
approximately 15 people providing public testimony. While there
were specific concerns expressed regarding the large homes, small
lots or narrow streets, the general feeling of the speakers was
that this was the best plan that had been presented to them. The
speakers emphasized that they did not want non - residential uses on
the site and that the total single - family residential project was
acceptable. They indicated that for the most part, the applicant
had listened to their concerns as expressed during the preparation
of the Specific Plan and had submitted their plan accordingly.
Environmental Determination:
This application is for a Concept Plan which is the first step in
project approval for the MU -PD Zoning District. The environmental
determination will be made at the second step, which is the Final
Plan review. Therefore, no environmental documentation is required
at this time.
Public Notice:
Public notices were mailed to approximately 900 property owners and
residents in the surrounding neighborhood and a notice was placed
in the Saratoga News.
Attachments:
1. Correspondence
2. Paul Masson Specific Plan
3. MU -PD Zoning Ordinance
4. Approved February 1 Planning Commission Minutes
5. Draft March 8 Planning Commission Minutes
6. March 8 Staff Report
�f eel. Y P / T
U
NEW CITIES INVESTMENT COMPANY
9781 BLUE LARKSPUR LANE
MONTEREY, CA 93940
(408) 655 -5000
(408) 655 -2530
March 24, 1994
Members of the City Council .
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
RE: Paul Masson Winery Site
Dear Council Member:
MAR, 2. 9 199E
cl•1 .: 4j Y'• 6A.RlY.T( . .
CITY rx T (uER'S G__1.I FCL
BA Properties, Inc. ' (BA) acquired the .Paul Masson Winery Site in April of 1993. At
that time BA approached the city concerning possible land uses for the site. BA; as the
property owner, was asked to delay lhe submission � of any land use plans while the
Community Development Department Staff, .the' Planning Commission and ultimately the
City` Council' prepared a Specific Plan for the site with the stated' purpose of providing
I uidance to the owner and future developers based onciiy*and neighborhood input.'
After soliciting questionnaires from the community, three workshops and three public
hearings, the Paul Masson Specific Plan was recommended by the Planning Commission
and adopted by City Council on October 6, 1993.
Based on the Specific Plan and the MU -PD zoning implementation of that plan it was
predetermined that this site would not•be a typical R -1- 10,000 square foot zoning. • The
plan provided for various types of residential product and land uses. The residential
alternatives vary from 100% low density at 4 units per acre to a 100% medium density at
up to 7 . units per acre. It was even discussed at the City Council hearing that . density
exceeding 7 units per acre may be appropriate in conjunction with a mixed use
alternative (i.e., density similar to the Vineyards at 11 units per acre).
After the Specific Plan was adopted, BA interviewed many potential developers which
proposed alternative land- plans including medium density-and commercial alternatives.
We chose to go under contract with Greenbriar because' they chose to pursue a plan
closer to the "low density" -alternative. � It was our opinion that a low density alternative,
although not unanimous, was the preferred land use of the neighbors and,communityand
would enable the`-'development 'to -move forward 'in a timely manner: Greenbriar's
original proposal to BA was based on, 106. -lots surrounding an approximately 2 acre
"park The plan presented to the Planning Commission, based on several months of,
City Council Members
March 24, 1994
Page Two
of working with neighbors, staff and the commission is a planned development of 95
detached units configured around a linear park providing 4.32 acres of open space. The
proposal offers to dedicate the park to the city for the use of all residents (rather than
private open space just for the use of the residents), maintain the park via a lighting and
maintenance district, and pay full park mitigation fees.
This plan presents a unique and distinctive concept which addresses the challenge of this
site as we transition from the more intense land uses of the office park and the Vineyards
(11 units per acre) to the residential community to the east.
Based on the input during the specific plan process and in subsequent neighborhood
meetings, we were extremely sensitive to a plan that would minimize traffic impacts on
McFarland Avenue and the Afton neighborhood. We have accomplished our goal and
have provided an outstanding project that has received unprecedented support from the
Afton Neighborhood, the Vineyards Homeowners Group, the Saratoga Woods owners
and the Planning Staff.
I have read the article in the local newspaper that suggests that we were unwilling to
work with the City. On the contrary, as BA Properties' representative, I feel we have
worked diligently with the City Council, Planning Commission, Community
Development Staff and the neighborhood groups. We listened to the objectives and
concerns of all the parties and have presented a plan that we feel is a credit to this site
and the city.
Please fell free to call me if you require any additional information or have any
questions. I look forward to continuing to work with each of you on the successful
development of the Paul Masson site.
Sincerely,
Thomas S. deRegt
Agent for BA Properties, Inc.
cc: Community Development Director
Planning Commissioners
rlb:Pau1 Masson \154031.doc
F
r
ot aul Masson
SPECIFIC PLAN
tr; oaf
CITY COUNCIL
Karen Tucker, Mayor
Ann Marie Burger, Vice -Mayor
Karen Anderson
Willem Kohler
Victor Monia
PLANNING COMMISSION
Gillian Moran, Chairperson
Sami Asfour, Vice - Chairperson
Meg Caldwell
Paul'
Jacobs
Henry Murakami
Donald Wolfe
CITY STAFF
Harry Peacock, City Manager
Paul Curtis, Community Development Director
James Walgren, Associate Planner /Project Manager
Lynette Dias, Assistant Planner
Paul Kermoyan, Assistant Planner
Claire Waite, Clerk Typist
Recommended for adoption by the Planning Commission - June 23, 1993.
Approved by the City Council - August 4, 1993.
Adopted by City Council Resolution - October 6, 1993.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures
P. 1
Executive Summary p. 4
Historic,il Overview p. 5
Site Analysis p. 7
Questionnaire Results Summary p. 14
Goal .Statements p. 15
Implementation .Measures p. 16
Environmental Analysis
p. 21
Land Use Plans p. 22
* Appendix:
I. City Council Resolution adopting Specific Plan
II. MU -PD Zoning Ordinance
III. Tabulated Questionnaire Responses
IV. Chateau Masson EIR Mitigation Measures
Prepared by LSA, January 1989
V. Site Development Study Analysis of Alternatives
Prepared by ESA, September 1985
* Appendix is located at City Hall and the Saratoga Community Library
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Regional Location Map p. 2
Figure 2 - Vicinity Map
Figure 3 - Ei;isting Conditions:
Figure 4 - Opportunities
p. 3
MW
P. 10
Figure 5 - Constraints p. 12
Figure 6 - Land Use Plan A p. 23
Figure 7 - Land Use Plan B p. 24
Figure 8 - Land Use Plan C
p. 25
Figure 9 - Land Use Plan D p. 26
Figure 10 - Land Use Plan E p. 27
1
of SA
°Paul Masson
SPECIFIC PLAN Regional . .
LIF08�
.f."vj:
0
0
.04
c L�
,I L
Figure 2 - Vicinity MapL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Saratoga City Council directed Community Development Department staff to develop
a Specific Plan for the 24 acre former Paul Masson Winery site located on Saratoga
Avenue next to Route 85. The approved project for this site consists of 75 townhomes
on the northerly 12.8 acres and a senior housing and personal care facility on the
southerly 11 acres. Because it is doubtful the current project will proceed due to market
feasibility constraints, the City wants to ensure that proper development guidelines are
established for any future development plans for the site. The Specific Flan is also
intended to provide up -front guidance for potential developers. as to What the community
feels is an appropriate use for the currently vacant site.
In order to create a Plan which is representative of the community's expectations, staff
has circulated a Questionnaire to over 900 of the closest residents (based on an
approximately 1,000 foot radius from the site) and interested community groups and
homeowner associations.' Two community informational meetings were also held during
the .preparation of the draft Specific Plan to discuss the purpose of the Plan and the
process by which it is created and adopted. A draft copy of this document and the
alternative Land Use Plans were presented at the second of those two meetings in order
to gain early neighborhood input. The.Goal Statements, Implementation Measures and
Land Use Plans contained in this document were developed by incorporating the following
information:
Conducting and preparing a site analysis identifying existing site conditions and
development opportunities and constraints inherent to the property.
Tabulating the Questionnaire results and identifying key concerns the adjoining
neighbors, and others, expressed regarding development of the site.
Goal Statements to guide future development. From these Goal Statements,
Implementation Measures were created which provide controls for issues such as
development density, vehicular circulation, aesthetic and scenic qualities and
pathway and open space treatments.
The Implementation Measures contained herein are distinguished by either "should" or
"shall" prefaces, indicating whether they are required or suggested measures. The
Specific Plan itself would need to be amended to deviate from a "required" measure.
As discussed in the closing section of this document, Land Use Plans A through E
represent examples of possible land uses based on staff's analysis, community input and
Planning Commission direction. These Land Use Plans are intended to both graphically
illustrate the Goal Statements and Implementation Measures and to indicate appropriate
land use configurations. Variations to these Plans may be permitted, within the limits of
the Multiple Use - Planned Development (MU -PD) Zoning Ordinance and consistent with
the Goal Statements and Implementation Measures, if the City finds that other land
configurations achieve a more desirable project. .
4
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
Early Saratoga
In order to understand the historical and cultural context within which the project site is
being reviewed, a brief history of Saratoga is included. The Santa Cruz Mountains foothill
town of Saratoga grew out of the lumber industry in the 1840's. A number of sawmills
were established along what is now known as the Saratoga Creek. Earlier names for the
town and its natural features were reflective of the various settlers and enterprises which
established here; such as McCartysville, Tollgate, Campbell Creek and Bank Mills. In
1865, the area became known as Saratoga as a result of the nearby springs reminding
settlers of the mineral springs in Saratoga, New York.
As Saratoga was developing as a resort community, it also began to evolve from a
lumbering and milling based economy to an agricultural producer. As fruit ranching
expanded, development continued to concentrate within what is now known as the
Saratoga Village. Some of the City's earliest homes and public buildings can still be seen
in the Village vicinity.
During the early 1900's, visitors also began building vacation retreats in Saratoga. One
of the most notable of these estates is Villa Montalvo, an Italian style country home built
by Senator James Phelan in 1918. Senator Phelan is reported to have used the villa to
entertain political and business friends, as well as many of the best known writers and
artists of his day.' Following his death, the villa became an art center.
Although fruit ranching continued as Saratoga's primary economy, the early 1950's saw
the expansion of Saratoga as a bedroom community to the larger San Jose area. As
more and more fruit orchards were being replaced with tracts of single - family homes,
concerns over the also rapidly expanding San Jose led to'the City's incorporation in 1956.
Paul Masson Winery
The development` of the Paul Masson Champagne Cellars on Saratoga Avenue was
begun in 1957 and completed in 1959. This facility served as a modern bottling,
packaging and shipping plant for the company, producing thousands of gallons of wine
and champagne, and involving numerous truck and several railroad shipments per day.
The southern half of the winery site included 330,000 square feet of warehouse space,
a tasting room and approximately 250 parking spaces for visitors and employees.
The tasting room overlooked a fountain pool, a garden and a spiral ramp which provided
access into the cellars. A well -known California painter and muralist, Don Jose Moya del
Pino, painted a mosaic which adorned the spiral ramp leading into the facility. The
northern half of the site was a prune orchard.
During its 26 -year tenure in Saratoga, the winery became famous for its tours, which were
conducted daily through the facility and served as a popular tourist attraction. When the
winery was in full operation, it provided employment for approximately 300 people. It is
5
estimated that visitors to the cellars and tasting room averaged 100 on weekdays and 250
on weekends. Most of those participating in the public tours were said to have arrived
by bus to the site.
In 1985, the Paul Masson Corporation purchased a much larger winery in Gonzales,
California and the Champagne Cellars ceased operations and closed its doors. Soon
thereafter, City officials,initiated discussions regarding appropriate future uses for the site.
These discussions led to the creation of a zoning classification for the property called
Multiple Use-,Planned Development (MU -PD). This zoning district allows a range of land
uses including single and multiple - family residential, retail and office, schools, athletic
.facilities and senior housing.
In 1988, the Saratoga City Council approved a conceptual site development plan showing
townhome style, multiple - family development consisting of 75 units on the northern half
of the site, and a senior living facility on the southern half. The senior facility plan
included independent living housing units, assisted living units, skilled nursing beds and
communal facilities (dining and recreation). In August of 1989, this proposal received final
City approval. The winery buildings, the site facilities and the prune orchard have all since
been removed. The entire site currently sits vacant with the exception of demolished
building . materials which are in the process of being ground -down as recyclable
aggregate. The tile mosaic has been photographically recorded in a City Heritage
Inventory file. Portions of the mosaic have also been preserved and could be
incorporated into a future development in some manner.
* * * * * * * * **
Sources:
'This Uncommon Heritage; the Paul Masson story'
Author: Robert Lawrence Balzer, 1970
"Like Modern Edens"
Author: Charles L. Sullivan, 1982
"Saratoga's Heritage"
Author: Elizabeth Ansnes, Saratoga Heritage
Preservation Commission, 1993
SITE ANALYSIS
The following Site Analysis focuses on three specific areas: existing site conditions and
development opportunities and constraints. For purposes of this analysis, the
improvements associated with Route 85 construction are included on all of the base maps
and have been considered as existing conditions. These improvements are scheduled
for completion by 1994.
Existing Conditions - Figure 3
The Paul Masson site is located on Saratoga Avenue adjacent to Route 85 and consists
of approximately 24 acres. The site is bounded by Saratoga Avenue on the west,
McFarland Avenue on the north, single- family residential homes on the east, and Route
85 and the Southern Pacific Railroad on the south.
The site is comprised of three separate parcels as listed below:
APN
Use
Acres
Owner
389 -11 -012
Vacant - Former Paul Masson Site
11.07
BA Props. Inc.
389 -11 -013
Vacant - Former Paul Masson Site
3.81
BA Props. Inc.
389 -11 -014
Vacant
9.00
BA Props. Inc.
The following properties are within the Specific Plan envelope, but are currently developed
and privately owned. These parcels were therefore considered in the Specific Plan, but
are not governed by its development regulations.
389 -11 -006 Single- Family Residence
389 -11 -007 Vacant
.42 Passantino
.14 S.J. Water
The southern.two parcels (012 and 013) were occupied by the Paul Masson Champagne
Cellars facilities. The northern portion of the site, parcel 014, was formerly an orchard but
is now vacant. A single - family residence occupies the small parcel located in the center
of the site adjacent to Saratoga Avenue.
The site is essentially flat, other than the building pad of the former winery, which is
approximately five feet higher than the rest of the site. There is little vegetation on -site
other than a few trees located at the west corner of the site and the pine trees adjacent
to the existing single - family residence on Saratoga Avenue and those located along the
east property line.
7
Illpl'
''�Illpl'� .II�IIIIIIIII�
�'� .dII�IIUI• •I►I���u'' �'�
Illllu� '• �f
LEGEND
Intersection
c�
Existing Vegetation . Overhead
Existing Residential Fence
FKAVehicular
Access
Pedestrian Pathway
a
APN:389 -11 -014
9'00 Aces
a
V
O APN: 389-11 -013
\81 Acres
APN: 389 -11 -012
\1.07 Acres
!RS \
S. P.
Improvements Associated
with Route 85 are shown as
Existing Conditions.
1� s. 1
'�,.� SPECIFIC PLAN ri;;u, i.:, - I:xititi „}; Conditions
3
_ c
I
ON
C
+11111'•
. %7
0 100 200 400
The existing land uses surrounding the site are listed bellow, as well as each area's
General Plan and Zoning designation:
General Plan
North PDM- Planned
Development
East Residential
South
West
Zonin
Professional &
Admin. Offices
R -1- 10;000
Route 85 and the Southern Pacific Railroad
Existing Land Use
Saratoga Office Center
Single - Family Homes
Multi - Family R -M- 3,000/
Residential R -M -4,000 Townhomes -
Presently, the site can be accessed by local traffic from Saratoga Avenue and McFarland
Avenue. Once the construction of Route 85 is complete, the site will also be directly
accessible to regional traffic.
The Route 85 improvements that have been shown as existing conditions include:
• The sound wall which varies in height from ten to twelve feet.
• New landscaped medians that extend from McFarland Avenue to Route 85.
• New sidewalks along Saratoga Avenue from Route 85 to the intersection of the
Vineyards.
• A traffic signal at the entrance to the Vineyards.
• Two traffic signals on Saratoga Avenue at the Route 85 on and off ramps.
Opportunities - Figure 4
Figure 4 illustrates the development opportunities that were identified as part of the site
analysis process. Some of the same conditions identified as development opportunities
have also been identified as development constraints. Often times the same condition
may be viewed as both positive and negative. For example, the existing intersection at
the entrance to the Vineyards townhomes can be an opportunity in that it will provide
controlled site ingress and egress; however, this may also be viewed as a constraint in
that the primary vehicular access to the site is predetermined. Each of the opportunities
identified are summarized graphically and in text on the following pages.
�7
(D Regional Access - SITE
THE viuAGE PROVIDES MANY
Proximity to Saratoga Village - VtWOA SEW4M AMENrnEs
@) Central Location Within the City
Improved Intersection _ TRA"r- SXVALTO BE 0WAMED AS
PART Or ROUTE 95 20PROVEWW5
SO Bounded by Established Land Uses
Landscape Buffer and Pedestrian Path
O Few Existing Constraints - LEVEL SITE UffTUE EX!%TMG WEDUAr".
HD EXISTW STRUCTURES. ETC.
Existing Townhomes
''"! ...... ....
0
1011 qb, 'VA
O
Existing Office Complex
Vacant Lot
11 N
l
,�O(
4c"67
LEGEND
Intersection
Views From the Site Overhead Power Lines
Views to and Through the Site
Vehicular Access
ELIPedestrian Pathway and Landscape Buffer
(D
S. P. Railroad
Improvements Associated
sZ
with Route 85 are Shown
as Existing Conditions.
Paul, Mas sonl:
SPECIFIC PLAN
10
isting
Single -Family
Residential
171
0 100 200 40D
Regional Access to the Site: Route 85 will provide a direct connection to the site from
many nearby cities.
Proximity of the Site to Saratoga Village: The village provides many visitor and business
serving amenities, such as hotels, shops, restaurants and a historical ambiance.
Centrally Located within the City: The Paul Masson site is centrally located within the
City. Cox Avenue is to the north and the Village and Highway 9 are located to the south.
Improved Intersection at the Entrance to the Vineyards: The new. signal at this
intersection will provide direct access to and from the site.
Bounded by -Established Land Uses: The site is bounded by established developments
on three sides. -
Landscape Buffer and Pedestrian Path: There is opportunity to continue the pedestrian
path and landscape buffer that is used at the perimeters of the office development to the
north.
Views from the Site: The existing view sheds from the site are identified as the views to
the surrounding hillsides.
Views to and through the Site: The site is very visible from Saratoga Avenue and from
the residential properties located along Montrose Avenue. There are also existing views
through the site from these residential properties.
Few Existing On -Site Constraints: As Figure 5 illustrates, there are few on -site constraints;
the site is essentially level, there is little existing vegetation, and the site is undeveloped
other than the one residence on Saratoga Avenue.
Constraints - Figure 5
As Figure 5 illustrates, the majority of development constraints that have been identified
are associated with existing development surrounding the site. To help mitigate. the
impact of development on the adjacent properties, the constraints identified are
addressed in the Specific Plan's implementation measures. The development constraints
are summarized below and on the following page:
Existing Intersections: Primary vehicular access to and from the site is constrained by the
two existing intersections located at the entrance to the Vineyards and at McFarland
Avenue.
Visual Barrier: The sound wall along the south property line creates a visual barrier.
11
Al
3S L14=uuuLjuuuuuawuor q p]ptpMM00000000oula mCmnonoo0m DIE
y Ol
N U 'F
O[t U.Ln
CLI W
cr
d
�v1�M
0
s
0
�--Wrif
_ J.
i
c
v
•
N
U
a.
y
1
b Q Q
CD cc
C .,,
i
t
ta
m
C w U
ID rM
X.A
E a
FE
oc
a
E2 m
C
Q
H L
Lo CD
LLJ
4 AOMM9
—j
s
0
�--Wrif
_ J.
i
c
v
•
Views to and through the Site: Both views to and through the site need to be addressed.
The views identified through the site are from the homes located on Montrose Avenue.
These properties have existing views through the site to the northwest hills beyond. The
primary views to the site identified are those from Saratoga Avenue and from the existing
residences on Montrose Street.
Transitional Zone Abutting Existing Residences: There are two areas on site which abut
existing single - family residences; the area adjacent to the homes on Montrose Street and
the area next to the residence located on Saratoga Avenue.
Noise: Noise from vehicular traffic on Saratoga Avenue and Route 85 will be heard on
site. A noise study conducted as part of the Environmental Impact Report for Route 85
revealed that the projected noise level at the perimeter of the site adjacent to Route 85
would be approximately 65 decibels. The same level was predicted along Saratoga
Avenue. This noise level is approximately equivalent to the ambient noise generated
within a typical business office.
13
QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS SUMMARY
• Majority of respondents defined their neighborhoods as quiet, rural /low- density,
residential.
• Majority of respondents perceived their "neighborhoods" as relative large areas (i.e.
"bounded by arterials ").
• Almost all of the respondents were concerned that the Route 85 interchange would
increase traffic and noise within their neighborhoods. A majority of these felt that
residential development on the site would minimize the impact of the interchange.
• Concern was expressed regarding potential traffic and noise impacts of future
development of the Paul Masson site on adjacent neighborhoods.
• Relatively strong support for approved townhomes and senior housing
development.
• Majority of respondents felt that compatible architectural style between the Paul
Masson site and adjacent development was an important design guideline to
consider. Well landscaped improvements were another consideration.
• Requiring low density single - family homes on the site was the most requested
development regulation, followed by a two -story maximum height limitation for
future construction.
• Single- family, senior housing and multiple - family residential development were
seen, respectively, as the most desirable uses for the property-by the respondents.
Offices rated fourth, followed by schools, athletic facilities and retail and service
establishments.
• Saratoga Avenue frontage was viewed by the majority to be the most critical with
regard to landscaping and /or other aesthetic buffering.
• Regarding circulation, the highest response towards residential development was
that it be accessed via cul -de -sacs off McFarland Avenue and /or Afton Avenue.
The remaining permitted MU -PD uses were requested to be accessed off Saratoga
Avenue only.
14
GOAL STATEMENTS
1. Protect the community as a whole by ensuring that appropriate and compatible
development of the site occurs and that long -term financial, public health and
safety. impacts are minimized.
2. Protect the character and quality of the adjoining neighborhoods by ensuring that
adequate design criteria and development regulations are in place to guide future
development of the site.
3. Develop a Specific Plan which establishes guidelines for potential future developers
of the site, but that also remains flexible enough to allow consideration of
deviations from the Plan, if appropriate.
4. Ensure that future development of the site minimizes the potential for Route 85
interchange traffic to negatively impact the subject site, or the adjoining
neighborhoods, by promoting appropriate circulation patterns.
5. Provide adequate traffic noise attenuation measures to minimize the on -site
impacts from traffic noise generated by the Route 85 interchange and Saratoga
Avenue.
6. Ensure that future development of the site minimizes, to the degree feasible, the
impacts of on -site generated traffic on the Route 85 /Saratoga Avenue signalized
intersection.
7. Promote a : cohesive, integrated development of the site. Whether the site is
developed with a single type of land use, or multiple uses, the 24 acres should be
considered as a whole.
8. Pedestrian :and bicycle facility connections should be provided wherever it is
feasible to do so, in order to provide pedestrian and bicycle circulation within the
development itself and between the new development and the existing
neighborhoods.
15
IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
Density
1. No single use should exceed the following density standards:
Use
Density Standards
Residential -Low. Density
10,000 sq. ft. per unit
(4 units per acre)
Residential -Med. Density
7,000 sq. ft. per unit
(6 units per acre)
Multiple Use
Commercial & Office
Athletic Facilities &
Schools
Senior Citizen Housing/
Facility
gross floor area < 23%
net site area
as determined by the
Planning Commission
20 units per acre
2. The percentage of gross site area occupied by any single permitted use should
comply with the following:
Use Site Area Standards
Residential 50% minimum
Multiple Use
Commercial 15% maximum
Office 15% maximum
Athletic Facility 25% maximum
School 50% maximum
Senior Citizen Housing/ 50% maximum
Facility
16
Circulation
1. No through vehicular access shall be permitted connecting Afton Avenue with
either Saratoga Avenue or McFarland Avenue.
2. Only Residential land uses shall be permitted to access off Afton Avenue.
3. If Residential development is proposed to access off Afton Avenue, it shall be via
a cul -de -sac servicing not more than 15 res'dential parcels and /or units in order
to prevent the need for a secondary emergency access.
4. Commercial retail and personal service uses shall access directly onto Saratoga
Avenue only. Office, athletic facility, school and senior citizen housing /facility uses
may utilize either, or both, Saratoga Avenue and McFarland Avenue access. Any
access off McFarland Avenue shall be subject to a traffic analysis to determine the
impact on the adjoining neighborhoods.
5. Pedestrian pathways and bicycle facilities, either separate paths or striped bicycle
lanes in the public road right -of -way, shall be incorporated along the north and
west frontages abutting McFarland Avenue and Saratoga Avenue.
6. Similar pedestrian and bicycle access improvements should be considered to
connect Afton Avenue with McFarland Avenue and /or Saratoga Avenue, and to
provide internal circulation within the site.
7. All internal roadway crosswalks should utilize a different textured material and
should be approximately one - quarter to one -half inch above the pavement surface
to enhance their visibility.
B. If vehicular access is proposed abutting the existing residence (APN 389 711 -006),
sufficient visual and sound buffering treatments shall be provided to mitigate to a
reasonable level the noise and visual impacts of such access.
Development Regulations
1. No structure shall exceed two stories.
2. The east half of the site shall be devoted to Residential -Low or Medium Density
development.
3. Where Residential -Low Density development is proposed, it shall be limited to a
maximum building height of 26 ft.
17
4. Where Residential- Medium Density development is proposed within 200 feet of the
east property line, it shall be limited to 26 feet in height.
5. . Consistent with the MU -PD ordinance regulations, no single story structure shall
be located closer than .30 ft., and no two -story structure shall be located closer
than 50 ft., to the east property line.
6. If Residential -Low Density development is proposed, the 10,000 sq. ft. density
standard should also be utilized as a minimum lot size requirement.
7. On -site vehicular parking and turnarounds shall comply with the minimum
standards set forth in the City's ordinances.
8. The storm drain system utilized by this site has been reported in the EIR prepared
by LSA Associates as being at or near capacity for a ten year event storm. Future
development should, therefore, incorporate on -site detention of storm water as a
design objective.
Design Guidelines
1. Architectural style should be reflective of Saratoga's heritage and shall be
compatible With existing development in Saratoga in terms of style, size, height,
elevations and other architectural features. The Historical Overview section of this
document should be considered when defining what is "reflective of Saratoga's
heritage ".
2. Structures should avoid unreasonable interference with views, privacy and solar
access of the adjacent properties.
3. Structures should minimize the perception of excessive mass and bulk in
relationship to development on adjacent properties.
4. Lighting which produces excessive glare or intensity, as viewed from any location
either within or outside the development, should not be used. All exterior lighting
should be directed downward toward the ground. The intensity of light cast by the
proposed project should not be allowed to fall upon adjacent residential properties
in excess of one -half footcandle at the - property line. Photometric studies shall be
submitted with any future development applications in order. to determine
compliance with this requirement.
5. If a land use which requires on -site identification signage is proposed, a sign
program shall be required. Such program shall include design criteria to establish
an integrated and harmonious use of signs with respect to letter style, materials,
color, size, shape and other design characteristics.
18
Greenbelt Buffering
Development shall be separated from Saratoga Avenue and McFarland Avenue by
a sufficient greenbelt to provide native and drought tolerant landscape buffering,
a meandering sidewalk to connect to the existing pathway system around the
Saratoga Office Center to the north. and vertical relief earth berming to visually
soften the development and reduce its vertical mass. If sound attenuation walls
are included within this greenbelt, they should be placed within the interior side of
the earth berming in order to minimize the impact of their appearance as well.
2. Development abutting the Route 85 corridor shall be buffered by a similar
treatment to help soften the appearance of the Route 85 sound walls from internal
views.
3. The above - mentioned greenbelt buffers should be approximately 50 ft. wide.
Residential units should be located towards the center of the development,
providing parking areas adjacent to the greenbelt.
4. Street tree plantings shall be required along Saratoga Avenue, Route 85 and
McFarland Avenue. These trees should be compatible in appearance, and
consistent in terms of spacing, with existing street trees in the vicinity.
5. Sufficient buffering treatments shall be provided between the individual land uses
whenever a Multiple Use development is proposed next to a residential use.
Similar treatment shall be provided around the perimeter of the existing residence
(APN 389 -11 -006) whenever a Multiple Use is proposed to abut it. These
treatments should include landscaping, setbacks, building orientation and /or
sound attenuation walls, or any combination of these elements. These treatments
should also provide pedestrian access connections wherever appropriate.
6. A lighting and landscaping maintenance agreement, or similar financing instrument,
shall be entered into between the property owner and the City to ensure that the
greenbelt buffers abutting Saratoga Avenue and McFarland Avenue are maintained.
Common Greens and Landscaping
1. The maximum net site area covered by structures and other impervious surfaces
shall not exceed 60 percent. At a minimum, the remaining 40% shall be
landscaped. At least 50% of this landscaped area shall be designated for the
common use and enjoyment* by the occupants of the development.
2. The site perimeter greenbelt buffers may contribute to the 40% (approximately 9.6
acres) landscaped area percentage. The Saratoga Avenue and McFarland Avenue
perimeter greenbelts should not be allowed to contribute to the 50%
(approximately 4.8 acres) "common green" landscape requirement. The roughly
4.8 acres of common open space should be located and designed in such a
19
manner as to maximize its accessibility and useability by residents of the
development.
3. If Residential- Medium Density development is proposed, the residential parcels
should be clustered in groups, to the extent feasible, in order to consolidate and
maximize the amount of undeveloped common green area.
4. On -site vehicular access and parking facilities shall incorporate sufficient
landscaping to visually soften the amount of paved surface area.
5. Any consideration towards requiring a portion of the site to be acquired as a public
park shall be consistent with. the Subdivision Map Act, the Quimby Parkland
Dedication Act and Saratoga's General Plan and Parks and Trails Master Plan.
20
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) is required for projects which may have significant effects upon the
environment. Primarily the EIR is a document which informs the public and responsible
agencies about potential impacts of a proposed project, and whether or not these impacts
can be mitigated through conditions of approval.
Typically, the preparation and adoption of a Specific Plan, defined as a "project" by CEQA,
would occur simultaneously with the preparation of an EIR. For this particular site,
however, a site development study and analysis of economic and traffic considerations
was conducted in 1985 by ESA, Planning and Environmental Consultants. A subsequent
draft EIR, prepared by Larry Seeman Associates in 1986, was commissioned by the City
to further explore development opportunities for the property. Following the submittal of
the Dividend Development Corporation proposal to develop the property with residential
townhomes on the northern half of the site and a senior living facility on the southern half,
a project specific draft EIR was prepared by LSA Associates in 1988. The Dividend
Development project and the final EIR were approved by the City in August of 1989. This
final environmental document also addressed the effects of rezoning the former winery
site from Limited Industrial to Multiple Use - Planned Development (MU -PD).
It is staff's determination that this Specific Plan will have no significant environmental
impacts in itself. The plan is consistent with the City's General Plan and the MU -PD
Zoning Ordinance. The alternative land use plans contained herein are also consistent
with the approved project for the site and the mitigation measures outlined in the adopted
EIR.
Based on the above, staff feels that an environmental Negative Declaration can be
supported in conjunction with the adoption of this Specific Plan. If a new application is
made to develop the site, an amended or new EIR may be required. Pursuant to the MU-
PD zoning regulations, if an EIR is required,.-the "project" shall be the conceptual
development plan as approved by the Planning Commission. The EIR would then be
prepared and considered concurrent with the final development plan review. The. EIR,
would need to be accepted and certified by the Planning Commission through the public
hearing process prior to issuance of a Multiple Use - Planned Development permit.
Approval of the conceptual plan shall constitute only an indication to the applicant that the
City is initially receptive to the proposed development and is willing to consider the project
in more detail. Such approval shall confer no vested or other rights upon the applicant
to proceed with the project and the City may thereafter reject the final development plan
even though it complies with the approved conceptual plan.
21
LAND USE PLANS
The following Land Use Plans A through E represent examples of appropriate land use
configurations for the former Paul Masson Winery site. These Plans were. developed by
Community Development Department staff using the information obtained through the Site
Analysis study, the results of the community Questionnaire and the subsequent Goal
Statements and Implementation Measures. The elements just listed, and the Land Use
Plans themselves, have been reviewed at two community meetings, two Planning
Commission adjourned meetings, one'Planning Commission Public Hearing and one City
Council Public Hearing. The two community meetings and the two Public Hearings were
each noticed to over 900 of the closest residents. The comments and contributions made
at those meetings have been incorporated into the final document..
The Land Use Plans were derived from the many possible land use arrangements allowed
under the MU -PD Zoning Ordinance based on staff's analysis, community input and
Planning Commission direction. They are examples of possible land use configurations
and are intended to both graphically illustrate the Goal Statements and Implementation
Measures contained herein and to indicate appropriate land use configurations. These
Land Use Plans are meant to be used as guidelines and are not meant to be all- inclusive.
Variations to these Plans may be permitted, within the limits of the MU -PD Zoning
Ordinance and consistent with the Goal Statements and Implementation Measures, if the
City finds that other land use configurations achieve a more desirable project.
22
Existing Townhomes
LEGEND
Overhe
Residential -Low Density
Residential - Medium Density
FMW
Multiple-Use
F=1
Physical and Visual Gfeenbelt Buffering
Other Buffering Treatment
View, Privacy and Solar Access Sensitive Area
Pedestrian Pathway
Restricted Vehicular Access
Improvements Associated
with Route 85 are Shown
as Existing Conditions.
.*Paul Ma.s so-
SPECIFIC PLAN 16a
23
Existing Office Complex
Existing
Single-Family
Residential
0" 0 1DO 2DO 400
Existing Office Complex
Vacant Lot
Existing Townhornes
LEGEND
17777777k Overhead Power Unes
L� Residential - Low Density
.................. i
.............. *.�;
.... ..... . .... .....
..... ......... ............. ........
W
....... ... . ..
..............
...........
........
. ........... . .....
. .............
..........
..............
....... .... ..... ....
............
... .. Existing
..........
........... Residential
�\ Lei �� -
qy
. ... ......
. ..... ......
... ... ..
P. Railroad /
ImprovementsAssociated
with Route 85 are Shown
as Existing Conditions.
Paul M.as son
SPECIFIC PLAN Figui-e 7 - Uiiid Use P.1aii E
24
J7 :7
'ii 0 100 200 ♦00
Residential - Medium Density
Inggg
Multiple-Use
Physical and Visual Greenbelt Buffering
omltumuwl
Other Buffering Treatment
View, Privacy and Solar Access Sensitive Area
Pedestrian Pathway
FL IQN-1
Restricted Vehicular Access
.................. i
.............. *.�;
.... ..... . .... .....
..... ......... ............. ........
W
....... ... . ..
..............
...........
........
. ........... . .....
. .............
..........
..............
....... .... ..... ....
............
... .. Existing
..........
........... Residential
�\ Lei �� -
qy
. ... ......
. ..... ......
... ... ..
P. Railroad /
ImprovementsAssociated
with Route 85 are Shown
as Existing Conditions.
Paul M.as son
SPECIFIC PLAN Figui-e 7 - Uiiid Use P.1aii E
24
J7 :7
'ii 0 100 200 ♦00
P
Existing Office Complex
Vacant Lot
Existing Townhomes
ig
0-
xi i
E st n
9
c
i
Snl
mi
9 e-F
a I
Y
Residential
L�
L�
\ m
P
— —
S:::....... c
:: I L
- —
Soundwall 1
LEGEND
Overhead Power Lines
Residential - Low Density
Residential - Medium Density
Multiple -Use
FPhysical and Visual Greenbelt Buttering
ttm11—wi Other Buffering Treatment
View. Privacy and Solar Access Sensitive Area
Pedestrian Pathway
a% Restricted Vehicular Access
P.
Improvements Associated
with Route 85 are Shown
as Existing Conditions.
Paul Mass on
SPECIFIC PLAN
qt.
I i�;ure R - Latul USe� Plan C
25
%7
lift 0 100 200 400
Existing Townhomes
LEGEND
Overhead Power Lines
Residential - Low Density
Residential - Medium Density
FEWA Multiple-Use
F=--) Physical and Visual Greenbelt Buffering
Other Buffering Treatment
View, Privacy and Solar Access Sensitive Area
Pedestrian Pathway
Restricted Vehicular Access
vie
Offioe Complex
7
Existing
Single- Family
Residential
it
Improvements Associated
with Route 85 are Shown
as Existing Conditions.
P a M a s s o
SPECIFIC PLAN WME111l Plan D
0 100 200 . 400
26
Exist00 Office Complex
Vacant Lot
. .........
..........
Existing Townhomes
......... .
Soundwall
LEGEND
Residential - Low Density
Residential - Medium Density
plamml Multiple-Use
F=Q Physical and Visual Greenbelt Buffering
F2= Other Buffering Treatment
r -. View, Privacy and Solar Access Sensitive Area
Pedestrian Pathway
Restricted Vehicular Access
P. Railroad
Improvements Associated
with Route 85 are Shown
as Existing Conditions.
P a u M a s s o n
SPECIFIC PLAN
27
%7
0 10D 2W 4W
vided for each use for which parking is required on the
site, in accordance with the regulations set forth in Article
15 -35 of this Chapter. In addition to the regulations in
Article 15 -35, parking lots should be designed to mini-
mize environmental and visual impacts by avoiding large
continuous lots and by the use of gravel and turf stones
and landscaping for screening. (Ord. 71.98 § 2 (part),
1991)
15- 20.150 Design review.
The construction or expansion of any main or accesso-
ry structure in the R -OS district shall comply with the
applicable design review regulations set forth in Article
15-45 or Article 15-46 of this Chapter, provided, howev-
er, where a single - family dwelling is the principal use on
the site, then the allowable floor area determined in
accordance with Section 15- 45.030 shall in no event be
more than six thousand square feet, excluding any de-
tached garage or accessory structure for which a use
permit is granted. (Ord. 71.98 § 2 (part), 1991)
15- 20.160 Storage of personal property and
materials.
The regulations and restrictions set forth in Section 15-
12.160 of this Chapter, pertaining to the storage of certain
items of personal property, shall apply to the R -OS dis-
trict and the same are incorporated herein by reference.
(Ord. 71.98 § 2 (part), 1991)
Article 15 -21
MU -PD: MULTIPLE USE PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT .
Sections:
Height of structures.
15- 21.010
Purposes of Article.
15- 21.020
Allowable mixed uses.
15- 21.030
Site area.
15- 21.040
Site density.
15- 21.050
Site coverage.
15- 21.060
Setbacks.
15- 21.070
Development standards.
15- 21.080
Modification of standards.
15- 21.090
Height of structures.
15- 21.095
Fences, walls and hedges.
15- 21.100
Signs.
15- 21.110
Off- street parking-and loading
15- 21.170
facilities.
15- 21.120
Requirement for PD permit.
15- 21.130
Conceptual development.
325
15- 21.020
15- 21.140
Final development plan.
15- 21.150
Issuance, of PD permit.
15- 21.160
Expiration of PD permit;
extensions.
15- 21.170
Continuing jurisdiction of
Planning Commission.
15. 21.180
Appeals to City Council.
15- 21.010 Purposes of Article.
In addition to the objectives set forth in Section 15-
05.020 of this Chapter, the multiple tse planned develop-
ment district is included in the Zoning Ordinance for the
primary purpose of establishing development standards
for mixture of uses, density, site coverage and setbacks,
while preserving to the City the authority to modify such
standards by imposing more restrictive or approving less
restrictive requirements for development. The multiple use
planned development district is also included in the Zoning
Ordinance to achieve the following specific purposes:
(a) To provide a means of guiding land development
or redevelopment in areas of the City that are uniquely
suited for a planned coordination of mixed land uses.
(b) To provide for a greater flexibility of land use and
design than would be possible through strict application
of the regulations applicable to other zoning districts.
(c) . To encourage imaginative and innovative planning
concepts and variety in the development patterns of the
City.
(d) To promote a mixture of harmonious and integrated
uses on a site while protecting the integrity and environment
of neighboring properties.
(e) To provide a more efficient use of land resulting
in the creation of additional public or private common areas
and open space.
15- 21.020 Allowable mixed uses.
Any combination of the uses specified in this Section
may be allowed in a MU -PD district, provided that not
less than fifty percent of the gross site area shall be devoted
to residential uses, including the off- street parking and
loading facilities and common areas for such uses. The
percentage of gross site area occupied by any single use,
including the off -street parking and loading facilities and
common areas for such use, should not exceed the standard
set forth below:
Use Site area standard
Single - family dwellings or
multi-family dwellings or
combination thereof 50%
15- 21.020
Retail service establishments
10,000 square feet per
School
As determined by the
or personal service establishments
7,000 square feet per unit
Retail service establishments or
Planning Commission
or combination thereof
15%
ments or combination thereof
not exceeding .23
Offices
15%
Senior citizen housing,
20 units.per acre,
Athletic facility
25%
with dining, recreation and
exclusive of any
School
50%
medical facilities if included
area occupied by
Senior citizen housing, which may
dining, recreation or
include common dining and recreation
medical facilities
facilities and facilities for
(such density to include
rendering health care services and
the bonus required un-
medical treatment for patients
der Section 65915 of
residing at the project
50%
the Government Code).
15- 21.030 Site area.
(a) The minimum gross site area of the property in-
cluded within the conceptual development plan referred
to in Section 15- 21.130 of this Article shall be twenty-five
acres, which may consist of more than one lot of record
provided such lots are contiguous to each other.
(b) After approval of the conceptual development plan
in accordance with Section 15- 21.130, the final development
plan referred to in Section 15- 21.140 may provide for
subdivision of the property in a manner consistent with
the types of uses and location of all improvements as shown
on the conceptual plan. The proposed subdivision shall
be subject to approval by the Planning Commission; which
may be granted as part of the emission's approval of the
final development plan.
15- 21.040 Site density.
(a) With respect to individual uses within a multiple
use planned development, the density of each use should
not exceed the following standard as applied to the area
of the site occupied by such use:
Use Density standard
Single - family dwellings
10,000 square feet per
unit
Multi- family dwellings
7,000 square feet per unit
Retail service establishments or
personal service establish-
A floor area ratio
ments or combination thereof
not exceeding .23
Offices
A floor area ratio not
exceeding .23
Athletic facility
As determined by the
Planning Commission
326
In those cases above where density is based upon floor
area ratio, such ratio shall be determined by dividing the
gross floor area occupied by the use by the net site area
of that portion of the entire site occupied by the use.
(b) Where multiple uses are located within the same
structure, the density of development shall be determined
by the Planning Commission, taking into consideration
the standards set forth in Paragraph (a) of this Section and
the purposes and objectives of this Article.
15- 21.050 Site coverage.
The maximum net site area covered by structures,
parking lots, walkways, plazas and other impervious surfaces
on any site in a MU -PD district shall be sixty percent. All
remaining portions of the site shall be landscaped.
15- 21.060 Setbacks.
No structure within a multiple use planned development
shall be located within fifty feet from any public street
abutting the site, as measured from the street line, or within
thirty feet from any other property line of the site if the
structure is single story or fifty feet from any other property
line of the site if the structure is two story.
15- 21.070 Development standards..
In addition to any other standards set forth in this Article,
a multiple use planned development shall comply with the
following requirements:
(a) Architectural design. Each structure within the
development shall be compatible with all other structures
in terms of style, size, beight, elevations and other architec-
tural features so as to present an integrated design pattern
for the entire project Emphasis shall be placed on pedestri-
an pathways, plazas and common areas to connect the
various uses and structures on the site.
(b) Open space and landscaping. All open space areas,
including the perimeter setbacks required under Section
15- 21.060 of this Article, shall be landscaped and perma-
nently maintained. Unless otherwise approved by the
Planning Commission, at least fifty percent of the required
open space shall be designated for the common use and
enjoyment by the occupants of the development. Such
common open space may be distributed. throughout the
development and need not be in a single area.
(c) Traffic circulation. Primary vehicular access points
to the development shall be designed to provide smooth
traffic flow with controlled turning movements and mini-
mum hazards to vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
Minor streets within the development shall not be connected
to streets outside the development in such manner as to
encourage their use by through traffic. Where appropriate,
the internal circulation system shall provide pedestrian and
bicycle paths that are physically separated from vehicular
traffic.
(d) Building spacing. Adequate spacing shall be main-
tained between residential and nonresidential uses to insure
visual and acoustical privacy for dwelling units. Fences,
insulation, walks, landscaping and sound reducing construc-
tion techniques shall be used as appropriate for the aesthetic
enhancement of the development and the privacy.of its
occupants, the screening of objectionable views or uses
and the reduction of noise.
(e) Lighting. No lighting shall be allowed which pro-
duces excessive glare or intensity, as viewed from any
location either within or outside of the development. All
exterior lighting shall be directed downward to the ground.
Lighting for commercial uses shall not intrude upon residen-
tial uses. The intensity of light cast by the development
upon adjacent residential properties shall not exceed one -half
footcandle at the property line. .
15- 21.080 Modification of standards.
Upon a determination by the Planning Commission that
a modification of standards can better achieve the purposes
and objectives of this Article and provided the Commission
is able to make all of the findings required for issuance
of a multiple use planned development permit, asset forth
in Subsection 15- 21.140(h), the Planning Commission may
modify any or all of the following standards: the percentage
of gross site area occupied by a single use specified in
Section 15- 21.020, the density of development specified
in Section 15- 21.040, the site coverage specified in Section
15- 21.050, and the setbacks specified in Section 15- 21.060.
15- 21.090 Height of structures.
The maximum height of any structure in amultiple use
planned development shall be thirty feet and no structure
shall exceed two stories; provided, however, through the
issuance of a multiple use planned development permit
pursuant to this. Article, the Planning Commission may
327
15- 21.130
approve a lawfully constructed existing structure having
a height in excess of thirty feet.
15- 21.095 ,. Fences, walls and hedges.
. Fences, walls and hedges shall comply with the regula-
tions set forth in Article 15 -29 of this Chapter.
15. 21.100 Signs.
(a) Unless otherwise approved or directed by the
Platming Commission, the following signs may be permitted
in a multiple use planned development: .
(1) Signs for single - family dwellings, multi - family.
dwellings, schools, senior citizen housing and medical
facilities, as described and in accordance with the regula-
tions set forth in Section 15- 30.080 of this Chapter.
.. (2) Signs for offices, as described and in accordance
with the regulations set forth in Section 15- 30.090 of this
Chapter.
(3) Signs for retail service establishments, personal
service establishments and athletic facilities, as described
and in accordance with the regulations set forth in Section
15- 30.100 of this Chapter.
(4) A free standing identification sign for the multiple
use planned development, not exceeding forty square feet
in area.
(b) A sign program shall be required for the entire
development. Such program shall include design criteria
to establish an integrated and harmonious use of signs with
respect to letter style, materials, color, size, shape and other
design characteristics.
15- 21.110 Off- street parking and loading
facilities.
Off - street parking and loading facilities shall be provided
for each use within a multiple use planned development
in accordance with the regulations set forth in Article 15 -35
of this Chapter.
15- 21.120 . Requirement for PD permit.
A multiple use planned development permit, hereafter
in this Article referred to as "PD permit," shall be required
for any multiple use planned development. No such permit
may be granted until the applicant has first obtained approv-
al of the conceptual development plan pursuant to Section
15- 21.130 and approval of the final development plan
pursuant to Section 15- 21.140.
15- 21.130 Conceptual development.
(a) Application. Application for approval of the con-
ceptual development plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Director on such form as he shall prescribe. The application
shall include the following documents:
15- 21.130
(1) Conceptual site plan showing the location and size
of all structures, streets, sidewalks and pathways, parking
and loading facilities, and landscaping, open space and
common areas. The site plan shall also contain a date, north
point, scale and sufficient description to define the location
and boundaries of the development
(2) The name of any existing recorded map applicable
to the site, the date of recording such map, and the book
and page of the official records where such map is recorded.
(3) A scale drawing of the surrounding area for a
distance of at least five hundred feet from each boundary
of the site, indicating the names and last known addresses
of the owners of all property located within five hundred
feet of such boundaries, as shown on the latest available
assessment roll of the County, the names and widths of
adjacent rights -of -way, topographic features and all im-
provements on adjacent property located within five hundred
feet of the site boundary.
(4) Name and address of record owner or owners, appli-
cant, and registered engineer or licensed land surveyor or
other person who prepared the site plan.
(5) The proposed name of the development, if any.
The proposed name is subject to approval by the Planning
Commission.
(6) Designation of land uses, including the percentage
of gross site area and the amount of gross floor area to
be occupied by each use on the site.
(7) General description of the architectural style of
structures to be constructed on the site, with representative
drawings showing elevations thereof.
(8) Calculation of total coverage on the site, including
a breakdown showing the amount of coverage occupied
by structures, parking areas, streets, sidewalks and plazas,
together with a calculation of the total area of the site
devoted to landscaping. .
(9) Traffic circulation plan and preliminary estimates
of traffic impacts based upon available data and studies.
(10) Economic analysis ofthe development in terms
of cost and revenue to the City.
(11) Preliminary geologic and soils report, if requested
by the Planning Director.
(12) Such other information or documents to describe
the general nature and features of the development as may
be requested by the Planning Director.
(b) Fee. The application shall be accompanied by the
payment of a processing fee, in such amount as established
from time to time by resolution of the City Council, together
with a deposit toward the cost of noticing the public hearing
as determined by the Planning Director.
(c) Investigation and report. The Planning Director
shall make an investigation of the application and shall
328
prepare a report thereon, which shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission.
(d) Public hearing. The Planning Commission shall
conduct a public hearing on the application for approval
of the conceptual development plan. Notice of the public
hearing shall be given not less than ten days nor more than
thirty days prior to the date, of the hearing by mailing,
postage prepaid, a notice of the time and place of the
hearing to the applicant and to all persons whose names
appear on the latest available assessment roll of the County
as owning property within five hundred fees of the bound-
aries of the site on which the development is to be con-
structed. Notice of the public hearing shall also be published
once in a newspaper having general circulation in the City
not later than ten days prior to the date of the hearing.
(e) Action by Planning Commission. The Planning
Commission may approve, reject or modify the conceptual
development plan and may impose such conditions or
requirements as it deems appropriate, including, but not
limited to, the furnishing of traffic studies, noise studies,
and market analyses as part of the application for approval
of the final plan.
(f) Environmental impact report. If an environmental
impact report is required, the "project" shall be the con-
ceptual development plan as approved by the Planning .
Commission. The environmental impact report shall be
prepared and certified as complete prior to approval of
the final development plan.
(g) No vested rights. Approval of the conceptual plan
shall constitute only an indication to the applicant that the
City is initially receptive to the proposed development and
is willing to consider the project in more detail. Such
approval shall confer no vested or other rights upon the
applicant to proceed with the project and the City may
thereafter reject the final development plan even though
it complies with the. approved conceptual plan.
15- 21.140 Final development plan.
(a) Compliance conceptual development plan. The
final development plan shall contain all of the information
required in the conceptual plan in its finalized and detailed
form and must substantially comply with the approved
conceptual development plan.
(b) Application. Application for approval of the final
development plan shall be filed with the Planning Director
on such form as he shall prescribe. The application shall
include eighteen copies of a final site plan, drawn to scale
by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor,
having a dimension of not less than eighteen inches by
twenty-six inches. The final site plan shall contain, or be
accompanied by, the following information:
(1) Location and final design of all structures on the
site, including size, height, elevations, color, materials,
floor plan and gross floor area
(2) Location, names, widths, centerline radii and cen-
terline slopes of all streets and other ways in the develop-
ment.
(3) A topographical map of the site showing existing
and proposed contour lines at an interval of not more than
five feet. The map shall be accompanied by a calculation
of the slope percentage, using the formula set forth in
Section 15- OC.630 of this Chapter. If 'required, a grading
and drainage plan shall also be furnished showing how
runoff surface water will be controlled and the ultimate
disposal of all surface waters.
(4) Location and character of all existing easements
for drainage, sewage or public utilities, together with all
building and use restrictions applicable thereto, and the
approximate locations of all proposed easements for drain-
age, sewage or other public utilities.
(5) Location of all creeks, streams and other watercours-
es on the site, showing top of existing banks and creek
depth, with separate sheet showing cross-section of all such
creeks, streams and watercourses.
(6) All provisions for domestic water supply which
are proposed by the applicant, including source, quality
and approximate quantity expressed as gallons per minute.
(7) All provisions for sewage disposal, storm drainage
and flood control which are proposed by the applicant,
including the approximate distance to and location of the
nearest storm drainage and sanitary sewer main lines.
(8) Existing wells, active or abandoned, and disposition
proposed.
(9) Location of existing native, ornamental and orchard
trees, including outline, centers and species having a trunk
circumference of thirty -two inches or more at a point
twenty -four inches above natural grade..
(10) A preliminary title report issued within ten days
from date of filing the application by a reputable title
company doing business in the County, issued to or for
the benefit of City and showing all parties having any
interest in the land.
(11) Landscape and lighting plans.
(12) Sign program.
(13) Market analyses, if required.
(14) Restrictive agreements, if any.
(15) Schedule for commencement and completion of
construction.
(16) Such other agreements, studies, drawings and
documents as may. be specifically required by the approved
conceptual development plan or otherwise specified in
writing by the Planning Director.
329
15- 21:140
(c) Fee. The application shall be accompanied by the
payment of a processing fee, in such amount as established
from time to time by resolution of the City Council, together
with a deposit toward the cost of noticing the public heating
as determined by the Planning Director. The applicant shall
also pay such amounts as the Planning Director may require
for the cost of any traffic studies, geologic reports, noise
studies or other environmental reports or studies to be
obtained by the City in connection with the application
for approval of the final development plan.
(d) Distribution. Upon receipt of the application and
acceptance thereof as being complete, the Planning Director
shall distribute the proposed final site plan and accompany-
ing documents to the following persons and agencies:
(1) One copy to the County Health Department;
(2) One copy to the City Engineer,
(3) Two copies to the Santa Clara Valley Water District;
(4) One copy to the sanitation district having jurisdiction
over, the property;
(5) Two copies to the fire district having jurisdiction
over the property;.
(6) One copy to such utility, companies as are or will
be providing service to the development;
(7) One copy to each school district having jurisdiction
over the property;
(8) One copy to the County Sheriffs Department.
(e) Departmental reports. Upon receipt of the proposed
final site plan other documents, each of the persons
and agencies referred to in Paragraph (d) of this Section
shall make an investigation and report to the Planning
Director any recommended conditions or requirements.
The Planning Director shall thereupon cause a written staff
report to be prepared . and submitted to the Planning Com-
mission. A copy of. such report shall be furnished to the
applicant not later than three days prior to the public beating
on the application. The Planning Department report shall
either summarize, or incorporate by reference, all the other
departmental reports received as hereinabove specified and
shall itemize such conditions as the Planning Director deems
appropriate to be .imposed by the Planning Commission
if approval of the final development plan is recommended.
(f) Design and improvement requirements. The final
development plan shall comply with all applicable design
and improvement requirements as set forth in Article 14-25
and Article 14-30 of the Subdivision Ordinance, including
the provisions therein for dedications to the public and
payment of fees.
(g) Public hearing. The Planning Commission shall
conduct a public hearing on the application for approval
of the final development plan. Notice of the public hearing
shall be given in the same manner as provided in Subsection
15- 21.130(d) of this Article.
15- 21.140
(b) Action by Planning Commission; findings. The
Planning Commission may approve, reject or modify the
final development plan and may grant approval subject
to such conditions and requirements as the Commission
deems appropriate. No final development plan shall be
approved or conditionally approved unless the Planning
Commission has fast made all of the following findings:
(1) That the development is consistent with the General
Plan.
(2) That the development provides for an integrated
and harmonious systen_ of land uses and land use intensities.
(3) That the development will be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood.
(4) That all adverse environmental impacts of the
development can be adequately mitigated, or there are
overriding considerations for approval of the development
notwithstanding such impacts.
(5) That the public facilities as existing or to be con-
structed by the applicant will be adequate to service the
development
(6) That the development will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety or general welfare.
(i) Design review approval. Approval of the final
development plan pursuant to this Section shall constitute
design review approval of all structures shown on such
plan.
0) Modification of final development plan. Minor
changes in the location, siting or character of buildings
and other improvements.may_be authorized by the Planning
Director if required by engineering or other circumstances
not foreseen at the time the final development plan was
approved and provided the change does not cause any of
the following:
(1) A change in the use or character of the development
(2) An increase in the overall density or intensity of
use or increase in the overall coverage of structures.
(3) A reduction or change, in character of approved
open space or landscaped areas.
(4) A reduction of required off - street parking. Except
as otherwise set forth above, any change in the final devel-
opment plan shall require approval by the Planning Commis-
sion pursuant to Section 15- 21.170 of this Article.
15- 21.150 Issuance of PD permit.
(a) Upon approval of the final development plan by
the Planning Commission, or by the City Council on appeal,
the Planning Director shall issue a PD permit to the appli-
cant Such permit shall contain all of the conditions of
approval and shall be'signed by the applicant to acknowl-
edge the same. Failure by the applicant to sign the permit
within thirty days after the date of issuance, or such longer
period of time as may be allowed by the Planning Director,
330
shall invalidate both the PD permit and the approval of
the final development plan.
(b) The PD permit, or a memorandum thereof, shall
be recorded in the office of the County Recorder. The
recorded document shall include, as an exhibit attached
thereto, a copy of the approved final site plan showing
the location of all property lines, street lines, structures,
sidewalks, and common areas.
15- 21.160 Expiration of, PD permit;
extensions.
(a) A PD permit granted pursuant to this Article shall
expire twenty-four months from the date on which approval
of the final development plan became effective, unless prior
to such expiration date, a building permit is issued and
construction of the development is commenced and prose-
cuted diligently toward completion.
(b) A PD permit may be extended by the Planning
Commission for a period or periods of time not exceeding
thirty-six months. The application for extension shall be
filed prior to the expiration date, and shall be accompanied
by the payment of a fee in such amount as established from
time to time by resolution of the City Council. A public
heating shall be conducted on the application for extension
and notice thereof shall be given in the same manner as
provided in Subsection 15- 21.130(d) of this Article. Exten-
sion of a PD permit is not a matter of right and the Planning
Commission may deny the application or grant the same
subject to conditions.
15- 21.170 Continuing jurisdiction of Planning
Commission.
The Planning Commission shall, in all cases, retain
continuing jurisdiction over each PD permit and may at
any time, either on its own initiative or in response to an
application or request to do so, modify or delete any
conditions of a PD permit or impose any new conditions
if the Commission determines that such action is necessary
in order to preserve a substantial right of the applicant,
or to preserve the public health, safety or welfare, or to
prevent the creation or continuance of a public nuisance,
or where such action is necessary to preserve or restore
any of the findings set forth in Subsection 15- 21.140(h)
of this Article. The Planning Commission shall not approve
a modification of the PD permit without first conducting
a public bearing thereon, with notice of such hearing being
given in the same manner as provided in Subsection 15-
21.130(d) of this Article.
15- 21.180 Appeals to City Council.
Any determination or decision by the Planning Com-
mission under this Article may be appealed to the City
Council in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article
15 790 of this Chapter.
FE?
Sections:
15- 29.010
15- 29.020
15- 29.030
15- 29.040
15- 29.050
15- 29.060
Article 15 -29
ICES, WALLS AND HEDGES
Height restrictions.
Fencing within hillside districts.
Fencing to mitigate noise from
certain arterial streets.
Fencing adjacent to scenic
highways.
Barbed wire prohibited.
Fences adjacent to heritage lanes.
15- 29.010 Height restrictions.
(a) General regulation. Except as otherwise specified
in this Article, no fence or wall shall exceed six feet in
height
(b) Front yards and exterior side yards of reversed
corner lots. No fence or wall located within any required
front yard or within any required exterior side yard of a
reversed corner lot shall exceed three feet in height, except
as follows:
(1) A fence or wall lawfully constructed prior to March
20, 1987, may extend to a height not exceeding six feet,
if such fence or wall does not create a safety hazard for
vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic and does not obstruct
the safe access to or from adjacent properties; provided,
however, that upon the destruction or removal of more
than one -half of the length of such nonconforming fence
or wall, any replacement fence or wall shall not exceed
three feet in height.
(2) Wrought iron entrance gates, designed with openings
to permit visibility through the same, may extend to a height
not exceeding five feet.
(3) Safety railings that are required by the Uniform
Building Code shall be excluded from the height require-
ments of this Section:,
(c) Street intersections. No fence, wall or compact
hedge located within a triangle having sides fifty feet in
length from a street intersection, as measured from inter -
secting curb lines or intersecting edges of the street pave-
ment where no curb exists, shall exceed three feet in height
above the established grade of the adjoining street.
15- 29.020
(d) Recreational courts. Fencing around recreational
courts shall comply with the regulations contained in
subsection 15- 80.030(c) of this Chapter.
(e) Pilasters. Pilasters constituting a part of a fence,
in reasonable numbers and scale in relationship to the name
and style of the fence, may extend to a height of not more
than two feet above the height limit applicable to the fence
containing such pilasters.
_(f) Light fixtures. The height of a fence shall not
include light fixtures mounted thereon at the entrance of
driveways and sidewalks leading into a site. Not more than
two such light fixtures shall be installed at each driveway
and sidewalk entrance.
(g) Retaining walls. No retaining wall on a hillside
lot shall exceed five feet in height
(h) Fencing adjacent to commercial districts. The
Planning Director may issue a special permit to allow a
fence up to eight feet in height where such fence is installed
along a rear yard or interior side yard of a residential site
which abuts a commercial district The Planning Director
may impose such conditions as he deems appropriate to
mitigate any visual or other adverse impacts of the fence,
including, but not limited to, requirements with respect
to the design and materials of the fence and landscape
screening. Applications for a special permit under this
subsection shall be filed with the Planning Director on such
form as he shall prescribe, and shall be accompanied by
a processing fee in such amount as established from time
to time by the City Council. (Amended by Ord. 71.86.§ .
1, 1991; Ord. 71 -106 § 6, 1992)
15- 29.020 ' Fencing within hillside districts.
In addition to the regulations set forth in Section 15-
29.010 of this Article, fences and walls located within an
HC -RD, NHR or R -OS district shall comply with the
following regulations:
(a) Length of solid fences and walls. Solid fences
.and walls, having no openings to permit visibility through
the same, shall not have a length exceeding sixty feet, as
viewed from any street or adjacent property. This restriction
shall not apply to retaining walls.
(b) Parallel fences and walls. Parallel fences and walls
shall be separated by a horizontal distance of not less than
five feet Where two or more fences or walls are approxi-
mately parallel to each other and separated by a horizontal
distance of thirty feet or less, the combined height of such
fences or walls shall not exceed ten feet.
(c) Area of enclosure. Except for fencing around
recreational ,courts and fencing which constitutes part of
a corral, no fencing on a single site shall encompass or
enclose an area in excess of four thousand square feet
(excluding the area of any pool) unless approved. by the
331 (Saratoga 1 -93)
CITY OF SARATOGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DATE: Tuesday, February 1, 1994
PLACE: Senior Center - Adult Day Care Center, 7:30 p.m.
19655 Allendale Avenue
TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Moran, Commissioners, Caldwell,
Jacobs, Kaplan, Murakami, Wolfe
Absent: Commissioner Asfour
Staff Present: Director Curtis, Planner Walgren
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting
was properly posted on January 28, 1994.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. BA PROPERTIES - REVIEW OF CONCEPTUAL PLANS FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON SARATOGA AVE. NORTH OF ROUTE 85 (THE FORMER PAUL
MASSON WINERY SITE).
Director Curtis provided an overview of the project and the
Planning Commission's objectives for this public hearing
meeting; to hear and review the applicants' proposal, receive
public-testimony and to direct the applicants regarding their
Conceptual Plan.
A notice of this meeting was published in the Saratoga News
and mailed to approximately 900 of the closest neighbors.
Additional notices were sent to interested community groups,
homeowners associations and individuals based on a
notification request mailing list established during the
process of preparing and adopting the Paul Masson Specific
Plan.
Carol Meyer, Paul Altieri and Rob Steinberg began the public
hearing with a presentation of Greenbriar Homes' proposed.
single - family residential development for the 24 acre former
Paul Masson Winery site.
Several neighbors spoke in favor of the development.
Neighbors also raised concerns regarding the density of the
development, the small lot sizes relative to the size of the
proposed homes and the visual effects of the proposed narrow
streets.
Planning Commissioners raised some of their concerns,
including:
• The Specific Plan recommended that at least 50% of the
required 9.5 acres of landscaped open space be designated
as common open space ( 4.7 acres) . The applicants' linear
park proposal provides 2.8 acres of common open space.
• The proposed 26 ft. wide roadways were less than
prescribed by the City's Subdivision Ordinance. What
were the public safety and /or aesthetic implications?
• Could a higher density affordable housing component be
included?
• Should the City consider requiring some public parkland
within the development in lieu of the anticipated park
maintenance impact fees?
• Also concerned about large homes on relatively small
parcels; particularly in light of the Specific Plan's
recommendation of 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot sizes for a
single - family development.
Paul Jacobs moved, Meg Caldwell seconded, to continue the public
hearing to March 8, 1994 in order to allow the Parks and Recreation
Commission to comment on the City's park needs at this particular
site. Motion passed 6 -0. The applicants were also requested to
provide the Planning Commission with the earlier park plans which
they had worked -up when assessing the feasibility of a park on the
site from their standpoint.
WORK SESSION ITEM
1. REVIEW OF DRAFT WORK PROGRAM.
The Commission reviewed the Final Draft of the Work Program
that was reviewed at the January 14th Planning Commission
retreat. Following general discussion, the Commission
directed staff to place the Work Program on the Joint City
Council /Planning Commission Work Session agenda scheduled for
February 22nd for final review and adoption.
ADJOURNMENT - 10:00 p.m. to February 9, 1994 at 7:30 p.m. in the
Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA.
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DATE: March 81 1994 - 7:30 p.m. RAR
PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave.
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Wolfe, Caldwell, Asfour, Murakami,
Jacobs, Kaplan, Chr. Moran
Pledge of Allegiance
Minutes - 2/1/94 & 2/23/94
KAPLAN /WOLFE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF 2/1/94, AS PRESENTED.
PASSED 6 -0 -1 (Asfour abstain).
CALDWELL /JACOBS MOVED TO CONTINUE THE MINUTES OF 2/23/94 TO THE
NEXT MEETING. PASSED 7 -0.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -None
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting
was properly posted on March 4, 1994.
Technical Corrections to Packet
- None
CONSENT CALENDAR
- None
PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR - None
PUBLIC HEARINGS **
1. PD -94 -001 - BA. Properties, Inc. /Greenbrier Homes; 13150
Saratoga Ave., request for a Planned
Development- Conceptual Plan approval to
construct 95 single family detached residences
at the 24 acre former Paul Masson Winery site.
The subject property is located on Saratoga
Ave. north of Route 85 and is zoned Multiple
Use- Planned Development (MU -PD).
-------------------------------------------------------------
Planner Walgre.n presented the staff report dated March 8, 1994. He
stated five major areas to be discussed at this hearing are as
follows..
1. The amount of common open land incorporated into the project.
2. The public safety and /or aesthetic implications of the
originally proposed 26 ft. wide roadways.
3. Could higher density "affordable" housing be included?
Planning Commission Minutes D; Page 2
3/8/94
4. Should the City
the development
impact fees?
consider requiring some public parkland within
in lieu of the anticipated park maintenance
5. Concern about large homes on relatively small parcels.
Mr. Walgren reviewed staff's responses to each of the above, as
outlined in the staff report.
Planning Director Curtis stated he attended the Parks and
Recreation Commission meeting, who felt that the layout .of the
project including the linear pathway system and the open space was
an acceptable use of the property. However, they did feel that the
park requirement should be implemented by the City and fees should
be collected in lieu of a park. He stated a specific suggestion
was made at this meeting regarding a pedestrian access onto
McFarland Ave.
Com. Caldwell stated she attended the Parks and Recreation
Commission meeting and reiterated changes that were made to the
minutes of the February 28th meeting. She noted that three of the
six commissioners present specifically mentioned a preference for
turning the four southeast lots into a concentrated open space.
She stated they felt that the open space provided for the pathway
was a nice design feature, but an unusable space. Com. Caldwell
added, at the February 28th meeting five commissioners spoke in
favor of converting the park fee into a park on this site.
Planning Director Curtis stated there is a distinction between park
space and open space and if a park site was to be required on site,
that would take away the possibility of receiving in -lieu fees.
Mr. Curtis. reviewed the concentrated open space proposed and noted
it is in keeping with the specific plan, but not to be substituted
for a public park. He stated the 4.78 acres would not be counted
as park dedication credit that is required as part of the
subdivision.
Com. Jacobs stated that the 4.7 acres required open space is a
minimum and the Commission can require for more.
Mr. Curtis stated the 4.7 acres is a design feature that will off-
set, narrow streets, small lots, density, etc. He stated the park
fees collected from this project will be added to the park fund and
used for park services and improvements.
Com. Caldwell stated at the .February 28 Parks and Rec. meeting,
Greenbriar presented earlier plans which showed concentrated open
space and other Commissioners have not seen these plans. Com.
Caldwell asked the City Attorney about Com. Wolfe's involvement in
this project because of his employment with.the Building Industry
Association.
City Attorney Riback stated that he did speak to Com. Wolfe and
provided him with a written opinion to the affect that there is no
conflict of interest. He noted there are approximately 1200
memberships in this trade association and Com. Wolfe's position
with the Trade Association, will not benefit him financially from
this project; therefore there is no conflict of interest..
Planning Commission Minutes Kj)RAFT Page
3/8/94
3
Mr. Mark Pierce, Chr., Parks and Recreation Commission, stated they
do not have any money in the park funds but actually minus
$125,000. He stated as a result of the last meeting, the plan with
the modifications for the McFarland access and additional open
space would be acceptable to the extent that they would also be
entitled approximately $700,000 in park dedication fees. He stated
soccer and baseball fields are needed in the community and this
could not be accomplished in this area, but with the use of the
park dedication fees this may be possible in other areas of the
City. Mr. Pierce stated the Commission did not pursue the open
space at the southeast corner, as addressed by Com. Caldwell.
Com. Murakami asked Mr. Pierce to expand on Com. Clark's comments
regarding a considerable large portion of the open space pathways
being unusable.
Mr. Pierce. stated Com. Clark's concern was that some of the open
space provided is not traditional open space, such as the
driveways. He stated there is a distinction between the open space
and the front yard space.
Com. Caldwell stated, based on the approvals granted by the
Planning Commission, if all the permits were taken out, the park
development fee would.be augmented by approximately $1.5 million.
She urged the Parks Commission to find out more about this figure.
Mr. Curtis stated when the Parks and Recreation budget was
anticipated, this development as well as Kerwin Ranch was included
in the budget. He stated these two projects would be a major
portion of the figure discussed by Com. Caldwell.
Regarding the open space, Planner Walgren stated the 4.32 acres is
common open space which is available to the occupants of this
development. There are also 2.72 acres, which includes the front
yards and the individual parcels. He noted staff did not use this
figure in their assessments. Mr.. Walgren reviewed the setbacks
required for this project, as well as the typical setbacks
required.
Com. Caldwell stated at the February 28, Parks and Recreation
meeting, they' did_ develop a consensus' opinion that all the
Commissioners wanted to maximize the open space and asked if this
is still how the Commission felt regardless of whether the Planning
Commission go forward with additional purchase of land for a park?
Mr. Pierce stated the Parks Commission wants to maximize the open
space on this property. He noted one of the advantages the Parks
Commission seen from this project was the local landscaping and
lighting district proposed. He stated this is an advantage to the
City, but would still like to have as much concentrated open space
as possible.
Com. Caldwell stated if the Commission concluded that it was
inappropriate to have the pathway area slotted for publicly.owned
land, but more appropriately slotted for private open space, would.
this property be counted as part of the 4.78 acres?
Planner Walgren stated the linear green belt and the common open
space proposed is a requirement of the MUPD zoning specific plan
Planning Commission Minutes j AFT Page
3/8/94
4
regardless whether it's private common space or dedicated for
public use. He stated it would be beneficial to have the entire
right -of -way dedicated for public access. Mr. Walgren noted the
Fire District is .satisfied with the plan as proposed with the
primary access onto Saratoga Avenue with the secondary restrictive
emergency access at Afton Ave. He stated they are not pursuing an
additional access.
Mr. Curtis stated the Afton Ave. access is for pedestrian access
only, but. dedicated for emergency access. He stated there are many
points to consider with this project: common space -
private /public; landscape and lighting maintenance district
proposed; the open space required; Parks and Recreation Commission
would like to see the money dedicated into a parks fund. He stated
this is basically -a mixed -use planned development specific plan and
there is a lot of flexibility._ He stated all the attractive
features are trade- offs.for smaller lots and larger homes.
Com. Asfour asked how large the section of open space against the
sound wall is?
Planner Walgren stated he would calculate this.
Com. Asfour asked who owns this property?
Planner Walgren stated the applicant did present at the Parks and
Recreation Commission meeting that they had an opportunity to
acquire additional land, which is on the project side of highway 85
soundwall, it is surplus land at this point. He stated this
property is approximately .5 acres and the applicant is confident
they can purchase or receive encroachment for landscaping purposes.
He noted the project is being considered with the expectation that
this property will be included.
Com. Kaplan asked how much ownership must this developer have off
this open space for the City to be able count on continuous control
over.the .5 acres?
City Attorney Riback stated the developer, at the very least, would
have to obtain. an easement over the property for the purpose of
providing the greenbelt. He stated if they dedicated it to the
City they would have to own it outright.
Chr. Moran opened the public hearing at 8:11 p.m.
Ms. Carol Meyer, representing Greenbriar, stated they have been
building in the valley since mid 1970. She noted they have a
reputation.for quality and have recently built two award winning
projects. She noted when the proposed plans were discussed at the
work session five key concepts emerged. They are as follows: use;
density; internal roadway; open space; and house size.. She noted
they have taken the recommendations from the work session and the
Central Fire Department as well as the Parks and Recreation
Commission, and are here to present the revised plan.
USE - Ms. Meyer noted.they are proposing a residential use and the
project consists of 95 detached houses, the use is consistent with
the low density option and the first choice of the community, when
Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
3/8/94 DUR A' FT
the specific plan was adopted. Ms. Meyer addressed affordable
housing and stated it would not be appropriate for this property.
DENSITY - Ms. Meyer stated lots proposed are approximately 7800 sq.
ft., in addition they are proposing to provide 2000 sq. ft. of open
space per home to be landscaped and dedicated as a public park.
She stated they are providing just under 10,000 sq. ft. of land per
home. She added the public space will be maintained by the
property owners. She stated the open space provided meets the
letter of the MUPD zoning -and the spirit of the specific plan. She
stated it will allow the developer to build a beautiful and unique
community.
ROADWAY - Ms. Meyer stated the width of the roadway has increased
and is acceptable to, Central Fire and Public Works. She noted
there will be two full lanes in and out of the community and a left
turn lane. She added emergency access will be provided onto Afton
Ave.
OPEN SPACE - Ms. Meyer stated they are saving the City
approximately $30,000 per year on the maintenance.
Mr. Paul Lateri explained how more open space was obtained and
noted they tightened up the plan. He stated he would like to have
the driveways minimized and pointed out that only 37 houses front
the open space. He believes most of the open .space is useable.
Mr. Lateri pointed out that the widest point of the open space is
75 to 80 feet. He also noted they are proposing to plant 600 new
trees and they will look at the pedestrian access onto McFarland.
He reviewed the setbacks proposed, as outlined in the plans. He
stated the walls.proposed will be covered with vines.
Com. Wolfe asked if traditionally, a linear park in a metropolitan
area, by .definition, is one that has access by the public, but
would be bisected by some form of ingress /egress?
Mr. Lateri stated the linear park is a different concept and noted
the idea of the driveways going across the open space can be dealt
with.
Com. Murakami stated he visited a Greenbriar development in
Cupertino and the roads are 33 ft. wide.
Mr. Lateri stated the roads have parking on both sides of the
street and this project allows for parking on one side of the
street only.
Com. Murakami asked if any consideration was given to 10,000 sq.
ft. lots? Mr. Lateri stated this is not a specific criteria,
because it is not the zoning that the site is governed by.
Com. Murakami stated the project in Cupertino, the houses are set
very close to each other.
Mr. Lateri stated that project does not have the open space concept
included in this project.
Planning Commission Minutes DIXAFT Page 6
3/8/94
Regarding the parking, Com. Asfour asked if it practical to ask a
resident not to park in front of their home?
Mr. Lateri stated there is sufficient parking provided and does not
believe this will be an issue.
Com. Asfour asked the target retail price for the homes, Ms. Meyer
stated between $500,000 and-$600,000.
Chr. Moran asked about the lot size. Mr. �ateri stated the average
lot size, plus the open space is approximately 9800 sq. ft.
Com. Jacobs questioned how the open space was increased from the
original proposal, when there are still 95 lots and the width of
the street has increased? He noted in the plans received by the
Commission in February, the average lot size was 7200 sq. ft. and
its now almost 7800 sq. ft.
Mr. Lateri stated the typical lot size was 7200 sq. ft. on the
original plans, but the average .lot size was not calculated. He
noted they have tightened up the plan and added .56 acres to the
site from the Cal -Trans property.
Chr. Moran asked who many lots would be allowed if the average lot
size was 10,000 sq. ft. Com. Murakami stated there would be
approximately 75 homes allowed.if lots were a minimum of 10,000 sq.
ft.
Mr. Lateri stated that the lots vary in size some are almost 12,000
sq. ft. and others are 6300 sq. ft., but the majority of the lots
are 7200 sq. ft.
Mr. Goodwin Steinberg stated this project is good for the community
and the homes are designed well. He reviewed the basic features of
the homes and spoke in support of the project. He stated there is
10 ft. between the houses and privacy was addressed by placing-the
main windows at the front and back.
Mr. Gary Lang, 13127 Montrose, spoke in favor of the revised plan
and noted his neighbors are in support of total residential. He
stated this is not an appropriate site for commercial as the
neighborhood will be impacted by highway 85 and any commercial will
bring additional traffic. He stated the plan proposed is
attractive and innovative and spoke in support of the linear park
and curving streets. Mr. Lang stated the curving streets will slow
down traffic 'and give children an :opportunity to play on the
streets. He also spoke in favor of the landscape plan and does not
feel there is any need to decrease the density. ,He stated this is
the only remaining large parcel in Saratoga and the use of this
property for affordable housing is not acceptable to the neighbors.
Com. Caldwell stated she was approached by a neighbor.of Mr. Lang
who addressed a newspaper article regarding this property being
used for an ethnic grocery market, she noted the neighbor indicated
there was much uproar about this. She asked Mr. Lang how the
neighborhood feel about this?
Planning Commission Minutes Page
3/8/94 DIRAF'T
7
Mr. Lang stated if this were to become a commercial development
traffic would be impacted. He stated the newspaper article was
upsetting to many neighbors. He spoke, in support of the plan
proposed.
Com. Kaplan stated there is a lack of housing for seniors, and
asked had this been considered for this site?
Mr. Lang stated his neighbors have discussed many options for this
property and the previous developer had proposed senior housing and
the density was much higher. He stated they are not against senior
housing, but are against "affordable housing ". He stated he would
favor 10,000 sq. ft. lots, but if the density was reduced the price
of homes would increase. He stated it is the neighbors consensus
that this is the best use for the land and something that can be
done in a short period of time. He noted time is an issue for the
neighbors.
Com. Kaplan addressed the City's requirement from the State to meet
their housing requirement and the possibility of being sued for not
meeting the housing requirement.
Com. Jacobs asked was any consideration given to the possibility of
varying densities throughout the project?
Mr. Lang stated the neighbors looked at many options for this
property, but are in favor of the plan proposed.
Ms. Wanda Henry, Fee Management Co., stated she manages Quito
Shopping Center and noted there is 11,000 sq ft. of vacant space in
this center. She believes residential in this area will help the
center and noted there are not enough tenants to support. more
commercial on this site. She stated she is very impressed with the
development and it will be an asset to the Community. She stated,
the pedestrian access onto McFarland would be an advantage.
Mr. Ed Vincent, 13617 Westover Dr., spoke in favor of the plan
proposed and noted this is more favorable than any high density
multi housing or commercial. He stated his only objection is to
the substandard lots and the street size. He believes the
developer bought the property knowing the codes of the City
regarding lot and street size. He does not believe the codes
should be amended for economic reasons.
Ms. Rose Marie Culpan, 19213 Vineyard Ln., spoke in support of the
development and stated. this is much better than anything presented
previously. She stated she is opposed to commercial and likes the
concept' of the trees and the project will look good when developed.
Ms. Chris Favero, 19549 Vineyard Ln., stated she strongly supports
the plan as proposed and believes it is consistent with the
character of Saratoga. She noted they are opposed to commercial
development.
Mr. George Vetre, Vineyard Ln., spoke in support of the proposed
plan and' stated it will help increase property values of
surrounding neighborhoods. He noted there are affordable housing
units throughout Saratoga. In response to Com. Wolfe's question,
Planning commission Minutes DRA FT Page 8
3/8/94
Mr. Vetre stated he does not believe parking will be a problem.
Further, Mr. Vetre responded that his condo complex has 165 units.
Ms. Sandra Lane, 13712 Montrose, spoke in favor of the plan
proposed and believes it is the appropriate use for the site, and
the neighborhood is also in support. She stated the neighbors are
happy with the sidewalk and linear park proposed. Ms. Lane stated
the Planning Commission should listen to the neighbors who will be
most impacted by this development. She noted they are opposed to
any commercial on this property. She- stated the applicant has
addressed the size of the units and come back with a size which is
compatible with the neighboring homes. She spoke in support of the
open space and is opposed to high density or commercial.
Com. Caldwell asked Ms. Lane, how the neighborhood would feel if
the Commission asked the developer to develop the four lots on the
southeast corner as open space?
Ms. Lane stated. more open space would be great, but they would
oppose this if cost was an issue and the developer, could not
develop at all, because of this requirement.
Mr. Art Liss, representing homeowners in Saratoga Woods, noted he
reviewed the plan proposed and believes these are much needed homes
in an established neighborhood.
Mr. Peter Lesley, 15100 Saratoga Ave., stated he concurs with the
previous speakers. He added all the neighbors are in favor of this
project and would like to see it go forward. He is opposed to
higher density or commercial development.
Mr. Martin Chainey, Afton Ave., stated recently their biggest
concern has, been highway 85 and the state of the Paul Masson
property. He stated the neighbors on Afton Ave. are unanimous in
their support for this project. He believes this development is
compatible with the neighborhood and issues of the neighborhood,
such as noise, air quality, traffic, have been addressed by the
proposed plan. He stated he and his neighbors do not support
commercial development and would like to see the plans proposed
expedited.
Ms. Rebecca Chainey, 18859 Afton Ave., stated any use of affordable
housing on this property will. require higher density. She
expressed concern about traffic if the density was higher or
developed as commercial. 'She stated if there is a large park on
this property it..will bring people from other parts of the City and
this will bring more traffic. She also expressed concern about air.
quality. She spoke in support of the plans as proposed.
Ms. Mira Chainey, 18859 Afton Ave., stated she is speaking for the
neighborhood children. She stated there are no sidewalks in her
neighborhood and this project will give a safe place for children
and would like the plan approved.
Mr. Greg Horn, Montrose St., spoke in support of the plan and noted
he is looking forward to riding his bike on the sidewalks proposed.
/ Fig.
Planning Commission Minutes � . �, A Page 9
3/8/94
Mr. Dean Echie, resident, stated he is impressed with the proposed
plan and is concerned about more changes to the plan. He urged the
Planning Commission to approve this plan so the developer can start
construction while highway 85 is being constructed.
Mr. Norm Matteoni, 1740 Technology Dr., San Jose, BA Properties,
reviewed the adoption of the specific plan and noted this plan was
based on the City's requirement to get input from the people who
have spoke. He stated there was a plan of action to bring
development that would.be acceptable to the community, and this has
been heard at this hearing. He noted the proposed plan speaks well
of the specific plan and is less dense than the MUPD zoning.
Ms. Carol Meyer stated what Greenbriar is proposing is real and if
the City requires more opens space, it won't work, nor will the
reduction in the number of houses or house size. She asked that
the plans proposed be approved and looks forward to working with
the Commission for the final plans. She stated they need to seek
approval to go forward and would like to get the roads in before
the winter.
Com. Jacobs questioned.what Greenbriar builds. Ms. Meyer stated
Greenbriar Homes Co. builds single family homes, an affiliate of
Greenbriar builds apartments.
Com. Jacobs addressed an article in the Business Journal, dated
February 14, which did not differentiate between Greenbriar and
it's affiliate. Ms. Meyer stated the article is incorrect.
Com. Wolfe noted that Mr. Steinberg is noted as an award winning
architect and asked how this project would compare to other award
winning projects and how it could be modified slightly to make it
a better project?
Mr. Steinberg stated when designing this property they were
thinking more in terms of finding a solution to the problem as
opposed to an ,award winning project. He believes this project is
good for the.community and fits in well.
ASFOUR /MURARAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 7 -0.
Chr. Moran stated the houses proposed are very close to each other
and asked are they compatible with the neighborhood?
Planner Walgren stated the neighborhood have a 6 to 10 ft. setback -
per parcel. He noted the development adjacent to the east was
developed under County regulations and it is possible that there
could be less than a loft. setback minimum.
Chr. Moran stated Ms. Meyer addressed economics in her closing
comments and asked the City Attorney how would this fit into their
calculations?
City Attorney Riback. stated the Planning Commission has been
advised in the past not to take economics into consideration when
making land use decisions.
/7.
Planning Commission Minutes A fell, Page 10
3/8/94
Com. Kaplan asked staff about the applicant's request to reduce the
width of the driveways or be used by multiple homes.
Planner Walgren stated the applicant's request is to consider a
less than code requirement for a single family driveway. He noted
this can be modified, particularly in cases were there are
residents so close to a public street. He stated if the applicant
propose a 8 to 12 ft. driveway and central fire can accept this,
then staff believes it is acceptable, as long as the Planning
Commission feels there 4, .s still sufficient apron parking on the
actual property.
Com. Wolfe stated affordable housing is always a consideration, but
at this point in time and the specific plan, it is difficult to see
how this could be configured into this plan. He noted affordable
housing should be addressed in the future.
Com. Asfour stated, from a land use perspective, he would oppose
commercial on this site and would prefer all residential. He stated
has no problem with the conceptual design with some modifications.
Com. Caldwell stated that all residential is the appropriate land
use for this property.
Com. Murakami spoke in favor of all residential, as did Com. Jacobs
and Kaplan.
Chr. Moran also spoke in support of all residential and stated this
helps the Commission address many issues raised during the specific
plan. Chr. Moran stated to the public that the Commission is in
favor of all residential as opposed to commercial.
Com. Kaplan thanked Planner Walgren for a well planned land use
trip. She stated she did visit a number of other communities,
measured streets and compared, and would accept a 28 ft. street
with parking on one side. She expressed concerned about how this
could be controlled. She noted the houses are very large on small
lots, and believes the houses being so close together does not
reflect the suburban semi -rural character of Saratoga.
Com. Asfour stated the design aspect is very good and the overall
concept is good, but he cannot support the density proposed. He
stated the Commission cannot consider economics as addressed by Ms.
Meyer. He expressed concern about the house size on sub - standard
lots. He added he would like to see less units and more useable
open space.
Com. Caldwell stated she has heard a sense of urgency from the
public and the applicant to move forward on this project. She
noted it has been difficult and frustrating, as a Planning
Commissioner, watching the whole progress with this site and
realizes it has been a problem for the neighbors with regards to
noise and air pollution. She noted the neighbors have spoke out of
frustration and the Commission is sensitive to this. She stated
the internal street plan is acceptable and believes the narrow
streets will help slow down traffic. She noted the pathway
proposed is a good design feature, but does not consider it open
space in terms of the guidelines set out in the specific plan.
Planning Commission Minutes r AFT' rage
3/8/94
11
Com. Caldwell stated she would like to maximize the useable open
space which is concentrated. She noted more open space, using the
four southeast lots, would be an improvement to the plan. She
noted one suggestion would be attached housing along Saratoga
Avenue; and this may be an opportunity to provide less expensive
housing. She expressed concern about large homes on small lots,
and stated it is essential to request the pedestrian access onto
McFarland to allow access to a community park and shopping center.
Com. Caldwell addressed. the 10 ft. between structures and noted
this is very small given the size and height of the structures.
She added compatibility is an aspect the Planning Commission have
always paid close attention to, and it is important that this
development fit in with the existing neighborhood. To summarize,
Com. Caldwell stated the plan is close, the applicant should
consider consolidating and augmenting the open space, and put some
parameters on the setbacks.. She stated she is not opposed to 95
homes if the applicant can deal with the setback and open space
issues. She stated the neighborhood needs some public open space
in this area and the Parks and Recreation Commission report ar heavy
demand for open space.
Com. Jacobs stated he has found the whole process difficult. He
noted what the neighbors have to I say is very important and Planning
Commissioners do share some of their' concerns. He noted the
Planning Commission is not in favor of commercial on this site. He
expressed concern about traffic and noted the freeway will have an
impact on the neighborhood. He believes the neighbors are talking
from fear and frustration, and noted these are great motivators,
but it is the Planning Commission's job to make decisions based on
rules which include the City's General Plan and the Specific Plan.
He stated when the Commission considered multiple use for the
,property last year, they did not envision all single family homes.
He stated 95 homes on small lots is a first for Saratoga, but
stated the Planning Commission was willing to go with single family
homes entirely, if this plan complied with the R1- 10,000 zoning,
and this plan does not. He stated all single family homes would be
acceptable, but noted the density proposed is too great and the
plan is not acceptable to him. He stated at a hearing in February
he indicated that there was too much house on too little land and
suggested less. than 95 lots. Also the plan proposed does not meet
the minimum required open space.
Com. Murakami stated the overall plan is good and believes the
linear open space could be sacrificed for a dedicated park, but
spoke in support of the overall design. He also expressed concern
about too muchhouse on small lots. He believes. the lots should be
increased to 10,000 sq. ft. and the project would still be
marketable. He stated he would like this project to move forward
as addressed by the neighbors.
Com. Wolfe stated he shares the concerns of other Commissioners
regarding open space, but they have heard from the neighbors that
this is a good plan. He stated if the density was reduced, then
house prices increase. He noted the street plan is acceptable and
believes there are similar projects in Saratoga. He does not
believe this project will cause traffic. problems and stated the
plan is workable. Com. Wolfe noted that in response to a previous
statement that, "This high density would be a first for Saratoga."
Planning Commission Minutes nR F Pa e
g
3/8/94
To recall the testimony of Mr. George Vetre who lives
complex on Vineyard Lane just across Saratoga Avenue
Masson property, Mr. Vetre stated that there are 165
he lives, all of which are two stories high, on a site
than the Paul Masson property. He does not believe
will cause any traffic problems.
12 .
in the condo
from the Paul
units, where
much smaller
this project
Further, Com. Wolfe said in reference to another previous remark
that the proposed. homes "would be very,. very expensive" that it
would be helpful to use as a perspective the fact that- in 1993
about 30 homes were built in Saratoga all valued at near or over
$1,000,000 each and that in 1992 - 27 homes were built in Saratoga -
all of which exceeded a million dollars in value. The proposed
development appears to be half those costs.
Com. Kaplan asked what'the setback is for R1- 10,000 lots?
Planner Walgren stated the minimum setback between two homes is 20
ft., unless it is a substandard parcel, then it. becomes 100 of the
lot width. Planner Walgren stated there are only setback
requirements for rear yards in Multiple Use Planner Development
Zoning District, other setbacks are up to the discretion of the
Planning Commission based on what the developer proposes and shows
as reasonable.
Com. Kaplan stated the applicant will have benefit of the multiple
use zoning even though they are proposing all residential.
Planning Director Curtis stated the MPD zone is a flexible zoning
district and the surrounding area is taken into consideration and
leaves it open as to what the Planning Commission believe is
appropriate for the site. He stated if the Planning Commission
wish to consider single family homes which need to meet R1- 10,000
zoning district, the MUPD is no longer necessary and the zoning
needs to be changed and start all over again. He stated this is a
flexible zoning district and R1- 10,000 standards cannot be applied.
Chr. Moran stated she would like to see the City act expeditiously
to allow and encourage development on this property. She noted the
zoning designation provides flexibility in design and density, in
order to encourage development that is creative and innovative.
She stated a specific plan was developed to compliment and expand
on the MUPD zoning to reflect what the City and neighbors want.
She noted the proposal is for 95 large homes on small lots, she
stated residential use is appropriate but would prefer to see a
mix of houses with a wider price range, but is willing to entertain
this proposal as it seems to be what the neighbors want. She noted
if single family homes are going to be developed here, they should
be compatible with the adjacent neighborhood and believes the plan
proposed is close. She spoke in support of the access to
McFarland. She noted her main concern is the size of the lots and
density. She added she would be interested'in an average lot of
10,000 sq. ft. She believes this is a workable plan and they
should work with the developer to obtain a plan which is acceptable
to all.
Planning.Commission Minutes Is RAFT Page
3/8/94.
13
Planning Director Curtis stated the Planning Commission should re-
open the public hearing and ask the applicant if he is willing to
modify the plan or proceed with the plan as proposed.
Chr. Moran stated she is not sensing a no from the Commission, but
a plan that needs to modified.
Com. Asfour stated the Commissioners all agree that the plan is
good, but the major concern is the house size on small lots.
Chr. Moran re- .opened the public hearing and asked the applicant
would they like a continuance at this time or for the Commission to
take a.vote.
Mr. Tom Direck, BA Properties, stated the zoning on the property is
MUPD zoning and the specific plan was adopted by the Planning
Commission and the reason they will ask for a .decision at this
hearing is because they feel they have brought a plan to the
Commission which is consistent with the specific plan adopted, and
this is the lower density alternative. He stated they have
listened to the.neighbors, been consistent with the specific plan
.and would like a decision at this hearing.
ASFOUR/JACOBS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 7 -0.
Com. Wolfe moved for approval of PD -94 -001 with the provision that
there be public pedestrian ingress /egress of appropriate width to
McFarland Avenue. Com. Asfour seconded for purposed of discussion.
Com. Caldwell stated she would like to see the McFarland pedestrian
access, more concentrated open space, dealing with the overbuilt
qualities of the development which have been addressed by
Commissioners., augmenting and consolidating open space. She stated
all residential is acceptable as is the street design. She stated
this area is a high density area and is lacking in open space.
THE ABOVE MOTION FAILED 1 -6 (Caldwell, Asfour, Moran, Murakami,
Jacobs,"Raplan No).
ASFOUR /RAPLAN'MOVED TO DENY APPLICATION PD -94 -001 SUBJECT TO THE
COMMENTS MADE BY COMMISSIONERS AT THIS HEARING. PASSED 6 -1 (Wolfe
No).
The City Attorney was excused at this time.
2. DR -93 -043- Brook; 15043 Gypsy Hill Rd. (Lot #28), request
for Design Review approval to construct a new
5,305 sq. ft. two -story residence within the
San Marcos Heights Subdivision per Chapter 15
of the City Code. The parcel is approximately
43,278 sq. ft. and is located within an R -1-
40,000 zone district.
Planner Walgren presented the staff report dated March 8, 1994.
Chr. Moran expressed concern about the amount of grading.. Planner
Walgren explained the grading required and noted most of. it is for
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No. /Location: PD-94-001; 13150 Saratoga Ave.
Applicant/ Owner: Greenbriar Homes /BA Properties, Inc.
Staff Planner: James Walgren
Date: March 8, 1994
APN: 389 -11 -012, 013 & 014 Director Approval:
13150 Saratoga Ave.
File No. PD -94 -001; 13150 Saratoga Ave.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY:
Application filed:
1/14/94
Application complete:
2/15/94
Notice published:
1/19/94
Mailing completed:
1/20/94
Posting completed:
1/14/94
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Request for a Planned Development- Conceptual Plan approval to
construct 95 single family detached residences at the 24 acre
former Paul Masson Winery site. The subject property is located on
Saratoga Avenue north of Route 85 and is zoned Multiple Use - Planned
Development (MU -PD).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Review the applicants' submitted informational packet describing
and illustrating the project, take testimony from the applicant and
the public and then direct the applicant accordingly. If the
project is acceptable to the Planning Commission, staff recommends
continuing the item to March 23, 1994 to incorporate the proposed
amendments and to adopt the Planned Development- Conceptual Plan
approval Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Analysis
2. Draft P &RC Minutes dated 2/28/94
3. Subdivision /Park Dedication Ordinance
4. Correspondence
5. Submittal Materials and Plans, Exhibit "A"
File No. PD -94- 001;.13150 Saratoga Ave.
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: MU -PD GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Multiple Use
PARCEL SIZE: 24 acres
PROPOSAL
LOT COVERAGE: 33%
STRUCTURE HEIGHT: 25 ft.
SIZE OF
STRUCTURES:
Plan A
Garage: 572 sq. ft.
Living Area: 2,928 sq. ft.
TOTAL: 3,500 sq. ft.
Plan B
Garage: 563 sq. ft.
Living Area: 3,127 sq. ft.
TOTAL: 3,690 sq. ft.
Plan C
MU -PD & SPECIFIC PLAN
REQUIREMENTS & ALLOWANCES
60%
26 ft.
na
na
Garage: 555 sq. ft.
Living Area: 3,215 sq. ft. na
TOTAL: 3,770 sq. ft.
COMMON OPEN SPACE: 4.05 acres * 4.78 acres
(excluding Saratoga
Ave. greenbelt)
* Applicant has offered to dedicate common space for public use
PROPOSAL
DWELLING UNIT 95
DENSITY:
LOT SIZE: 7,760 sq. ft. average
(-9,800 sq. ft: if public
"greenbelt" is included)
SPECIFIC PLAN
RECOMMENDATIONS
< 104
10,000 sq..ft.
File No. PD -94 -001; 13150 Saratoga Ave.
PROJECT DISCUSSION:
Overview:
The applicants, BA Properties and Greenbriar Homes, have recently
made an application to develop the 24 acre former Paul .Masson
Winery site with 95 detached single- family homes. This application
was first presented to the Planning Commission at a specially
convened February 1, 1994 public hearing. The intent of the
meeting was to familiarize the Planning Commission and the
community with the project and the applicants themselves. Draft
minutes of this meeting are included in the packet for reference.
Audio tapes of this meeting are also available in the Community
Development Department.
Significant issues raised by staff at the February 1st meeting
included:
• The street plan is an internal proposal with only one through
access at the future Saratoga Ave. signalized intersection.
• The proposed loop road was 26 ft. wide to allow a landscaped
"linear- park" between the road and the front lot lines. The
Subdivision Ordinance requires that residential local streets
within a multi - family or an R -1- 10,000 district be a minimum
of 36 ft. in width. This requirement can be reduced if there
are compelling reasons to do so.
• The Specific Plan encourages tying this development into the
existing neighborhood to the east and to provide pedestrian
connections to both Afton and McFarland Avenues.
• The Specific Plan encourages a minimum lot size of 10,000 sq.
ft. if detached homes are proposed. This plan provides an
average lot size of 7,760 sq. ft. The applicants have noted
that if you include the linear park abutting the individual
lots, this site average increases to almost 9,800 sq. ft.
• The Specific Plan and the MU -PD Zoning Ordinance both require
that at least 50% of the required 9.5 acres of landscaped open
space be designated as common open space (4.78 acres). The
applicants' linear park proposal provides 4.05 acres of open
space. They have offered to dedicate this land as public open
space.
Several neighbors spoke in favor of the development at the February
meeting. Neighbors also raised concerns regarding the density of
the development, the small lot sizes relative to the size of the
proposed homes and the visual effects of the proposed narrow
streets.
File No. PD- 94- 001;,13150 Saratoga Ave.
Concerns raised by Planning Commissioners included:
• The amount of common open land incorporated into the project.
• The public safety and/or .aesthetic implications of the
originally proposed 26 ft. wide roadways.
• Could higher density "affordable" housing be-included?
• Should the City consider requiring some public parkland within
the development in lieu of the anticipated park maintenance
impact fees?
• Concerned about large homes on relatively small parcels.
The public hearing was then continued to March 8, 1994 in order to
allow the Parks and Recreation Commission to comment on the City's
park needs at this particular site. The applicants were also
requested to provide the Planning Commission with the earlier park
plans they had presented to staff.
Parks and Recreation commission Review:
The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the site and discussed
the anticipated recreation needs within this area. The
Commissioners raised varied specific recreational interests,
emphasizing the need to maximize the amount of useable open space
within this development. A consensus was that the $775,000 park-
in -lieu fees that this project would generate should be used to
acquire additional public parkland within this site itself. The
benefits of this include:
1. Pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, the Quimby Parkland
Dedication Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance, -1.3
acres of additional public open space could be required (using
1993 Ca. Dept. of Finance data of 2.76 persons per household) .
Potential drawbacks: include:
1. The City would lose an opportunity to collect significant park
maintenance funds.
2. The applicants have agreed to dedicate the 4.05 acres as
public land and pay the park fees. They have indicated that
they could not feasibly dedicate an additional 1.3 acres as
public park since the roughly 7 lots that this would include
would cost them far in excess of the $775,000. In other
words, the project may not go forward.
Draft minutes from the Parks and Recreation Commission are
attached. Commission Chair Mark Pierce has also been invited to
the Planning Commission public hearing to answer any questions.
File No. PD- 94- 001; 13150 Saratoga Ave.
Fire District and Public Works Department Review:
Staff's conversations with the Central Fire District and the Public
Works Director since the February meeting have indicated that the
plans as now presented are acceptable. The Fire District is
comfortable with the revised 28 ft. roadway, which provides them
with their minimum requirement of unobstructed 20 ft. travel Ianes
and provides the City with our minimum on- street parking width
requirement of 8 ft. The Public Works Director has also stated
that the 28 ft. wide road is acceptable as a public street and that
the dedication of the linear park as a public facility (though to
be maintained by the homeowners through a Lighting and Landscape
Assessment district) is appropriate.
Consistency with'MU -PD Zoning & Specific Plan:
The primary remaining issues include density, proposed road width
and internal circulation, lot sizes relative to house sizes, amount
of open space, and consideration of incorporating a public park
facility into the project. Staff analysis of the MU -PD Zoning and
the Specific Plan for this concludes:
The proposed density of 95 dwelling units is within the
maximum allowable of 104 units permitted in the MU -PD Zoning
Ordinance. An entire development of detached single family
homes is also one of the Specific Plan Land Use Plans
requested by the Planning Commission.
• From a health and safety standpoint, both the Central Fire
District and the City's Public Works Department have found the
circulation plan and the 28 ft. roadway to be acceptable.
From an aesthetic standpoint, staff feels that the 20 -50 ft.
wide linear park and the 20 -25 ft. front -yard setback to-the
actual structures will provide sufficient open area to prevent
a' "tunnel" effect.
• Staff feels that with'the inclusion of the linear park, which
will remain as permanently dedicated open space, that the
parcels are sufficiently close to the 10,000 sq. ft.
recommendation. The "compelling" feature which warrants
consideration of this lot size exception is the linear park
itself.
With regard to the amount of on -site open space, staff is in
support of the applicants' proposal, with the following
amendment: pursuant to Section 15- 21.070(b) of the MU -PD
Zoning Ordinance and "Common Greens and Landscaping"
Implementation Measure #1, at least 4.78 acres of common open
space needs to be incorporated into the plan.
File No. PD -94 -001; 13150 Saratoga Ave.
By including a pedestrian connection /open space feature at the
northeast corner of the property to McFarland Avenue, the
applicants would be closer to meeting their open space requirements
and satisfying the desires of the Parks and Recreation Commission,
if the proposed linear park could also be proportionately increased
in land to meet the .73 acre deficit, staff would be in support of
the overall project from a land use perspective.
Conceptual Plan v. Final Plan:
The Multiple Use - Planned Development (MU -PD) Zoning Ordinance
requires that a preliminary Conceptual_ Development Plan first be
submitted for public review and Planning Commission consideration.
This first stage of review is intended to allow the Commission to
review the general land use proposal prior to the applicants
expending significant efforts into preparing more detailed plans.
The Planning Commission may approve, reject or modify the
Conceptual Plan based on its conformance with the MU -PD zoning and
the recently adopted Paul Masson Specific Plan. The Commission
should also use this process to consider necessary future
environmental support documents. Approval of the Conceptual Plan
only indicates to. the applicant that the City is initially
receptive to the proposed development and is willing to consider
the project in more detail..
A Final Development Plan and environmental analysis would then
follow. This more detailed application would ultimately result in
a final Planning Commission approval. Compliance with the approved
Conceptual Plan does not guarantee approval of the Final Plan.
Public Notice:
A notice of the February 1st meeting was published in the Saratoga
News and mailed to approximately 900 of the closest neighbors.
Additional notices were sent to interested community groups,
homeowners associations and individuals based on a notification
request mailing list established during the process of preparing
and adopting the Paul Masson Specific Plan. The public hearing was
then continued to March 8th, with the assembled audience encouraged
to attend. To date, staff has received no additional
correspondence regarding this application from the public.
Recommendation:
Review the applicants' submitted informational packet describing
and illustrating the project, take testimony from the applicant and
the public and then direct the applicant accordingly. If the
project is acceptable to the Planning Commission, staff recommends
continuing the item to March 23, 1994 to incorporate the proposed
amendments and to adopt the Planned Development - Conceptual Plan
approval Resolution.
NOTE: Draft Copy - Has not been reviewed or approved by the
Parks and Recreation Commission
TIME:
PLACE:
TYPE:
I.
II.
MINUTES
SARATOGA PARRS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1994
ijRAFT
?ADMINISTRATION CONFERENCE ROOM
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE, SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
SPECIAL MEETING
ORGANIZATION
A. ROLL CALL - Present:
B. POST OF THE AGENDA
Clark, Crotty, Dutra, Miller,
Pierce, Absent: Banard
Staff: Bob Rizzo, James Walgren
Community Development Department
Other: Planning Commissioner
Caldwell, Carol Meyer and Shyam
Taggarsi, Greenbriar Development
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for
this meeting was properly posted on February 23,1994.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Review of Conceptual Development Plan for the Paul__
Masson Winery Site on Saratoga Avenue.
Secretary Rizzo informed the Commission that the purpose
of this special meeting is that the Planning Commission .
has requested the Parks and Recreation Commission to give
input and suggestions to the Planning Commission regarding
this project. The Park and Recreation Commission is not
being requested at this time to approve. the overall
conceptual plans.
Planning Commissioner Caldwell stated that the Planning
Commission requested that the Parks and Recreation
Commission review the conceptual development pan by
Greenbriar Development Company. The.purpose is to gain
input on the conceptual public open space issues regarding
the project. This project is in the very early stages of
development and the Planning Commission wanted to have the
Parks and Recreation Commission involved in the early
planning stages. Further Stated that the Commission
should consider what will be the recreational needs of the
new development and the surrounding community. The
Commission has the opportunity to give input to the
D)IRAFT
SARATOGA PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 28, 1994
PAGE 2
Planning Commission on what recreational elements they
would like to see developed at this location.
Carol Meyer of Greenbriar Development reviewed for
the Commission the overall conceptual plan. She stated
that the sits plan had been revised to increase the
public open space from 2.8 acres to more than 4 acres.
She discussed that the maintenance of the public open
space will be funded through a Landscape and Lighting
District which would have an assessment of $20 to $30
per parcel. She also stated that they are planning to
get from Cal- Trans, part of the Hwy 85 corridor which
will increase the open space linear park to approximately
one -half of an acre. This is included in the 4 acres of
public open space. They stated that the linear park
along Hwy 85 would be a passive recreational area which
could include a picnic area, par course and a small turf
area for passive activities. Discussed the concept of the
strolling pathway and stated that they are planning to
install approximately 1000 trees in the public open space..
Also discussed the pedestrian emergency access to Afton
Avenue.
Commissioner Swan inquired about the Trails Master Plan
across Saratoga Avenue. Rizzo stated that the segment
(41) originally planned may. not be possible to use due to
the development of Hwy 85 and the realignment of the SP
right of way.
Commissioner Caldwell asked the Commission what are the
unmet recreational needs in this area? Commissioner
Swan stated that multi - purpose athletic fields are the
biggest need in this area and overall in the City.
Commissioner Pierce discussed the Park -in- lieu -fees that
would be collected from the project which is $8160 per
parcel. He also discussed designing access from McFarland
Avenue into the project. Commissioner Crotty agreed and
stated that an access from McFarland Avenue would allow
pedestrians to walk to Quito Shopping Center and El Quito
Park.
Commissioner Pierce requested the Commission to give
individual input regarding what recreational activities
they would like to see developed.
Commissioner Crotty: Stated that she favored an open
space element +1 acre be developed into a park.
DRAFT
SARATOGA PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 28, 1994
PAGE 3
Commissioner Dutra: Discussed the park -in- lieu -fee and
what would be done with these funds, expressed that
she favored an open space developed park.
Commissioner Clark: Discussed his concerns regarding the
pathway design and how the pathways would intersect
with the driveways. He considers a large portion of
the open space pathway as unusable open space.
Commissioner Miller: Agreed with the other commissioners
she would like to see the development of an open
space park.
Commissioner Swan: Likes the overall concept she agrees
that it needs to increase the usable open space
element and would like to see some open space
developed by McFarland Avenue.
Commissioner Pierce: Likes the overall concept and
discussed the park dedication fees that would be
collected through this project, but agreed that he
would like to see access onto McFarland Avenue.
Planning Commissioner Caldwell: Summarized the design
elements that were expressed by the Parks and
Recreation Commission.
1) Maximization of the required and proposed open
space, if possible to increase the linear park
element.
2) Pedestrian access to McFarland Avenue.
3) Recreational needs for the community that should
be considered.
4) Commission stated that they overall like the
looks and feel of the design, but there were
safety concerns regarding the driveway that
should be considered.
Planning Commissioner Caldwell thanked the Parks and
Recreation Commission for their time and input. The
Planning Commission will be discussing these issues and
others regarding this project at the Planning Commission
next scheduled meeting on March 8.
DRAFT
SARATOGA PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 28, 1994
PAGE 4
B. Review of the conceptual development plan for the lands of
Oden SD -94 -001 on Saratoga Avenue.
Commissioner Clark moved to table this item until the next
schedule meeting. Dutra second 6/0
ADJOURNMENT 7:05 P.M. Motion: Dutra /Clark 6/0
Bob Rizzo; ecretary
P-d
site is or will be traversed or bordered by any local
drainage facility, or other watercourse not under the
jurisdiction of said water district but under the jurisdiction
of the City, the subdivider or owner shall offer to dedicate
a fee simple interest or easement of reasonable width in
said drainage facility and over the property in which it
lies, said dedication to be to the City.
14- 25.070 Preservation of existing trees.
(a) No native, ornamental or orchard trees required
to be shown on the_ application fot tentativr %map or
building site approval under Subsection 14- 20.040(v) of
this Chapter shall be removed or destroyed without a prior
permit to do so issued by the Planning Director pursuant
to Article 15 -50 of the Zoning Ordinance, unless such
removal is specifically authorized as part of the tentative
approval granted under this Chapter. No such trees may
be removed or destroyed prior to the filing of an applica-
tion for tentative map or building site approval with the
intent of circumventing the requirements of this Chapter.
(b) The advisory agency may deny approval of any
application for tentative map or building site approval,
and revoke any previous such approval, upon the violation
of this Section by the subdivider or owner.
(c) The approval of a tentative map or building site
by the advisory agency shall automatically constitute
authorization to remove all trees within all portions of
street rights -of -way which are to be improved, and to
remove trees from the area as designated by the subdivider
or owner to be covered by the envelope of the proposed
structure or structures to be erected on the lot or site,
and the area of the proposed driveway on the lot or site.
14- 25.080 Park and recreation dedication and
fees.
(a) Purpose, application and exemptions. As a
condition of each final map or final building site approval,
and to be detailed in the conditions of tentative map or
building bite approval, every subdivider or owner shall
be required to, and shall dedicate a portion of land or
pay a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both at the
option of the City, for the purpose of providing park or
recreational facilities reasonably related to serving the
development and in accord with the standards and provi-
sions as hereafter set forth. The provisions of this Section
are enacted pursuant tQ Section 66477 of the Government
Code and are hereby found to be in accord with the recre-
ational element of the General Plan. The requirements
of this Section shall not apply to any of the following:
(1) Subdivisions or sites for commercial or industrial
uses.
249
14- 25.080
(2) Subdivisions containing less than five lots and not
used for residential purposes. However, it shall automat-
ically be a condition of tentative approval of any such
subdivision that if a building permit is requested for
construction of a residential structure or structures on
one or more of such lots within four years from the date
of recording the final map, the fee in lieu of dedication,
as prescribed in this Section, shall be paid by the owner
of each such lot as a condition to the issuance of the
building permit.
(3) Any condominium project which consists-in the
subdivision of air space of an existing multi-unit structure
which is more than five years old, where no new dwelling
units are added thereto.
(4) Such other exceptions as may hereafter be added
to the Map Act.
(b) Standards and formula for land dedication. It
is hereby found and determined that the public interest,
convenience, health, welfare and safety require that three
acres of real property for each one thousand persons
residing within the City be devoted to park and recreation-
al purposes. Where a park or recreational facility has been
designated in the recreational element of the General Plan
and is to be located in whole or in part within the proposed
subdivision to serve the immediate or future needs of
the residents of such subdivision, the subdivider shall
dedicate land within the area of such subdivision for a
local park consistent with said recreational element. The
amount of land (expressed in acreage) required to be
dedicated shall be based upon the average number of
persons per household, based upon the most recent avail-
able federal census, divided by 333.33 (the quotient of
one thousand persons per three acres).
(c) Fees in lieu of land dedication. In the event there
is no park or recreational facility designated in the recre-
ational element of the General Plan to be located in whole
or in part within the proposed subdivision or site, or in
the event that the proposed subdivision contains fifty or
less lots or parcels, then the subdivider or owner shall
pay a fee to the City in lieu of dedicating land, which
shall be in an amount equal to the fair market value of
the amount of land which would otherwise be required
to be dedicated pursuant to Paragraph (b) of this Section.
"Fair market value ", as used herein, shall be either the
average estimated fair market value for all residentially
zoned real property located in the City, or the fair market
value of the land in the subdivision or site, based upon
its then assessed .value modified to equal market value
in accord with the current practices of the County assessor
and as determined by the Planning Director, whichever
shall be the greater.
14- 25.080
(d) Use of fees. All fees collected under this Section
shall be used only. for the purpose of providing park or
recreational facilities reasonably related to serving the
subdivision or site by way of purchase of necessary land
or, in the event sufficient land is available, for improving
of such land for park and recreational purposes, or both.
Interest earned on the accumulated fees may be used for
the maintenance of any existing parks in the City, so long
as such use is permitted under the Map Act.
(e) Requirement of both dedication and fees. Both
dedication of a portion of ':and, together with the paym,: nt,
of fees may be required in accord with the following
criteria:
(1) Where only a portion of the land to be subdivided
or developed is proposed in the recreation element of
the General Plan as a site for a local park or recreational
area, such portion shall be dedicated for local park purpos-
es and a fee computed pursuant to Paragraph (c) of this
Section shall be paid for any additional land that would
have been required to be dedicated pursuant to Paragraph
(b) of this Section.
(2) Where a major part of the local park or recreational
area has already been acquired by the City and only a
portion of land is needed from the subdivision or building
site to complete such park, sucW�remaining portion shall
be dedicated and a fee computed as hereinabove set forth
shall be paid in an amount equal to the value of the land
which would otherwise have been required to be dedicated
for the balance thereof.
(f) Property not included in General Plan. Where
the proposed subdivision or building site lies within an
urban service area not yet shown and delineated on the
General Plan of the City, by reason of it not having been
a pan of the City at the time of the adoption of the
General Plan, but intended to be included within the
General Plan, the subdivider or owner shall dedicate land
or pay a: fee in lieu thereof, or both, in accord with the
adopted park and recreational policies and standards of
the General Plan and the provisions of this Section, and
whether land dedication, or fee in lieu thereof, or a
combination of both shall be required, shall be determined
upon consideration of the following:
(1) Recreational element of the General Plan.
(2) Topography, geology, access and location of land
in the subdivision or. site available for dedication.
(3) Size and shape of the subdivision or site and land
available for dedication.
(4) Feasibility of dedication, and compatibility with
the recreational element of the General Plan.
(g) Credit for private open space. Where a private
open space for park and recreational purposes is provided
in a proposed subdivision or site and such space is to
250
be privately owned and maintained by future residents
of the development, a credit not to exceed fifty percent
may be given against the requirement of dedication for
park and recreation purposes or payment of fees in lieu
thereof, provided the City Council finds that it is in the
public interest to do so, and that the following standards
are met:
(1) That yards, court areas, setbacks and other open
areas required to be maintained by the zoning and building
regulations shall not be included in the computation of
such private open space; and
(2) That the private ownership and maintenance of
the open space is adequately provided for by written agree-
ment, conveyance or restrictions; and
(3) That the use of the private open space is restricted
for park and recreational purposes by recorded covenants
which run with the land in favor of the future owners
of property within the subdivision or site and which cannot
be defeated or eliminated without the consent of the City
Council; and
(4) That the proposed private open space is reasonably
adaptable for use for park and recreational purposes, taking
into consideration such factors as size, shape, topography,
geology, access and location of the private open space
land; and
(5) That facilities proposed for the open space are
in substantial accordance with the provisions of the recre-
ational element of the General Plan and are approved by
the City Council.
(h) Amendment to Map Act. In the event the Map
Act should in the future be amended to expand or change
the permitted uses of land dedicated or in lieu fees laid
under this Section, such purposes shall control and the
limitations set forth in this Section to the extent they are
inconsistent with the amended Map Act, shall no longer
have any force or effect.
14- 25.090 Reservations.
(a) Requirement for reservation of land. As a condi-
tion for tentative map or building site approval, the
advisory agency may require the subdivider or owner to
reserve an area or areas within the subdivision or site
for parks, recreational facilities, fire stations, libraries
or other public uses, according to the standards and
conditions set forth in this Section.
(b) Conditions. A reservation of land pursuant to this
Section may be required under the following conditions:
(1) The public use for which the land is reserved is
shown on the General Plan or an adopted specific plan
containing policies and standards for such use and the
required reservation is in accordance with such policies
and standards.
February 1, 1994 . RECEIVED
Members of the Planning commission FEB 41994
City of Saratoga . "U"Y11 (i DEPT.
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Commissioners,
We, the residents of The Vineyards at Saratoga strongly support the
proposal by Greenbriar Homas to build 95 single family homers on the
Paul Masson i -inery site. We feel that the land use is very
appropriate given the residential nature of the neighborhood and
find the proposed architectural design for the homes to be
compatible with the surrounding area. The proposal meets the
intent of all the guidelines of the Specific Plan for the property.
A higher density residential and /or commercial use on the site will
bring more traffic.into the area and exacerbate the noise, traffic
and congestion that will invariably be caused by the new freeway
intersection. We believe that the proposed development will
greatly enhance the visual, functional and economic values of the
neighborhood.
We urge you to approve the proposed development.
Sincerely,
RESIDENTS OF THE VINEYARDS AT SARATOGA
NAME ADDRESS
'7/� c..pLi :-L_ 9 2 0 &'
G.�. U
V V/%E7 %✓ord� 191�'� Vine�a,� L��e
1 ! 2 0 4A A/Ir
4.:c,4. -f. �.. 1 `'fie c_e-�— �'� �c 1 Rte} � S V � h M a � � pQ �
l lca a4 o V, uE M&P G �
WRIARKIN 1. %-1
__N
February.l, 1994
RECEIVED
Members of the Planning Commission FEB 47994
City of Saratoga ruUYNING DEPT.
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Commissioners,
We, the residents of The Vineyards at Saratoga strongly support the
proposal by Greenbriar Homes to build 95 single family homes, on the
Pt:u]� Masson Winery site. We foal that the land use is very
appropriate given the residential nature of the neighborhood and
find the proposed architectural design for the homes to be
compatible with the surrounding area. The proposal meets the
intent of all the guidelines of the Specific Plan for the property.
A higher density residential and /or commercial use on the site will
bring more traffic into the area and exacerbate the noise, traffic
and congestion that will invariably be caused -by the new freeway
intersection. We believe that the proposed development will
_greatly enhance the visual, functional and economic.values of the
.neighborhood.
We urge you to.approve the proposed development.
Sincerely,
RESIDENTS OF THE VINEYARDS AT SARATOGA
NAME ADDRESS
To: City of Saratoga Planning Commission FEB 011994
PLANNING DEPT.
We are Saratoga residents concerned about the BA Properties site located on Saratoga
Avenue north of Route 85 (the former Paul Masson Winery site). We support the
Greenbriar Properties concept plan to develop this property with 95 units of single - family
detached residential housing.
Name Address Date
I til he [�_he 1_U.,. IiCcc, A4t. t,U i P+ �_ U ►��'y aAu l.et '+ ( �� 9
?��
g !'�!� %�� / v /t�'L.C'1
9
2, ! V I r'A_.% �.� (�V i �-i' r l_�,' 7 1..,
O 1
l
To: City of Saratoga Planning Commission
We are Saratoga residents concerned about the BA Properties site located on Saratoga
Avenue north of Route 85 (the former Paul Masson Winery site). We support the
Greenbriar Properties concept plan to develop this property with 95 units of single - family
detached residential housing.
Name Address Date
� v
I
/Y-r7-7 eet f f
7321 cl
1-71 _
2'/
a
To: City of Saratoga Planning Commission
We are Saratoga residents concerned about the BA Properties site located on Saratoga
Avenue north of Route 85 (the former Paul Masson Winery site). We support the
Greenbriar Properties concept plan to develop this property with 95 units of single - family,
detached residential housing.
Names Address Date
__�/ Z71 t� 2 7 �_ /A
/V 9�
1
2;- 3
A -e, a ��
J L/
.�
4C7 �.
14
15 C-r� -- ---�� i ✓ F C
To: City of Saratoga Planning Commission
FEB 011994
P111411 � k
We are neighbors of the BA Properties site locateQ on Jaratoga Y 7 SeSTe north of Route 85
(the former Paul. Masson Winery site). We support the Greenbriar Properties concept
plan to develop this property with 95 units of single - family detached residential housing.
Name Address Date
�� 131s°►sy yf'- � - a3_-74
� t 2%_<"
=Z 3 -7'1C
-�y
MAW
i -a 3
0
'3'9y
(/V 3/1
To: City of Saratoga Planning Commission
We are neighbors of the BA Properties site located on Saratoga Avenue north of Route 85
(the former Paul Masson Winery site). We support the Greenbriar Properties concept
plan to develop this property with 95 units of single-family detached residential housing.
Name Address Date
X
2
3
1.2.5
.4 1
71
"7
8 2
9
10 /.
12
13
T
To: City of Saratoga Planning Commission
We are neighbors of the BA Properties site located on Saratoga Avenue north of Route 85
(the former Paul Masson Winery site). We support the Greenbriar Properties concept
plan to develop this property with 95 units of single-family detached residential housing.
Name Address Date
x
z
7
10
To: City of Saratoga Planning Commission
We are neighbors of the BA Properties site located on Saratoga Avenue north of Route 85
(the former Paul Masson Winery site). We support the Greenbriar Properties concept
plan to develop this property with 95 units of single - family detached residential housing.
Name Address
// ✓
� 1
�
� 1
�
10
11
y
12
�fti
13/oz Moague,
Mt, Jv f
V � I I L
o
bw)
fry
Is-" rl
v
6f- - -----
To: City of Saratoga Planning Commission
We are Saratoga residents concerned about the BA Properties site located on Saratoga
Avenue north of Route 85 (the former Paul Masson Winery site). We support the
Greenbriar Properties concept plan to develop this property with 95 units of single - family
detached residential housing.
P.O. Box 324
Saratoga, CA 95071
January 24, 1994
Mr. Paul Curtis
Director of Planning
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mr. Curtis and the Planning Commission:
RECEIVED
JAN 31 1994
►'wiuN/NG DEPT ;
My understanding is that you are evaluating a proposal by Greenbriar Homes to
develop the old Paul Masson site on Saratoga Avenue. I have spoken with
Greenbriar as well as having looked at visual representations of the homes and
environment they propose.
From what I see so far I wholeheartedly support their endeavor and what it
means for me, as a homeowner on Vineyard Lane, as well as what it means
for Saratoga itself as a city.
I adamantly oppose use of thezite for commercial purposes of any type.
My hope is for Saratoga to maintain its community atmosphere and not
become just" another exit from the freeway to do errands, fill up with gas,
and the like. I like to think of Saratoga as a residential haven and hope
you'll agree with. me as you select a proposal for development of this site.
Please accept Greenbriar's proposal for this property,
Thank -you
Leigh B
2
Suggested Conditions of Approval 411-7
1. Lots and Common Open Space
The total number of lots shall be 94 and the common open space
shall be 4.78 acres (with or without the CalTrans Parcel) .
During the Final Plan stage, the Planning Commission, at its
discretion, may allow less than 4.78 acres of common open
space if Planning Commission deems that the plan is more
desireable in terms of streetscape articulation and setbacks.
The common open space shall include pedestrian access to
McFarland Avenue.
2. Size and Setbacks
Home sizes shall be no greater than those proposed by
applicant. The minimum distance between the homes shall be 11
ft. and the minimum side yard setbacks shall be 5 ft. from the
side property line. At least 25% of the homes shall have a
minimum distance of 12 ft. between them on one side and at
least 25% of the homes shall have a minimum distance of 13 ft.
between them on one side.
The minimum front yard setback shall be 20 ft. from the
property line except that up to 25% of the lots may have front
yard setbacks of 18 ft. if an equal number of homes have front
yard setbacks of at least 22 ft.
DKS Associates
1956 Webster Street, Suite 300
Oakland, CA 94612 -2939
(510) 763 -2061
Fax: (510) 268 -1739
April 4, 1994
Ms. Carol Meyer, President
Greenbriar Saratoga Road Company
4340 Stevens C_:ek Boulevard, Suite 275
San Jose, California 95129
11 M
Subject: Paul Masson Site Traffic Review p94037-0
Dear Ms. Meyer:
This letter responds to your request for additional information regarding the A.M. peak hour trip
generation estimate given in Table 1 of our letter of February 23, 1994. The trip generation
estimates shown for the proposed project are based on trip rates given in Trip Generation, Fifth
Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991. The rates are are based on a large
number of trip generation studies of existing residential developments throughout the country.
This is the usual source used by traffic engineers for estimating trip generation potential of
developments.
For a single family detached residential development of less than 300 units, a trip rate of 0.76
vehicles per dwelling unit is indicated in the ITE document, with 74 percent of the trips being
outbound and the remaining 26 percent inbound. This rate is for a typical weekday A.M. peak
hour of the residential development. Using this rate, we project 53 outbound vehicles during the
A.M. peak hour (95 units X 0.76 trips per unit X 74% outbound = 53 trips), as shown in our
February 23 letter.
We hope this clarifies the trip generation estimate. If you have any questions about our analysis
of your proposed project, please do not hesitate to call me at the above number.
Sincerely,
DKS ASSOCIATES
A California Corporation
Michael A. Kennedy, P.E.
Principal
MAK/sartog3.let
Date Received: - -�
Hearing Date •
Fee: 450 p 2
Receipt No.: -Z -1 � J
GREmRIAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
4 p Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 275
San Jane, CA 95129
(408) 98 59W - FAX (408) =q
Shyam R. Taggmi
APPEAL APPLICATION
Name of Appellant: Greenbriar Saratoga Road Company - Att
: Carol Meyer
CA 95129
Address: 4340 Stevens Creek Blvd. #275, San Jose,
Telephone: (408) 984 -5900
Name of Applicant (if
different from Appellant: Same as Appellant
Project File Number and Address: PD -94 -001. 13150 Saratoga
Ave
Decision Being Appealed: Denial of application for Conceptual
Plan for
PD 94 -001 by Planning Commission.
Grounds for Appeal (letter may be attached):
Applicant's proposal meets the intent of the Specific
Plan amd
MU -PD Zoning (detailed letter supporting appeal will boa
submitted later)
*Appellant's Si, nature
*Please do not sign until application is presented at City
offices. If you
wish specific people to be notified of this appeal, please
list them on a
separate sheet.
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK, 13777
FRUITVALE
AVENUE, SARATOGA CA 95070, BY 5:00 P.M. WITHIN FIFTEEN.(
5) CALENDAR DAYS
OF THE D E OF TH� DECISION.
13 A.
c/u r- )C
//
File No.
AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLIC NOTICING
Saratoga Rd. Co.
I, Carol Meyer for Greenbriar , as appellant on the ab ve file, hereby
authorize Engineering Data Services to perform the legal oticing on the
above file.
Date: signature:
0919W oO&M�Zff OC��
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, .CALIFORNIA 9,1070 • (408) 867 -3438
March 16, 1994
Ms. Carol Meyer
Greenbriar Saratoga Road Company.
4340 Stevens Creek Blvd. #275
San Jose CA 95129
Dear Ms. Meyer:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Ann Marie Burger
Willem Kohler
Victor Monia
Karen Tucker
We have received your application for an appeal of denial of a
conceptual plan approval to construct 95 single family detached
residences at the 24 -acre former Paul Masson Winery si e at 13150
Saratoga Avenue north of Route 85 in a Multiple se- Planned
Development (MU -PD) zone district. We have also r ceived the
appeal fee of $450.
For your appeal to be complete, you must submit 9 co ies of any
maps or drawings of your project. Whatever was submi ted to the
Planning Commission must be submitted to this office un hanged by
March 30.
This matter has been set for the City Council meeting of April 6,
1994. Please be advised that the City Council will allow ten
minutes for your presentation on this appeal. The hearing is "de
novo," which means that any relevant issue for or a ainst your
appeal may be considered, whether or not it was considered by the
Planning Commission and regardless of whether th Planning
Commission approved the application.
If you should find it necessary to request a continuan e, you may
do so once without charge. Any subsequent requests for ontinuance
must be accompanied by a fee of $224.
If you have substantive questions on your appeal, ple
the Planning Department; for procedural questions, you
me.
Sincerely,
Grace E. Cory
Deputy City Clerk
cc: Planning Department
Printed on- re6ycled paper.
e contact
.y contact
'
0 A
�Y
' ~'/ 7�'
' U U LEN �������������&N
^-�-"~ " �-~,~.n "�- /"vn
���� �
Arch itectlPla n nor/EconomhJ,
` '
April 4, 1994' (,j
�ITY MAIax���'�
' Saratoga City Council
'
Cit f Sa�a�
y o Pg�
13777 FruitvaleAverue
Saratoga, CA 95070 _
Re: Paul Masson Plan
.�
Because of a di;a6ility,'�it,Aould be very difficult for us to attend
the public hearing ' It 8130�p.vm. Wednesday, April 6. We do, - however,
wish to express our support of the City Council and the Planr!ing
Commission in their positions regarding the above.
Wb especially want to conmend �buncilmember Anderdon fbr
recommendations for some commercial development. And, together with
her, CpuncilmemberMic Monia for `Wir interest in including some
affordabIld hbusing.
We .ave already expressed our appreciation to the Planning Commission
for those who voiced an interest in some lower priced housing as `^
well. This, at the last Housing Element Study Sesiion at which we had
a chance to put'in aword for affordable housing in the Paul Masson
Plan.
W&had hoped to attend the March 8 hearing, or at leapt to submit a
letter prior, but unfortunately ended up in the hospital instead,
,
Thank you for hearing us out.
'
S l our
~_
Len Feldheym .
" -r
/y �y
Betty Feldheym
. '
cc: Planning Commission ' '
`
20184 FRANKLIN AVE, SARATOGA. CA 95070 (408) 8670930
'
From: Rohan Shahani
13424 Harper Dr.
Saratoga, California
95070
To: Mayors Office
19700 Allendale Av.
Saratoga, California
95070
Dear Sir,
a ESL �V,
APR 12
199
XTY
I am writing about the issue of the development of the former Paul Masson
Winery. Last year city of Saratoga residents received a questionnaire polling the
population about what we wanted you to do with that area of land. A friend at the
offices of the city of Saratoga told me that more people voted to turn the area into
a park. However, in spite of this you have decided to build condominiums in the
area. Not only will this raise noise levels, but will also raise the level of pollution
in the air. We the people of Saratoga wish that you will consider this letter, and
take it into account when making the final decision.
Sincerely,
Rohan Shahani
18710 SOUTH WILMINGTON AVENUE • SUITE 200 • RANCHO DOMINGUEZ, CA 90220 • 213 537 -0955
April 4, 1994
Members of the City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, C.: 95070
Re: Paul Masson Winery Site Proposal by Greenbriar
Dear Council Members:
I am writing in support of Greenbriar's proposal for 95 homes on the former Paul Masson Winery
site.
As a representative of the owners of Quito Village Shopping Center, just north of the proposed
development, I wish to impress upon you the fact that the retail commercial market in Saratoga is
quite saturated.- The average vacancy at our Quito Village Shopping Center was 27% during
1993. Tenant:retention is a constant challenge, with major problems being faced by retail centers
such as El Paseo and Westgate. We do not need more shopping centers in Saratoga - -we need
more residents to patronize those already in existence!
We have reviewed the Greenbriar plan and found it has many commendable features which
should make this project an attractive, high quality addition to your City. We urge your prompt
approval of the Greenbriar plan.
Very truly yours,
CARSON ESTATE COMPANY
Patrick H. Hanrahan ..
Senior Vice: President:
PHH:day
p \grnbriar
Co' ates &Sowards
\�::� Inc.
April 1, 1994
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
City of Saratoga
Saratoga, California 95070
Re: Proposed Development
Paul Masson Winery Site
Dear City Council Member:
S A
Q A ACCREDITED
®oW MANAGEMENT
ORGANIZATIONS
f °�EMr oae'`'v�
'0
We are the property management company for Quito Village Shopping
Center located on Cox Avenue in Saratoga. We have had considerable difficulty in
recent years keeping the shopping center full even though it is quite well
maintained and such tenants as Gene's Quito Market and Kelly' Liquors have great
operations and a strong local following of satisfied customers. We recently spent
over $300,000 bringing 24 Hour Nautilus into the Center to help fill the property
and draw more traffic. We had tried for several months to obtain a drug tenant
such as Longs and Walgreens but they both had stores located in the market area.
Right now we have 8 stores vacant which we are trying to fill.
It is our opinion that a commercial /retail development on the Paul Masson
site would have an adverse effect on our tenants at Quito Village. We believe that
there are sufficient retail businesses to serve the needs of the residents in
Saratoga.
We ask that you support Greenbriar's development of residential units on the
Paul Masson site at the council meeting on April 6, 1994. Thank you for your
thoughtful consideration of this matter.
Very truly yours,
COATES & SOWARDS, INC.
Stephen,/J. Coates
Real Estate Management • Leasing • Sales • Consulting
1725 S. Bascom Avenue • Campbell, California 95008 • (408) 371 -8770 • FAX: (408) 371 -4865
Rebecca Chaney
Martin Chaney
18859 Afton Ave.
March 31, 1994
Dear Council Members and City Residents,
"In 1985 the Paul Masson Corporation purchased a larger winery... the
Champagne Cellars ceased operations and closed its doors. Soon thereafter, City
officials initiated discussions regarding appropriate future uses for the site." (source -
Historical Overview, Paul Masson Specific Plan. Adopted by City Council
Resolution Oct. 6,1993)
During the last nine years we have waited for and worked with the city to find
an acceptable, viable plan for the former Paul Masson site. In 1989 the city approved
a plan for 75 town houses and a senior living facility but we understand delays by the
city and lack of an operator caused the Dividend Corporation to declare bankruptcy.
The site became the property of the Bank of America who agreed to wait to find a
developer until the city did a resident survey and developed a site plan. Residents
were invited to give their opinions to the city planning commission who carefully
worked to develop a flexible site plan. The final version was sent to the Saratoga City
Council and approved Aug. 4, 1993.
During these nine years our daughters, who have spent many evenings doing
their schoolwork as they attended meetings concerning the site, have learned about
city government and legal terms. They know to use the terms "should" and "shall"
carefully. They have learned why flexibility is important. The current developer, who
wishes to build 95 single family homes on the 24 acre site (3.98 units per acre), has
adequately met all the "shalls" of the site plan and most of the "shoulds ". The
flexibility of the "shoulds" was to allow for a plan that would meet the restrictions of
the city, the needs of the differing neighboring developments and the property owner's
objectives.
It has taken nine years of work to develop a plan appropriately meeting all
these needs. It has taken time to find a developer capable of satisfying the plans
requirements. My family asks the council to approve Greenbriar Development
Company's plans April 6th. We ask the residents of Saratoga to support us in our
effort to develop the Paul Masson site responsibly.
�24�� a,-�,tj dt-+L7
Rebecca and Martin Chaney
18859 Afton Ave. Saratoga
r%
I
March 30, 1994
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Members:
Please support the Greenbriar Plan. It is difficult to understand why
the wishes of the neighborhood affected by development of the eyesore
behind our homes is ignored. You don't live there and you do not
listen to those who do. You don't have constant dirt from the area, all
the cement ground and piled for months or the growing weeds which blow
into our homes and cause respiratory /sinus infections. You don't put up
with the gophers that destroy our yards, not to mention the snakes, mice,
rats and lizards:
Why is it that our area does not get the consideration it deserves? We
want the development completed without delay. The entire appearance of
Saratoga Avenue will be improved and more tax revenue will result.
Please do not bankrupt another developer and disappoint us again.
Even though we live in the ignored area of lower cost homes, we do vote
and deserve consideration. Commercial uses and higher density housing,
no matter what kind, will get a rousing NO from our neighborhood. The
Quito shopping area cannot even maintain its rentals now.
Don't do this to us again.
The Anderson Family
13047 -Montrose St.
Saratoga, 'CA:95070
March 28,1994
To:
The City Council
City Of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga CA 95070
From:
Richard Giomi
18850 Cox Ave
Saratoga CA 95070
18850 Cox AVE
SARATOqA CA 95070
(408) 379 -8300
FAX (408) 379 -8773
re: Planning Commission vote on the development of the Paul Masson Winery site
Dear Council Member,
As both a long time area resident and business owner, I am writing to urge you to reconsider the recent Planning
Commission vote against the developers of the Paul Masson Winery site. Greenbriar's proposal for developing 95
individual family units on the site would be a valuable addition to the City of Saratoga.
My wife and I were residents of Saratoga for over 25 years. For the past 2 years we have lived just outside the city
limits. Recently we began looking at homes in an effort to return to Saratoga. We are looking for a large home on a
relatively small lot with little or no maintenance. Because of Saratoga's high land values, prices of most available
properties are extremely high. Greenbriar's development and its suggested price ranges are exactly what we are looking
for: a quality development at reasonable prices for this area.
As a business owner operating a store in the City of Saratoga, I also support the Greenbriar Plan for housing
development of the Paul Masson Winery site. Retailers in the city's existing commercial areas - Downtown Saratoga,
The Argonaut Shopping Center, and the Quito Village Shopping Center- are struggling through the area's slow
economic recovery. All of these shopping locations have vacancies; none are extremely healthy retail centers.
Increasing'commercial development in Saratoga will only serve to further dilute the already weak retail sales base in
the city.
As Our City's leaders, we should be able to look to you to support our retail efforts, not to threaten them by introducing
an ill- considered new commercial development.
It is my intention to support the residents around the Paul Masson Winery site both economically and in action. They
appear to have Saratoga residents overwhelming support in their efforts to bring Greenbriar's development to fruition.
I urge you to vote in favor of this housing development on April 6, 1994, and in doing show your support and
accountability to the citizens of Saratoga.
Sincerely,
`oi�_
Richard Giomi
18850 Cox Ave
Saratoga Ca 95070
(408) 379 -8300
cc: Karen Tucker, Mayor
Ann Marie Burger, Vice Mayor
William Kohler
Victor Monia
Karen Anderson
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Z4-Z0 AGENDA ITEM 8 %
MEETING DATE: APRIL 6, 1994 CITY MGR. •� /�`'!�
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS
SUBJECT: Resolution designating the Congestion Management Agency as
the recipient of and program manager for AB 434 (40 %)
funds
Recommended Motion(s): Move to adopt the resolution.
Report Summary: The attached resolution, if adopted; would
designate the County's Congestion Management Agency as the
recipient of and program manager for Santa Clara County's
proportionate share of AB' 434 vehicle registration fee revenues.
The fee revenues are collected by the Bay Area Air Quality
Management. District through the vehicle registration process and
are used to fund certain transportation control measures which
improve air quality.
Forty percent of the fee revenues is distributed to counties within
the BAAQMD's jurisdiction according to population. The remaining
sixty percent of the fee revenues is distributed by the Air
District through a competitive process. In order to receive its
forty percent share, a county must designate an overall program
manager to implement local programs and projects.
In Santa Clara County, the Congestion Management Agency was
previously designated as the program manager when it operated the
Commuter Network Council, and the forty percent funds were used to
support Commuter Network activities. However, since the CMA
decided not to seek delegation for the BAAQMD's' Regional Trip
Reduction Rule through the Commuter Network, it is necessary to
redesignate a program manager for the County to administer the 40%
funds.
The CMA Board, acting on a recommendation from its Technical
Advisory Committee, has agreed that the CMA should continue to
serve as the County's overall program manager for the 40% funds.
The reason for this is the belief that the 40% funds should be used
for projects that are of countywide significance and that the CMA
is the appropriate agency to facilitate these types of projects.
Furthermore, designating the CMA as the County's program manager
will ensure that projects funded with the AB 434 fees will be
compatible with the roadway and transit projects which the CMA
already is responsible for programming as part of the congestion
management planning process.
b ,( - ,-&, 1.)- -/4. l
Fiscal Impacts: There are no direct fiscal impacts on the City as
a result of designating the CMA as the County's program manager for
the AB 434 40% funds. In FY 94 -95, the CMA is anticipating to
receive approximately $3.5 million in 40% funds. The CMA's staff,
and several of its committees, is presently working to develop a
list of potential projects to receive the 40% funds. Among these
is a project which.would provide an opportunity for individual
cities to acquire an alternative fuel vehicle for their fleet. At
this time however, it is unknown how much the City of Saratoga
might be eligible to receive from.this project.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The
resolution would not be adopted and the City would not support
designating the CMA as the County's overall program manager for the
40% funds. The Council can either identify another entity which it
feels should be the County's program manager, or avoid designating
any entity at all. In order for a countywide program manager to be
designated, it must be supported by a majority of the cities with
a majority of the population in the County. Regardless, none of the 40%
funds can flow directly to the City. They must flow through the Countywide
program manager.
Follow Up Actions: A copy of the resolution will be transmitted to
the CMA.
Attachments: 1. Resolution designating the CMA as the County's
program manager.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2-42-1 AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: 4161.94 CITY MGR.
ORIGINATING DEPT. DEPT. City Manager's Office
SUBJECT: Transfer of CDBG funds - Warner Hutton House
Recommended Motion(s):
1. Approve the transfer of funds from our CDBG Rehabilitation
Loan fund to the Warner Hutton House Handicapped Access fund.
Report Summary:
When the Warner Hutton House was acquired by the City, it required
extensive renovation to be adequate for community use. During the
1991 -92 fiscal year, the city allotted $25,000 of CDBG funds to
cover the handicap access portion of the renovation of the Warner
Hutton House; $20,000 would be used for restroom modifications and
$5,000 for site access. The renovations to the Warner Hutton House
have been completed and the costs incurred from this renovation
have exceeded the originally funded amount by $5,095.73. The City
Council is requested to approve the transfer of $5,095.73 from our
CDBG Rehabilitation Loan fund to the Warner Hutton House project
fund in order to cover costs incurred.
Fiscal Impacts•
This is a transfer of funds not an increase in appropriation so
there is no adverse impact on the CDBG funds.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
None
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
The city would, only be able to request reimbursement for the
original amount of $25,000 from the county and the city would have
to pay for the remaining balance out of the general fund.
Follow Up Actions:
Send Transfer Control Record to County CDBG program
Attachments:
Transfer Control Record
TRANSFER CONTROL RECORD
Jurisdiction /Agency City of Saratoga
HCD
Revised 9/5/85
Date April 6,11994
Program Year 1993 -1994
Transfer No. #1
FROM
TO
Project Activity
Current
Amount of
Revised
Project Activity
[Name
Current
Amount of
Revised
Name #
Allocation
Transfer(-)
Allocation
#
Allocation
Transfer ( +)
Allocation .
Rehabilitation Loan
$197,855.76
$5,095.73
$192,7 60.03
Warner Hutton House-
$25,000
$5,095.73
$30,095.73 '
Fund
Handicapped Access
(SA- 00 -51)
Project
(SA- 92 -41)
%ror %.oumy auuz Esc "uyl
A Jurisdiction /agency has approved the above transfer of funds and submitted necessary
documentation to justify the transfer Y/N _
_(6- ate
B. Does transfer require CAC, CC, and B/S approval Y/N
1. If yes, B/S approval
Date
2. If No, transfer approved by project Representative
Signature Date
Transfer reflected on CCR and program ledger
Signature Date
0
City of Saratoga HCD Program Cash Control .Record
Program Year: FY 1993/94 (19th Year)
For Period:October 1 — December 31, 1993
CONTRACT A
CONTRACT /PROJECT NAME PROJECT # AMOUNT
REHAB LOANS, , .
SA -00 -51
HOUSING DEV`FOR LOW INCOME SR
8A -88 -11
HOUSING DEV FOR LOW INCOME SR
SA -91 -12
HOUSING DEV FOR LOW INCOME SR
SA -92 -11
HOUSING DEV FOR LOW INCOME SR
SA -93 -11
ARCH BARRIERS — WH HOUSE
SA -92 -41
BILL WILSON CENTER
SA -93 -17
SASCC — OPERATIONS /DAY CARE
SA -94 -31
ADA COMPLIANCE SURVEY
SA -94 -41
CITY —WIDE CURB CUT PROGRAM
SA -94 -42
REHAB ADMIN
SA -93 -52
REHAB ADMIN
SA -94 -52
SA -94—
e
$197,855.76
$44;440.56
$6,891.00
$62,417.00
$49,957.00
$25,000.00
$20,000.00
$45,000.00
$12,500.00
$112,500.00
$4,201.52
$4,642.00
HE
15.000.001 $3.750.001 $3.750.001 $7.500.001 $7.500.001
ALLOCATED
AMOUNT
PAYMENTS
THIS
REQUEST
PAYMENTS
AVAILABLE
$5,095.73
$192,76Q.03
$192,760.03
$44,440.56
$3,497.88
$3,497.88
$6,995.76
$37,444.80
$6,891.00
$6,891.00
$62,417.00
$62,417.00
$49,957.00
$49,957.00
$5,095.73
$30,095.73
$30,095.73
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
$0.00
$45,000.00
$11.,250.00
$11,250.00
$22,500.00
$22,500:00
$12,500.00
$12,50,9.90
$112,500.00
$112,500.00
$4,201.52
$881.16
$776.61
$1,657.77
$2,543.75
$4,642.00
$4,642.00
15.000.001 $3.750.001 $3.750.001 $7.500.001 $7.500.001
2430
qwm
04
/
SA R � / +►
CITY
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438
April 6, 1994
To: City Council
From: City Manager
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Ann Marie Burger
Willem Kohler
Victor Monia
Karen Tucker
Subject: Animal Control Ordinance
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Action: Adopt the ordinance by title only waiving
reading in full.
Background: As a part of the City assuming responsibility
for animal control, an ordinance rewriting Article 7 -20 of the City
Code has been prepared. The ordinance before the City Council for
consideration is based on a uniform model prepared with the
interest of providing uniform regulation among the five West Valley
cities. All five have entered into joint agreements for services
with two vendors, the Humane Society and Central Animal Hospital,
and for cost sharing of services provided. These actions, along
with the introduction of the ordinance, were taken by the City
Council in March and the service program went into effect on April
1st.
Discussion: The ordinance contains a number of procedural
and administrative changes. The effect of these changes is to
transfer animal control service authority and administration from
Santa Clara County to the City of Saratoga under the direction of
the City Manager and the appointed animal control officer.
The ordinance transfers authority to set fees for animal licenses
and animal control services to the City Council. The ordinance
defines and differentiates the terms for private and commercial
kennels for zoning, licensing and permit purposes. The ordinance
significantly revises provisions relating to barking dogs. The
ordinance requires the licensing of cats. The ordinance
establishes licensing and care standards for animal establishments,
which include pet shops, commercial and private kennels, pet
grooming parlors, animal menageries and animal shelters. It also
establishes administrative proceedings for denial or revocation of
an animal establishment license. The ordinance establishes
regulations and standards for bee - keeping.
Violations of the ordinance shall constitute an infraction unless
specifically called out as a misdemeanor on a section by section
basis.
Printed on recycled paper.
Page 2 - Animal Control Ordinance - Memorandum
If adopted by the City Council.the ordinance would go. into effect
on May 6,.1994.
Harry . Peacock
1
4. 9,
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. �� ` AGENDA ITEM
i
MEETING DATE: April 6, 1994 CITY MGR. APPROVAL �kzl
ORIGINATING
DEPT.
City
Manager's Office
SUBJECT: Request
for Special
Event
Permit - 7th Annual Villa
Montalvo
Run & Walk,
April
23, 1994
Recommended Motion(s):
Approve in concept the holding of the 7th Annual Villa Montalvo Run
& Walk on April 23, 1994, conditioned on compliance with all
requirements of the City's Special Event Ordinance. Approval
includes authorization for the City Manager's office to issue a
Special Event Permit when it has been determined that all
conditions have been satisfied.
Report Summary:
The sponsors of the Villa Montalvo Run & Walk have requested
approval from the City of Saratoga to hold a 10K foot race in the
Montalvo area on Saturday, April 23, 1994, from approximately 8:00
a.m. to 10:30 a.m. The race will involve an estimated 150 pre-
registered participants, and proceeds from the race will be donated
to the Montalvo Association. The race route, in addition to public
roadways, involves private roadways and areas within the
jurisdiction of the County Parks Department. The City's approval
of the race is only for that portion of the route which is within
the City's jurisdiction (map attached) . This race is an annual
event and there have been no adverse impacts to the City in past
years. Race organizers will provide traffic control in accordance
with the plan approved by the Santa Clara County Sheriff's
Department, and will assume financial responsibility for reserve
law enforcement personnel who will be hired to perform this
service.
Fiscal Impacts: None anticipated
Attachments:
1. Application letter of February 15, 1994, from race Coordinator
Bradford Martin responding to conditions of the Special Event
Permit Ordinance.
2. Map of event
Motion and Vote:
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2 432-
MEETING DATE: APRIL 6, 1994
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS
AGENDA ITEM -
CITY MGR.
SUBJECT: Approval of an $11,500 contract amendment with Don and
Mike's Commercial Sweeping to perform quarterly citywide
street sweeping
Recommended Motion(s) : Move to approve an $11,500. amendment to the
existing street sweeping contract to perform quarterly citywide
street sweeping on a trial basis.
Report Summary: In October, the Council approved a contract with
Don and Mike's Commercial Sweeping to provide weekly sweeping of
approximately 60 curb miles of arterial streets as the initial
phase of development of a citywide street sweeping program. The
contract was established for a three month trial basis with a
provision for extending it monthly upon mutual consent of both
parties. As of April 1,. the contract will be extended for a third
monthly period continuing the initial contract price of $9.00 per
curb mile ($2,160 per-month). Street sweeping, you will recall,
has become a required element of the City's stormwater pollution
control program.
Staff believes that the arterial street sweeping trial has been
successful and that street sweeping should now be extended citywide
to include all residential streets on a quarterly trial basis.
This includes an additional 135 curb miles of streets and excludes
private roads and certain hillside roads which, because of steep
grades, would pose problems for the sweeper vehicles.
Staff and the contractor have analyzed the City's street sweeping
requirements and have developed the attached Route Map which
divides the City into 13 sweeping zones. It is proposed that the
contractor would begin the - residential sweeping in Zone 1, and then
proceed through all of the zones in sequential order. The
contractor estimates that he can sweep approximately 3,5 curb miles
of streets per day, so it appears that the entire City can be swept
within one week's time. As the contractor proceeds through each
zone, he will record sweeping times, speeds, and other productivity
information which will then provide a basis for adjusting the zone
boundaries to achieve maximum sweeping efficiencies. Of course the
contractor will also record other relevant sweeping data which is
reported to the NPS program.
The residential sweeping trial represents the final phase of the
development of a complete citywide street sweeping program. Since
the program is still in its developmental state, it is recommended
that staff be allowed to continue to work with the current
contractor to complete the development of the citywide program.
The contractor has agreed to maintain the contract rate of $9 per
curb mile for the residential streets ($1,215 total for all 13
zones) and it is recommended that the Council authorize staff to
execute an amendment to the existing contract to incorporate
residential sweeping on at least two occasions. The first sweeping
would take place in early May, and the second in early August.
Prior to each sweeping, staff would publish a display ad in the
Saratoga News which would include the Route Map and other
information about the program.
At the end of the trial period, staff will evaluate the entire
street sweeping program and develop recommendations for continuing
the program as a permanent activity. Eventually, the City's street
sweeping program will be re -bid sometime in the fall.
Fiscal Impacts: Assuming the current contract is extended through
August, weekly sweeping of the arterial streets would continue at
the rate of $2,160 per month for 4 months ($8,640 total) . Amending
the contract to include two residential events at $1,215 each would
add $2,430 to the contract extension. The total amount of both the
contract extension and amendment therefor is $11,070. However, it
is recommended that a total contract adjustment of up to $11,500 be
approved, and sufficient funds exist in Program 20 (Water Quality
Management), Account No. 4510, to fund this activity.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional.
However if the staff recommendation is approved, a display ad will
be published in the Saratoga News about the residential sweeping
program.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The contract
amendment will not be approved and residential street sweeping will
not begin. This could have implications for the City's nonpoint
source pollution control program and NPDES permit.
Follow Up Actions: Staff will execute a contract amendment with Dan
and Mike's Commercial Sweeping and follow up with a display ad in
the Saratoga News prior to the start of the residential sweeping
program.
Attachments: 1. Citywide sweeping Route Map.
2. Citywide sweeping contract.
Bi..
Hill•
91
C CT
Li
I
C`....... "CT � "gym � C �� MARTH v t AN�RS C u S <W-<_F'_' ~a 3 CF qI - _ °- > e�i W 3 !n
_ATH o _ S RE A'
0 - >
IANN
YISFA REGINA .. yT i C VE PoothHl e� ,E. �t '
- DEE ARK .�Srrot�'� u Cr d4
+� Y �� W..s v.N.r F ` rRAV 1EARIE50 t Coll.{.
R . < AV[ APELLI' Y'' 111 cl—d IS—Z. C..V..1 p HE �,
A .M ,yICM LS R C`N 0 Sy��'+��I t� 't CVJE• QMII N U h Y Mr.hdl Lar,.
AT f K.. "• SfY E.r SOBEY
DURHAM
LN `+ i RD
0
P8111 �680II � C HEIGHT,F .r '_�dl Y "' o. ! o � 7 O�v Cp,PM,
QIQ(� BIACKWALNUT S A R
F EE AN ANRCOS RD
E\N AF , �GIE �. RSAILIE WAY
'F .�I WAY � S VE M RE
[ IMTM ` HABtfs C, iG
`y ,ASS' `� K v �Srr J�� '' CTw ■FAR LL ; AVE d
>
H, ' cove
s ` J u 4cI SP RI
ROA w
C woo0
R S!q /'PFf r $ S•, S BUTANO TERR 4 4 q Aho CT LL 0.I P ARBOLAD
RAICHOC7 1
sy 1
'LL A E L►' HR K WA ° SPE 3
�YINN A - PARKS' =u` u \
MAP OF ( p 6Ai3 T) r 3 ter++ A Q MAUD V
'�' ' s 4 S R
SARATOGA ALONDRA
S \GAS P \C RO WAY b. 91 f} ff
SA
K WAY J c A ti
O fw. Hly,wT Ca" Rom
s 4iira G '{, " �,��� t: $ s CT DR TC _
r > - >� �Y�'�'i
ML
Elr.rr Lr JI.Hial CrHI�1 f� CNMP DR
Fin Stmb. t' • /n�.j i"�,�•,'- ` Y IDE
e CMS a Ca.wc
�• ��
N 1
i .JOAN CT
,a �Y.
R z i
HILLM OR� 1f
'PARR RANCH VERDE A
7 p c
C� Q%FI -,FA( 7 3
(E
AR R
fA
COU;TRY CLUB
I
a�'
'l IAMB \0`�,.•
pp�40
C �
y i
[
b
o
A
G
OCT
AD 0
R \CC
UONAR
DI
SARAVIEW
Bi..
Hill•
91
C CT
Li
I
C`....... "CT � "gym � C �� MARTH v t AN�RS C u S <W-<_F'_' ~a 3 CF qI - _ °- > e�i W 3 !n
_ATH o _ S RE A'
0 - >
IANN
YISFA REGINA .. yT i C VE PoothHl e� ,E. �t '
- DEE ARK .�Srrot�'� u Cr d4
+� Y �� W..s v.N.r F ` rRAV 1EARIE50 t Coll.{.
R . < AV[ APELLI' Y'' 111 cl—d IS—Z. C..V..1 p HE �,
A .M ,yICM LS R C`N 0 Sy��'+��I t� 't CVJE• QMII N U h Y Mr.hdl Lar,.
AT f K.. "• SfY E.r SOBEY
DURHAM
LN `+ i RD
0
P8111 �680II � C HEIGHT,F .r '_�dl Y "' o. ! o � 7 O�v Cp,PM,
QIQ(� BIACKWALNUT S A R
F EE AN ANRCOS RD
E\N AF , �GIE �. RSAILIE WAY
'F .�I WAY � S VE M RE
[ IMTM ` HABtfs C, iG
`y ,ASS' `� K v �Srr J�� '' CTw ■FAR LL ; AVE d
>
H, ' cove
s ` J u 4cI SP RI
ROA w
C woo0
R S!q /'PFf r $ S•, S BUTANO TERR 4 4 q Aho CT LL 0.I P ARBOLAD
RAICHOC7 1
sy 1
'LL A E L►' HR K WA ° SPE 3
�YINN A - PARKS' =u` u \
MAP OF ( p 6Ai3 T) r 3 ter++ A Q MAUD V
'�' ' s 4 S R
SARATOGA ALONDRA
S \GAS P \C RO WAY b. 91 f} ff
SA
K WAY J c A ti
O fw. Hly,wT Ca" Rom
s 4iira G '{, " �,��� t: $ s CT DR TC _
r > - >� �Y�'�'i
ML
Elr.rr Lr JI.Hial CrHI�1 f� CNMP DR
Fin Stmb. t' • /n�.j i"�,�•,'- ` Y IDE
e CMS a Ca.wc
CITYWIDE STREET SWEEPING CONTRACT
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA
A. Definitions and General Information
1. The City desires to contract a professional street cleaning service
for a period beginning November 1. 1993 and ending January 31,
1994.
2. The contractor selected will meet all minimum requirements of this
proposal.
3. The City has approximately thirty 1301 miles of roadway to be
swept, equaling approximately sixty 60 curb miles.
4.- - The term debris shall mean all materials normally picked up by a
mechanical sweeper, such as sand,. glass, paper, cans and
other materials.
5. The term street shall mean the paved area between the normal curb
line of a roadway whether an actual curb line exists or not. It
shall not include any ways that would cause damage to the equipment
used. It does not include sidewalks, areas adjacent to the roadway
or parking lots.
6. Adverse weather conditions shall mean heavy rains, extreme cold and
other inclement weather conditions as so designated by the Director
of Public Works.
7. Holidays shall be New. Year's Day, Martin Luther King Day,
President's Day, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Columbus
Day, Veterans' Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas.
H. Scope of Work
1. The contractor will clean designated streets currently owned and
maintained by the City.
2. The contractor will sweep each street once per week, except in the
case of adverse weather conditions.
3. Sweeping will be done between the hours of P.M. and
A.M. days a week during the contract period.
4. The contractor will supply and maintain all equipment necessary to
accomplish these sweepings.
5. The contractor will dump all debris swept up at locations
designated by the City.
6. The contractor may be required to sweep certain areas at times
other than stated above. Compensation will be on a per diem basis
equal to the rate paid under the terms of the contract.
7. All streets shall be swept with the normal flow of traffic.
C. _ Equipment Specifications
1. The contractor must have proof of ownership, or a signed lease for
the duration of the contract, of at least two (2) motorized
machines suitable for meeting.the requirements of this contract.
A list of machines must be enclosed with the contractor's bid.
Where new equipment will be purchased, the contractor should
provide a signed quotation from an equipment dealer,, with a
guaranteed delivery date, in order to ensure that work can begin on
time.
2. All machines must not be over five (5) years old at the time of
the bid.
3. Machines must be capable of transporting debris to locations
designated by the City.
4. Machines must be equipped with an efficient water spray system for
dust control, and the spray system must be maintained in good
operating condition.
5. Machines must be properly registered anad insured in accordance
with the motor vehicle laws of the State of California.
6. Machines must be in good working condition and kept that way
throughout the life of the contract.
7. A sufficient supply of spare brooms and other parts must be kept on
hand to ensure the timely and continuous fulfillment of this
contract.
8.. Equipment must be capable of removing litter, leaves and debris
sufficiently to meet city cleanliness standards.
9. Equipment must conform to all federal, state and local safety
regulations.
10. Vehicles must be of the regenerative air type and equipped with
dual gutter brooms and a main broom capable of sweeping at minimum
a nine -foot path.
D. City's Obligations
1. The City will provide and maintain adequate disposal site for
dumping - debris picked up by the contractor.
2. The City will provide safety efficiency checks.
E. Contractor's Obligations
1. The contractor must be able to meet all requirements of this
project.
2. The contractor will be responsible for securing adequate hydrant
access throughout the City for filling water spray systems.
3. The contractor will provide fuel and maintenance for all vehicles
and for equipment.
4. The contractor must have a supervisor or foreman available at all
times to direct operations. This supervisor or foreman will report
to the Director of Public Works or his designee any problems that
occur, and provide summary reports of sweeping activity on a weekly
basis on forms provided by the City.
5. The contractor shall maintain the agreed upon frequency of sweeping
as closely as possible, subject to adverse weather conditions,
defined under the terms of this contract. The contractor will not
be required to do any hand sweeping or to return to sweep an area
previously blocked by illegally parked vehicles.
6. The contractor must show, by past performance, capability of
performing a contract of this magnitude. A list of other cities
and towns for which contracts have been completed must be provided
to the City.
7. The contractor agrees not to sublet or assign this contract in
whole or in part without the written authorization of the Director
of Public Works.
F. Payment Schedule
1. As full compensation under the terms of this contract, the City
shall pay the contractor at the unit rate of _ Nine Dollars ($9)
per curb mile of street swept.
G. Insurance Requirements
1. The contractor shall maintain automobile liability insurance of at
least one million dollars, and property damage insurance of at
least one million dollars. The contractor shall also maintain
property damage and bodily injury insurance of at least one million
dollars. Employees will be covered by worker's compensation
insurance. The contractor will hold the City harmless from all
damages and the City shall be named as an additional insured on all
policies. Evidence of current insurance shall be provided to the
City prior to the start of work.
H. Contract Renewal
1. The City and the contractor, by mutual agreement, may renew the
contract for monthly periods at the contract price, plus an
increase reflecting the increase in the U.S. Department of Labor's
"Consumer Price Index."
2. If the City does not intend to renew the contract, it must give the
contractor thirty (30) days written notice
3. The contractor may seek to have the contract rebid. by making a
written request at least sixty (60) days prior to the expiration
of the contract.
4. This contract expires January 31. 1994 if option 1 above is not
exercised. The City reserves the right at that time to rebid any
subsequent contract that may be desired.