HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-10-1983 CITY COUNCIL AGENDAy �
CITY OF SARAT(M
AGENDA BILL NO.
DATE: 3/10/83
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Policy Analysis
SUBJECT. GPA- 82 -1, Revision of the General Plan
Issue Swmiary
Initial:
Dept. Hd. Orvr,- rnS(Z
C. Attv,.�
C. Mgr.
1. The General Plan has been subject to review and revision for over two
years by the G.P.C.A.C., the Planning Commission and the City Council.
2. Considerable public input has been given during that 2 year time period.
3. Those portions of.the General Plan dealing with the Housing Element should
not be acted on since th.e Planning Commission is working on revisions to
that element.
-4. The remaining elements of the General Plan including the existing Housing
Element should be adopted as the General Plan.
Recommendation
1. Conduct the final public hearing on the Revised General Plan /E.I.R.
2. Adopt the resolution certifying the final E.I.R. for the General Plan
as complete -and adequate.
3. Approve the resolution which adopts the revised General Plan /EIR
making the findings therein.
Fiscal Impacts
There are a variety of fiscal impacts that are likely as a result of
the adoption of this revised General Plan. It should be noted that'one
of the major goals of th.e General Plan is the promotion of the long -term
economic soundness of the City Government.
Exhibits /Attachments
Exhibit A -- Resolution certifying the E.I.R.
Exhibit B -- Resolution adopting the General Plan
Exhibit C -- Text, map, and appendices of the General Plan /E.I.R.
Exhibit D -- Staff reports dated,_ 3 /15/83,_ 3/29/8-3,----3-/3l/,83, / �
- 4 27 03 and
Correspondence received.- - - - -- - -- - - Council Action 4/28/83.
3/16: Continued to 4/6.
4/6: Public hearing closed; decision deferred until May 4; exaction policy referred
to Planning Commission.
5/4: Fanelli /Moyles moved to adopt Res. 2055 certifying EIR. Passed 5 -0.
Mallory /Clevenger rroved to adopt Res. 430.2 approving General Plan as amended. Passed
5 -0.
{
RESOLUTION NO.
Resolution of City Council of the City of Saratoga
Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report
for the Revised General Plan
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in
accord with all applicable State and City Guidelines, and
WHEREAS, said DEIR was noticed in a paper of General Circu-
lation and
WHEREAS, said DEIR was circulated for a period of thirty (30)
days in accord with State and City EIR guidelines, and
WHEREAS, said document was made available to the public, and
WHEREAS, the City Council held public hearings on February 2,
March 16 and April 6., and
WHEREAS, appropriate written responses were prepared for all
comments:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the
City of Saratoga does:
(1) Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report as a
complete and adequate document, and
(2). That if the project were completed as proposed, said
project would have an impact on the environment.
Passed and adopted by the Saratoga City Council on the
day of 1 , 1983, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Attest:
G. Cory
Deputy City Clerk.
L. Callon
Mayor
v
F
RESOLUTION NO,
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SARATOGA
ADOPTING THE GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of this City has caused to be
prepared a revised comprehensive, long -term General Plan for the de-
velopment of this City, and of land outside of its boundaries which
in the said Planning Commission's judgment bears relation to the City's
planning, pursuant to Article 5 of Chapter 3 of Title 7 of the Govern-
ment Code of this State and pursuant to Article 6 of said Chapter and
Title, said Planning Commission has considered said plan and held nbticbd
public hearings thereon and has heretofore adopted a resolution ap-
proving said General Plan and recommending the same to the City Council,
and has transmitted said approved plan to this City Council, and
WHEREAS, thereafter this Council has held noticed public hearings
on said plan as required by law, and has suggested certain modifications
and changes to certain portions of'the General Plan that had been con-
sidered by the Planning Commission during the course of its delibera-
tions on the General Plan, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and the
provisions of Chapter 3, Title 14,.Division 6 of the California Adminis-
trative Code, and Resolution Series 653 of this City, a draft Environmenta.
Impact Report has been prepared and completed and a notice of completion
thereof filed with the Secretary.of the Resources Agency of the State of
California, and more thanforty -five (45) days expiring from the date of
said filing, on or about the 4th day of May, 1983, this Council having
C -'
IL174
I
held a public hearing on the proposed final Environmental Impact Report,
and thereafter said report having been certified by this Council as final,
and
WHEREAS, the City Council acknowledges that adoption of the proposed
revised General Plan will have significant effects upon the environment,
as identified in the final environmental impact report, and hereby makes
the following findings:
(a) Goals and Policies have been incorporated into the
General Plan to mitigate to an acceptable level or avoid the
significant environmental effects as identified in the final
EIR, including the following:
Cl) Loss of agricultural lands and open spaces --
the Goals and Policies of the General Plan to be acted
upon with appropriate ordinances and actions, will
encourage renewal and discourage cancellation of Williamson
Act contracts, encourage
recreation, and require
the use of school sites for
exactions from development to
maintain and preserve open sapce.
(2) Energy and natural resource use -- the goals and
policies of the General Plan, particularly the conservation
element, will encourage: the use of alternate forms of
renewable energy sources, building designs that conserve
energy, use of natural passive heating and cooling systems,
tree preservation, minimize water use and degradation, and
minimize disruption to soil and topography. These impacts
will be further reduced by implementation of existing codes
and ordinances.
i
- 3 - C
(3) Traffic increases -- goals and policies of the
General Plan encourage the use of energy efficient forms
of transportation and use of pedestrian and bicycle trails
as alternative transportation modes. There are policies to
plan means of reducing traffic impacts and addressing cumu-
lative impacts of certain heavily traveled roads.
(b) The General Plan contains goals and policies and land use
designations for land within the sphere of influence of the City of
Saratoga designed to mitigate adverse environmental effects of de-
velopment in that area. However, such lands are within the re-
sponsibility and jurisdiction of the County of Santa Clara which,
at the present time, has adopted regulations consistent with the
General Plan. Other mitigation measures as contained in the
General Plan should also be adopted by the County of Santa Clara
with respect to these lands.
(c) To the extent that significant environmental effects
identified in the final EIR have not been fully mitigated or
avoided by the Goals and Policies of the General Plan, such
effects are unavoidable since the mitigation of the cumulative
impacts identified in the final EIR depend on the actions of other
agencies and jurisdictions in regulating or requiring future develop-
ment, particularly traffic congestion. Thus, no feasible mitigation
measures can be incorporated by the General Plan for these impacts
since Saratoga's contribution to these impacts is relatively small and
such mitigation measures are beyond the scope of the General Plan, and
I
C �
WHEREAS, after said public hearings hereinabove referred to, this
Council considered the final Environmental Impact Report in conjunction
with said General Plan, and in evaluating said General Plan and each
element thereof, and deeming it in the best interests of this City
that said General Plan be adopted.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby
resolves as follows:
Section 1: This Council hereby finds that due and legal notice of
public hearings on the hereinafter set forth General Plan and the herein -
above referred to Environmental Impact Report, have been given as re-
quired by law and said public hearings on said General Plan both at the
Planning Commission level and at this Council level have been held
according to law.
Section 2: The City of Saratoga is divided into twelve (12)
planning areas identified by the letters "A" through. "L" as shown on
Exhibit "A" and have boundaries as described in the chapter on Area
Plans which is part of the General Plan (Exhibit "B "I. The purpose of
these planning areas is to allow the :residents of these areas to express
the desires and concerns they have about future development in their
area. A series of programs or guidelines to guide future development is
contained in each area plan. These guidelines are to be used in con-
junction with the Goals and Policies of the General Plan to determine
what sort of development should take place in a particular planning area
of the City. An area plan's guidelines may be overriden if a broader
City goal can be accomplished by that override.
C _,_ i
Section 3: The revised General Plan consists of the document
noted as Exhibit "B" including:
(a) Final EIR incorporated as part of the General Plan
(b) Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures
(c) The nine elements required by Section 65302 of the
Government Code.
(d) Area Plans for each of the twelve planning areas of
the City.
(e) The General Plan Map dated March 16, 1983 and
entitled Saratoga General Plan
(f) Appendices
(1) Basic Data
(2) Summary of the Northwestern Hillside
Specific Plan
(3) Text dated June 22, 1973, entitled "Geotechnical
Study Seismic Safety Element for the City of
Saratoga ", prepared by Fugro, Inc. and consisting
of a more in -depth study of the seismic safety
element.
(4) Text dated April 9, 1974, and entitled "Sphere of
Influence Plan" consisting of 32 pages, representing
that portion of said General Plan relating to the
development of lands located outside of the present
boundaries of this City but within this City's
sphere of influence.
(5) Initial Environmental Assessment.
(6) ° Comments and responses to the Draft General
Plan /EIR.
(_7) The.hazard overlay map dated March 16, 1983,
and entitled Hazard Overlay Map.
Said General Plan as above outlined be and the same is hereby
adopted as the General Plan of this City and all previous General Plans
and amendments and additions there -to, are declared to be superseded by
the within adopted plan.
The above and foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 4th day
Of tray, 1983, and thereafter was passed and adopted by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
\11,
SARATOGA >--- �--•
and the I ?
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE I •�
A
SARATOGA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE B
KJ WittlAMS & MOCINE
� CIFY d RIGIONAI PLANNING x..$0.1 � nt n. 614 II. �olco. c, 9".1
U 1/9/8s T.
&ARATOGA CITY LIM,1T5_�.
INFLUENCE
F
ILI0
SARATOGA SPHERE
I
K�
G {
<0
G'
qr0
s
0' 2500' 5000• 7500'
l��
o� SAR�q
REPORT
TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 4/28/83
COUNCIL MEETING: 5/4/83
SUBJECT: REVISED GENERAL PLAN AND EXACTIONS POLICY
Since the last meeting On the General Plan, Staff has made some
corrections and alterations to the General Plan incorporating changes
requested by the Council. Staff has also combined the implementation
measures with the goals and policies in a different format, making
this easier to use. Copies of these changes are attached so that they
can be inserted into your General Plan binders. Changes to the General
Plan map previously discussed at the last meeting have been included in
your packet.
It should be noted that the Council closed the public hearing on the
General Plan at its April 6, 1983 meeting. Therefore, discussion on
the items listed above and those following should be limited to Council
members only.
EXACTIONS POLICY
The Planning Commission)
at its meeting of April
At its meeting of April
mously to recommend to
Element policy be added
flexibility'it needs to
discussed the addition of an exactions policy
26, 1983, as requested•by the City Council.
27, 1983, the Planning Commission voted unani-
the City Council that the following Land Use
to the-General Plan to give the City the
require exactions:
LU.7.2 The City shall adopt an ordinance which will
authorize exactions in the form of improvements or fees
required from developers to compensate the City for the
direct and indirect economic effects that arise from pro-
posed development and to insure implementation of this
General Plan.
If the City Council adopts this.policy as part
and the Deputy City Attorney will begin work on
implement this policy. The Planning Commission
prior to its submission to the City Council.
Michael Flores,
Assistant Planner
of the General Plan, Staff
the ordinance which will
will review the ordinance
- •• =�? "� CITY of = � ' ATOGA
REPORT
TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 4/27/83
COUNCIL MEETING: 5j4/83
SUBJECT STATUS OF GASCO (_DESERT PETR.OLEUM), SERVICE.STATION,
12600 SARATOGA, NON CONFORMANCE AND THE GENERAL PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
BACKGROUND
At the City Council meeting of April 6, 1983, the issue of the GASCO
Service Station and the proposed General Plan Amendment of that property
was discussed. It is Staff's understanding that the Council wishes
to change the designation of'the property from P -D Residential to
Multi - Family Residential consistent with the proposed designation for
the 2.5t acre Teresi property adjacent to the site. The rezoning of the
GASCO site to RM -5000 that ultimately would follow the General Plan
change would certainly make the existing service station use non -con-
forming and would eventually require the removal of that use from the
site.
However, it was Staff's opinion at the April 6 meeting that the service
station use was already non - conforming since it did not have a use per-
mit required to operate in a C -N (Nei�,.-hborhood Commercial) zoning district.
What was not clear was how long the use could be allowed to continue on
the site since it was non - conforming. The answers ranged from immediate
removal to up to a 10 year grace.period.
Since that time, Staff and Desert Petroleum's representative have done
more research on the problem. Section 16.10.1 of the zoning ordinance
(attached) allows pre- existing permitted uses that, because of an or-
dinance change, are then only allowed to operate with a use permit to
continue operating indefinitely subject to two conditions:
1. That a use permit be obtained if the use is to be
altered or expanded.
2. That a use permit be obtained to reconstruct the use
if more than 500 of the structure is destroyed under
certain circustances.
Report to Mayor and City Council
April 27, 1983
Page Two
This section of the zoning ordinance applies to the GASCO service
- station since prior to October 21, 1964., gasoline service stations
.were permitted uses in the C -N district.- The service station was
probably built sometime prior to October 1964. After October 21,
1964, use permits were required for gasoline service stations in
both the C -N and C -C districts.
Desert Petroleum applied for and received a use permit from the
Planning Commission on October 8, 1980, (UP -467). However, the
company decided it could not live with conditions of that use permit
and did not act to comply with it when their appeal to the City
Council failed on Nov. 5, 1980. Instead, on June 8, 1981, they ap-
plied for building and electrical permits to put in a 12,000 gallon
tank and revamp the pump and electrical system.. Prior to this re-
vamping of the service station, the station had only five (5) pumps.
When the work was completed, there were six (6) pumps on site although
the building and the service islands were not expanded. It also ap-
pears that none of the existing underground tanks were removed so that
the 12,000 gallon tank was an addition and not a replacement.
Staff was not aware of the changes since plans were not submitted for
review. The reasons for this are:
1. Central Fire District has the responsibility for checking
storage tanks holding flammable liquids and they received
plans for review.
2. The electrical connections for the pumps are straight-
forward items which do not require plans but are inspected
by the Building Department.
Thus, is appears that indeed the use was altered and expanded without
a use permit which is required under Section 16.10.1
PROCEDURE
If the GASC.O service: station: is to: continue operations., .it js .:clear..
that a use permit is required under Section 16.10.1 to legitimize the
operation under the site's present C -N zoning. This would make the
use conforming relative to the C -N zoning and Section 16.10.1. However,
once the site is rezoned R -M, then the use will be non = conforming again.
When that happens, Sections 15.3 and 15.9 of the zoning ordinance can
be implemented. Section 15.9 (c) states that a non - conforming commercial
use in a residential zoning district shall be discontinued within ten
(10) years of the date it became non - conforming. Section 15.3 requires
a use permit to allow the continuation of a previously conforming com-
mercial use in a residential district. Thus, Desert Petroleum would
have to apply for a second use permit to allow its continuance. This
second use permit could be conditioned to limit how long the use could
continue within a specified period of time. The second use permit would
have to be applied for within 30 days of the effective date of rezoning.
Report to Mayor and City Council
April 27, 1983
RECOMMENDATION
Page Three
Staff recommends that Desert Petroleum apply for a use permit for
the GASCO Service Station at 12600 Saratoga Avenue within two (2)
weeks so as to legitimize the use. The City Council should adopt
the revised General Plan which would change the designation of the
subject site from P -D Residential to Multi- Family Residential. Within
90 days of the adoption of the General Plan, the zoning map should be
brought into conformance with the General Plan. This means that the
GASCO site will be rezoned from C -N to R- M- 5000'. Within 30 days of
the effective date of the new zoning map, Desert Petroleum should ap-
ply for its second use permit. The Planning Commission will then
establish a time limit for the continuance of the use. The Council
may wish to establish some guidelines for the Commission on how
long the use should continue.
Michael Flores
Assistant Planner
MF:mlh
Enclosure
L
Appx. B, S 16.7
Zoning Regulations
Zppx. B, S 16.10.1
Sec. 16.7 Appeal to City Council C 1
Upon the granting, denial or revocation by the Planning Commission of a use
permit, either the applicant or any other interested person shall have the right
to appeal such decision to the City Council in accordance with the procedure set
forth in Article 24 of this Ordinance.
Sec. 16.8 Repealed by Ord No NS-3.51, 55.
Sec. 16.9 Lapse of Use Permits
A use permit shall lapse and shall become void one year following the date
on which the use permit became effective, unless prior to the expiration of one
year, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently
pursued toward completion on the site which was the subject of the use permit
application or a certificate of occupancy is issued for the site or structure which
was the subject of the use permit application. A use permit may be renewed for an
additional period of one year; provided, that prior to the expiration of one year
from the date the use permit originally became effective, an application for
renewal of the use permit is filed with the City Planning Commission. The
Commission may grant or deny an application for renewal of a use permit. The
decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council in ac-
cordance with the procedure set forth in Article 24 of this Ordinance.
(Ord. NS -3.51, 56).
Sec. 16.10.1 Pre- existing Unconditional Uses. ` 1
A use established prior to the adoption of this ordinance or prior to the
adoption of any reclassification ordinance under this ordinance, which, at the
time of its establishment was an unconditional permitted use under the zoning
regulations and district classification ordinances then existing, but which, by
virtue of the regulations of this ordinance or by any such new reclassification
ordinance, becomes a permitted use only on the obtaining of a use permit, shall
be permitted to continue, subject to the following:
(a) Alteration or expansion of such a conditional use shall only be
permitted upon the granting of a new use permit; provided that such
a new use permit shall not be required for accessory structures and
uses located on the same site as the pre- existing conditional use.
(b) A new use permit shall be required for the reconstruction of a
structure housing a conditional use established prior to enactment of
this ordinance if the structure is destroyed by fire or other calamity
or by act of God or by the public enemy to a greater extent than fifty
per cent. The extent of damage or partial destruction shall be based
upon the ratio of the estimated cost of restoring the structure to its
condition prior to such damage or partial destruction, to the esti-
mated cost of duplicating the entire structure as it existed prior
thereto. Estimates for this purpose shall be made by or shall be re-
viewed and approved by the zoning administrator and the director of
public works. t'
The provisions of this section shall not be applicable to any of the non-
conforming uses set forth in Section 15.3 of this ordinance. (Ord. No. NS -3.2, S 1.)
292
o� SAR�9
La
REPORT
TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: March 29, 1983
COUNCIL MEETING: April 6, 1983
SUBJECT * GENERAL PLAN REVISIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The City Council has yet to take action on the items related to the
Area Plan Guidelines (.Action Programs) and General Plan Map Changes
listed in the Staff Report dated March 15, 1983. That report has been
recopied and attached for Council action at this meeting.
At the last public hearing, considerable time was spent on the Odd Fellows
property and two vacant parcels in the Quito Area (.Area F). Councilmember
Clevenger suggested that there should be additional landscaping between
the institutional uses on the Odd Fellows property and the residences on
Chablis and Zinfandel Courts. If that is the desire of the City Council,
Staff would suggest the following additional guideline for Area G:
9. Extensive landscaping should be required along the western portion
of the Odd Fellows property near Chablis and Zinfandel Courts to buffer
the residences in the area from the impacts of new institutional de-
velopment.
It should be noted that Mr. Conklin, Superintendent of the Odd Fellows
Home, indicated that some trees had been planted in portions of that area.
The City Council must also determine at what residential density the
Teresi property should be developed. Some members of the audience from
the Quito area indicated support for a density of 1 DU /7,500 sq. ft. to
1 DU /10,000 sq. ft. The Council was considering a density of 1 DU /5,000
sq. ft. at the last meeting. The Council also needs to decide if com-
mercial uses should be allowed on the 10+ acre parcel at the southeast
corner of Cox and Saratoga Avenues. The residents in the Quito area have
expressed a preference for residential (especially for Seniors) or office
use of this site. The City Council also must review the Hazards Overlay
Map which has not been done at any previous meeting.
- 2 -
Annual Review of the General Plan
Staff has prepared a timetable for the annual review of the General
Plan for review by the City Council. The purpose of an annual review
is to monitor how the General Plan is working and to make corrections
to it as new issues arise. This helps ensure that the General Plan
meets the needs of the City's residents.
If the Council approves this timetable, it should consider limiting
General Plan amendments to once a year rather than allowing such amend-
ments three times a year. This would simplify the process for Staff.
and the citizens. The City of San Jose uses such a system and Staff
feels it could be successful in Saratoga as well, particularly since
the city is not.large.
Text Revisions
Staff has combined the goals and policies of the General Plan with the
Plan's implementation measures to make them easier to use. Copies of
these changes are contained in your packets. Staff will also be working
to update the basic data section for the final publication of the
General Plan.
Michael Flores,
Assistant Planner
FuTaaE�It oil
y
#a : _M
Qq
jloEs
.F4 Y3
gg j}}g€ y�6g9 jjFF o zif ;:
€ 9s J t Yt ?t Yid F e f iil.O ?ass Fs W£ F oiisla f
REPORT
TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 331(83
COUNCIL MEETING: 4/6/83
SUBJECT' EXACTIONS' AND THE: GENERAL PLAN
Staff has learned that State law now allows(___ cities to make .
developments pay for public facilities besides those associated with..
on site development as long as those type of exactions are called for,
and are consistent with.,,`' the General- Plan. This issue is related to
Land Use Element Goal LJ.7.0'which'66.als with the long_ -term economic
soundness of the City.
In disucssion with the Deputy City Attorney, it was determined that
an additional policy for LU..7.0 would be required which specifically
mentions the City's intent to require exactions for commercial develop-
ment proposals to take advantage'of the-changes in State Law. An im-
plementing ordinance would also have-to be prepared to allow the City
to require off -site exactions such.-as-.repair or improvement of major
streets'or a new police or fire station. These measures would make
non - revenue generating uses such.as offices partially pay for their
impacts on City services and infrastructure.
The addition of this policy
Planning Commission when.it
requires that such items be
can report back to the City
(40)_ days to prepare a repo
the General Plan.
was not previ
was reviewing
referred back
Council., The
rt which.would
Dusly considered by the
the General Plan, State law
to the Commission so that they
Commission.would have forty
delay the final adoption of
Rather than delay the adoption of the General Plan, Staff suggests that
this additional policy be considered when the Housing Element revision
is considered if the City Council wishes to pursue this matter. The
Planning Commission could consider this exaction policy and an imple-
menting ordinance at the same time. The Commission would then report
its findings to the City Council.
- 2 -
It should be noted that delaying the addition of an exaction policy
until the Housing Element is adopted later this year may allow some
major commercial or office projects to be developed without having to
deal with this issue. However, it is not certain when these develop-
ment proposals will be submitted and staff would rather not delay
the send of a very lengt4y - General Plan' _Review.,
1qtA44&Z__
Michael Flores,
Assistant Planner
MF:mlh
REPORT
•
TO MAYOR AND
CI'T'Y COUNCIL
SUBJECT' GENERAL PLAN REVISIONS
AREA PLANS
Area F
No. 3 Suggested Wording:
0
ST 11 1
DATE: 3/15/83
COUNCIL MEETING: 3/16/83
The vacant parcel located on the southEast. corner of Saratoga
Avenue between MacFarland and Cox Avenue should be developed
only under conditions of uniform design and with consideration
given to combined land uses. The residents of Area F support
subsidized senior citizen housing or single family residential
use of this site. Development of the site may include pro-
fessional and administrative office uses which.minimize traffic
and noise, either separately or in combination with residential
uses upon the receipt of a use permit. Particular attention
should be given to landscaping, access, parking and site coverage.
Another shopping center should not be constructed on this parcel.
(Please see Map Change No. 38 below)
MAP CHANGES
No. 14 Teresi Property
At its meeting of March 14, 1983, the City Council determined
that this site should be developed at a density of 1 DU /5000 sq. ft.
with single -story structures on those portions of the site that
would be adjacent to detached single - family residential development
in the neighborhood.. The Council also wanted to control such a use
through the use permit process and asked staff to determine how this
could be accomplished.
Report to Mayor and 4� Council
March. 15, 1983
0
Page 2
Option No. 1: Designate the site Residential
Planned Development (PD) and zone it R- 1- 15,000.
Under the Planned Residential Development (.PRD)
Ordinance, this General Plan and Zoning combination
would allow a density of 1 DU /5000 sq. ft. with use
permit approval. However, it should be noted that the
PRD ordinance allows a density bonus for projects devoted
entirely to senior citizens. If the Council does not want
a density bonus on this site, the PRD ordinance would have
to be modified to disallow a density bonus in the R -1- 15,000
district.
Option 2: Designate the site Residential -PD and zone it
R -M -5000. This option would require amending the PRD
ordinance so that sited zones R -M -5000 would not be
allowed density increases or bonuses of any sort. The
advantage to this option is that it allows the zoning
designation to clearly show the allowable density unit of
the site. The R -1- 15,000 zoning could create some
confusion.
To allow either of these options to go forward, the Council
should modify Area F guideline (Action Program) No. 4 to
read as follows:
All vacant residential parcels shall be developed at a density
no greater than Medium Density Residential (_M -10), except for
the 2.5± acre parcel near the southeastern corner of Saratoga
Avenue and Bucknall Road which is designated for Residential -
Planned Development. This site shall not be developed at a
density higher than 1;DU /5000 sq. ft. and any such development
should have single -story structures on those portions of the
site adjacent to detached single - family residential development
or sites designated for such use."
No. 38 Southeast side of Saratoga Avenue between
Cox Avenue and MacFarland Avenue
The Council wanted to delay its decision on the designation
of this site until the rewording of Guidline (:Action Program)
No. 3 of Area F. If the wording proposed in this report is
acceptable, this site should be designated P -D Mixed Use. Also,
if the Council wishes to limit the uses on this site to pro-
fessional administrative and residential, then the site should be
zoned P ;A rather than C -N which allows commercial uses. The
P -A district would have to be modified to allow mixed use,
office use, or residential use on a P -D site only with a use
permit. If research and development offices are desired, the
P -A district will also have to be modified to allow such a use.
Report to Mayor and *y Council
March 15, 1983 Page 3
No. 43 Oddfellows Property
The Council decided to initially go with. the Staff proposal to
split the site into Community Facility - Quasi - Public Facilities
and Very Low Density Residential uses. The cemetery location
will also be correctly located on the map. The Council decided
not to make a final decision on the designation of this site
until after the public hearing on March.16, 1983.
MISCELLANEOUS
Councilmember Mallory asked Staff to add something to the General
Plan regarding'a median strip along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road between
Prospect Road and Seagull Way. To accomplish_ that, it is suggested
that Guideline No. 4 (,Action Program) of Area C be modified to
read:
"Landscaped center median strips should be installed on
Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road from Prospect Road to Seagull Way to
enhance the appearance of the gateway area and to discourage
unsafe pedestrian crossings of Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road" .
HAZARD OVERLAY MAP
The City Council did not get a chance to' discuss the Hazard
Overlay Map at its last study session. It should be kept in mind that the
map the Council will see at its March 16th meeting is only a rough map
which will be redrafted. The map shows potential flood hazard areas,
fire hazard areas, and geologic hazard study areas. Certain ".,County
and State maps dealing with. geologic hazards are incorporated by reference.
It should be made clear that the map only imparts general information
about the location of potential natural hazards. Specific studies on
individual properties will not be preempted by this map. This new map
is not required by state law since the City already has generalized
hazard maps (flooding and geology) in the Seismic Safety and Safety
Element and the supporting geotechnical study in the appendices of the
General Plan.
4P, �d� J��-
ff4l
Michael Flores
Assistant Planner
MF:mlh
F ,
JamuarY 1B, 1983
408 232 2240
Oren Devolopwant Co.
Atta a IRr. Keep S111s
445 South San entonio
Las. Altos, Ca 94022
Rsfe,`-enoea .elecon Jan 12/63
Dear lbr. Kllisr
At our regular sonthly Board of Directors aeetli3g last night your Offer
to grassnt Tour 0000e7t Of a BW fscllitr an the 10.2,5 acres, located at
tDO O=Tor of Cox and Saratoga Avenue in 6aratoga, California, wss
discussed. Our Board is amicable to learning about Tour Project and
could schodule it for the next Board of Directors Meting which will be
bold on MO day, F*bruLt7 21, 7130 PM, at the Saratoga woods Clubhouse,
12341 Samtaga Crook Drive, Saratoga. P3ssae let us know if this date is
aoceptable.
In anticipation of your presentstian, we would Bice to have advance
information coaaarning Tour Project. iie would appreciate having this
information in Our harxta on or, before ftbruarr 1, 19,53.
Information should Include but not be limited to the fol.lowinge
site
ibw many covered square feet? &W sang uncovered harts- surfaoe square feet?
Ic the oMplete site to be developed at once',
How many buildings to be built', One storyf Two stork?
VII there be provision for dock loading A unlo®ding?
YI"lat tonnage of Mterial La eexpected? Ineant,. Nt��i:�"'[
How W-v e: psoes will be provided for vehicle parting?
PUMOntage of apame davotred toe OffioOS, laboratories, teat areas, logistics?
PbP4A ion
ftaber. of. professiartal salploJees?
Dumber of support-tM ssployees?
F&rkirw. and Tr&Mc Kanageaent
Dumber of whieies that will increase, per da,• tmffie flow at Saratoga and
Cox.
Rn overflow parking be provided?
Number of delivery and sateriai vehicles per "y?
ENC,C, N C�`f)
,
page 2
Ervin miental Considerations
Will Noxious gases be generated`?
What type of toxic waste rill be generated?
W at are the rater usage requirsaentsf
Vhat quantity of serage will be generated by the Rh, vo ic?
Vhat xM be normal and peak noise generated by tM Ri1 wont?
Discussion and Natured IUQ work
What is the - output? Sturiism a breadboardag test reehiales /equ:2ment,
sanufac w=UsJ test ng prooelasa and/or ?
In this to be a silitary or ommercial or ocabination thereof operation?
dill this effort be identified with a govarmental agency axe as the
National Science RKm ationg Defense Departmiemto Departamt of enema eta?
Raters es s a-mi Processes
Will amUoonductor products be made?
Are saomblies, systemag or subsystems be developed?
Are prototypes to be produoed7
Axe chemioeLls or toxic materials used in dewlopMnt?
ft!! nuch storage is required for flaamsble/basarddous uatsrlalert
xpy ton
Cathy Curtis
Saratoga City Staff
6iaaeaely.
James G. Russell
President
AREA PLAN ACTION PROGRAMS - - - COMPARISON CHART
Area F
Action Proqrams
Commission
1. Expansion of existing industrial uses in the Quito area
should be closely reviewed and subject to strict design
control.
2.
3.
up
M
6.
The City should encourage formation of neighborhood
organizations, pursue strict code enforcement, and improve
public facilities in the older, higher density neighborhoods
in this area.
The vacant parcel located on the southeast side of Saratoga
Avenue between MacFarland and Cox Avenues should be
developed only under conditions of uniform design and with
consideration given to combined land uses. Such development
may include professional, administrative and multiple
residential land uses, especially for seniors, which
minimize traffic and noise. Particular attention should be
given to landscaping, access, parking and site coverage.
Another shopping center shall not be constructed on this
parcel.
All vacant residential parcels shall be developed at a
density no greater than Medium Density Residential.
The City should investigate use of the P.G. &E. right -of -way
as a link in the pedestrian pathways and bicycle trails
linear park. Should portions of the proposed freeway right -
of -way be developed, easements for the linear park should
be obtained in advance.
Quito Road should be studied to determine the type of
improvement required to improve traffic safety.
tion
1. Same
2. Same
sed by Area
(/19/83
YA4e CL
resentati
3. The two vacant parcels located on the southeast side of
Saratoga Avenue between MacFarland and Cox Avenues should
be developed only under conditions of uniform design and
with consideration given to combined land uses. Such
planned development may include professional, administrative
and multiple residential land uses, especially for Seniors.
Particular attention should be given to landscaping, access,
parking and site coverage. The area meeting indicated the
residents overwhelmingly object to another shopping
center on. this parcel,. —
5. Remaining vacant parcels in the Quito area should be
developed in the same single family densities as the
existing adjacent development. ,a n n
6. Same
Another shopping center, high level
Research & Development, light industrial,
or manufacturing facility shall not be
7. Same
constructed on this parcel.
__
Mayor Linda Callon
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mayor Callon & Councilmembers:
LOS GATOS - SARATOGA BOARD OF REALTORS
20454 Blauer Drive, Saratoga, California 95070
Telephone 408 867 -0922
March 11, 1983
The Los Gatos - Saratoga Board of REALTORS applauds the comprehensive
study which has gone into the formulation of the Saratoga General Plan.
We had several concerns at the beginning of the study sessions, however,
they seem to have been eliminated through the diligent work of the
Council.
The Board of REALTORS feels that the change which allows bed and
breakfast establishments in the City of Saratoga without the restriction
that they be limited to historic structures, is worthwhile. This type
of venture can be advantageous to the city through the utilization of a
new source of revenue, the transient occupancy tax, in a time when fiscal
uncertainties face municipal government in California. By requiring a
conditional use permit, any concerns regarding a specific structure can
be mitigated.
We do have a concern regarding restricting the use of school sites,
if developed, to a density not higher than the adjacent residential den-
sity and zoning. The Housing Element which is now before the Planning
Commission, addresses the fact that these sites would be most appropriate
for providing higher density, lower cost housing for Saratoga residents.
While the Housing Element will be before you at a later time, we feel
that a policy which promotes the underutilization of land is detrimental
to the pursuit of providing housing for all segments of the community.
We support the development of an energy element and offer our assis-
tance in working with the City to provide an innovative system which will
enable residents to benefit from a voluntary energy conservation program.
REALTOR4'—is a registered mark which identifies a professional in real estate who subscribes to a strict Code of Ethics as a member of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS.
-2-
The Board REALTORS was concerned about the elimination of the
PD (Planned Development) category. We believe that it is desirable to
allow mixed uses in Saratoga. The recent mixed -use developments in other
communities have shown that the subsidization of housing costs by low in-
tensity commercial establishments or market rate units combined with rent-
al units can be a boon to lowering the cost of housing without sacrificing
quality.
We hope that these comments have been useful to you. We look for-
ward to actively participating in the public hearings on the Housing
Element in the future.
Sii /nc_e-rely,
Ron Gates
President
IRM 1140
SARATOGA PARK WOODS HOMEOWNERS'
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Ca 95070
Reference:
April 6, 1983 . General Plan Hearing
Area D and Area F Plan Action Programs
Dear Members of the Council:
ASSOCIATION
P.O. Box 2622
Saratoga, CA 95070
408 252 2240
March 28, 1983
MAR 3 01983
The Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners' Association wishes to advise the
Council that it continues to strongly support the Area D representative's
final draft proposal for the revised General Plan and opposes any modification
to the final draft proposal by the Area D representative.
Additionally, after a general meeting of the membership on March 21, 1983,
the Executive Board of Directors, basedupon community input at the
general meeting, voted unanimously to support Area F's Action Program
Number 3, regarding the SE corner of Saratoga and Cox Avenues, as approved
by the Planning Commission, with the following addition to the last sentence:
"Another shopping center, high level Research & Development, light
industrial, or manufacturing facility shall not be c,)nstructed on
this parcel."
Sincerely,
ames G. Russell, President
Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners' Association
Enclosure:
Area Plan Action Pro -rams - -
Comparison Chart, pg 12, 1/19/83
cc: Mike Flores, City Staff
Planning Commission
SARATOGA PARK WOODS HOMEOWNERS'
The Owen Companies
445 South San Antonio Road
Los Altos, Ca 94022
Attn: Mr. Kenneth W. Ellis
ASSOCIATION
P.O. Box 2622
Saratoga, CA 95070
408 252 2240
March 28, 1983
LMAR: D
01983
References:
(1) Letter, Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners' Association to Owen
Development Company, January 18; 1983
(2) Letter, Owen Development Company to Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners'
Association, January 26, 1983
Dear Mr. Ellis:
The Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners' Association, at a general membership
meeting March 21, 1983, voted to object to the City of Saratoga allowing
your proposed development, which includes an industrial -type complex and
office buildings on the 10.25 acres located at the SE corner of Saratoga
and Cox Avenues, Saratoga, California. The general nature of a development
that implants an industrial facility represents a wide departure from the
type of developments currently in the City.
The fact sheet concerning your development that you had volunteered to
send to our Board of Directors at the conclusion of your presentation
February 21, 1983, has not been received. Notwithstanding, we proceded
on the oral information received at that meeting in reporting your plan
to the members on March 21, 1983.
At your request of January 12, 1983, your proposed development plan
presentation was placed on the agenda for our regular monthly Board
meeting for February 21, 1983. By letter, dated January 18, 1983, a
request for advance information was made in order to be adequately
prepared for meeting with you. reference (1)
We were advised that you were unable to respond to our request for
information and that you were concerned only with describing the
philosophy of the development. Reference (2)
In general, the information available to us deals with promises and
intentions. We conclude, however, that the broad plan is for an
industrial -type development which is not consistent with the area.
This information consisted mainly of the followings
a The product /output is unknown
�b) Mndisclosed u clients exist
c ,000 square feet of single and two story buildings to be built
d Semiconductors are involved
e An option exists on the property
f No.architectual details /artist's rendition available
g No manufacturing
h There would be assembly and prototype development
To our knowledge, Saratoga has always needed revenue, which is a common
requirement throughout the land. Our City is known for its livability
and quality of life. For it to suddenly depart from past practices and
to seek revenue at whatever costs is not endorsed by this Association.
It is noted that a major portion of its current budget goes to the
Sheriff's Department and therefore net revenue resulting from any
development must be considered.
Unless cogent facts are made known that materially alter the plan
as we understand it this association is opposed to this development.
Sincerely,
James G. Russell, President
Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners' Association
cc w/ referenced
City Council
City Planning Commission
Kathy Kerdus, City Staff
own
THE 011 E 1' COMPAXIES
445 South San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
Telephone 1415) 948 -9420
January 26, 1983
Mr. James G. Russell, Pres.
Saratoga Park Woods Homeowner's Association
P 0 Box 2622
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Proposed Development
SEC Saratoga & Cox Ave.
Saratoga, CA
Dear Mr. Russell:
We appreciate your response to our inquiry into'aetting
up a meeting with your homeowner's group., -to discuss the
proposed development of the Saratoga•and.Cox Avenue .pro-
perty. We had -hoped it could be a date's ooner than-Feb-
ruary 21st, because it is around this-time .we.plan to have
study session discussions with the 'planning nommission and
city council.
Furthermore, we wanted to meet with all of the homeowners
groups as soon as possible so we could:integrate-their - con- "'
cerns into our site concept. From -this . -ewe wO-ul,d..zhen,,gen
erate the plans and information that'Would° provide ":the answers
to all of the pertinent questions you have asked of -us and
which would be answered during the city's approval process.
We have not proceeded with any concrete plans for site deve-
lopment because we have wanted to first discuss with the
homeowners -our philosophy-of development Nand 6show _th'e ;:di y t N
rection we are moving in -proposing Zevelopment� for' his mite.
So far we have met with the Quito and:Vineyards Homeowners
Associations to receive their input in-regards to this pro
perry. We have found this to be invaluable ;in receiving in-
formation that we can use in developing a project that will
satisfy the majority.of concerns these homeowners have.
The same discussions and information gathering will occur
when we meet informally with the planning commission and
city council as has occurred with the homeowners.
We are now asking to be able to meet with your group, dis-
cuss some proposed site studies, hear what your concerns are
in regards to.our studies, and then formalize the information
into drawings. Once this is done, we want the opportunity to
come back and show your homeowners more refined plans.
If there is a chance to meet with the Saratoga Park Woods
Homeowner's Association prior to February 21, then we would
appreciate that occurring. If not, then we will be looking
forward to meeting with them on the 21st of February.
Please call me when you know if an earlier date is possible
or if I might be able to answer some questions for you on
a preliminary basis.
Sincerely,
wV•
qnh h W. Ell is
cc: Kathy Kerdus,:Planner
. •
A
Act I� 1983
�i�MMUNITY DEVELOFMfI T
Saratoga City Planning Commission
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
S irs :
18675 Bucknall Avenue
Saratoga, California
April 15, 1983
Re: Teresi Proi)erty
I am a senior citizen and. have resided on Bucknall Avenr-,e
since July 1, 1950. I am writing to ask that consideration
please be given to zoning the T'eresi property for single -
family, single -story homes.
This would be in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood
and would also keep down the traffic, making the streets
safer for the children, seniors and other residents of.the
area.
During the heavy showers oT the last days of March and the
firs.t days of April, I noted the area in front of my drive-
way was patched four times within a 10 -day period; and this
was not taking into account the other.times the street was
patched during the winter months. As fast as the street
sections were repaired the chuckholes reappeare& and it would
be even worse if this were a high- density area.
CC: Mayor Linda Callon
City of Saratoga Offices
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
cc: _Mrs. Dixie Fisher
Saratoga News
Branch Office, Suite 8
Saratoga, California 95070
Sincerely,
//19� , /' I fJ'
tlS �
APR 2 01983
2A. 9.9 o7
ac�
QLEC�a'D
April 16, 1983 I i "���� 2 01983
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
/Dear Members of the Council:
As a resident of Saratoga Park Woods, which is
across Saratoga Avenue from the Teresi property, I
am very much concerned that this site be developed
in keeping with the medium density of the surrounding
neighborhoods.
This site would be most attractive developed in a
cluster mode with single story, small houses, built
to house senior citizens comfortably.
If the CN zoning is removed to disallow the gas
station usage, this would allow space for a total
of sixteen (16) to eighteen (18) clustered houses.
Such a development would enhance the area.
Respectfully,
G22�
Margaret Russell
12776 Saratoga Glenn C t.
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
S �
APR 2 01963
April 17, 1963
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Re: Teresi Property and adjacent Gas Station
Dear Members of the Council:
As a resident of the Quito area and an immediate
neighbor of the Gasco gas station (corner of Bucknall
and Saratoga) I am greatly offended by the statement
of Mr. Kaipiac (representing Desert Petroleum) on
April 6, that the Gasco gas station BLENDED WELL with
the surrounding neighborhood. I take great pride
in my home and yard. Painting, repairing, planting
and pruning. Whereas, at the gateway to our city, Gasco
gas station stands as an eyesore, with peeling paint
and unsightly trash bins. Polluting the air with
gas fumes and dumping UNWANTED TRAFFIC onto our streets.
I urge you to vote P/C R -1 -6000 for the Gas station
property and the Teresi property, with single story
units to form a buffer zone between Saratoga Parkside
and the existing neighborhood.
Please help me IMPROVE my neighborhood, NOT IMPACT
it more with high density multi - storied buildings and
increased traffic, giving credence to statements that
the gas station is representative of the Quito neigh-
borhood.
Sincerely,
Tom Favorito
12591 Paseo Cerro
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Copy: Saratoga News
April 17, 1983
Saratoga City Council and
Saratoga Planning Commission
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
L 83
Ref.: April 6 City Council Meeting regarding Teresi Property
April 13 Planning Commission Meeting re. Teresi Property
To: Mayor Callon
and all Council Members
Chairperson Schaffer
and all Commissioners
At the above meetings, I was greatly disturbed by
seniors who claimed that the Quito Area's General
Plan Concensus supported their views. I feel that
Mr. Andy Beverett has misrepresented the INTENTIONS
of the Quito residents in order to support his own
special interest group.
Although he accurately quoted that the Quito residents
called for the city to address the needs of seniors,
he consistantly ignored the completion of that statement
as it reads in our area General Plan Guidelines. (i.e.
SUBSIDIZED OR LOW INCOME SENIOR HOUSING.) It was not
the intention of the Quito area to provide high density,
two story housing, but rather, single story affordable
housing for our aging citizens.
While I have no doubt that the people Mr. Beverett
represents, have a valid need to move from larger homes
while still maintaining the same standards of living,
1,,1Y objection is his INSISTANCE that the Teresi Property
is ideal to meet those needs and his reference to our
General Plan Guide to support his view.
The people directly affected by the Teresi Property
are OPPOSED to high density, two story structures and
have voiced their objections at numerous Planning and
Council meetings. This is in direct contradiction to
Mr. Beverett's claims of support.
Griswold to Council and Commission page 2
I have been a member of our Homeowners Association for'
the past several years, and have served on the board for
the past three years. During that time, Mr. Beverett
has never approached our Board of Directors to share
his views or gain insights into our.own views. While
he has met with our area's General Plan Representative,
he also continues to take her quotes out of context to
his own advantage. Contrary -to Mr. Beverett's claims,
we DO NOT support his desire for high density, two
story housing on the Teresi Property.
I ask you to consider the proposal of Mayor Callon
for a density of R -1 -6000 for the Teresi Property and
to please acknowledge the desires of the residents
in keeping the structures to single story.
*�\ Respectfully,
Terry Griswo d
12618 Paseo Olivos
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Ph. 379 -3703
Copy: Saratoga News
J
April 21, 1983
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Fe: Teresi and Desert Petroleum Properties
Dear Members of the Council:
QRE C'TSEpV9 -;D
APR 2 21983
The gas station site on the corner of Saratoga
and Bucknall has been a nuisance for many years.
Its building is barren, surrounded only by asphalt
and traffic congestion. It pollutes the air with
gas fumes and noise at all hours of the day and night.
Please take this opportunity to improve the
appearance of one of our cities main arteries.
I urge you to vote PLANNED COMMUNITY with a
density of R -1 -6000, single story units for the
TERESI and DESERT PETROLEUM PROPERTIES.
If developed with clustered single story units,
the parcels would afford a nark -like atmosphere,
7reatly improving the corner.
Sincerely,
Charles L. Schnedler
12611 Paseo Cerro
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
copy: Saratoga News
Z
Saratoga, Calif.
April 219 1983
Mayor Linda Callon
I .3arat oga City Hall
Dear " Mayor Callon:
Q20.C,FoMlE.D
APR 2 5 1983 ,.
I am writing regarding the senior housing
issue which is before the Council, and wo uld like to sug-
gest a couple of reasons why more senior housing should be
made available.
I know that there are many seniors in this
city who are in the same category as I am; namely widows,
widowers or older couples living in larger houses, often
alone.
I have live:; in Sa.rat oga for 30 years and
paid taxex at times on two houses. I am now widowed, and
have a large place which is getting more difficult to keep
up. I find however that at present it is cheaper to live
here, since the place is paid for, than to live in any
apartment in Saratoga area. I would like to think that I
could continue to live in Saratoga. Friends I have known
who sold homes have had to seek housing elsewhere.
I would also like to suggest that the Coun-
cil take a look at the number of these homes, occupied by
only one or two people, who sooner or later are going to
have to seek different life styles Perhaps more leniency
should be shown in granting permits for alterations in
homes of this type to allow for small separate quarters,
or apartments to be arrz,.nged if they would house senior.
Also or large places a small guest house which would meet
city standards, might enable an older person to "stretch"
and share his home with others.
Since Saratoga is largely populated with
retired people, it would seem that this is a group meriting
some creative thinking on housing for seniors. In these
days of housing shortages, situations such as I have des-
cribed seem wasteful.
Respect Tilly submitted
zv,
Blanche "Walton
210E0 Saratoga, Hills Rd.
Saratoga, Calif. 95070
At
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SARATOGA, CA
APR 2 61983
It is my understanding that the council will shortly deliberate
the General Plan.
I hope you will consider effort to save the Gasco gas station at
Saratoga Ave. & Bucknall.
This station has never been an "eye- sore "; has provided welccme
discount prices for gasoline and diesel fuel; has otherwise been
a good neighbor.
As a resident of Saratoga since 1964, I would genuinely miss this
"Station" if it were no longer available.
I can't be alone, else the economic demand for the services of
this station would have long disappeared.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
O. FORD
13444 Beatmmnt Ave.
April 26, 1983
J
April 6, 1983
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Dear Members of the Council:
We, the undersigned, would like the Teresi property to be
zoned PLANNED COMMUNITY, R -1 -7500, ONE STORY, SINGLE FAMILY
DETATCHED and designated as SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING.
Planned Community zoning would allow the units to be
clustered, leaving a maximum of open space, which would
act as a bridge between the high density development of
Saratoga Parkside and the existing R- 1- 10,000 dwellings.
Planned Community zoning would also set guidelines for
the future development of the El Quito Park School
property, softening the intense development in the area of
Cox and Paseo Presada.
Sincerely, \ ��y�Q/2, ' A
-e ti
6e�
� -P
1-2S90 PAQfo CF fZR2o
�a
0, , *4'
13631 Saratoga Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
April 25, 1983
Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
Saratoga, California
Dear Members:
I am the owner of approximately 3 acres of property at the
aboVe address, across From the Community .Library. This land has
been.in our family for 6 generations, and my husband and I have
lived on it for the pact 0 years, raisin; our three children on
it, and now our grandchildren are enjoying visits on it. We live
in a large, 2 story, 13 room home, built by my grandparents in
1915 which has been maintained in good condition over the years.\
My husband will retire later this
where he has been in the field of educ
we would like to be able to eventually
home on our property for our use, with
married children could then occupy the
growing family.
year from West Valley College
ation for the past 20 years, and
build a smaller guest -type
t dope that one of our
l r,6r house with their
A
Any one of our children would love to:'move back to Saratoga,
but land prices and cost of houses would not allow them to do this
unless they could occupy our present home. They could then enjoy
the advantages of still living on our family acreage, and we would
could have a smaller home, suitable for what we will soon become --
"senior citizens."
However, when we have inquired in the past at City Iia7.1 about
building another house on a part of this roperty, the City
requirements and the "red tape" involved YaJot-split, surveys,
roads etc.) make the expenses involved prohibi"cive for us. If
the City rules, ordinances etc. were changed to become more
FLEXIBLE and less costly to allow SENIORS to build a small gues-it
home on one's own large lot, or to divide a large house into two
separate living apartments, then we would be able to continue to
live in Saratoga in our "golden years" and also allow our family
to enjoy the advantages of once,more becoming a part of our lovely
city. ( IF WE DON'T MAKE HOUSING AVA1,AABLE FOR THE YOUNGER
GENERATION AS ',,TELL AS OUR SENIORS, our .'City may be on the way to
future decline and decay.)
I am sure there are many "seniors" in Saratoga who would love to
have a "guest home" on their own large lot, allowing a family
member(s) to then occupy the larger house. This would allow "security"
for both generations, and a widowed mother, mother -in -law, father,:
or father -in -law would not have to be sent off to a costly "retire-
ment home" when a partner died,but could live in dignity in his or:her
own small home.
My husband, John G. Jorgensen, joins me, therefore, and we
urge the I•[OUSING ELEMENT FOR THE GENERAL PLAN BY TIIE PLANNING
COMMISSION consider thoughtfully and conscientiously the�;futur2'
needs of the SENIORS of the City of Sara-iga, and recommend to
the CITY COUNCIL that we have FLEXIBLE HOUSING in our city.
cc City Council Members Sincerely,
Amy June Jorge nsenn�J
12643 Paseo Olivos
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
April 22, 1983
To: Members of the Saratoga City R an y ffu ^
and if It it it it Council
My husband and I, Quito area residents for -23 yrs., request that you.take into consider-
ation our views - which we know are shared by many of our neighbors - when making
decisions regarding the re- zoning of the ' Teresi' property, located on the'S.E.
corner of Saratoga Ave. and Bucknall Rd.
Since it appears to be generally agreed that there is a great need for senior citizen
housing in Saratoga and that this is a suitable location for such residences because
of its proximity to a shopping center, we feel that the area should definitely be
earmarked for this type of development.
However, the higher the density permitted there, the more traffic we shall have on
the adjacent and access streets - some of which are already in a state of almost
permanent disrepair - and the worse the problems of drainage will become.
We therefore request that the parcel be designated Planned Community R -1 -7,500 and
that buildings be limited to one story. Councilwoman Fanelli's argument,at the meeting
on April 6, that 'seniors' could be a mere fifty years old and have no problem
climbing stairs ignores the fact that it is not generally people as young as this who
have an urgent need for alternative accommodation and also that the years have a habit
of passing ! Moreover, we understand that not all of the two -story units at Saratoga
Parkside have yet been sold (after more than 2 years), so why should more of this
type be built ?
Should R -1 -7,500 not be considered economically feasible, Mayor Callon's compromise
suggestion of R -1 -6,000 would be, of course, greatly preferable to the other proposals
of densities of up to R -1 -4000. The needs of the community should have first priority
- not maximum profits for landowners, developers and real estate agents.
With regard to the gas station currently located on the corner of this property, we
join with Planning Commissioner Kathy T- IcGoldrick in taking great exception to the
opinion expressed by the owners' representative that it is in harmony with the neigh-
borhood. Not only is it an- absolute eyesore but it also brings in extra traffic
through our residential streets and - especially at times of tank re- fueling - noxious
and dangerous fumes. And, with several service stations within a short distance, it is
not even a 'necessary evil'. We therefore request that this parcel also be re -zoned
into the same, residential -type category as the rest of the Teresi property.
We would appreciate acknowledgment of receipt of this letter. _
Sincerely,. o�
Zara van Wichen
El Quito 1I ark Homeowners Association
P.O. Box 2893 • Saratoga, California 95070
April 28, 1983
Members of the Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Members of the Council:
The Board of Directors of the El Quito Park
Homeowners Association endorses the attached petition
requesting the Teresi and Desert Petroleum properties
be zoned as PLANNED COMMUNITY, R -1 -6000, single story
residential.
The residents, who have signed the petition, would
like to improve their quality of life, the appearance
of 'their neighborhood and reduce the traffic on their
streets.
We ask for your support for the following reasons:
1. Gas fumes escape and pollute the air when the
station refills its storage tanks.
2. Customers loiter at the station day and night.
Many leave the station at a high rate of speed,
careening over lawns, causing property damage
as well as danger to human life. Many customers
leave their trash and beer bottles on the streets
and lawns. In general, the gas station is a
nuisance as well as an eyesore to the neighbor-
hood.
3. We request single story structures through -out
the property, not just around the perimiter.
To allow two -story adjacent to Saratoga Parkside,
would set the trend for the eventual development
of the school site, causing our park to become
a boxed in patch of green, surrounded on three
sides by two story buildings.
-2-
We recognize the changing
public mandate has been given
10.2 acre Abrams property than
propose the utilization of the
meet those needs. With proper
Abrams property, to divert the
the neighborhood, we feel, the
could be met.
need for housing. Since
for higher density on the
the Teresi property, we
10.2 acre parcel to
attention given on the
flow of traffic from
needs of all concerned
We urge you to vote Planned Community, R -1 -6000,
single story on the Teresi and Desert Petroleum
properties.
Respectfully,
" '0
Terry Grisw , President
El Quito Park Homeowners Association
We the undersigned, urge you, the City Council to zone the
property and the adjacent •- gerv•�'station;r i Vr-ty PLANNED CO1v11UNITY
with a density of R -1 -6000, single story, single family units for
senior citizens for the following reasons:
1. The Quito area has the highest density in the city.
2. PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONING would allow units to. be clustered
giving an illusion of open space at the gateway to our city.
3. Single- storied homes are practical for seniors.
4. A buffer zone is needed between the high density Saratoga
Parkside and the existing neighborhood of R- 1- 10,000.
5. This would set the tone for the eventual development of
the adjacent school property.
6. Our neighborhood streets cannot handle the traffic generated
by a.high density development.
7. Our storm drain system is inadequate to handle the heavy
run -off during the rainy season.
PLEASE HELP BEAUTIFY OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND KEEP OUR STREETS SAFE.
VOTE PLANNED COM UNITY R -1 -6000 FOR THE TERESI PROPERTY AN -3 ADJACENT
GAS STATION PROPERTY. PLEASE KEEP THE EL QUITO SCHOOL SITE ZONED
•EDIUI4 DENSITY R-1-10,000.
Name:' .4_n1,, Z11 . 1
Address:-)
Address `
4. 4
Name - /O.-7.,,�
Address
Name
Address
Name /,� :G
Addre ss
Name
A ddre s s\ )_`:
T
Dame
Address 1 ? - - , ,' t �� •�
Name : J't, i, •
Addre ss : 14266
Name
Address /3i�;!
Name J�
v
Address
t,
Name
Address
Name �LC ,� V C. t li 11
Address ��`��S ii'1�- G,- !2L.�.( fy'L��i�c�:
Name
Address
Name /~ �Z '
Address
Name
Address
E4
Name
Address
Address
Address L_-?
Name
Address
/7
Name
Address /27/7
Name
Address/,:)
Ij
Name
Address
Address
Name
Address,',-',/'. Y.".
Name
Address
Named-' Z,
Address
Ice
Name
Address
Address
Name
Address
Address
Name oN
Address
4,
A d dr e s s.,','
Name �
Addressz.2L4� 6
Name
Address
Name
Address
Ila me
Address
Name
Address
Name
Address
Name
Address
Name
Address
i4a ine
Address;',
Name
Address.)
Name T-,
—]�,
A ddre ss i
Narne �' L
Address
of
me
dress cl--�-4o
dress
Te
ire s S
ne
ire s s
e
ir e s s (-7
ie
R
iress
_5:41",I --t4T,
ie
Iress,/,"
.ress
ress
re ss
re S s
ress
:,ess
less
less
Name
Address
Address-
IN a m e
Address_
Narne
Address
-
N', a me
Address_
Name
Address_
a m e
Address-
ss-
am e
Address
-
Address
-
i', a me
"address 1 am e
Address-
Name
Addre ss-
1'g a -ne
A ddre ss-
i4 a rne
ddr e s s
?sae j