HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-25-1994 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTSSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0. AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 25, 1994 CITY MGR.
ORIGINATING DEPT. CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: PROPOSED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE COMMUNITY
FOUNDATION REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF THE NELSON PROPERTY
Recommended Motion(s) : DIRECT THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO, EXECUTE
THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.
Report Summary: As a followup action to the City Council decision
of October 5, 1994, the City Attorney has drafted a proposed MOU
between the City and the Community Foundation for the future
development of the property at 20851 Saratoga Hills Road. The MOU
has been reviewed and approved by counsel for the Foundation and it
is anticipated that if approved by the City Council the MOU will be
approved by the Foundation's Board of Directors.
Fiscal Impacts: The City could realize as much as $720,000 being
deposited into its Parks Development Fund should the future
development approval for the property include a 10 lot subdivision.
Advertising Noticing and Public Contact: A public hearing was
held on this matter by the City Council on October 5, 1994. Copies
of the agenda for this meeting were mailed to all who have
specifically requested being notified of items relating to the
Nelson property being placed on.the City Council agenda.
Conseauences of Not _Acting on the Recommended Motions: The City
has stated to the Foundation that it would enter into an MOU by the
31st of October. If Council does not act by that time, then the
Foundation is under no obligation to continue negotiations with the
City.
Follow Up Actions:
1. Have the original hard copy document prepared for signature by
the Mayor and City Clerk.
2. Transmit the executed document to the Community Foundation for
execution.
Attachments: Draft Predevelopment Memorandum of Understanding
Regarding Certain Undeveloped Property Located at 20851 Saratoga
Hills Road, Saratoga, California
s.F..,+
IN-
-rt - -
2p $
F ?
oa sF ?s,zaa s.F. C
14,500
t o,
S_F n70 S.F,
_
A.F•A.
3880 S.fi. A_F -q• - :
- - -
...... . - _ _ 2r 0 4050 S.F. F.
4200 S.
2
- 0
19e C7)
: 73700
NO ES: �0 S.F. 13,500 S AFA : ._...•
1. Prox•sea 2•oring far subject property �r !
A -F -A. Lois lthru ? R--.-12,500 A.F.A. 4054 S F t
Lots 8 8 9 - ft -1- 20,000 :.: -::... :__'.: 3880 S.,=. 38130 S•F
L.ot ' 0 - H -1- 40,004 ��
It lots 8 9 are combined i ^lo one lot the resulting =`Q _
lot shall be zone: R- 1- 40,0&3. If there is a further = :_ •.: • -
redu -won in :Drs, zoning shall Le based on lot sizes with the =
minim:-i-n of R
-1-12.500 an.d the maximum R-1-40,000.
2. The A.•Icwable Floor Area indicated on each Jot is the maximum
square fwage allowed `ar ;lruGures. The AFA may be allocated in total
W the main SV'L tore cr in a combination of structures as determined by =`
the 3•
ap:ican a: J* time of Design Review. The AFA for each lot is based on
the s:= ndards :n Section 1-9-4-5-030 (d) with no reduction for site slope
(Secacn 15- 45.ik30 {c }j cr struciure height (Section 15- 45.030 (f)). No
chanae of -he AFA Will be made unless the size of any lot is increased or
decreased cn the app,oved T mative Map, in which case the Allowable
Floor Area k! that let shat: bqD : ncreased or decreased by the same
perxn;.P-W as the lot, %idt the excep-.ion that the Allowable Floor Area may
not exceed the maximum allowed in the zoning district.
October 19, 1994
Honorable City Council
City of Saratoga
13777Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Council Members:
I would like to suggest a possible alternate to a Community Garden at the
Nelson property.
The City should revisit a suggestion I made six years ago that a portion of
the Heritage Orchard across the creek from the Warner - Hutton house be
developed into a combination community gardenleducational
demonstration garden and named the Frank Nelson Memorial Garden's.
This demonstration garden could be developed that ties the garden to the
Warner - Hutton house and both would reflect Saratoga in the late 1800's.
That's what Frank Nelson wished when he first wanted to give the Nelson
Property to the city. I believe Mr. Nelson would agree (considering the
residential development aound his property) that the Heritage Orchard is a
much better location for a community garden:
1. It's close to schools and the library (for children's tours).
2. It's also close to buses and has plenty of parking in the city office areas.
3. Seniors as well might find planting and harvesting fruits and vegetables
a pleasant diversion.
Frank Nelson wanted a demonstration OrchardlGarden as a fitting heritage
to future generations. We owe it to his memory to consider placing one in
the most logical location, Saratoga's Heritage Orchard.
Cordiall
t 060,
Don Peterson
14642 Stoneridge
Saratoga, Ca.
..
o
Saratoga City Council October 25, 1994
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Nelson Gardens
I would like to confirm my letter of September 27, 1994 was
received and distributed to each council member.
I am here to express my opposition to this hasty decision to turn
down the offer of at least 2 acres of the Nelson Land to the City
and the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding to approve
development of the Nelson Property for the following reasons.
1- This property has a well documented prior history as a publicly
operated demonstration garden and agricultural preserve by the
Nelson Family, Nature Conservancy, State Park Land Foundation.
2- It is also well documented in the public records of prior
council meetings, the citizens committee report evaluating the
property, and even the most cursory polling of the Saratoga
Community at large that there is strong interest in preserving open
space in Saratoga and particularly on this property.
3- The development decision is unnecessarily devisive and ignored
input from Saratoga residents. Many citizens had been working and
supporting the process to preserve all or a portion of this
property. The offer from the owning foundation of 2 acres should
not so quickly have been decided. To get that offer was the result
of seven years of work by the prior City Council, Citizens directly
involved in preserving Nelson Gardens, the many Saratogans who
support more open space and a demonstration agricultural preserve
in Saratoga; and recognized the Nelson Gardens as an ideal
location, given its history, prior operation as such, and the
desire of the original owner.
The City Council's message sent by this hasty decision is:
- The city council is only interested in money, is ignoring the
longer term value of open space, and rejects citizen involvement.
- The council does not value any of the citizen support and work
spent by prior councils leading up to the offer of .the two acres
of the land; achieving a major goal of 7 years of negotiations.
- The council does not want a decision by consensus with regard to
Nelson Gardens and instead is promoting confrontation and division,
by pitting those interested in general fund park money against
those supporting adding to Saratogans open space.
Finally the council is rewarding the bias of the Nelson Foundation
against preserving open space in Saratoga by refusing to reasonably
negotiate the sale of the property to the City but paradoxically
giving the property away for nothing to be developed. The offered
two acres of land is much more valuable both monetarily and in the
long term as open space than the offered money.
Sincerely, Gary L. Nemetz
13960 Pontiac Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Thursday, October 20, 1994
Enclosed is a short essay written by A.S. Brolly and
proposed for inclusion in the November, 1994, issue of the
Saratoga Historical Foundation's newsletter. This
composition may appear either as -a -whole or in -part,
depending upon space available, which is yet to be
determined., Feel free to examine and criticize the draft
text for errors in historical fact, grammar, syntax,
Political correctness, or whatever. If you have a problem,
call me (Arch Brolly) at home (408) 247 -1851. Leave a
message on the answering machine if I'm not home.
"Nelson Gardens" anteNelson:
Miss Dorothy Gloyd, a veteran member of the SHF, reminds us
that the so- called "Nelson Gardens" property already had a
proud history long before Frank Nelson first took ownership.
And, perhaps even more curiously, that a renowned garden was
a key element in that history. Dorothy ought to know. She
was born in that place anteNelson and, "a long time ago"
(Coy is O.K., Miss Gloyd.). John Shumer retired from mining
in Colorado and relocated to Saratoga in 1881 to become a
gentleman farmer and active leader in the community, serving
on the school board and supporting the Congregational
Church, according to R.V. Garrod ( "Saratoga Story "). The
49 -acre parcel of land that John and his wife Susan bought
lay immediately north of today's Reid Lane (then known as
Shumer Rd.) and directly east of the foot of present -day
Saratoga Hills Road; the Shumers planted the orchards and
erected a cottage and other out buildings. Susan Shumer had
a passion for gardening. Gloyd relates that Susan (her
mother's aunt) hired a German immigrant gardener named John
Shear, and swapped cuttings and plants with Sarah Winchester
(Yes, she of "Mystery House" fame). Garrod reports that the
Shumer Ranch became, "... one of Saratoga's garden show
places, known as Shady Oak Glen ... Native oaks and other
trees, flowers and shrubbery, all blended into a very
Picturesque garden." In those closing decades of the 19th
century, a civic - minded citizen might dig deeply into his
own pockets to create something of beauty to share with his
neighbors. This kind of citizen, though not yet extinct,
clearly belongs on the list of endangered human subspecies.
Frank Nelson was of this ilk, but his legacy was perverted
by real estate developers and government bureaucrats.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2 5 C) I
MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 25, 1994
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MGR.: ,
DEPT. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road Improvements, Capital--Project
No. 924 - Award of Construction Contract
Recommended Motion (s) : 1. Move to declare B &B Concrete Ca.:, Inc. to
be the lowest responsible bidder on the project. 2. Move;to award
a construction contract to B &B Concrete Co., Inc. in the amount of
$390,210. 3. Move to authorize staff to execute change - .orders to
the contract up to $15,000..
Report Summary: Sealed bids for the Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
Improvements, Capital Project No. 924, were opened on September 13.
A total of five contractors submitted bids for the _work and a
summary of the bids received is attached.
B &B Concrete Co., Inc. of San Jose submitted the lowest adjusted
bid of $390,210 which is 13.5% above the Engineer!`•s= Adjusted
Estimate of $343,769. (B &B Concrete also submittedthe lowest
overall bid of $446,194). The adjusted bid eliminates =Item 7 (AC
Overlay, 1- 1/211), and Item 20 (Landscape Topsoil) from the 'project.
It is necessary to delete these two items in order to-.bring the
cost of the project within available funding resources'::
Staff has carefully checked the bid along with :the listed
references and believes that the bid is responsive to the Notice
Inviting Sealed Bids dated August 18, and that it represents a fair
price for the work to be done. The primary reason the bids exceed
the Engineer's Estimate is that the costs of providing:: temporary
traffic controls, clearing and demolition work, and structural
concrete exceed staff's estimates. However a comparison--of the bid
prices for these three items of work among the bidders suggests
that staff's estimates are too low. Therefor, it is recommended
that the Council declare B &B Concrete Co., Inc. to be the lowest
responsible bidder on the project, and award the attached
construction contract to this firm in the amount of�$390,210.
Further, it is recommended that the Council authorize staff to
execute change orders to the contract up to an amount of _$15,000 to
cover any unknown circumstances or problems which may arise during
the course of the work.
Fiscal Impacts: The adopted budget contains $412,000 in Capital
Project No. 924, to fund the construction work and the requested
change order authority. .80% of the eligible project costs will be
reimbursed through the Federal ISTEA (STP /CMAQ) Program.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: B &B Concrete
Co., Inc. will not be declared the lowest responsible bidder and a
construction contract will not be awarded to that firm. The
Council may make specific findings to declare another bidder to be
the lowest responsible bidder, or reject all of the bids and direct
staff to re -bid the entire project. However, staff does not
believe that a lower bid will be obtained by re- bidding the
project, and Caltrans has authorized the City to award the
construction contract as recommended.
Follow Up Actions: The contract will be executed and .the contractor
will be issued a Notice to Proceed. Work will most likely begin
around the end of November and last through the end of January,
weather depending.
Attachments: 1. Bid Summary.
2. Construction Contract.
CITY OF SARATOGA
SARATOGA -SUNNYVALE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, C.I.P. NO. 924
FEDERAL PROJECT NO. STPLN - 5332(2)
REVISED BID SUMMARY
I
I
I I ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
I B&B CONCRETE CO., INC. I PAVEX CONSTRUCTION
IO'GRADY PAVING, INC.
I ITEM ♦ I ITEM DESCRIPTION 1
I I I
QUANTITY I
I
UNITS
I I UNIT PRICE I
II
TOTAL I
UNIT PRICE 1
TOTAL I
UNIT PRICE 1
TOTAL I
UNIT PRICE 1
TOTAL 1
11.
I
I TEMP. CONST. SIGN. d TRAFFIC CONTROL I
I I
1 1
I
LS
I
I I N/A 1
II I
I
570.000.00 I
I
I
N/A 1
I
$31,286.00 I
I
N/A 1
I
$30.000.00 I
I
N/A 1
I
$43,000.00 1
12.
11
I CLEARING AND DEMOLITION 1
I
1 1
I
LS
I I N/A I
II I
$2Q000.00 I
I
N/A 1-
I
$32,940.00 I
I
N/A 1
I
$30.965.00 I
I
N/A 1
I
$25,000.00 1
13.
1-1
1 ROADWAY EXCAVATION AND SITE GRADING 1
8861
CY
I I $20.00 1
II I
I
$17,720.00 1
I
$14.501
I
572,847.00 1
I
$30.001
I
$26,560.00 1
I
$2500 1
I
$22,150.00 I
14.
I
PAVEMENT GRINDING
I I
8901
I
SY
.
II I
I
, .
I
$4.00 1
I
$3,550.00 1
I
$8.00 1
I
$7,120.00 1-$6.00
I
1
I
$5.340.00 1
15.
1 AGGREGATE BASE - CLASS 2 1
I
1,300 I
I
TON
11 52500 1
II I
I
$3Z500.001
I
I
$29.62 1
I
$38,506.00 1
I
$2500 1
I
$32,500.00 1
I
.$15.001
I
$19,500.00 1
18.
11
1 ASPHALT CONCRETE - CLASS A 1
1-1-
4191
TON
11 $60.001
I I I
$25,140.00 1
I
I
$74.001
I
$31,008.00 1
I
$6000 1
I
$25140.00 1-$5a00
I
1
I
$23,045.00 1
17.
I
1 A.C.OVERLAY - 1 112'
I I
I
o1
1
TON
11 $5000 1
I I I
HO
SO 1
I
I
$80.001
I
$0.00 1
I
$61100 1
I
$0.00 1
I
$5500 1
I
SOHO I
18.
I
I A.C. DIKE - TYPE A
I 1
I
351
I
LF
I I $6.001
II I
$280.001
I
I
5711001
I
$350.001
I
$4.001
I
$740.001
I
53.001
1
$106.001
19.
I
1 A.C. DIKE - TYPE C 1
I I
4001
I
LF
11 $8.001
II I
$3,200.00 I
I
57000 1
I
$4,000.001
I
$8.001
I
$2.400.001
I
$3.00 1
I
$1,200.00 1
110.
I
1 MEDIAN EXCAVATION 1
I
2.1051
CY
11 $2(1001
I I I
I
$42,100.00 1
I
$11.201
I
$23,576.00 1
I
$12.001
I
$25,260.00 1
I
$25.001
I
$52,625.00 1
111.
I PCC CURB -TYPE Al -6 1
I
691
CY
11 f275.00 1
I I I
I
(18,975.00 I
I
I
$308.001
I
$21,252.00 1
I
S354.001
I
$24,428.00 1
1
$310.001
I
$21,390,00 I
112.
I
1 PCC CURB -TYPE A2 -8 1
I I
1581
I
CY
I I $125.00 1
II I
519,750.00 1
I
$145.00 1 .
I
$22,910.00 1
I
$180-001-
1-1-1
$25280.00 1
$146.001
$23,068.00 1
113.
I
1 STORM DRAIN - 18' RCP - CLASS III 1
I I
80 1
I
LF
11 $75.001
II I
I
$6,000.00 I
I
I
S850o 1
I
$6,800.00 1
I
$126.001
I
$70.080.00 1
I
$115.001
I
$9,200.00 1
114.
I
I CONNECTION TO EXIST. MANHOLE /INLET
I I
1
I
EA
11 $1,500.00 1
II I
$1,500.00 1
I
$1,000.00 I
I
$7,000.00 I
I
$550.001
I
$550.001
I
5800.00 1
I
$600.00 1
115.
I
1 STORM INLET -TYPE G7 1
I
7 1
EA
11 $1,000.00 I
11 I
I
$7,000.00 1
I
$1,000.00 1
I
$1,0DO.00 1
I
$1,350.001
I
$1.350.001
I
$1,350.001
I
$1,350.00 1
118.
I
1 STORM INLET -TYPE G3
I
2 j
EA
11 51,200.00 1
I I
I
$2,400.001
I
$7,500.00 1
I
$3,000.00 1
i
$1,590.001
I
$3,180.001
I
$1,660.00 I
I
$3,300.00 1
117.
11
1 STORM INLET -TYPE G4
1-1-
1 j
EA
I
I I $1,500.00 1
II
I
$7,500.00.1
I
$7,800.00 1
I
41,800.00 1
I
$1,800.00 1
I
$7,600.00 1
I
$1,650.001
1
$1,050.001
118.
I
(STORM DRAIN MANHOLE 1
I I
11
I
EA
I
11 $7,500.001
II I
I
$7,500.001
I
$9,200.00)
I
$9,200.001
I
$8,500.001
I
$8,500.001
I
$1 Q500.001
I
$1 Q500.001
119.
1-1-
1 IRRIGATION CROSSOVER CONDUITS 1
1 1
LS
I I N/A 1
I I I
I
$35,000.00 1
I
N/A 1
I
$29,294.00 I
I
N/A 1
1-1-1
$35,450.00 1
N/A 1
$34,000.00 1
120.
I
1 LANDSCAPE TOPSOIL i
I 1-1-
D I
CY
I I $17.501
11
I
$0.00 1
I
$21.501
I
50.00 1
I
$12.001
I
$0.00 1
I
$20.001
I
$0.00 1
121.
I TRAFFIC MARKINGS, STRIPING d SIGNS 1
I
1 1
LS
-1
I I N/A I
II I
1-1-1
51 QOOO.00 I
N/A 1
$11,632.00 I
I
N/A 1
I
$I 2500.00 I
I
N/A I
I
$12000.00 1
122.
I
I PCC PATTERNED MEDIAN PAVING
I I
1 1
I
LS
I I N/A I
II
I
$2,500.001
I
N/A 1
I
$2,180.00 1
I
- N/A 1 "
-$3.340001 I
I
NIA 1
I
$2,500.00 1
123.
1 ADJUST EX. UTILITY FRAMES TO GRADE 1
- 1 (
LS
I
11 N/A 1
1 1
I
$4,000.00 1
I
N/A 1
I
$6,700.001
I'
N/A 1
I
$3,880.00 I
I
N/A 1
I
$500.001
124'
I
STRUCTURAL EXCAVATION 1
1 I
689 1
I
CY
I
II $15001
II
I
$10.335.001
I
510001
I
56,890.001
I
$20.001
I
573,780.001
1
535001
I
524,115.001
125.
I
1 STRUCTURAL BACKFILL i
I I
377 1
I
CY
I
11 $20.001
II
I
$7,540.00 1
I
$20.00 I
I
$7,500.00 1
I
$55.001
I
$2Q735.00 1
I
$55.001
I
$2Q735.00 I
126.
I
1 PERVIOUS BACKFILL MATERIAL 1
I I
251
I
CY
I
11 $20.001
II
I
$500.001
I
$2000 1
I
.$500.001
I
$41100 1
I
$1,000.00 1
I
$100.00 I
I
$2,500.00 I
127•
I
1 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE - CLASS A 1
I I
1301
I
CY
I
11 $300.001
II I
I
$39,000.00 1
I
$416.001
I
$54.080.00 1 -
I
$380.001
I
$49,400.00 1
I
$420.001
I
$54,600.00 1
128.
I
1 REINFORCING STEEL 1
I I
8,9801
I
LBS
11 $0.80 1
II I
I
$7,184.00 1
I
$0.90 1
I
$8,082.00 1
I'
$0.901
I
$8,082.00 1
I
$1.00 I
I
$8,980.00 I
129.
I
1FILTER FABRIC 1
I I
1151
I
SY
II $7.001
II
I
$805.001
I
$1.201
I
$138.001
I
$6.001
I
$690.001
I
510001
I
$1,150.001
130.
I
1 ARCHITECTURAL FORM LINING 1
I
1,6401
SF
I
11 $7.001
I I
I
$11,480.001
I
$8.601
I
$14,104.001
I
$8.001
I
$1 a120.001
I
$9.OD1
I
$14.760.001
131.
1 PCC GUTTER - TYPE B3 -9
71
CY
I
1 I $290.001
I
$3.190.001
I
$367.001
I
$4,037.00 1
I
$600.00 1
I
$6,600.00 1
I
$450.001
I
$4,950.00 1
TOTAL I I I $343,769.00 1 1 $390,211100
$423s48.00 i i S443.e13,00
CITY OF SARATOGA
SARATOGA -SUNNYVALE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, C.I.P. NO. 924
FEDERAL PROJECT NO. STPLN - 5332(2)
REVISED BID SUMMARY
I
123.
1 1-1-11
1 ADJUST EX. UTILITY FRAMES TO GRADE 1
1 I
LS I I
I I ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
1 MERIDIAN GRADING & PAVING, INC. I GRANITE CONSTRUCTION, CO. I
I ITEM N I ITEM DESCRIPTION (
I I I
QUANTITY I
UNITS
11 UNIT PRICE 1
TOTAL I
UNIT PRICE
i
I
TOTAL i
UNIT PRICE i
I
TOTAL
11.
I
I TEMP. CONST. SIGN. & TRAFFIC CONTROL 1
I I
I
1 I
I
LS
II I
I I N/A I
II I
I
$14000.00 I
N/A 1
$7,500.00 1
SY I I
SF I I
$411000.00 1
N/A I
12•
I CLEARING AND DEMOLITION I
1 I
LS
I I N/A I
I
$24000.00 I
I
N/A I
I
$8.ODO.00 I
I
N/A I
I
$5Q00O.00 1
1-1
1-1-
51.001
I $B.OD I
I
$115.00(
$13,120.00 I
I
II I
I
I
I
I
I
13.
I
1 ROADWAY EXCAVATION AND SITE GRADING 1
I
888 I
CY
I 1 $20.001
1 I
$17,720.00 1
$62001
$54,932.00 I
$6500 I
$57,590.00 1
14.
I
I PAVEMENT GRINDING
I I
890 1
I
SY
I
11 $3.00 I
II
I
$2,670.001
I
$7.00 1
I
$6.230.001
1
51300 I
I
$11,570.00 1
15.
11
1 AGGREGATE BASE - CLASS 2 1
1-1-
1,3001
TON
I
I I $2500 I
II I
I
$3Z500.001
I
$28.001
I
$36,400.00 I
I
$4300 1
I
$55,900.00 I
16.
1-1
1 ASPHALT CONCRETE - CLASS A 1
I
4191
I
TON
I I $6QDO 1
II 1
I
$2$14.0.00 1
I
$8600 1
I
$36,034.00 1
I
$4400 I
I
$16,760.00 I
17.
11
1 A.C.OVERLAY - 1 1/21 1
I
01
I
TON
11 $50.001
II
I
- $0.00 I
I
58600 1
I
$0.001
I
58300 1
I
$0.00 I
Is.
1-1
1 A.C. DIKE - TYPE A I
351
LF
I
11 $8.00 1
I
$280.001
I
$7.00 1
I
$245.001
I
$5.001
I
$175.001
19.
11
I A.C. DIKE - TYPE C
1-1-
aoo
LF
.
, . 1
. 1
1-1-1
$2,800.00 1
$5.001
$2,000.00 I
110.
1 MEDIAN EXCAVATION 1
I
2,1051
CY
II I
I I $2000 I
1I
I
$42,100.00 1
I
$28.001
I
$58,940.00 1
I
$11.001
I
$23,155.00 1
111.
1-1.
1 PCC CURB -TYPE Al -8 I
I
691
I
CY
I
11 E275.001
II
I
$18,975.00 I
I
$370.001
I
$25,530.00 I
I
$300.001
I
$24700.00 I
112.
I
1 PCC CURB - TYPE A2 -6 1
I I
1581
I
CY
I
11 $125.001
II
I
$111750.00 1
I
$135.001
I
$21,330.00 I
I
$200.00 I
I
$31,600.00 I
113.
I
1STORM DRAIN - 1B'RCP - CLASS III 1
I I
801
I
LF
I
11 $75.001
II
I
$8,000.00 1
I
$130.001
I
$1 Q400.00 I
I
$180.001
I
$12,800.00 I
114.
I
1 CONNECTION TO EXIST. MANHOLE/INLET
I I
l I
EA
I
1 I $1,500.00 1
I I I
I
$1,500.00 1
I
$800.001
I
$800.001
I
$300.00 1
I
5300.00 1
115.
1
1 STORM INLET -TYPE G1 i
1
l i
EA
I I 57,000.00 i
I
51,000.00 i
1
$1,600.00 i
I
$1,600.00 i
I
$2,300.00 i
1
$2,300.00
116.
I
1 STORM INLET -TYPE G3 i
I
2 1
EA
11 $1,200.00 1
I I
$2,400.00 I
$1,750.00 I
$3,500.00 I
$1,800.001
$3,600.00 I
117.
I STORM INLET -TYPE G4
1 j
EA
I
I I 51,500.00 I
I
$1,500.001
I
$1,850.001
I
$1,850.00 1
I
$2,200.00 I
I
$2,200.00 1
lie.
I_I
I STORM DRAIN MANHOLE 1
I
1 I
I
EA
1 I $7,500.00 I
II
$7,500.00 1
$3,500.00 (
$3,500.00 I
$6,800.001
$6,800.00 1
119.
I
1 IRRIGATION CROSSOVER CONDUITS I
I
1 1
LS
I
1 I N/A 1
I I
I
$35,000.00 I
I
N/A 1
I
$336000.00 I
1
N/A I
I
$47,000.00 1
120.
1-1
(LANDSCAPE TOPSOIL
I
ol
I
CY
1
II 577.501
II I
I
50.001
I
$16001
I
$0.001
1
$11100(
I
$0.001
121.
I
1 TRAFFIC MARKINGS, STRIPING & SIGNS I
I I
1 I
I
LS
1 I N/A I
II I
I
514000.00 I
I
N/A I
I
$11,000.00 I
I
N/A I
I
$1 Q000.00 I
122.
1 PCC PATTERNED MEDIAN PAVING 1
1 I
LS
11 N/A 1
I
52.500.00 I
I
N/A I
I
$3,500.00 I
I
N/A I
I
$3.200.001
I
123.
1 1-1-11
1 ADJUST EX. UTILITY FRAMES TO GRADE 1
1 I
LS I I
124.
11
1 STRUCTURAL EXCAVATION 1
1-1-11
6891
CY I I
125.
11
126.
11
1 STRUCTURAL BACKFILL 1
1-1-11
1 PERVIOUS BACKFILL MATERIAL 1
1-1-11
377 1
251
CY .1
CY I I
127•
1 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE - CLASS A I
1301
CY I I
128.
11
1 REINFORCING STEEL I
1-1-11
8,9801
LBS II
128.
11
130.
11
1 FILTER FABRIC I
1-1-11
1 ARCHITECTURAL FORM LINING I
1-1-11
1151
1,6401
SY I I
SF I I
131.
I
1 PCC GUTTER - TYPE B3 -9 _ I
I I
11 1
I
CY I 1
II
TOTAL
N/A 1
$4,000.00
I N/A I
$2,ODO.OD I
N/A I
$3,800.00
575001
I
514335.001
$45001
I I
$31,005.001
I
512001
I
$8,268.00
$2QOOI
$7,540.001
$50001
$18,850.001
518.001
$8,032.00
$20.001
$SOO.00
I $80.00 (
$2,000.00 1
$15001
$375.00
$300.001
5391000.001
$385.001
$5Q050.001
$350.001
$45,500.00
$0.801
$7,184.001
$0.851
$7,633.001
$0.901
$8,082.00
$7.001
$805.001
51.001
I $B.OD I
I
$115.00(
$13,120.00 I
I
$0.601
$2.801
I
$69.00
$4,264.00
$7.00 I $11,480.00
I I
$290.001
$3,190.001
$400.001
1_1_1
$4,400.001
$400.001
$4,400.00
I
I
$343,769.00( 1 $456,264.001 I $478,4411001
I I I I I
CITY OF SARATOGA
SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
CONTRACT FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION
SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
CAPITAL PROJECT NO. 924
FEDERAL PROJECT NO. STPLN - 5332(2)
THIS CONTRACT, made this 25th day of October by and between the
City of Saratoga, a Municipal Corporation, in Santa Clara County,
California, hereinafter called the City, and
B &B CONCRETE
hereinafter called the Contractor.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City has caused to be prepared in the manner prescribed
by law, plans, specifications and other contract documents, for
the work herein described and shown and has approved and adopted
these contract documents, specifications and plans and has caused
to be published in the manner and for the time required by law, a
Notice Inviting Sealed Bids for doing the work in accordance with
the terms of this Contract, and
WHEREAS,. the Contractor in response to said Notice has submitted to
the City a sealed bid proposal accompanied by a bid guaranty in an
amount not less than ten percent (10 %) of the amount bid for the
construction of all of the proposed work in accordance with the
terms of this Contract, and
WHEREAS, the City, in the manner prescribed by law, has publicly
opened, examined and canvassed the bids submitted and as a result
has determined and declared the Contractor to be the lowest
responsible bidder and has duly awarded to the Contractor a
contract for all of the work and for the sum or sums named in the
bid proposal and in this Contract.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
ARTICLE I. WORK TO BE DONE:
That the.Contractor shall provide all necessary labor, machinery,
tools, apparatus and other means of construction; shall furnish all
materials, superintendence and overhead expenses of whatever nature
necessary to construct all of the improvements for the .City of
Saratoga in conformity with the plans, specifications and other
contract documents and according to such instructions as may be
given by the Saratoga Director of Public Works or his authorized
agent.
26
ARTICLE II. CONTRACT PRICES
Except as provided in Section IV B of the Specifications ( "Changes
and Extra Work "), the City shall pay the Contractor according to
the prices stated in the: bid proposal submitted by the Contractor,
which shall include all applicable taxes, for complete performance
of the work.
The Contractor hereby agrees to accept such payment as full
compensation for all materials and appliances necessary to complete
the work; for all loss or damage arising from the work or from
action of the elements, or from any unforeseen obstruction or
difficulties which may be encountered in the prosecution of the
work; incurred in and in consequence of the suspension or
discontinuance of the work; as hereby specified; for all liabili-
ties and other insurance; for all fees or royalties or other ex-
penses on account of any patent or patents; for all overhead and
other expenses incident to the work and expected profits; and for
well and faithfully performing and completing the work within the
time frame specified in the Notice to Proceed, all according to the
contract plans and specifications, the details and instructions,
and the requirements of the City.
ARTICLE III. PARTS OF THE CONTRACT:
That the complete contract document consists of the following:
1. Notice Inviting Sealed Bids
2. Bid Proposal
3. Bidder's Bond or Bid Guaranty
4. Contract for Public Works
Construction
5. Hold Harmless Clause
6. Performance Bond
7. Labor and Material Bond
8. Plans
9. Specifications
10. Insurance Certificates
11. Prevailing Wage Rates
In case of any conflict between this Contract and any other part of
the contract, this Contract shall be binding.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has-caused its corporate name to be
hereunto subscribed and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed
by its City .Manager and its City Clerk thereunto duly authorized
and the Contractor has executed these presents the day and year
hereinabove written.
27
AWARDED BY CITY COUNCIL:
Date: 10/25/94
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The foregoing Contract is
approved as to form this
day of
19
City Attorney
28
CITY OF SARATOGA:
CONTRACTOR:
By
Title
License No.
Tax ID or SSN
A
i
S7! FE�Cf (ril lF �F?pJ'�` i�SS, T: HOUS4!C .1GLhlG',
"— — PETE :NiLsoN. G4 vsmc
D'�PARTFf ENT OF T I,ANQFJORTAT1Gr,l - -: - - --
BOX 236,60
0AKI -AND, Ct.. 94E_3 -0Sc0
+510) 286.4444 �q
October 21, 1.994
Mr. Larry I. Perlin
Director of Public Works
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Attent:or: Johll Cherbone
Dear Mr. Perlin:
04- SCI -0 -Sar
S T LN- 53,92(002)
Saratoga/Sunnyvale Rd
Median Tim provertl:; It
'I'hls is to Confirm the Ilf,cricFt t'.On rCs% � 7
��ii'•.illlr, Oil l' C01 ":tiul'' C'.[1Ca tfi dt,'�lyd Ol.li'
j;r t)jr,Ct f0 B(2 i� VOnCl'Pt.P ,
Of Sp , g
r To e o1' tll8 tw d k!a,is Of of �3i30,210.00.
fter tl:Q COlttl -jCt has I)C'C?il rl� iV2 �;11 i?2c "'G the iCilOtvlrlg C]OC ilnlenl4
and iiliurination:
• A Cttpy Of t•11"= C?XCC:1i;E' ;i.� 107'1 !`Oii�,l'.'3 ^t;;E' +,;.4'C'C11 �'Oli ?' 3�TC;t1CJ di1Cl the
Contractor.
O r ,
I hE' datP the awarded !'��' t f;,' :.�, �.
will 1)rt; ill. f he ..t., a i,c/l:r;(.l!, ana llctl NV(),.
• A completed Project AdV1.s01'v I.ntt;er (�1ttr1Cl1C'��j, il2C:iil.1"jlll� LlI% x'i;1niE'
phone ;i;lrnber of tl:c i ?. ^sicicsif: rngin2ti
A r)recoI1S1.1'Lict10ll COi?rel1c'riCC 5110111d. l a Scllt'c11: ,; r,
t otlr l�;('siclent 1, r ..lE..x wit,11 tl,e (,enf;r�,ctr�r;
�nginee.. ar'd Roland Tien.�)t oar {� ± ,
slloiild be co: -,t�lct.ed ; `51 ! ` ons r,�ctinn Branch. i1'Tr. Lee
, t 0. t'-F `.) I �)ri.a; io schedu!inr; lfae n�eF'fin.g" since lie will
1719 }iiit�;" C;�tlSt „'L1Ction �?.. Se ,�i qjc, 1)...ro, 0 (.a. "0 CCtS "�x7 }llCi lI1V
t`a \4'091{ Also rE'C i6ve 1)otlf` t,�: � J, � olva. 7`tate
tt p
;n Or i.l,e State s 1
::t;rncr �rlllit. 'epresE;�l:at's ✓esllovvt'<C11 t11
Sincerely,
JOE BROWNE
District Director
Tay
Robert W11
Ntt:lciu,l� Assistance Area En g' ,
lec r
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Z.S AGENDA ITEM iG
MEETING DATE: October, _2.Cr, 1994 CITY MGR.
ORIGINATING DEPT. FINANCE DEPARTMENT <
SUBJECT: SEPTEMBER FINANCIAL REPORTS
Recommended Motion(s): Note and file the 3 -month Status Reports:
Cash and Investments, Treasurer's Report of Fund Balances and
Comparative.Financial Reports of the City of Saratoga.
Report Summary: I have prepared the attached reports and commentary
for your review and consideration.
CASH, INVESTMENTS AND CASH RESERVES
The City's Cash, Investments and Cash Reserve balances at September
30, 1994 are $6,653,865. Cash invested at one -year or less,
$4,005,633, is $2,059,138 more than General Fund Operating Reserve
of $1,946,495 established in the budget process. The distribution
of Cash, Investments and Cash Reserves is as follows:
Demand Deposits (Banks)
Investments (L.A.I.F.)
Invested in CDs
Invested in Gov't Issues
Restricted Cash (Quarry Cr)
Invested in Long -Term Loans
C.D.B.G. Cash Accounts
Bond Reserves
13.2%
$ 824,303
47.8%
3,181,330
17.7%
1,175,000
3.8%
250,000
.8%
52,766.
8.5%
562,532
3.1%
203,426
6.1%
404,508
Current investment yield is estimated at 4.6% earning $25,390 for
the current month.
TREASURER'S REPORT OF FUND BALANCES
The City began this Fiscal Year with estimated AVAILABLE Fund
Balances of $5,905,205. The General Fund accounted for $3,634,951
or 61.6% of the balance and Restricted Funds accounted for
$2,270,254 or 38.4% of the balance.
During the first three months we have collected $605,371 less than
we have spent. The current Unreserved Fund Balances, including
Trust and Agency funds, are $5,299,834. The General Fund accounts
for $3,075,587 or 58% of this balance and Restricted Funds account
for $2,224,247 or 42% of the balance. The $559,364 decrease in the
General Fund balance is primarily due to the carryover of the
Pavement Mgmt Program from 93/94.
Current 1994/95 projections of $11,048;767 in Revenue, $12,910,608
in Expenditures and $4,043,364 in AVAILABLE Fund Balance will be
adjusted through Appropriation Resolutions as Council makes program
and-policy decisions and as part of the 2 -year budget process to
reflect changes in revenue source and amount and changes in program
priorities.
COMPARATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
This report has been modified to include Revenue and Expenditure
Cashf low Estimates versus actuals as an attempt to report variances
to a Cash Flow Budget. The estimates were generated by the Budget
Managers as part of the Budget process. Refinements of these
estimates will be required as the year progresses in order to
achieve more accurate results and to reflect up -to -date budget
changes.
Revenues collected for the first three months total $1,574,899 or
14.3% of the adopted Revenue Estimates. Results compare favorably
with prior year's average revenues of $1,345,143 showing an
increase of $229,756 or 17% above historical levels.
Expenditures for the first three months total $2,178,068 or 16.5%
of adopted. Appropriations. Prior year's average 1st Quarter
Expenditures total $2,438,466 (adjusted for the carry forward of
the 93/94 PMP). This quarter's expenditures represent a decrease
of $260,398 or 11% below historical costs.
Expenditures by classification are as follows:
Salaries and benefits 37 %, Contracts 38.5 %, Other Operating Costs
18 %, Debt Service 6 %, and Fixed Assets .5%.
In summary, positive revenue variances are primarily due to
conservative, cash flow estimates offset by timing. differences.
Offsetting expenditure variances are primarily. due to timing
differences.. Since we 1) specifically budget the level of program
expenditures, 2) control to these budgets through the Purchasing
Ordinance, and 3) report out the detailed results on a monthly
basis there are no "surprises ".
You should note that Revenue and Expenditures are booked to the
appropriate fiscal year as they are received and processed. A true
Cash Flow budget would ignore the restrictions of reporting within
the Fiscal Year Budget. In my opinion, to successfully achieve the
desired goal of estimating and reporting on monthly cash flow will
require accounting system upgrades and /or -additional staffing
resources.
Follow Up Actions: File,
Attachments:
Cash and Investment Report - September 30, 1994
Treasurers Report of Fund Balances - September 30, 1994
Comparative Financial Statements - September 30, 1994
lst_Qtr Cash Basis Revenue Projections vs Actuals
1st.Qtr Cash Basis Expenditure Projections vs Actuals
1st Qtr Revenue and Variance Analysis
CITY OF SARATOGA
CASH AND INVESTMENT REPORT
BALANCES AT SEPTEMBER 30; 1994
EARNED
ACCOUNT TYPE INSTITUTION DATE FDR CURRENT RATE MATURESTERM IN MONTH
98 -43 -852 MF L.A.I.F. N/A * $3,181,330 4.989% OPEN OPEN $13,667
23P -07033 SECs LAKE ELSINORE PUB FINANCE AUTH 10/27/93 250,000 8.000% 10/21/94 .360 $1,722
CD ALLIED SAVINGS BANK 07/14/94 AAA 99,000 5.750% 01%15/96 547 $269
91- 18487 -1 CD DEL AMO SAVINGS BANK 05/20/94 AAA 99,000 5.250% 05122/95 362 $448
11546413 CD EAST -WEST FEDERAL S & L 04/29/94 AAA 99,000 5.260% 04/29/96 730 $448
D02P00395 CD FIRST CHARTER BANK 06/09/94 AAA 99,000 5.850% 06/10/96 731 $499
CD FIRST FEDERAL BANK OF CA 07/14/94 AAA 99,000 5.750% 01/15/96 547 $269
091 - 0000 -2521 CD FIRST REPUBLIC THRIFT & LOAN 02/07/94 AAA 95,000 4.750% 02/07/97• 1095 $389
07-03001-2 CD GOLDEN SECURITY THRIFT 05/26/94 AAA 90,000 6.300% 05/26/97 1095 $488
P17492 CD INTERNATIONAL BANK OF CA 06/09/94 AAA 99,000 8.700% 06/10/96 731 $486
0298BOS434 CD MERCANTILE BANK 04/29/94 AAA 99,000 5.500% 04/29/96 730 $469
681C17473 CD METROBANK 05/20/94 AAA 99,000 5.250% 11/18/94 180 $448
8708 - 801643 CD OMNI BANK 06109/94 AAA 99,000 5.600% 12/06/95 544 $477
001 /1200572/8 CD ROYAL THRIFT & LOAN 05/11 /94 AAA EARLY OUT 5.450% 05/11 /95 365 $0
03 100708 CD UNITED LABOR BANK 05/05/94 AAA 99,000 5.000% 05/05/95 365 $426
TOTAL C.D.s & GOVERNMENT ISSUES $1,425,000 5.811 % (AVG ROI) $6,837
TOTAL L.A.I.F. & INVESTMENTS $4,606,330 $20,505
CASH ACCOUNTS
3- 60009 -5 DD PACIFIC WESTERN - QUARRY CREEK AAA $52,766 277
3- 01761 -3 DD PACIFIC WESTERN BANK - SAVINGS AAA 789,084 $1,239
3- 01056 -8 CK PACIFIC WESTERN BANK - CHECKING AAA 35,219 N/A
---------------------------------------
TOTAL CASH ACCOUNTS $877,069 2.074% 1,516
LONG -TERM ASSETS AND CASH RESERVES
TRUSTEE RES BANK OF AMERICA -BOND REFINANCING AAA $194,399 N/A
HAKONE LOAN 10 -YEAR NOTE RECEIVABLE 362,532 6.500% $1,976
PEACOCK LOAN FIRST DEED OF TRUST 200,000 6.827% $1,050
734 - 001224 RES SEAFIRST - RESERVE FOR DEBT AAA 210,109 0.000% -0-
VARIOUS CDBG SARATOGA NATIONAL BANK AAA 149,570 2.752% $343
VARIOUS CDBG WELLS FARGO BANK AAA 53,856 0.000% N/A
--------------------------------------- TOTAL OTHER ASSETS & CASH RESERVES $1,170,466 3.454% (AVG ROI) $3,369
TOTAL POOLED CASH, INVESTMENTS & RESERVES $603,865 4.579% EST YIELD $25,390
SUB ITTED BY: PATRf6fA SHRIVER, FINANCE DIRECTOR APPROVE MY: HARRY PEACOCK, CITY TREASURER
NOTES:
* FDR = The Financial Directory rating is based on computer analysis of prime
financials reported quarterly by the Institutions to the Federal Reserve Board and the
Federal Home Loan Bank Board. AAA is the highest institutional rating.
General Fund Reserves adopted 6 \15 \94:
Estimated yearend General Fund Balance:
Pooled Demand Deposits available for October expenses:
$1,946,495
$2,412,788
$4,005,633
Please note: The cash balances appearing on this report will not reconcile to the Treasurer's Report of Fund
Balances due to a combination of the Reserves for Loans Receivable and various accruals.
This report includes Long -Term Assets and Cash Reserves which are not avallable to fund current
operations.
C:\REPORTS\994FB.WK1
FUND
CITY OF SARATOGA
0001
GENERAL
0010 '
T.D.A.
0012
H.C.D.A.
0013
TRAFFIC SAFETY
0014.
GAS TAX
0016
HILLSIDE STREET REPAIR
0018
HILLSIDE DEV
0021
LIBRARY DEBT
0022
STATE PARK BONDS
0024
CERTS OF PART.
0015
ENVIRON PROGRAMS
0031
PARK DEVELOP
0033
STATE URBAN PARKS
0040
ENTERPRISE FUND
0060
HERITAGE
0061
QUARRY CREEK TRUST
0062
S.C.A.C.TV FOUND TRUST
0063
PARKING DISTRICT #2
0064
PARKING DISTRICT #3
0071
LANDSCAPE /LIGHT
0073
PKG DIST BONDS #1 & 4
0075
LEONARD ROAD A. D.
13 -Oct -94
------------------------------------------------
TOTALS 5,905,205 0 1,574,899 2,180, 270 5,299,834
* The General Fund has advanced this�amount to other funds to cover expenses in excess of funds available.
CITY OF SARATOGA
TREASURER'S REPORT OF FUND BALANCES
SEPTEMBER 30, 1994
UNAUDITED
PRIOR YR ADJ/
6/30/94.I.F.
TRANSFERS
REVENUE
EXPENSE
9/30/94
3,6-34,951
(98,643)'
1,229,104
1,689,825
3,075,587
3,751
0
0
3,751
127,942
0
6,436
121,506
(15,901)
31,442 *
11,162
26,702
1
102,595
138,059
50,540
190,113
0
2,517
0
2,517
1,133, 949
0
0
1,133,949
19,104
0
99
19,005
6,457
0
0
6,457
200,755
0
0
200,755
253,602
37,025
88,783
201,844
(83,038)
42,238 *
40,800
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,500
24,963 *
115,867
140,830
1,500
4,914
0
0
4,914
55,663
277
202
55,737
57,819
0
0
57,819
(971)
0
97
(1,068)
154,522
0
127,148
27,374
180,681
89
36,549
144,221
18,732
0
97
18,635
48,179
0
12,962
35,217
------------------------------------------------
TOTALS 5,905,205 0 1,574,899 2,180, 270 5,299,834
* The General Fund has advanced this�amount to other funds to cover expenses in excess of funds available.
NOTES:
See attached for detailed Program Budget to Actual Variances and Revenue Line Item Estimate to Actual Variances,
While Revenues are higher than estimated for the 1st quarter, expenditures are on target. Our current "draw"
on Fund Balances is $205,600 less than anticipated for the 1st quarter.
CITY OF SARATOGA
COMPARATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
YEAR -TO -DATE AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1994
HISTORICAL COSTS
SEP 1991 SEP 1992 SEP
1993
SEP 1994
- - - -- TITLE - - - --
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
CASH BUDGET
ACTUAL
%VARIANCE
PROPERTY TAXES
2,486
1,399
484
0
1;602
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
0
0
0
0
0
OTHER LOCAL TAXES
364,514'
486,466
353,601
345,798
434,294
25.59%
INTERGOV. STATE
386,538
433,543
431,239
392,897
442,100
12.52%
INTERGOV. FEDERAL
0
39,026
72,695
18,250
0
- 100.00%
FRANCHISE FEES
24,518
0
28,699
31,515
42,841
35.94%
USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY
77,443
41,338
31,941
52,604
54,622
CURRENT SERVICE CHARGES
443,241
343,551,
472,706
517,408
599,440
15.85%
BOND PROCEEDS
0
0
1,600,000
0
TOTAL REVENUES
1,298,740
1,345,323
2,991,365
1,358,472
1,574,899
15.93%
- - - -- TITLE - - - --
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
CASH BUDGET
ACTUAL
%VARIANCE
PUBLIC SAFETY
360,168
356,569
278,516
663,893
192,063
71.07%
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
303,668
281,675
145,638
230,600
206,172
10.59%
MAINTENANCE SERVICES
352,896
266,900
314,237
228,950
802,606
- 250.56%
COMMUNITY SERVICES
105,983
136,359
154,217
216,988
165,983
23.51%
ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS
373,665
224,885
238,073
233,543
167,801
28.15%
COMMUNITY SUPPORT
34,407
28,941
30,244
30,889
17,935
41.94%
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
379,837
431,015
360,568
409,830
392,451
INTRAGOV. SERVICES
230,024
280,870
294,065
70,072
107,937
- 54.04%
PROJECTS
194,727
304,822
177,427
82,476
125,118
- 51.70%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
2,335,375
2,312,037
1,992,986
2,167,241
2,178,068
-0.50%
CONTRIBUTION TO
FUND BALANCE
(1,036,635)
(966,714)
998,379
(808,769)
(603,169)
25.42%
NOTES:
See attached for detailed Program Budget to Actual Variances and Revenue Line Item Estimate to Actual Variances,
While Revenues are higher than estimated for the 1st quarter, expenditures are on target. Our current "draw"
on Fund Balances is $205,600 less than anticipated for the 1st quarter.
REVENUE PROJECTIONS 94M
7000 Property Taxes
0
0
0
0
11602
7010 L.L.A. -1 Property Tax
0
0
0
7110 Leonard Road Bonds
0
0
0
7110 Parking District #1 Bonds
0
0
0
7110 Parking District #2 Bonds
0
0
0
7110 Parking District #4 Bonds
0
0
0
7110 Parking District #3 Bonds
0
0
0
PROPERTY TAXES
0
0
0
0
1,602
7510 Sales Taxes
74,701
74,701
149,402
243,832
63.21%
7520 Transfer Tax
9,889
9,869
91889
29,666
29,666
7530 Utility Tax
52,213
52,213
52,213
7540 Construction Tax
21,786
19,191
18,284
59,260
51,460
- 13.16%
7550 Business License Tax
8,978
8,978
8,978
26,935
30,560
7555 Animal Control
2,600
2,600
842
7560 Transient Occupancy Tax
25,722
25,722
25,722
OTHER TAXES
43,252
112,759
189,767
345,798
434,294
25.59% 1
8010 MVL Fees
100,000
100,000
100,000
300,000
300,776
8020 OFF HIGHWAY
0
304
8050 Gas Tax
6,000
6,000
6,000
8060 2106
7,443
7,443
7,443
22,328
33,519.
50.12%
8070 2107
12,109
12,109
12,109
36,327
56,230
54.79%
8075F.H.WA.
0
0
8080 2105 Streets & Highways
28,242
28,242
42,310
49.81%
8090 State Park Bonds
0
0
8110 Other I.G. State
0
2,961
STATE REIMBURSEMENTS
------------------------------------
125,552
119,552
147,794
392,897
442,100
12:52% 2
8520 T.D.A.
0
0
8540 C.D.B.G..
0
0
9540 H.C.DA.
18,250
18,250
0
- 100.00%
05601.S.T.E.A.
0
0
FEDERAL REIMBURSEMENTS
0
18,250
0
18,250
-
0
- 100.00% 3
9010 Franchise Fees
31,515
31,515
42,841
35.94%
9020 Sale of Property
0
9810 General Fund Interest
6,808
6,808
6,808
20,423
23,284
9811 Hakone Interest
3,544
3,544
3,544
10,631
10,731
9811 Library Lease
0
0
0
9812 Building Rent
9,000
81500
2,000
19,500
17,913
9813 Park Income
600
1,200
250
2,0.50
2,695
19,951
20,051
12,601
52,604
54,622
9511 Building Permits
50,400
44,400
42,300
137,100
146,176
6.62%
9513 Engineering Fees
42,590
42,590
44,640
9514 Planning Fees
29,521
31,792
14,760
76,073
150,379
97.68%
9520 False Alarm Charges
958
9%
958
2,875
3,200
9540 Hillside Street Repair's
0
0
0
0
2,517
9545 Appeals
0
0
0
0
1,860
9550 Park Development Fees
40,800
40,800
40,800
9830 Excursions
81000
4,900
31000
15,500
15,298
9831 Classes
11,000
22,000
38,000
71,000
67,737
9832 Youth Services
1,500
500
3,350
5,390
11,788
120.34%
9850 SaleAAaps & Publications
158
158
158
475
131
9860 Fines & Forfeits
4,583
4,583
5,513
9865 Vehicle Code Fines
1,445
1,445
1,445
9880 SHARP Loan Paybacks
0
0
9885 Cash Over (Short)
0
96
9890 Teerlink Deposit
0
9890 Hakone Lease Payments
0
9890 Traffic Authority 9401
0
9890 Oulto Bridge Reimbursements
0
9890 Cable Franchise
9,171
9,171
9,171
27,513
27,513
9890 Solid WesteFees
9,475
9,475
9,475
28,425
28,425
9890 Refunds & Reimbursements 01
63,679
63,679
51,920
- 18.47%
9890 ABAG Insurance Abatement
0
9890 Traffic Authority 9307
0 '
9890 BAS Homes Settlement
0
9890 Miscellaneous Reimbursements
0
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
------------------------------------
120,184
122,955
274,270
517,408
599,438
15.85% . 4
308,939 393,567 655,966 1,358,472 1,574,898 15.93%
216,426
EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS 94/95
4
Prog/Acct Activity Name
Jul
Aug
Sep
1 st OV
1 st Otr Percent
Forecast
Actual Varlance
1011 Police Protection
168,448
168,448
168,879
505,775
28,304
94.4D%
1013 Code Enforcement
15,438
16,598
15,288
47,264
48,270
1014 Crossing Guards
0
0
1015 Emergency Preparedness
1,626
1,625
2,114
5,366
6,649
1016 Animal Control .
3,912
3,912
3,993
11,817
17,018
- 44.01 %
2022 Inspection Services
31,756
31,960
29,956
93,672
91,822
PUBLIC SAFETY
------------------------------------
221,180
222,483
220,230
663,893
192,063
71.07°% 1
2020YVater Quality Mgmt
7,645
7,645
7,645
22,935
66,889
- 191.64%
2024 Zoning Administration
25,281
25,281
34,151
. 85,413
70,816
2025 Current Planning
7,881
6,681
9,&%
24,398
20,056
2026 Advanced Planning
6,136
6,136
9,146
21,418
17,681
2027 Housing Assistance
1,524
1,524
39,125
42,173
3,250
92.29°%
2028 Integrated Waste Management
8,43D
1,4340
18,817
28,677
21,894
23.65%
2029 Congestion Mgmt
5,586
5,586
5,586
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
-------------------
56,897
48,697
-----------------
125,006
230,600
206,172
10.59% 2
3031 Street Maintenance
19,722
19,722
19,722
59,187
956,787
- 841.04°%
30.42 Curbs, Gutters, Sidewalks
2,824
2,824
2,824
8,473
22,590
- 166.62%
3033 Trafic Control
2,708
2,708
2,708
8,124
26,702
- 228.68°%
30.44 Flood Control
689
689
689
2,066
2,916
3035 Medians & Parkways
8,050
8,050
8,050
24,150
22,365
30.46 ParkwX*w Space
17,929
17,929
17,929
$9,786
73,046
- 35.81°%
3037 Hakone Gardens
6,358
6,458
6,358
19,078
27,686
- 45.16%
3038 Development Reguiarion
6,551
6,551
6,551
19,654
24,, -eo
30.49 General Engineering
11,486
11,486
11,486
34,457
46,194
- 34.07°%
MAINTENANCE SERVICES
--------
76,317
---- ---
76;317
---- -----
76,317
--- ---
228,950
-- ----
802,606
- 250.56% 4
4041 Recreation Services
58,000
45,000
58,OD0
161,000
118,934
26.13°%
4042 Volunteer Services
3,655
3,655
5,162
12,472
9,554
4043 Cultural Services
371
371
556
1,298
1,110
4044 Youth Services
7,200
8,000
.1 1,000
26,200
20,786
20.66%
4045 Senior Services
120
15,720
178
16,018
15,600
COMMUNITY SERVICES
-------------------------------------
69,346
72,746
74,896
216988
165,9&4
24.51% 4
5051 Parking District iH Bonds
0
0
5052 Parking District #2 Bonds
12,175
12,175
97
99.2D°%
5053 Parking District 03 Bonds
128,654
128,654
127,148
5054 Parking District #4 Bonds
60,175
60,175
97
99.84%
5055 Library Bonds
0
97
5056 Lighting & Landscaping
30,851
30,851
36,549
-1&47%
5057 Leonard Road Bonds
1,68B
1,688
3,813
5058 City Hal C.O.P.s
0
0
ASSESSMENTSIDEBT
--------------------------------------
72,350
- - - -0
161,1934
293543
167,801
28.15°% 5
6061 Community Groups
0
4,000
4,00D
8,00D
0
100.00%
6063 Paratransh
0
3,150
0
3,15D
0
6064 Community Events
447
447
672
1,566
1,311
6065 Library Service
0
0
0
0
0
6066 HCDAAdntinistratlon
1,101
1 1,101
1,483
3,685
2,962
6067 Cable Television
1,239
------------------------------------
1,244
12,OD5
14,4BB
13,662
COMMUNITY SUPPORT
2,787
9,942
18,160
30,899
17,935
41.94% 6
7071 City Council
16,091
3,691
3,991
23,773
22,500
7072 City Commisslons
1,775
1,775
1,775
5,325
3,768
7073 City Manager
19,851
19,861
28,454
68,176
55,585
18.47%
7074 Financial Management
184,470
21,825
31,796
238,090
261519
-9.84%
7075 Litigation Services
2,70D
2,700
2,700
8,10D
I 3,8%
7076 City Clerk
9,912
5,894
8,&49
24,645
16,542
32.89%
7077 Personnel
5,30
5,330
9,667
20,325
14,172
30.27%
7078 Community Relations
871
&4
83
1,037
1,575
7079 Central Services
6,786
6,785
6,786
20,359
12,8934
36.67%
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
------------------------------------
247,794
67,945
94,091
409,840
392,451
8081 UNALLOCATED BENEFITS
11.098
8082 Equipment Operations
5,73D
5,730
5,73D
17,189
18,9034
8083 Fhoed Asset Maintenance
4,304
4,304
4,304
12,913
15,988
8084 Facilities Maintenance
13,329
13,323
13,323
39,970
61,948
- 54.99%
INTRAGOVE- RNMENTALSERVICES
----- ----
23,357
-------
23,457
-------------
23,$57
70,072
-- - - - --
107,937
- 54.04% 7
9010 Gen Fund Projects/Transfers
72,902
72,902
115,544
- 58.49%
9100 T.D.A. Projects7fransfers
0
0
0
9120 H.C.DA. ProjecWransters
224
224
224
9140 Gas Tax ProjectsrfransWit
0
0
0
9220 Park Bond ProjecWransfers
0
0
0
9310 Park Development ProjectsMansfers
0
0
0
9610 Quarry Creek Project
202
202
202
9750 Leonard Road Project
9,149
9,149
9,149
PROJECTS
------------------------------------
0
0
82,476
82,476
125,118
- 51.70°% 8
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
------------
770,028
---
521,487
----- --
875,726
---- ----
2,167,240
- - -- --
2.178,069
- 0.50%
(10,WS)
1ST QUARTER REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE VARIANCE ANALYSIS
Revenue Variance Analysis
1 Other Taxes $ 88,496 Positive variance due to
conservating estimates.
2 State $ 49,203 Positive variance due to
conservating estimates.
3 Federal $ 18,250 Negative variance due to
reimbursement claim not being
submitted during this quarter.
4 Charges for Serv. $ 80,346 Positive variance due to
Planning fees carried forward
from prior fiscal year. Bldg.
permits higher than estimated.
Expenditure Variance Analysis
1 Public Safety $477,471 Positive variance due Sheriff's
billings not submitted.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Comm Environment
$
24,428.
Maintenance
($573;656)
Comm Services
$
51,005
Assessments
$
65,742
Comm Support
$
12,954
Intragov't
($
37,865)
Projects
($
42,642)
Water Quality Mgmt estimates
did not include annual fees in
this quarter.
Street Maintenance includes
$49.7,620 of 93/94 carry forward
of the PMP. Remaining
variances are due to timing
differences.
Positive variances due to
conservative estimates.
Positive variances due to
timing difference in recording
paying agent transactions.
Positive variances due to
timing difference in receipt of
payment requests.
Negative variance due to error
in estimating Building
Maintenance costs.
General Fund projects ahead of
schedule anticipated at time of
estimates.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2S0_7 AGENDA ITEM: (O.
MEETING DATE: October 19, 1994 CITY MGR:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Community Development
SUBJECT: Appeal of Approval of the Final Development Plan to
construct 94 single - family detached residences at the 24 -acre
former Paul Masson Winery site at 13150 Saratoga Avenue north of
Route 85 in a Mixed Use - Planned Development (MUPD) zone district
(Developer, BA Properties, Inc. /Greenbriar Homes) (PD 94 -002)
Recommended Motion: Deny the appeal and confirm the Planning Commission
decision of September 28, 1994, to approve the Final Development Plan
with conditions as contained in Resolution #PD 94 -002.
ReRort Summary: On September. 28, 1994, the Planning Commission
unanimously approved the Final Development Plan for Greenbriar Saratoga
Road Company (applicant /appellant) allowing the construction of 94
single - family residences. The Final Plan was approved consistent with
the MU -PD development regulations and review procedures and was based on
the Conceptual Development Plan heard by the City Council on April 6,
1994, and approved on April 20, 1994.
The Planning Commission adopted a Resolution containing conditions of
approval for the project. The applicant /appellant appealed two of the
conditions of approval: the reduction in average floor area and the
prohibition of wood burning fireplaces. The applicant has stated to
staff that since this is a de novo public hearing, they are requesting
reconsideration of other conditions. Subsequent documents submitted to
the City Council after the appeal was filed listed three additional
issues. Following is a discussion of the appealed conditions and a
summary of Planning Commission discussion of the issues. The minutes of
both September 14 and 28 Planning Commission meetings have been approved
by the Commission and can be referenced for more detailed Commission
discussion.
Average floor area shall not exceed 3,200 sq.ft. including the
garage: The applicant had proposed an average of 3,066 sq.ft. of
living space floor area plus an additional approximate 560 sq.ft.
of garage floor area (total avg. of approximately 3,626 sq.ft.).
The Commission felt that the applicant's proposal resulted in an
"over- built" development in that there was not enough variety in
house style and size. With limited distance between buildings
(typically 11' -13'), all two - story, all three -car garage and little
articulation in the rear elevations, the result was "too much of
the same thing." The Commission suggested a 4th house plan,
reducing some three -car garages to two and reducing the second -
story element so that rear elevation articulation could be
achieved.
Lot Coverage shall not exceed 60 percent: This issue was brought
up at the Commission meeting. The Commission felt that some
limitation should be established. Since the MU -PD zoning district
does not contain specific site coverage standards, future owners
could request accessory buildings, additions to the residence, etc.
City Council, October 19,1994
Greenbriar Appeal, PD -94 -002
Final Development Plan
Page 2
which could result, in the extreme case, the entire site being
covered with paved surface and /or building. The MU -PD zone allows
a maximum of 60% site coverage exclusive of streets. The current
project proposes approximately 33% coverage. If individual
homeowners were allowed "unlimited" expansion, ultimately the MU -PD
maximum of 60% may be exceeded and some homeowners may then be
precluded from additional building. By restricting individual lots
to a maximum of 60% coverage, the overall MU -PD coverage could be
maintained.
No wood burning fireplaces are permitted: This issue was raised at
the Commission meeting. The Commission felt that the potential use
of wood burning fireplaces (2 per house) on the 24 acre site
could result in pollution in the area. The Commission discussed
the possibility of either allowing only one gas log fireplace per
house or one wood burning fireplace and one gas log fireplace. The
basis of the Commission decision was recent reports prepared by the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District which emphasizes the
amount of air pollution created by the use of wood burning
fireplaces.
Staff Comment: Staff has contacted the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District to determine what other cities have ordinances
and /or policy regarding the use of wood burning fireplaces. No
other cities now ban wood burning fireplaces. The Cities of
Petaluma and Sonoma have adopted ordinances which prohibit open
wood burning fireplaces; that is, an enclosed fireplace unit is
required, but wood can be used for fuel. In discussing this issue,
the City Council should consider policy direction to Staff in
requiring similiar conditions in other Design Review applications.
If there is concern regarding the concentration of fireplaces on
the 24 acre site, an alternative for the City Council to consider
would be to require one of the fireplaces to be gas log and the
other can be wood burning. This would not set a precedent in other
individual Design Review cases since the concentration issue would
not be present.
Lots 90 -93 shall be "staggered" similiar to lots 1 -8: The sound
wall and two -story house construction along Saratoga Avenue created
a solid wall affect to passersby. Staggering of the sound wall and
the house setbacks for lots 1 -8 resolved the Commissions concerns
with that portion of the project. The Commission and Staff felt
the same affect could be achieved for lots 90 -93. The applicant
stated they would attempt to create the same affect, but the Route
85 sound wall and Caltrans right -of -way may create a problem with
dead space, maintenance of public space and encroachment permits.
The Commission and Staff felt that if the wall could not be
staggered, the houses could be (which would alleviate the solid
wall affect between Route 85 and the project entrance).
Soundwall adjacent to Lot 13 shall be setback 25 ft.: The
Commission and Staff felt that the soundwall adjacent to lot 13
along McFarland Ave. should be setback 25 ft. as opposed to the
City Council, October 19, 1994 .
Greenbriar Appeal, PD -94 -002
Final Development Plan
Page 3
applicant's proposed 10 ft. (appeal documents indicate that the
applicant is willing to increase the setback to 15 ft.). The
purpose of the 25 ft. setback is to provide a similiar setback that
transitions from the proposed project to the existing 25 ft. front
yard setback of the adjacent existing neighborhood. No walls
higher than 3' ft. are allowed within front yard setbacks and
allowing the applicants wall to have a 10 -15 ft. setback would
infringe upon the existing neighbor's front yard. Staff recognizes
that the current development immediately adjacent to lot 13 is not
improved or landscaped, but the wall setback should be maintained
to allow proper development in.the future.
Support Documents: Several reports and documents have been prepared and
reviewed by the Planning Commission in its review of the Final
Development Plan. These documents are located in the permanent file and
will be available for reference at the public hearing:
• Neighborhood petitions supporting the project
• Traffic Impact Analysis
• Fiscal Impact Study
• Traffic Noise Assessment Study
• Carbon Monoxide Impact Study
Environmental Determination: A Negative Declaration has been prepared
for the project which states that no significant adverse environmental
impacts will result from the project.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Public Notices were mailed to
property owners within 500 ft. of the subject property and a notice was
placed in the Saratoga News.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motion: The Planning
Commission Decision will be reversed allowing the project to proceed
with the applicant's proposed floor areas, wood burning fireplaces, no
limitation on site coverage and setbacks along Saratoga Avenue and
McFarland Avenue.
Follow Up Actions: A resolution will be prepared reflecting the City
Council action on the appeal which will be placed on the agenda of the
next regular City Council meeting.
Attachments:
1. Appeal from Greenbriar Saratoga Road Company
2. Planning Commission Resolution #PD 94 -002
3. Letters not previously distributed
4. Planning Commission Minutes dated 9/28/94 and 9/14/94
5. Staff Reports dated 9/28/94 and 9/14/94
6. City Council Resolution #94 -17
7. City.Council_Minutes dated 4/6/94
8. Plans, Exhibit "A"
Date Received:
`Y
Rearing Date:
Fee: t4SO
Receipt No.: 3 � V,z
MBA. f -- EAle / S o.i O
APPEAL APPLICATION
Name of Appellant: Greenbriar Saratoga Road Company
Address: 4340 Stevens Creek Blvd., Ste. 275, San Jose, CA 95129
Telephone: 408/984 -5900
Name of Applicant (if
different from Appellant;
Project File Number and Address; PD -94 -002. Paul Masson site on ara o a.
and Highwav 85.
Decision Being. Appealed : Reduction' in house size from average of 3066 square
garage to avera a of 3200 square feet including garage;
rohibition against any wood burning fireplaces.
Grounds for Appeal (letter may be attached):
Planning Commission imposed.R- 1= 10,000 zoning standard in MUPD zoning
district. Conceptual Plan Approval allowed for 3066-square feet
average size excluding garage. Wood burning fireplace ban was imposed
WAppe -L.La Z'S Signature 1'` ` c•y�l� -. %� .G l� C�,•�:=r �L f�
Mease-Ao not sign
Irish .specific people toibeanotified ofithiseappeal at City list th I! you
separate sheet. appeal, please list them on a
THIS APPLICATION BUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE- CITY CLERK, 13777 FRUITVAM
AVENUE, SARAATOGA CA 95070, BY 5:00 P.M. WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) CALENDAR DAYS.
OF TEE DATE OF THE DECISION.
RESOLUTION NO. PD-94 -002
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -FINAL PLAN APPROVAL
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
GREENBRIAR HOMES COMPANY; 13150 SARATOGA AVENUE
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
an application for Planned Development -Final Plan approval to
construct 94 single - family detached homes at the 24.44 acre former
Paul Masson Winery site located at the northeast corner of Saratoga
Ave. and Route 85.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing at which time all interested rparties were given a full
opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to
support said application, and the following findings have been
determined:
That the development is consistent with the General Plan
designation, Zoning and Specific Plan for this property.
That the development provides for an integrated and harmonious
system of land uses and land use intensities.
That the development will be compatible with.the surrounding
neighborhood.
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.
That the public facilities as existing or to be constructed by
the applicant will be adequate to service the development.
That the development will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or general welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan,
architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in
connection with this matter, the application of the Greenbriar
Homes Company for Planned Development -Final Plan approval be and
the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT'
1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on
Exhibit "A" and "B ", with the required modifications contained
in this Resolution.
File No.. PD- 94_002; 13150 Saratoga.Avenue.
2. Prior to approval of a Final Map, or phased Final Map,
finalized Covenants, Codes and Restrictions (CC &R's) shall be
reviewed and approved by the-community Development Director,
Public Forks Director and the City Attorney.
3. Pursuant to the Planning Commission's conditional
determination to approve the project and adopt the Negative
Declaration, the-following restrictions shall apply and shall
be included in the CC &R's:
a. The maximum average square footage of all 94 homes,
including garages, shall not exceed 3,200 sq. ft. This
average should be achieved by varying the homes in terms
.of size,-mass and bulk. This shall be verified by the
Community Development Director and subject to Planning
Commission review prior to Final Map approval.
b. No future additions, or additional enclosed structures,
shall be permitted beyond the approved homes /square
footages. Unenclosed structures, such as arbors, gazebos
and lattice work, are permitted subject to current City
Code setback and height requirements.
c. Individual lot impervious coverage shall be limited to a
maximum of 60 percent.
d. No wood burning fire places are permitted.
4. Prior to approval of a Final Map, or phased Final Map, a
Development Agreement shall be.entered into, and approved by
_the City Council based on a recommendation by the Planning
Commission, ensuring the following:
a. The development is constructed as approved.
b. Improvement requirements, such as dedicating the common
open space for public use, paying the approximately
$767,000 in required public park maintenance fees and
contributing towards the various intersection and median
improvements, would be guaranteed.
C. Improvements would occur in a sequence beneficial to the
community. For example, perimeter landscape and
pedestrian improvements would be required to be completed
prior to issuance Final Occupancy approval for any of the
new homes (or model homes).
5. Prior to submittal for Grading. or Building Permits, the
following shall be submitted to Community Development
Department staff in order to issue a.Zoning Clearance:
It
File No. PD-94 -002; 13150 Saratoga Avenue
a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans
incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page.
b. One (1) set of engineered grading and drainage plans,
also incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan
page.
C. All applicable requirements/ conditions of the Resolution
(e.g. modifications to plans) shall be noted on the
plans.
d. Revised plans indicating that:
i. No portion of the east property line retaining
walls /fences exceed 6 ft. in height.
ii. Lots 90 -93 shall be "staggered" to match Lots 1 -8
per Exhibit "B ", incorporated by reference.
iii..The soundwall on Lot 13 is setback 25 ft. from the
McFarland Ave. street line.
e. If retaining walls are utilized along the east property
line, the City Arborist shall review and approve the
plans to ensure that no property line trees are damaged.
f. Documentation verifying that future home construction is
in compliance with the recommendations of the Traffic
Noise Assessment Study, Exhibit "C ", incorporated by
reference. At a minimum, this documentation shall show
that the homes on Lots 1 -9, 32 -37, 71 -74, 85 -89 and 90 -94
incorporate noise attenuation mitigation measures. These
measures shall include building shell and window noise
attenuation construction.
6. Prior to the issuance of a Grading or Building Permit,
applicant shall submit the following for Community Development
Department Director review and approval:
a. Final landscape plans for the Saratoga Ave. and McFarland
Ave. perimeter landscaping, the internal. "loop" linear
open space and the public open space /park abutting the
Route 85 soundwall.
b. A minimum of one 24 inch box and one 15 gal. native or
other suitably drought tolerant tree shall also be shown
to be planted, with irrigation, within the rear yards of
each lot along McFarland and Saratoga Avenues and
Montrose Street. These trees /irrigation shall be
planted/ installed prior to Final Occupancy approval of
each home. A security deposit may be posted in -lieu of
actual planting•to.assure planting on a timely basis.
File NO.-PD-94-002; 13150 Saratoga Avenue
Additionally, the CC &R's shall require each home owner
not along McFarland and Saratoga Avenues or Montrose
Street to plant a minimum of two trees in their rear
yards.
C. Landscaping shall be of native and drought tolerant
species in conformance with the City's xeriscape
guidelines and water-Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
7. Height of structures shall not exceed 26 feet.
S. No retaining wall shall have an exposed height that exceeds 5
ft. In addition, no fence or wall shall exceed six (6) feet
in height and no fence or wall located within the required
front yards shall exceed three (3) feet in height. This
restriction does not apply to the eight (8) foot approved
soundwall along Saratoga Ave.
9. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first
obtaining a Tree Removal Permit.
10. Exterior colors shall 'be medium earthtone as reviewed and.
approved by the Planning Commission.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTME
11. Prior to submittal of a Final Map or phased Final Map to the
City Engineer for examination, the owner (applicant) shall
cause the property within the distinctive border on the map to
be surveyed by a duly Licensed Land Surveyor or Civil
Engineer. The submitted map(s) shall show the existence of a
monument at all external property corner locations, either
found or set. The submitted map(s) shall also show monuments
set at each new corner location, angle point, or as directed
by the City Engineer, all'in conformity with -the Subdivision
Map Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act.
12. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Final
Map or each phased Final Map in substantial conformance with
the approved Tentative Map, along with the additional
documents required in Section 14- 40.020 of the Municipal Code,
to the City Engineer for examination. The Final Maps) shall
contain all of the information required by Section 14- 40.030
of the Municipal' Code and shall be accompanied by the
following items:
a. One copy of map checking calculations.
t
b. Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within
ninety (90) days of the date of submittal of the Final
Map(s).
File No. PD -94 -002; 13150 Saratoga Avenue.
C. One copy of each map referenced on the Final Map(s).
d. One copy of each document /deed referenced on the Final
Map(s).
e. One copy of any other map, document, deed, easement or
other resource that will facilitate the examination
process as requested by the City Engineer.
13. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, as
determined by the City Engineer, at the time of submittal of
each Final Map for examination.
14. Interior monuments shall be set at each lot corner either
.prior to recordation of a Final Map or some later date to be
specified on a Final Map. If the owner (applicant) chooses to
defer the setting of interior monuments to a specified later
date, then sufficient security as determined by the City
Engineer shall be furnished prior to Final Map approval, to
guarantee the setting of interior monuments.
15. The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of
Dedication for all required easements and /or rights of way on
the Final Map or initial phase Final Map, in substantial
conformance with the approved Tentative Map, prior to any
.Final Map approval.
16. The owner (applicant) shall submit engineered improvement
plans and supporting technical documentation, including a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, to the City Engineer in
conformance with the approved Tentative Map and in accordance
with the design and improvement requirements of Chapter 14 of
the Municipal Code. The improvement plans shall be reviewed
and approved by the City Engineer and the appropriate
officials from other public agencies having jurisdictional
authority, including public and private utility providers,
prior to approval of the Final Map or each phased Final Map.
17. The owner (applicant) shall pay an Improvement Plan Checking
fee, as determined by the City Engineer, at the time
Improvement Plans are submitted for review.
18. The owner (applicant) shall enter into an Improvement
Agreement with the City in accordance with Section 14- 60.010
of the Municipal Code prior to each Final Map approval.
19. The owner (applicant) shall furnish Improvement Securities in
accordance with Section 14- 60.020 of the Municipal Code in the
manner and amounts determined by the City Engineer prior to
each Final Map approval. At least 10% of the Faithful
Performance security shall be in the form of a cash deposit to
be held by the City, up to half of which may be in the form of
File No. PD -94 -002; 13150 Saratoga Avenue
an instrument pledged to the City and which is readily
convertible to cash by the City.
20. The owner (applicant) shall furnish a written indemnity
agreement and proof.of. insurance coverage, in accordance with
Section 14- 05.055 of the Municipal Code, prior to each Final
Map approval.
21. Prior to each Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall
furnish the City Engineer with satisfactory ' written
commitments from all public and private utility providers
serving the subdivision guaranteeing the completion of all
required utility improvements.
22.. The owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from
the City and any.other public agencies,'including public and
private utility providers, prior to each Final Map approval.
23. The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park and
Recreation fee prior to each Final Map approval.
24. Notice of construction shall be distributed to all residents
within 500 ft. of the property at least five calendar days
prior to commencement of any construction activity in such
form as determined by the Community Development Director.
.Suitable documentation that this condition has been satisfied
shall be provided to the Public Works Director prior to
receiving approval to commence construction activity.
25. Individual lot pad grading, necessary to achieve proper site
drainage, shall be permitted to occur concurrently with road
construction improvements once Final Map or phased.Final Map
approval is granted. The final grading and drainage plan for
road construction and individual lot pads shall be reviewed
and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of Final
Map or phased Final Map approval.
26. Construction hours shall be restricted to between 7:30 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday (legal holidays
excluded), except in the event of an emergency which imperils
the public safety. The City Engineer may grant an exemption
upon his determination of an emergency.
27. Prior to approval of the Final Map or of a phased Final.Map,
the owner (applicant) shall execute an agreement with the City
waiving the rights of the owner or any successive owners of
any of the lots created by the subdivision to protest the
annexation of the lots into the City's existing Landscaping
and Lighting-Assessment District for the purpose of providing
for the maintenance of the common area and perimeter
landscaping created by the subdivision'. The agreement s)
shall also waive the. rights of the owner or any successive
File No. PD -94 -002; 13150 Saratoga Avenue
owners to petition for detachment from the District after
annexation. The agreement(s) shall be recorded concurrently
with the Final Map(s) and reference to the agreement(s) shall
appear in the Owner's Certificate (s) on the Final Map(s)..
28. The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and
approve all geotechnical aspects of the subdivision plans
(ie., site preparation and grading, surface and subsurface
drainage improvements, and design parameters. for foundations,
retaining walls, pools and pavement) to ensure that his
recommendations have been properly incorporated.
29. The results of the Geotechnical Plan Review shall be
summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and
submitted to the City for review and approval by the City
Engineer prior to approval from the City Engineer.to begin
subdivision construction.
30. The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed),
and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project
construction. The inspections shall include, but not
necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading,
demolition and removal of existing structures and unsuitable
materials, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements,
and excavations for roadways and retaining walls prior to the
placement of baserock, fill, steel and concrete.
31. The geotechnical consultant shall prepare a report describing
the as -built conditions of the project construction. The
report shall include a map (e.g., corrected or revised
drainage plan) that portrays the extent of any grading (cuts
and fills), drainage improvements, and retaining walls. This
final report shall also include the locations and data from
field density tests and any new information disclosed during
construction which may have an impact on development of any
lots within the subdivision.
32. A report describing the results of field inspections, and the
report of as -built conditions, shall be submitted to the City
to be reviewed .by the City Engineer prior to Construction
Acceptance of the subdivision improvements.
33. Prior to approval of any Final Map, and pursuant to Section 13
of the Performance Agreement dated February 6, 1989, and
subsequent Cooperative Agreement No. 2 -SAR dated April 7,
1993, both agreements between the City and the Santa Clara
County Traffic Authority, the owner (applicant) shall pay to
the City the sum of $169,195 for the soundwall along Route 85,
and $60,000 for the traffic signal at the Saratoga Ave.
entrance to the property which the City will, in turn,
reimburse in full to the Traffic Authority as full
File No. PD -94 -002; 13150 Saratoga Avenue
compensation for the cost of designing and installing these
improvements.
34. Prior to approval of any 'Final Map, the owner (applicant)
shall file the requisite Notice of Intent with the State Water
Resources Control Board to ensure construction activity
associated with the development will be covered under the
General Construction Activity Storm Water permit adopted by
the Board on August 20, 1992. Evidence of coverage under the
Permit shall be presented to the Public Works Director prior
to the start of any construction.
35. A name for each street in the development shall be approved by
the Heritage Preservation Commission and shall appear on each
final map. The words "Vineyard" or "Oak" shall not be
permitted in any street name.
36. Prior to approval of the initial phase final map, the owner
(applicant) shall contribute $30,000 towards the cost of the
southwest quadrant of the Saratoga Ave. /Fruitvale Ave.
intersection. Any amount of the contribution remaining after
the improvements have been installed shall be refunded to the
owner (applicant) or successors in interest. The City shall
enter into an agreement with the owner (applicant)
guaranteeing a proportional reimbursement of the cost of the
improvements within 10 years from the date of approval of the
initial phase final map from any future subdivisions) the
City might approve on APN 389 -06 -017 and APN 389 -34 -003.
37. Prior to approval of a subsequent phase final map, the
applicant shall contribute $32,500 towards the cost of
identified median landscape improvements on Saratoga Ave.
between McFarland Ave. and Cox Ave. Any amount of the
contribution remaining after the improvements have been
installed shall be refunded to the owner (applicant) or
successors in interest. The City shall enter into an
agreement with the owner (applicant) guaranteeing a
.proportional reimbursement of the cost of the improvements
within 10 years from the date of approval of the subsequent
phase final map from any future subdivision(s) the City might
approve on APN- 389 -06 -017. Alternatively, the owner -
(applicant) may opt to contribute $30,000 towards said
improvements prior to approval of the initial phase final map
subject to the same refund and reimbursement provisions as
described above.
38. The landscaping and recreational improvement plans for Lot 95
shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks and Recreation
Commission prior to approval of the subsequent phase final
map.
File No. PD -94 -002; 13150 Saratoga Avenue
39. Construction acceptance of public improvements. within any one
phase of the development shall not be granted until final
occupancy certificates are issued for 80% of the home within
a particular phase.
CENTRAL FIRE DISTRICT
40. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in all new garages.
41. Applicant /developer shall install eight (8) fire hydrants that
meet the Fire District's specifications. Hydrants shall be
installed and accepted pursuant to the requirements of the
Central Fire District.
42. Emergency access. road connection to Afton Ave. shall be
constructed as shown per Exhibit "A ", with a gate, bollards or
other type of acceptable barrier, for vehicular traffic in the
event of an emergency.. Details shall be shown on the building
plans and approved by the Central Fire District.
CITY ATTORNEY
43. The owner (applicant) shall, upon the City's request, defend,
indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials,
boards, commissions, employees and volunteers harmless from
and against any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set
aside, void or annul this approval, or any of the proceedings,
acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to such
approval,.which is brought within the time specified in Sec.
14- 85.060 of the Municipal Code. If a defense is requested,
the City shall give prompt notice to the applicant of any such
claim, action or proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the
defense thereof. Nothing herein shall prevent.the City from
participating in the •defense, but in such event, the City
shall pay its own attorney's fees and costs.
The owner (applicant shall furnish a written. indemnity
agreement and proof of insurance coverage, in accordance with
Sec. 14- 05.055 of the Municipal Code, prior to Final Map
approval.
44. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall
constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is
impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the
violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this
City per each day of the violation..
Section 2: Applicant shall sign the agreement to these
conditions within 30 days of the passage of this Resolution or said
Resolution shall be void.
File No. PD -94 -002; 13150 Saratoga Avenue
Section 3. Construction must be commenced pursuant to the
Development Agreement or this approval shall be void.
Section 4. All applicable requirements of the State, County,
City and other Governmental entities must be met.
Section S. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of
Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall
become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis-
sion, State of California, this 28th day of September 1994 by the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Chairman, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Secretary, Pla ning Commission
The foregoing conditions are hereby.accepted.
Signature of Applicant Date
OCT 1 4 1994 Lf
OCA
October 11, 1994
City Council of Saratoga
13777 fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Councilmembers:
When the City Council approved Greenbriar's Conceptual Plan last
April, many residents thought the project was approved. We now
find out that was only the first step of the approval process.
However, it seems clear that the Council's approval of the
Conceptual Plan provided direction to Planning Commission for
completing the process through design review. The Planning
Commission's charge from that point on was to provide design
review.
What made no sense is that through two public hearings and more
than 8 hours of discussion, the Planning Commission never even
commented on the details 'of the elevations and what the homes look
like. The Commission simply concentrated on redesigning details
that were approved at the conceptual stage of them project. They
should have performed their job of design reviewInot attempt to
redesign the project.
The September 28th Planning Commission decision indicates a giant
step in the wrong direction. I hope City Council will honor the
process and approve Greenbriar's appeal.
0
Sincerely,
�7 ��i/
October 12, 1994
City Council Members
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Councilmembers Burger, Jacobs, Moran, Tucker, and Wolfe:
Let's stop the trend of leading a builder /applicant down the garden path and then pulling
the path out from under them at the last minute. Specifically, I am referring to the treatment of
Greenbriar by the Planning Commission at its September 28 meeting.
Put yourself in Greenbriar's shoes. The property owner waited patiently on the sidelines
while the city created a Specific Plan for the Paul Masson site. Once the MUPD zoning and
Specific Plan rules were established, Greenbriar presented a beautiful project which complied with
the rules and which has full support of the neighbors and planning staff. Greenbriar
presented a conceptual plan and specific conditions to the Council, which they approved. The
conditions included very precise wording so that there would be no confusion, or so Greenbriar
thought.
Greenbriar has played by the rules, met every requirement, addressed both city and
neighbor concerns, and has been flexible throughout the process. Then, at the, very end of an
extremely positive and collaborative process between surrounding neighbors, Greenbriar, and city
staff, the Planning Commission comes along and changes the rules. On September 28, the
Planning Commission changed a basic conceptual part of the plan and dramatically reduced
square footage. This was done without a fair evaluation of the 'architecture and its impact on the
streetscape.
Greenbriar has presented a plan that meets every condition imposed by the Council. The
Council should stick with its previous commitment and condition on square footage of homes.
None of the previously approved Council conditions or concepts were changed by Greenbriar.
Why should the City have the right to change them.
If the City of Saratoga expects Greenbriar to play by the rules, the City should do the
same. Approve the Greenbriar proposal as presented by Greenbriar and let us get back to our
families and lives. This project will truly be an asset to the community.
Truly Yours,
Woods Park Homeowners Association
Y� At
September 24, 1994
Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Pruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, 95070
Dear Commission Members:
RECEIVED
SEP 26 1994
,A iVIYING DEPT.
RE: PD -94- 002 -- Greenbriar Homes
The Saratoga Woods Park Homeowners Association supports the construction of single
family detached residences on the former Paul Masson site.
The Greenbriar company has offered an acceptable usage of that property and further
promotes the residential character of Saratoga. Although the density of the proposed
development may not meet the traditional R -1- 10,000, that site is unique in Saratoga. The
Greenbriar proposal is an attractive and effective use of the property and therefore, should be
approved.
While Saratoga Woods is not immediately adjacent to the former Paul Masson site,
development of that site will affect our neighborhood. The majority of our 375 homeowners
supports the Greenbriar project as currently proposed. We appreciate your reconsidering the
former "Negative Declaration" for this project. All of Saratoga would benefit from single
family residential development on that property; therefore, we urge you to reverse the former
declaration and approve the Greenbriar proposal.
Sincerely,
Marcia Fariss, President
Saratoga Woods Park Homeowners Association
P. O: Box 2301
Saratoga, 95070
RL *--"' rZ IVFD
SEP 26 1994
I- LANNING DEPT.
September 21, 1994
Planning Commission
City of Saratoga .
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Commissioners:
Congratulations to City Staff for recommending approval of Greenbriar's final plan for
the Paul Masson site. It shows Greenbriar's flexibility to work with the city on getting
through the final approval as well as staff's ability to proceed with the process.
Now we ask the Planning Commission to approve the plan.
Very truly yours,
J _
Frank Robins and Jeffri Robins
Montrose Street %
September 19, 1994
Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale A venue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Planning Commissioners:
As a Westmont High student who has been following the process of approval for the
Paul Masson site, l have some questions for the Saratoga Planning Commissioners.
Do you think that the people who are the immediate neighbors and have spent
hundreds of hours studying the Paul Masson property are ready to say yes to
anything? Wrong.
We are saying yes to Greenbriar's plan because, frankly, it is a great plan which
reflects the neighborhood's concerns and desires.
Look at the plan in its entirety, not in pieces. Greenbriar has spent a great deal of
time to create a land plan that satisfies the neighbors' concerns while meeting both
the specific plan and MUPD zoning requirements. Let's give credit where it is due -
Greenbriar has done a great job.
As a student, l have found this process fascinating. l hope after the 28th we see that
the political process does work and that the will of the people prevails.
Sincerely,
Bren4- Somders
3 11 ---� fn-o(vv'rosr
September 19, 1994
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Commissioners:
As a long time resident of Saratoga and an avid supporter of
Greenbriar' s proposal to build 94 single family homes on the former
Paul Masson Winery property, I was quite disappointed last
Wednesday evening. At the Planning Commission meeting I.expected
to hear full support from the commissioners on Greenbriar's plan.
After all, Greenbriar has submitted a final development plan that
conforms with the conceptual plan approved by Council and
incorporates the changes asked for by Council.
When evaluating the plan please remember the fact that this is not
an R1:10.000 zoning, but a MU -PD zoning. This fact was repeatedly
discussed at the commission meetings for the conceptual plan and
was finally understood and accepted at the Council when they
approved the conceptual plan. The Council was very clear that
Greenbriar could build two story homes with an average size of 3066
square feet excluding the garage. Greenbriar has produced a final
plan in good faith and should be subjected to refinements not
redesign.
The proposed plan is a result of.Greenbriar's efforts to listen to
the neighbor's input, meet the requirements of.the MU -PD zoning,
and conform with the goals of the site specific plan. They have
done an excellent 'job with all. They are proposing to build
quality homes, provide almost 5 acres of landscaped open space at
no cost to the City, and they are meeting the requirements
established by the City Council! If they do not get approval on
the 28th of this month, it will be an insult to the entire planning
process of the City.
Sincerely,
Harriet Tevis
Montrose Street
6
September 19, 1994
Planning Commissioners
City of Saratoga Planning Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Planning Commission:
Several months ago, Greenbriar came before the Planning Commission
with a plan for the Paul Masson site. Greenbriar has shown
flexibility and worked with the Council to create a workable
conceptual plan that was supported by four Council members, Karen
Tucker, Mayor Ann Marie Burger, Vic Monia and Willem Kohler and Don
Wolfe, now on the Council also supported the plan.
This plan is proposed by a quality builder who has certainly kept
the neighbors informed and included their input to get to this
point. They have worked with the Council and have made significant
concessions.
Let's quit beating them black and blue over home size and lot size.
The average lot size and open space combined is 9800 square feet
and I have yet to see almost five acres of park in Saratoga for
only 94 homes. This is one acre of park for approximately each
fifty residents of this project. This is six times more park than
Saratoga currently provides per resident.
The Planning Commission needs to quit comparing this site to other
zoning areas, acknowledge that it is zoned MUPD and that the plan
meets all the requirements of MUPD, has City Staff approval,
Council approval and the OVERWHELMING SUPPORT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD!
Yours truly,
Esther Barton
Sgra Park Circle
6
September 19, 1994
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Commissioners,
Like many other Saratoga residents, I attended the September
14th Planning Commission meeting to support Greenbriar's
proposal to build 94. single family homes on the former Paul
Masson Winery property. I was very happy that-Commissioner
Murakami displayed a . very pleasing attitude towards
considering Greenbriar's final plan for approval.
Henry seemed to accept that the Council approved certain
parameters last April. He appeared to be looking at the
current plan in a reviewing manner to verify that Greenbriar
has conformed with the conceptual plan and the Council's.
conditions. I would like to applaude Commissioner Murakami
and hope that the other Commissioners to think with an open
mind as well.
Please remember that the Paul Masson Winery Site is the
subject of a long history of planning issues. Residents like
myself were pleased when a specific plan was adopted that
incorporated a significant amount of our input. Now the
Commission has an opportunity to approve a fine plan that
meets the criteria of both the specific plan and the MUPD
zoning, yet they still seem to be reluctant to do so. When
September 28th comes around, I hope each and everyone of you
take my comments under consideration and endorse this project,
which is overwhelmingly supported by the surrounding
community.
Sincerely,
. . ZL6_61aA
RECEIVED
SEP 27 1994
rLAMING DEPT.
September 19, 1994
Planning Commissioners
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Commissioners:
At the Planning Commission hearing on the Paul Masson site on the 14th of September, some
questions asked by the Planning Commissioners appear to be a misunderstanding of the MUPD
zoning.
The city, under MUPD, will be getting a park which is bigger than four football fields. This
would not be possible without the MUPD zoning.
At the request of the former Planning Commission and the Council, Greenbriar has made
numerous changes including reducing the number and size of the houses, increasing the set-
backs and adding a McFarland access. In addition, Greenbriar is proposing to pay more than
three quarters of a million dollars in park fees and other city fees.
Our neighborhood has spent many hours contributing to the site specific plan and revising the
Greenbriar plan. We like this plan, it works. Let's get on with the process.
Sincerely yours,
W 0,�
C
[3R3
t 07_ )v G� %�D
September 18, 1994
The Planning.Commissioners
Saratoga Planning Department
City Hall
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Planning Commissioners:
At the Planning Commission hearing concerning the Paul Masson site
(on the 14th) the Planning Commission members brought up old
subjects that have already been carefully considered in
Greenbriar.'s plan. The proposed final plan is for 94 homes with an
average size a's approved by council. Several new planning
commissioners brought up home size objections and issues already
approved by Council.
We urge you to please review the council minutes and become
familiar with the issues, the process and the.zoning. The proposed
plan is substantially less dense than the currently approved
Dividend project and fulfills the specific plan and MUPD
requirements.
Please approve the plan on the 28th. You have been going
backwards, not forward. It's time.to move forward.
Yours truly, ,
Ge rge erb
Montrose Street
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 28, 1994
PAGE - 5 -
Vice - chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 7:54 p.m.
Ray Piontek, 21195 Chiquita Way, informed the Commission that he recently found out that
this item was to be continued indefinitely. He expressed concern that adjacent neighbors
are not being notified of hearings. He explained that he and Community Development
Director Curtis have had misunderstandings in the past few months regarding things that
were going to occur only to find out that just the opposite had happened. No one provided
the neighbors the courtesy of informing them of proposed changes. Also of concern was
that this item would be reagendized without notification to adjacent neighbors and' action
taken without public comments. The issues of concern were installation of landscape buffer
and illegal drainage through his backyard causing hillside erosion. An accumulation of
events have occurred that has led to his written comments. He requested better
communication with the adjacent neighbors.
Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that he responded to
the letter from Mr. Piontek because he thought that it was a personal attack. The item has
been continued at the request of the applicant and that the applicant has a right to request
for a continuance. If the Commission continues this item indefinitely, the item would need
to be readvertised both by mail and newspaper.
Commissioner Caldwell questioned if Mr. Piontek. was aware that on the Commission's
agenda under Written Communications, the letter would be addressed and discussed
following the public hearing items. Mr. Piontek acknowledged the fact that a response to
his letter was included in the Commission's packet.
Commissioner Caldwell stated that the request was for an indefinite continuance. She
questioned if staff was confident that the applicant was trying to resolve the problems?
Planner Walgren responded that the applicant has relayed to staff that they were trying to
resolve issues relating to the transaction of land exchange. Commissioner Caldwell stated
that she would not object to the continuance so long as there is adequate noticing to the
neighbors.
COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL /PATRICK MOVED APPROVAL OF ITEM 1 ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 (CHAIRMAN ASFOUR
ABSENT).
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. PD -94 -002 - Greenbriar Homes; 13150 Saratoga Ave., request for Planned
Development -Final Plan approval to construct 94 single - family
detached residences at the 24 acre former Paul Masson Winery site.
The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Saratoga
Ave. and Route 85 and is zoned Multiple Use - Planned Development
(MU -PD). An Environmental Initial Study, as required by the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has been prepared.
Based upon review of the Initial Study, staff is recommending adoption
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 28, 1994
PAGE -6-
of a "Negative Declaration" for this project (cont. from the 9/14/94
public hearing; application expires 12/15%94).
Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item.
Commissioner Siegfried raised a question as to the size of the lots and homes located on
Montrose. Planner Walgren responded that the average house sizes vary significantly along
Montrose with the typical homes being 1,300 square feet with a one car garage. There are
some larger homes on the east side of Montrose that are in the 2,500 to 2,800 square foot
range, with the majority having two car garages. It is his belief that the average home size
was 1,600 square feet, including garages, and that the average lot size is 10,000 square feet.
Commissioner Siegfried queried if this were an R -1 10,000 zoning district, would there be
any requirements for dedication of open space for the 25 acre site. Community
Development Director Curtis responded that the City has a requirement to provide a, park
for residential development. In lieu of dedication of land, a park fee could be imposed. It
is City Council policy to impose a park fee and not accept dedication of land.
Commissioner Siegfried commented that the map indicates that the yards would be fenced
in. He questioned what standards would be used if pools and /or accessory structures were
proposed. Community Development Director Curtis responded that at this point, there are
no restrictions for accessory structures. However, the Commission could add a condition
which stipulates that a pool house or accessory structure that may be counted as floor area
would be disallowed if it increases the average square footage of living area beyond 3,066
square feet. .
Commissioner Kaplan requested that the City Attorney advise the Commission what its
responsibility was tonight. City Attorney Riback responded that the Commission's role
tonight was to review the final plans and to determine whether or not the plans meet the
requirements of the MU -PD Codes and whether the plans comply with the conceptual plan
as approved by the City Council. Commissioner Kaplan questioned if the Commission was
required to follow the conceptual plan line by line or could the Commission use its
discretion in its review? City Attorney Riback responded that the Commission has limited
discretion. He did not believe that the Commission had to go "line by line ", but that the
Commission had to maintain consistency with the conceptual plan as approved by the
Council. For example, the 3,066 square foot average home size would need to be complied
with in the action taken. However, with respect to the question Commissioner Siegfried
asked of Community Development. Director Curtis, the Commission could take action to
include or exclude from that figure accessory structures. Commissioner Kaplan stated that
she understood that the conceptual plan was not a binding document on the Commission.
Commissioner Siegfried read from Section 15.21.130 of the Code (page 328) which states
that: "The Planning Commission may approve, reject or modify the conceptual development
plan and may impose such conditions or requirements as it deems appropriate." Section G
further states that "Approval of a 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 rights or other
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 28, 1994
PAGE - 7 -
rights upon the applicant to proceed with the project and the City may therefore reject the
final development plan even though it complies with the approved plan." He felt that the
Commission could make modifications if necessary. He did not believe that the Commission
was bound to approve an average home size of 3,066 square feet. City Attorney Riback
concurred with the sections as read by Commissioner Siegfried. The City .did look at the
conceptual plan and now the final plan was before the Commission presumably consistent
with the conceptual plan. From a legal perspective, the Commission does not have to
comply with every aspect of the conceptual plan. The Commission can modify the final
plans if they were not consistent with -the conceptual plan.
Commissioner Kaplan stated that she was prepared to vote tonight on the 'Greenbriar
proposal and has read all of the material provided and that she has listened to the tapes of
the September 14th meeting. She did not accept an invitation to meet with the applicant
and discuss the proposal because she did not believe that it was appropriate to do so. She
believed that such discussion would subvert the open meeting process. At the land use
meeting on Tuesday, the Commission was invited to the Homen home on Montrose which
was not indicated on the site visit list. She explained that the Commissioners in attendance
at the site visit (Commissioners Abshire, Murakami, Kaplan and Planner Walgren) stepped
into the rear yard of the Homen residence to view the scene. No testimony was taken at
the Homen residence because the visit was not noticed. Mrs. Homen advised the
Commissioners that she had been assured by the applicant that her fence would be repaired
and plants put into her yard as screening. Commissioner Kaplan disclosed this information
so that the Commissioners who had not been present would know what information had
been given to those who were there.
Commissioner Abshire commented that over the past week he visited with representatives
from Greenbriar regarding their plans for Saratoga. He also visited their Hillstone
development in south San Jose and drove by their project located near Prospect Avenue,
San Jose. He did this to satisfy himself that Greenbriar would be able to live up to the
commitments made.
Commissioner Patrick commented that staff has indicated that the average home size would
be 3,066 square feet. She stated that she reviewed Exhibit A and prepared calculations
which indicate that the proposed homes would be below the 3,066 square foot average for
only plan A. According to her math, of the 94 homes proposed, only 27 homes were
proposed as plan A. She did not understand how the average home size would be 3,066
square feet. Planner Walgren responded that he has not verified the size for each of the
homes listed in the exhibit. The applicants have stated that the revised house plans
prepared now meet the 3,066 square feet of living area. A new condition has been placed
in the resolution and /or Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC &Rs) that would require
that this be verified prior to final map approval of the project and that a finalized exhibit
would need to be accepted.
Commissioner Patrick also questioned the average lot sizes. She noted that of the 94 lots,
she counted 4 which were over 10,000 square feet. Planner Walgren responded that the lot
sizes were consistent with the conceptual plan approved. A requirement of the MU -PD
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 28, 1994
PAGE - 8 -
zoning requires that the lots be 10,000 square feet. However, the project, based on the
linear park plan and other amenities that were incorporated, was approved with the lot sizes
as depicted in the configuration presented.
Commissioner Patrick questioned if this area would continue as an MU -PD zoning or would
a zone change to residential be required? Planner Walgren responded that the zoning
would remain as Multiple Use - Planned Development (MU -PD) which does permit this type
of detached single family housing in a planned development. Commissioner Patrick
questioned if a condition could be added to stipulate control of lot coverage, including pools
and accessary structures. Planner Walgren recommended that the Commission incorporate
a condition restricting accessory structures based on lot coverage if it so desired.
Commissioner Patrick stated that she has been contacted several times by representatives
from Greenbriar but that she had not met with them.
Commissioner Siegfried commented that he has met with Greenbriar representatives to
obtain past history. He felt that the meetings were appropriate because there were no
neighbors in opposition to this project. He also felt that changes could be made to the
project under the City's code. He stated that he still believes that this is an appropriate
location for an entire residential development. He questioned what limitations existed to
review the 25 acre residential site. City Attorney Riback responded that after considering
all of the information brought before the Commission, it could either approve, modify or
deny the Greenbriar proposal.
Commissioner Caldwell stated that issues have been raised regarding adding floor area,
accessary structures, lot coverage, and CC &R restrictions. She questioned what would be
the most effective legal tool for the Commission to contemplate using to address the. issues
and concerns raised. She believed that the applicant was going to advocate only CC &R
restrictions and provisions. In the past, the City used CC &Rs, deed restrictions, and
conditions of approval. She questioned what conditions would be appropriate ones to
impose. Community Development Director Curtis recommended that restrictions be
incorporated within the resolution of approval. The conditions could further state that these
restrictions are to be recorded in the CC &Rs. Commissioner Caldwell questioned if the
CC &Rs could be amended by the homeowners if the homeowners did not like the
restrictions or would amendment to the CC &Rs require City action? Community
Development Director Curtis responded that the homeowners would need to return to the
City to modify the conditions prior to modifying the CC &Rs.
Commissioner Caldwell questioned whether provisions were made for irrigation of the trees
required under condition 4a of the resolution of approval. She noted that past large scale
development allowed trees to be installed without the requirement of an irrigation system.
She wanted to make sure that the condition not be meaningless. Planner Walgren
responded that irrigation installation should be included in condition 4a that states that the
City would require verification that an irrigation system has been installed before the City
finals the individual homes. Commissioner Caldwell recommended that a landscape plan
be submitted and reviewed to ensure that the plantings are appropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 28, 1994
PAGE -9-
Commissioner Siegfried stated that there may be another question that goes along with
Commissioner Caldwell's concern regarding irrigation of the trees, that being the health and
life span of the existing Monterey Pine trees located along Montrose. The concern was that
of screening because once the project was approved, the homeowners can do what they like
to the backyards. Once the pine trees are gone, he did not know if the location of the new
trees would make any difference in terms of screening. The issue was not only how the
trees were to be maintained but where the new trees are to be located relative to the
Monterey Pines.
Commissioner Caldwell recommended that staff request a landscaping plan for staff to
review and make sure that the tree plantings were appropriate. Planner Walgren responded
that staff did not feel that it was necessary to have it as a condition at this point, but that
it could be added as a condition.
Commissioner Caldwell noted that each of the homes are proposed to have two fireplaces.
The valley experiences severe inversion during the winter months due largely to wood
burning fireplaces. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District was considering
imposing severe restrictions to new construction. She felt that the City needs to consider
this particularly in light of the fact that if the City - approves the project and the negative
declaration, under CEQA, the City is saying that there are no significant environmental
impacts associated with the implementation of this project. She had a short conversation
with the applicant where she raised this issue of environmental concern. She requested that
her fellow Commissioners give some thought to this issue.
Commissioner Kaplan questioned why the City was reviewing the EIR and the Negative
Declaration so late in the process. She questioned if this was the appropriate time to review
the EIR following the approval of the conceptual plans. Community Development Director
Curtis responded that this was the appropriate time to address the environmental impacts
associated with this project.
Commissioner Caldwell commented that it was her understanding that the Commission has
a mitigated Negative Declaration prepared and proposed by staff for its approval which
stipulates that if the City approves the project with all the conditions that have been
proposed, the Commission can say that it does. not believe that there are significant
environmental impacts associated with the project. The impacts that the Commission notes
would be mitigated through the conditions imposed.
Commissioner Kaplan questioned how Sedway & Associates, determined the population
assumption that there will be only 263 new residents in the 94, 4 bedroom residential
subdivision. She stated that she has yet to see in her 25 years of living in the City of
Saratoga but three houses turn over in her neighborhood where there were only 3 people
living in it. By her calculations, using two adults and two children, there would be 376
individuals and if there were two adults and three children, there would be an increase in
population of 470 individuals. These figures represent more than what the experts came up
with. Community Development Director Curtis responded that he assumes that the
consultant came up with one of the historic basis for the City of Saratoga that the average
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 28, 1994
PAGE - 10 -
was 2.8 persons per house based upon a 2.8 x 94 = 263 formula). Planner Walgren
responded that the calculation was based on 1990 census information and standards that
have been verified over the years city -wide. Commissioner Kaplan commented that the
various types of home buyers were not considered in the calculation ( e.g., it is not known
how many retired couples would want a four bedroom house).
Commissioner Kaplan questioned if traffic calculations took into account driving children
to schools. She stated that it was not clear from the report whether carpool trips to school
and back during peak hours were taken into account. She also questioned if two wage
earners were including in the calculations (two people leaving between 7 and 8 a.m. in the
morning going to work and then returning home in the evening.
Vice - chairman Murakami stated that the only questions he had were related to the average
calculation per square footage and the average - speed counts.
Vice - Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing for this item at 8:38 p.m.
Carol Meyer, Greenbriar, stated that she would turn the meeting over to Paul Latierre so
that he could briefly go through the presentation for the benefit of those Commissioners
who were absent from the last meeting followed by addressing the issues presented tonight.
Commissioner Caldwell responded that the presentation would not be necessary as she and
Commissioner Kaplan have reviewed the minutes in detail as well as having listened to the
tapes. Commissioner Kaplan recommended that the new issues raised this evening be
addressed.
Ms. Meyer stated that her architects, Goodwin Steinberg and Jim Yee from the Steinberg
Group were present to address the Commission. She noted that the homes were redesigned
to lower the square footage. If you add up the square footage of the homes that will
actually be built, the average would be 3,056 square feet. She also addressed the concern
of ancillary structures in the rear yards. She stated that she did not have a problem
restricting pool houses from the backyards. However, she requested that trellises be allowed
because they add a lot to backyard landscaping.
Commissioner Caldwell questioned if any thought had been given to impervious coverage.
Ms. Meyer responded that some homeowners would want to have swimming pools and that
it has been her experience that there will be an average of 3% to 4% swimming pools
installed. She responded to Commissioner Kaplan's question pertaining to school children
and people living in these homes by noting that other developments average .4 to .5 children
per home.
Commissioner Kaplan commented that some of her neighbors have moved into her
neighborhood expressly for the school district.
Commissioner Siegfried questioned if the calculations included any extra individuals (i.e.,
mother, father, grandfather, etc.). Ms. Meyer responded that of a 40.50 home project, an
average of 5% consisted of extended family members living with a couple. She shared
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 28, 1994
PAGE - 11 -
Commissioner Caldwell's concern regarding pollution. She agreed to offer gas log lighters
with gas logs as an option. She informed the Commission, that the traffic consultant,
Michael Kennedy, DKS, was present to address traffic concerns.
Paul Latierre, land planner and landscape architect for the project, presented the
Commission with a slide presentation. He addressed the setback of the wall for lot 13. The
conceptual plan stage showed a five foot setback for the wall and that the current plan
indicates a 10 foot setback. Greenbriar has requested that a 15 foot setback be utilized.
If the wall is setback 15 feet; it would be setback 5 feet more than some of the walls on the
other side of the street on McFarland. He did not' believe that the 25 foot setback would
provide any positive benefit to the streetscapes and would provide negative impacts to the
home. Illustrations were presented to show what the wall elevations would look like along
McFarland. He discussed the setbacks of the homes to the right -of -way line (over 40 feet
between the house to the right -of way). The proposal has slightly smaller setbacks along
that street in order to provide the open space park. The area along McFarland would be
planted very heavily. There exists a significant amount of buffering. He did not believe that
the additional setback would make a visible difference when you look at the project from
the outside, but would make a significant difference to the size of the park and open space
inside if the setback is increased. He did not believe that there would be any material
benefit to setback the homes further near Highway 85 because the homes were invisible
from one direction due to the retaining /sound walls that currently exist. Also, the existing
pines at the entrance would provide a significant amount of screening from the other
direction. There would be no overall benefit to the project and the exterior community if
greater setbacks were required. He proposes to move the wall as an entire unit, jogging it
back and forth to create some stepping in the elevations as seen from Saratoga Avenue. He
provided drawings depicting extensive plantings. Once people develop their backyards, there
would be additional screening.
Commissioner Caldwell questioned if it would be possible to have the same type of
staggering effect for. lots 90 -94 as proposed for lots 179. Mr. Latierre responded that it
would be possible to stagger the homes, but not the wall because an unmaintainable piece
of land would be created. He stated that there would be a large buffer between the homes
and the streetscape. He did not feel that there was an impact from Montrose Street
whether the homes were staggered or in a straight line. The homes would not be visible
from any location. He stated that he would agree to work with the adjoining neighbors
regarding the disposition of the existing trees. The trees that were agreed to be removed
would be replaced with 24" boxed trees with the location of the trees to be worked out at
the appropriate time.
Commissioner Kaplan questioned the slide depicting the traffic light newly - installed at the
entrance to the development on Saratoga Avenue. She questioned how much of the house
would be visible from a car driving from the freeway towards the traffic light. Mr. Latierre
responded that the homes would not be seen from Saratoga Avenue be the homes
would be setback 40 feet from the soundwall. Commissioner Kaplan commented that if
traffic moves towards the traffic light, she felt that the staggering of the homes would be an
imperceptible visual mitigation travelling at 35 miles per hour. She questioned what the
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 28, 1994
PAGE - 12 -
cars would see from the high point on Saratoga Ave. looking back towards Highway 85,
because if drivers can see the whole row of houses, then it would look like a massive wall.
She questioned if single story homes should be built to mitigate bulky appearance. Mr.
Latierre responded that you would be able to see a little of the house from the other
direction but there is to be planting in the Caltrans right -of -way. The characterization of
the homes being massive bulk was not a good characterization of what the homes would
actually look like.
Commissioner Kaplan expressed concern that massive walls would be seen and questioned
if single story homes would be more appropriate to mitigate the massive bulk. Mr. Latierre
provided a rendering showing landscape plantings with four or five years growth.
Goodwin Steinberg addressed the conceptual plans that were approved by the City Council
and what it means to the Commission, the architect and the clients. He commented that
the City of Saratoga has a reputation of being a very tough city but was straight forward and
fair. He stated that his interpretation of conceptual plan approval meant that lot sizes, road
and home areas were approved. He has moved to the next stage of the design process
which was to try to work with the elevation and to be sensitive to those elevations.
Judy Homen, 13159 Montrose, informed the Commission that she contacted each and every
neighbor on Montrose Street regarding Greenbriar's proposal. She submitted a petition in
support of the proposal. The only person who expressed concern with a two story structure
was a renter.. She provided the Commission with photographs of her home depicting little
landscaping and some pictures of her home seven years later with mature landscape
screening. She addressed the straight line -look and jogging of the homes by stating that she
did not want to see the homes staggered on Montrose Street. If the homes were staggered,
you would take away from the open space. She requested that the homes be left as
proposed because they were not perceived as a straight line. She addressed the fireplace
issue. She stated that she uses her fireplace because her 2,200 square foot home was 35
years old and that the home was heated by one furnace. The new homeowners would have
centralized heating and would probably not use the fireplace as a heating unit. Also, no one
has expressed concern with how the existing school children would get to school. With the
installation of a signal light, the children have been safer than they have ever been.
Regarding the swimming pool issue, she informed the Commission that there were several
swimming pools in Saratoga to chose from (i.e., YMCA, Westgate Swim Club, etc.). She
did not see that the pool issue as being one to be concerned with. Regarding the pine tree
concern expressed by Commissioner Siegfried, she felt confident that Greenbriar would
replace the trees. ,
Commissioner Siegfried responded that his concern was that once the pine trees were gone,
0
they were gone. The concern was that there was not a common backyard. He was
confident that Greenbriar would do what she would like them to do. But once the homes
were sold, the backyards were no longer common property. Every neighbor could do what
they want to do. If the concern is not resolved at this time, there would be no control
because the backyards would become private property and the City cannot require anyone
to provide screening in the backyards.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 28, 1994
PAGE - 13 -
Rebecca Chaney, 18859 Afton Avenue, addressed a concern that was addressed at the last
meeting. That concern being that the neighborhood would not receive any benefit by having
the plans approved as proposed. She stated her disagreement with this concern. She noted
that some of the benefits to be received from this proposal would be: 1) improved safety
for the families (installation of a signal light); 2) accessible close recreation (use of proposed
park and walking path and the use of an interior open space area); 3) environmental
enhancement - the plans which meet the requirements of the site plan in the MU -PD zone
was the least dense option to be considered; and 4) the neighbors have always found open
doors when communicating with Greenbriar and trust Greenbriar. The MU -PD zone is one
that would provide the least impact.
Martin Chaney, 18859 Afton Avenue, addressed the extensive support for this project. He
addressed the straight line along Montrose. He believed that the reason for this was largely
due to the 50 foot setback requirement. He emphasized that the 50 foot setback
requirement was more important to the individuals in the neighborhood than whether the
line was straight or not. This was due to the concern that the development would have on
the views, of the hills. He concurred with Planning Commissioner .Caldwell's
recommendation regarding issues about restrictions on future development and additions.
Regarding the longevity of the Monterey Pines, the existing neighbors have been aware of
the health of the trees. The neighborhood, including Greenbriar, is committed to preserving
trees where possible. He recommended that the determination of which trees are to be
removed be left up to the City Arborist and Greenbriar's tree consultant. The trees can still
provide screening until the newly planted landscaping matures. Everyone shares the concern
of impacts on school and safety and that is one of the reasons that the neighborhood is
supportive of this development plan. This plan would provide the first signalized
intersection south of Cox Avenue on either Saratoga Avenue or Quito Road. This, in
combination with sidewalks and bike paths along Saratoga Avenue means that for the first
time, its going to be possible for the residents to walk and bike safely to the library. He
understands and shares the Commission's concern regarding this development plan. The
neighbors have reviewed the plans and viable alternatives. Although it was not perfect, it
was superior to any of the alternatives and recommended Commission approval of the plans
this evening.
Margaret Chaney, 18859 Afton Avenue, requested that the Commission support the
proposal. She felt that the proposal met the. needs of the neighborhood. If the proposal is
approved, it would be feasible to complete construction of the project before she completes
high school.
Michael Kennedy, DKS Associates, traffic consultant, responded to questions raised by
Commissioner Kaplan relative to traffic. The answer was "yes" to the questions raised was
whether the counts also included the impacts of trips to school and that of multiple
individuals residing in the household. The traffic analysis was based on studies of a number
of other subdivisions of equal size. Trips used were per dwelling unit that reflect all types
of trips that.are to be made from this type of subdivision. To the extent that this was a
typical subdivisions of homes less than 300 dwellings in total size, it was typical to include
the various types of traffic counts questioned by Commissioner Kaplan.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 28, 1994
PAGE - 14 -
Commissioner Abshire questioned if Mr. Kennedy has ever checked up on some of their
past forecast on traffic. Mr. Kennedy responded that trip generations were based on existing
subdivisions and were not speculative in this case. They were based on observations. He
estimated that his forecast was typically accurate to within --15 %.
Commissioner Kaplan noted that the traffic chart includes not only Greenbriar's proposal
but also that of the proposed Kerwin Ranch subdivision. She questioned why the existing
neighborhood was not .included because there was no interplay between the street that
Montrose comes out to Saratoga Avenue. Mr. Kennedy responded that the counts were
actual traffic counts. DKS measured the number of vehicles at a particular intersections
during the months of August and that other counts conducted for the City of Saratoga were
taken during the months of April and May. The counts taken in August were factored
upward to adjust for the fact that school was out at the time.
Ms. Meyer called to the Commission's attention a table distributed containing conditions
that she requested be modified as follows: condition 3dii - deletion of the 50' setback from
the street line to read 50' setback from the curb line adjacent to McFarland Ave. so that the
open space in the park area at the other end of the project could be retained (strong input
received from the surrounding neighbors that they would like that area to be a park).
Commissioner Kaplan requested staff clarification regarding its intent with condition 3dii.
Planner Walgren clarified that the recommendation was to increase the setback to the
minimum 50 foot required in the MU -PD zoning which can be varied if the Commission
finds that there is good reason to vary it. The applicants were concerned that if they meet
the 50 foot setback from McFarland, that they would eliminate the open space located
internally in the development. The whole development would push to the south and what
would be lost would be the open space to meet the 50 foot setback.
Ms. Meyer stated that the location of the homes have not changed from that of the
conceptual plan. The McFarland access has been widened from the conceptual plan and
tree wells were added.
Vice - chairman Murakami stated that the problem that the Commission was having was that
of receiving information this evening and questioned why the information was submitted at
this time. Ms. Meyer responded that at the last meeting, it was requested that the
Commission accept the proposal and it was felt that the information was not presented as
well as it could have been. So she prepared a worksheet to have the issues clarified because
they were technical and hard to understand.
Commissioner Kaplan stated that the worksheet was a good one to prepare. However, the
difficulty for the Commission was that the worksheet(s) were received this evening.
Community Development Director Curtis clarified that pages 23, 24 and 25 of the staff
report were submitted at the last meeting. The request for deviation from setbacks were
included in the staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 28, 1994
PAGE - 15 -
Planner Walgren informed the Commission that 8 additional letters from area residents
were received and distributed to the Commission.
COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN /CALDWELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC
HEARING AT 9:40 P.M.
THE COMMISSION RECESSED AT 9:40 P.M. THE COMMISSION RECONVENED
AT 9:51 P.M.
Commissioner Caldwell requested that staff address its position on the applicants request
to modify recommended conditions of approval.
Planner Walgren responded to the modifications to conditions as listed in the handout
distributed as follows: 1) 3dii - lots 9 -12 abut McFarland and lots 90 -93 abut the corner of
Route 85 and Saratoga Avenue: the recommendation to meet the 50 foot setback was taken
from the MU -PD zoning and the specific plan development guidelines for this site
(reflecting Zoning Ordinance and guideline requirements; 2) 3diii - it is recommended that
the soundwall setback on lot 13 a minimum of 25 feet which reflects the front yard setback
requirements of the abutting home directly to the east which is in an R -1, 10,000 zoning
district where the required front yard setback is 25 feet; and 3) Condition 4a - the language
as proposed by the applicant requesting was acceptable to staff. This would require that the
trees along the perimeter homes along Saratoga Avenue, Montrose Street and McFarland
be installed prior to final inspection on the individual homes. The perimeter homes were
the ones that staff was addressing with this condition. The remainder of the trees could be
installed subject to the. requirements of the CC &Rs.
Commissioner Patrick noted that provisions in the first two pages of the handouts received
states: "Planted prior to final occupancy for each of the homes or a security deposit may
be posted in lieu." This language has been deleted from the summary. Planner Walgren
responded that the language modification as listed on page 2 would be acceptable to staff
because it achieves staffs objectives for the plantings of the trees.
With respect to Condition 41, Planner Walgren clarified the City's Building Code and
Central Fire District for the driveway. Staff recommended that the requested amendment
to allow the 12 foot driveway within the linear open space be approved. Staff still
recommends that lots 90 -93 be staggered similar to lots 1 -8. Commissioner Caldwell
commented . that the applicant's response to this condition was that it would create dead
space. She questioned if that was a true statement and if so, would that create a problem.
Planner Walgren responded that it may be a true statement and would need to be looked
at closer. The condition to stagger the lots were developed late last week and staff did not
have an opportunity to review the restrictions that may be on those parcels.
Commissioner. Caldwell questioned if staff could assist the Commission to resolve the issue
of accessory structures, allowing trellises. She questioned if it would make sense to add a
condition that site development would need to conform to R -1 requirements with respect
to lot coverage. Depending on the size of the lot, they would only be allotted the amount
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 28, 1994
PAGE - 16 -
of lot coverage of the traditional R -1 zoning district. She also questioned whether the
Commission should restrict impervious coverage. Planner Walgren noted that the
Commission could narrow the regulations that it wished to apply, the requirement could be
that no lot could exceed 60% lot coverage as required under R -1 10,000 standards
Commissioner Caldwell suggested that if the City was to move forward with this project, that
the Commission include a condition regarding the fireplaces. She suggested that no wood
burning fire places would be allowed. As a compromise, she proposed that one of the two
fireplaces in each of the homes be a gas log only and that both fireplaces be gas starters.
Commissioner Kaplan recommended that only one gas log fireplace be allowed per
residence and that no wood burning fireplaces be allowed due to environmental impacts.
Commissioner Siegfried questioned if the proposal made sense from a design stand point.
He stated that in his past years as a Planning Commissioner, the City fought for the size of
homes to make sure that they were compatible. He reiterated that he believed that this
area should be developed as residential. But having a conceptual plan approved does not
prohibit the Commission in looking at the design of the project. He would not have
approved the 94 lots, but that he would accept the 94 lots on the basis that Greenbriar was
given a density bonus, this was a transitional zoning and the project made sense. The
average lot size was 7,600 square feet (53 lots). Under the City's R -1 10,000 zoning district,
the homes could only be 2,800+ feet. He recommended that the area be stipulated as being
residential, and grant the.94 lots. However, the square footage would need to be reduced
to something that is in line with the R -1 10,000. If not, the City would be questioned as to
why it allowed 6,650 square foot lots with 3,700 square foot homes. If you look at the first
floor of the home, they average somewhere between 2,100 and 2,200 square feet, giving the
perception of a wall to wall building. He understood the support of the existing neighbors,
but the Commission has a greater .duty as to what the approval of this development would
do to this community. He felt that the issues needed to be addressed at this time.
Commissioner Kaplan concurred with Commissioner Siegfried's comments. She still felt that
the homes were too large and that as long as the Commission has the authority to deal with
that issue, she would recommend that the size of the homes be reduced and that the designs
be alternated between two and three car garages to reduce some of the mass. She also
recommended restrictions to accessory buildings discussed including limiting of the
impervious coverage because there would be no control of backyards when homeowners
move in.
Commissioner Patrick commented that the Commission has a duty to follow the guidance
of the City Council. However, she was not satisfied that the plans meet that guidance. She
did not feel that the lot sizes meet the 10,000 square foot average nor did the homes meet
the stipulated average house sizes agreed to by the City Council. She did not believe that
the spirit of the City Council concept approval was that of a three car garage. She had a
difficult time believing that two to four people would use the three car garage. The homes
are perceived to be for larger families, putting a greater strain on our already over burdened
resources (i.e., impact to traffic, schools). She stated that she could not support the proposal
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 28, 1994
PAGE - 17 -
as presented.
Commissioner Abshire defended the three car garage because in today's world, people use
their garage as storage space. He was inclined to support the three car garage. However,
he was overwhelmed with the size of the homes on the lots. Particularly when there are so
many piled together. The proposal is one of condensed housing and may appeal to
perspective home buyers who do not want a large yard. He was sympathetic that this
situation was different.
Commissioner Caldwell commented that this was a difficult position to be in. She felt that
the City could have been more effective in explaining what its expectations were for this
development and should have done so at the conceptual plan stage and the specific plan
stage. She was not supportive of the size of the homes.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that he was not comfortable with the homes proposed due
to the size and bulk. He agreed with the concept, but that there was no reason that with
a fourth model, that one or even two models could exceed 3200 square feet in total.
However, the average should be no more than the maximum allowed in the R -1 10,000
zoning district. This would allow for some differentiation in roof line. He recommended
that the plan be approved with an added condition which would require that the average
house size, including the garage, not exceed 3,200 square feet. This means that Greenbriar
would need to come up with a different variation of homes. He felt that some variation in
the second story might make a difference (providing for a greater variation in rear
elevations).
Vice - Chairman Murakami stated that the way he looked at the situation was that the area
was intended for multi -uses. He did not feel that the Commission was dealing with a
situation where it's totally R -1 even though all that is being proposed is residential.
Commissioner Siegfried responded that if the district was that of an R -1 10,000 zoning
district, in this configuration, discussion would not be that of 3,200 square feet but that of
an average of 2,600 or 2,700 square foot average.
Vice - Chairman Murakami commented that his main concern was that of the 3,066 square
foot average. When staff reviewed the figures with the applicants, they .were willing to
reduce the homes.
Commissioner Kaplan commented that the Commission was not implying a change to the
basic configuration. However, she did not believe that the Commission had.to accept the
size of the homes as presented. She felt that a disservice would be done to the City of
Saratoga and to the obligation that the Commission has to the underlying rules and
regulations that it is told to implement.
Commissioner Caldwell stated she did not disagree with Commissioner Kaplan's assessment
of the proposal from the design review standpoint or conceptual plan standpoint. However,
she felt that it was a little late to be raising some of the fundamental concerns with
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 28, 1994
PAGE - 18 -
development that has to do with average house sizes. She felt that from a practical stand
point, the Commission would not accomplish very much if it makes dramatic changes in
square footage or average square footage. She believed that it was at the conceptual and /or
specific plan stage that these issues should have been more fully addressed.
Commissioner Kaplan responded that the Commission was charged with the design review
of the project.
Commissioner Siegfried felt that it would be a disservice to the City Council if the
Commission did not state that given the parameters of the concept that was approved, that
a more aesthetically pleasing exterior be required. He did not know how the City would be
able to explain to other zoning districts how this size-home was approved on this size lot.
He would recommend approval of what is before the Commission with the exception of the
concept that the average home size would be that of 3,066 square feet of liveable. space.
He would rather send a message to the City Council that states that the Commission has
bought into the concept, but that it would want to see a variation in the two story homes.
He would also stipulate that the average home size be that of 3,200 square feet, including
the garage with greater variation, including variation in roof lines.
Commissioner Abshire commented that the project has approximately 4 acres of open space
around the freeway. He felt that it was a nice feature. If you divide those 4 acres into the
' lots, he questioned what would the average lot size would be? Community Development
Director Curtis responded that the lots would equate to 9,600 square foot lots. He informed
the Commission that the 4.78 acres of common open space was a requirement of the MU-
PD zoning irrespective of what land use goes there.
Community Development. Director Curtis clarified that the change in setback along
McFarland was inconsistent with the approved conceptual plan. He agreed that the
soundwall does not change. However, staff's concern was the creation of a tunnel affect
without proper setbacks.
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR PD -94 -002. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 (CHAIRMAN
ASFOUR ABSENT).
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO.
PD -94 -002 WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS:
- THE TOTAL AVERAGE OF THE 94 HOMES IS NOT TO EXCEED 3,200
SQUARE FOOT, INCLUDING GARAGE;
- 50 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK FROM CURBLINE ON McFARLAND AS
RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND THE APPLICANT;
- STAGGERING OF LOTS 90 -93 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF;
- SOUNDWALL ON LOT 13 SHALL BE SETBACK 25 FEET FROM
MCFARLAND AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF;
- 3DII TO BE SETBACK FROM CURB LINE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 28, 1994
PAGE - 19 -
APPLICANT;
-
CONDITIONS* 4A AND 4D1 AS AGREED TO BY STAFF AND GREENBRIAR
USING THE WORDING OF PAGE 2 OF THE GREENBRIAR AMENDMENT
(PARAGRAPH BEGINNING WITH 'REAR YARDS" AND ENDING WITH
"BASIS. ") PERTAINING TO THE PLANTING OF TREES IN THE REAR
YARDS, REQUIREMENT OF THE INSTALLATION OF IRRIGATION FOR
ALL INSTALLED LANDSCAPING, AND THAT THE LOCATION RELATIVE
TO THE MONTEREY PINES OF THE TREES /LANDSCAPING TO BE
INSTALLED TO BE APPROVED BY STAFF TO ACCOMPLISH SCREENING
OBJECTIVES;
NO ADDITIONAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES THAT WOULD COUNT
AGAINST SQUARE FOOTAGE TO THE FLOOR AREA, WHILE
PERMITTING OPEN GARDEN STRUCTURES. NO LOT COVERAGE TO
EXCEED 60% OF ANY INDIVIDUAL LOT;
TWO FIRE PLACES TO BE ALLOWED PER HOUSE WITH THE USE OF GAS
LOG ONLY; AND
ALL OF THESE CONDITIONS TO BE CONDITIONS IN THE CC &RS AND
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that his recommendation of the 3,200 average square footage
was, to require furthef articulation with the second story element to reduce bulk. The intent
was to achieve some variation in home sizes. The approval should be that of keeping with
Saratoga.
Commissioner Caldwell questioned if the Commission approved the motion incorporating
the average square footage not to exceed 3,200 feet, what would that do to any design that
Greenbriar may come up with. Commissioner Siegfried responded that change in design
would need to return to staff and maybe to the Commission. He did not want to see this
item go back to the Council on the basis that the Commission has not addressed the design
review issue.
Community Development Director Curtis requested clarification that any changes in
elevation or floor plans that varies from Commission approval would return for the
Commission's approval at a public hearing. City Attorney Riback stated that if the
Commission so directs, the item does not need to return to the Commission as a public
hearing. It could return to the Commission as a work session or as a consent calendar item.
It was the consensus of the Commission that a public hearing would not be required.
Commissioner Caldwell stated that she felt that the Commission would. achieve its goal
tonight for the project if the modified designs come in and those. designs reflects a reduction
in bulk and mass.
THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 (CHAIRMAN ASFOUR ABSENT).
PLANNING COMMISS J MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 14, 1994
PAGE - 8 -
approval to construct a new 5,434 sq. ft. two -story residence on a
vacant 1.5 net acre parcel pursuant to Article 1545 of the Saratoga
Zoning Ordinance. The subject parcel is located within an R -1- 20,000
zoning district (cont. from 7/27/94 at direction of Planning
Commission).
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION
NO. DR -94 -025 WITH THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION THAT STIPULATES THAT
THE LOCATION AND THE HEIGHT OF THE TREE SHALL BE REVIEWED BY
STAFF WITH THE INTENT TO PROVIDE FOR SHORT TERM AND LONG TERM
SCREENING WITHOUT OVER AFFECTING THE LINE OF SIGHT OF THE
ADJACENT NEIGHBORS. THE MOTION CARRIED 3 -1 AS FOLLOWS: AYES:
MURAKAMI, PATRICK, SIEGFRIED; NOES: ABSHIRE; ABSTAIN: NONE; ABSENT:
ASFOUR, CALDWELL, KAPLAN.
4. PD -94 -002 - Greenbriar Homes; 13150 Saratoga Ave., request for Planned
Development -Final Plan approval to construct 94 single - family
detached residences at the 24 acre former Paul Masson Winery site.
The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Saratoga
Ave. and Route 85 and is zoned Multiple Use - Planned Development
(MU -PD). An Environmental Initial Study, as required by the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has been prepared.
Based upon review of the Initial Study, staff will recommend adoption
of a "Negative Declaration" for this project.
Pursuant to Section 21091 of CEQA, an extended public review period
is required for the Negative Declaration. Therefore, the project will
be presented to the Planning Commission, public testimony will be
received and the application will be continued. to a subsequent public
hearing date for final consideration (staff will be recommending the
item be continued to the September 28, 1994 public hearing).
Vice - chairman Murakami informed the public that no decision would be made tonight on
this item. The extended review period for the negative declaration for the project has not
been concluded. Therefore, public testimony would be taken from both the Commission
and the public.
Commissioner Siegfried commented that. at his request, he met with two representatives
from Greenbriar Homes to receive back history on the project.
Commissioner Abshire stated for the record that he also met with representatives with
Greenbriar homes.
Commissioner Patrick commented that she had been contacted by Greenbriar
representatives and was provided with an informational packet.
PLANNING COMMISS J MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 14, 1994
PAGE -9-
Vice - chairman Murakami indicated that he also had the opportunity to converse with
representatives from Greenbriar.
Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He indicated that staff finds that
the project, at this point, is consistent with the MU -PD zoning ordinance standards, the Paul
Masson Specific Plan adopted for the property, and with the City Council conceptual plan
approved earlier this year. Based on that, if no new information is presented this evening
that would affect staff's environmental determination, staff recommended continuation of
the public hearing to the September 28 meeting for final approval and adoption of the
environmental Negative Declaration.
Commissioner Siegfried questioned the maximum allowable size for a home in an R -1
10,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren responded that based on a 10,000 square foot lot,
a 3,200 square foot would be the maximum size allowed, including garage and accessory
structures. Commissioner Siegfried questioned if the maximum size allowed would be
reduced if the lots were 7,500 square feet. Planner Walgren responded that the size would
be reduced on a sliding scale.
Vice - chairman Murakami questioned the average square foot maximum that would be
proposed under the conceptual plan approved by the Council. Planner Walgren responded
that a condition of City Council conceptual plan approval resolution stipulated that the
average home size not exceed 3,066 square feet, excluding the garage area. He stated that
he did not have the percentage number information in the packet that was submitted, to
staff. He understood that if one took an average of the 94 homes based on the distribution
presented elsewhere, it would likely exceed the 3066 square feet.
Vice-:chairman Murakami commented that he had a prepared a rough calculation of 3,103
square foot average.
Commissioner Siegfried commented that at the site visit, he noticed that most, if not all of
the trees along the back of the property which shield it from the residents on Montrose were
Monterey Pine trees. He questioned the life expectancy of those . trees. Planner Walgren
responded that he was not sure about the life expectancy of the Monterey Pine trees, but
that in general, Monterey Pines of that age do not receive a high value from the city arborist
based on the fact that they are not well suited for the dry climate of the valley floor area.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that the trees raise the question as to what type of
landscaping can be. installed, especially if it is not known what the life expectancy of the
Monterey Pines would be.
Vice - Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing on this item at 8:55 p.m.
Carol Meyer, Greenbriar Homes, informed the Commission that the plans before the
Commission were ones that were consistent with the conceptual plans approved in April by
the City Council. Since April, she has worked with planning, public works, the fire district
and school district. She has reviewed the conditions of approval and agrees with the
majority of the items. She felt that most of the conditions could be worked out with staff
PLANNING COMMISS J MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 14, 1994
PAGE - 10 -
during the following weeks. She thanked staff for their assistance with this project as well
as the adjacent neighbors for their input and support.
Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the City Engineer was present to answer
any questions which it might have.
Paul Latierre, Landscape Planner and Architect, presented the Commission and public with
an overview of the proposal addressed last April. Ninety -four homes were proposed with
4.8 acres of open space. He addressed the difference between the City approved specific
plan and that of the conceptual and final plan. He reviewed the transitional design of the
project (project surrounded by townhomes, commercial space, office and lower density
homes and I -85). The site plan concept proposed detached homes with continuous open
space within the interior part which is located in front of the majority of the homes. The
remainder open space was spread throughout the site in such a way that greatly benefitted
the project and integrated the concept of a MU -PD zoning district. The redwoods located
in the main entrance are to.remain and the ones that have succumbed would be removed.
There were two different types of open space proposed: lineal (frontage of the homes) and
park space. The idea of the plan was to provide a lush feeling of environment by the use
of significant plant material. The front landscaping is to be installed as ' part of this
development with the rear landscaping to be responsibility of the homeowner. Three foot
fencing is proposed in front of the homes to be integrated with the landscaping so that the
open space zone goes from house to house. The design of the project has not been utilized
anywhere else before. The idea for the project came from the specific plan, zoning and
from the idea of producing single family homes for this kind of environment. The park
space that is proposed adjacent to the freeway would provide a buffer required in the
specific plan. Tot lots, picnic areas and a par course station are proposed. Heavy screen
plantings of redwood, oaks and other species are to be installed to screen the homes from
the freeway as well as the existing sound wall. A pedestrian connection is proposed
between lots 12 and 13 that would allow individuals to walk to commercial areas and not
be compelled to drive their cars. The concept plan included minor modifications to the
MU -PD. The modifications would provide less rear setbacks from street line right -of -way.
(provides 40 feet to the right -of -way line instead of 50 feet). The rationale for setback
reduction was to maximize the benefit of the open space of the site. He felt that providing
more distance where there is already going to a be soundwall had no visual benefit to the
community and would take away from the open space that is provided internally to the site.
He requested that condition 3.d.ii be deleted because he felt that. the project setback the
homes to protect the neighbors. The other item he requested that the Commission consider
was the requirement by staff to move back the soundwall 25 feet for lot' 13. A 15 foot
setback is proposed and he has increased the setback by five feet from the conceptual plan
and felt that the distance was sufficient for that area. He did not want to push the
soundwall back further because he felt that it would negatively affect the adjacent lot.
James Yee, Steinberg Architects, project manager, addressed the architect use of the project,
(3 floor plans with 9 elevations are proposed to create a variety with multitude of color
schemes and stones). Overall, a custom look would be achieved with Monterey style homes
proposed.
r
PLANNING COMMISS J MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 14, 1994
PAGE - 11 -
Commissioner Siegfried questioned if other than reversing the plans, were there any changes
to the rear elevation. Mr. Yee responded that the rear elevations of the home would
basically look the same other than it might be reversed and the use of different colors.
Vice - chairman Murakami stated that according to what he received in the mail, he prepared
some rough calculations of square footage that did not work out for him. Ms. Meyer
clarified that by the next meeting, calculations would be submitted that were accurate and
satisfy the Commission's concern.
Alma Chaney, 18859 Afton Avenue, stated that she has followed the plans for the Paul
Masson site as a child. She has reviewed the Greenbriar plans and found that it meets the
needs of the neighborhood and the City. She requested that the Commission accept the
Greenbriar Homes Company final plan which meets the guidelines of the conceptual plan
so that ground breaking could occur prior to her leaving for college.
Gary Lang, 13172 Montrose Street, informed the Commission that he also has followed the
activities of the Paul Masson property. The City. started a process which would allow
perspective developers to know the bounds of the allowed options for the development of
this site. The neighbors were asked by the City to participate in the process known as the
"Site Specific Plan ". It alerted developers to the constraints to the site before ever getting
involved in a lengthy and costly planning activities with the possibility of having those plans
disallowed by the City because they did not conform to the requirements. This process -has
brought together the neighborhood and the City in consensus about the needs for safety,
traffic congestion and flow and the allowable uses for the site. The respondence to the
questionnaire sent out to the neighbors supported single family homes for all the site. To
avoid congestion in the neighborhood, Afton Avenue was to remain as a closed street. The
Greenbriar representatives with whom the neighbors have worked with have been concerned
to meet the needs of the neighbors, the site .specific plan as well as the City's General Plan.
The concept plan passed by the City Council a few months ago was the result of multiple
iterations of work with neighbors, staff, Planning Commission and City Council. The
conceptual plan was felt to be a reasonable tradeoff of public open space overall site layout,
innovative ideas such as the linear park and first class home designs integrated with
thoughtful landscaping. Because of these features and the willingness of Greenbriar, to work
with all concerns, it was easy for him to stand before the Commission on March 8 and
support that plan. As a neighborhood of predominantly owner - occupied homes, they are
much aware of the details that the plans set forth. He looks forward to the changes which
are well designed. The submittal of. a final plan for approval constitutes a significant
investment by Greenbriar under what one might think a reasonable assumption that the site
specific plan guidelines and concept plan approved by the City Council on April 20 would
allow them to go forward with the highest expectation of obtaining approval. It seemed
ridiculous to the homeowners that the fundamentals of the concept plan would be reopened
at this stage of the process when some staff members, Council members, and Commissioners
have come and gone. The neighbors feel that the details of the final plan need to be
worked on, not the fundamentals. The neighbors support this plan because it represents a
good use of the property.
PLANNING COMMISS J MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 14, 1994
PAGE - 12 -
Deborah Lang, 13172 MontRose Street, urged the new Commissioners to take the time to
review the entire history of the events in chronological order. Work study sessions were
conducted along with public hearings to get an idea of what the main concerns and goals
would be. She felt that as a responsible citizen, that it was her responsibility to pay
attention to the issues and to get involved as necessary. The Afton Avenue closure became
her top priority. Other concerns included appropriate development behind the homes along
Montrose Street, traffic and pollution impacts for the greater Saratoga area. Community
Development Director Curtis and city staff have worked hard in the beginning stage of the
specific plan process to incorporate these issues into what would become the adopted
Specific Plan for the Paul Masson property. Greenbriar entered the picture at this stage of
the process. With the specific plan in place and neighbors concerns identified, Greenbriar
proceeded to develop a plan that would comply with both the guidelines and rules of the
Specific Plan. Greenbriar also showed care and concern for the adjoining neighborhood by
adhering to their priorities of the Afton closure and construction of single family homes.
She stated her : support for the Greenbriar proposal. She informed the Commission that
petitions have been signed by residents supporting the proposed development.
Judy Homen, 13159 Montrose Street, self - employed landscape gardener, examined every
angle of the design and fought to retain the Monterey Pine trees. She stated that one
needed to wait five to six years to allow the landscaping to mature. She requested that the
overall project be reviewed and that it not be nit picked and requested that positive action
be given as the proposal has been followed for several years.,
Martin Chaney, 18859 Afton Avenue, stated that he has followed the development plans for
this property since the time of development proposal by the Dividend Corporation. He
responded to the survey that was conducted as part of the development of the site specific
plan and has attended hearings and Council meetings on that plan. He also attended and
spoke at Planning Commission and Council meetings which Greenbriar's conceptual
development plan was approved. Since the first review of the Greenbriar proposal, he and
his neighbors have strongly supported their development plan because it is the only plan that
he has seen or heard of that preserves the character of the neighborhood. It keeps the
access to Afton Avenue closed except for pedestrian and emergency vehicle access which
was one of the most important things in the site specific plan. The plan incorporates large
setbacks along Montrose and stays within zoning height limitations to help preserve the
views of the neighborhood. He stated that during this process, he was truly pleased that
Greenbriar went out of their way to set up informational meetings for the neighborhood.
Throughout this process, Greenbriar has been responsive to the neighbors concerns and
request. He requested that the Commission support and expedite the approval of the plan
so construction can begin and be concluded as quickly as possible. He thanked the new
Commissioners for taking the time to meet with Greenbriar to review the plan and the
history of the site. He invited the Commission to meet with the neighbors if there were any
other issues of concern.
Mary Gardener, 20460 Forrest Hills Drive, Superintendent of School, addressed school
issues regarding this development. She stated that this was an opportunity to raise the issue
PLANNING COMMISS J MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 14, 1994
PAGE - 13 -
of school impact that the development would have on schools. Meetings have began with
the school district and Greenbriar. She stated that she wished that dialogue could have
taken place earlier in the process. The phasing of the development would allow plenty of
time for the school district to. work with Greenbriar. She appreciated Greenbriar's
willingness to survey the buyers of the homes in terms of planning questions as to the
number of children that are to live in the homes so that the school district can anticipate
the number of students that will be coming into the schools. Also, use of developer fees -
would enhance the fields, playgrounds and school facilities. A major concern to the school
district was that of safety. On this issue, the school district would need to continue to work
with the City. The school district has requested crossing guards and are interested in
improving the bike paths and walking paths in this particular case because the school district
is now considered as an open enrollment school district. This means that students would
have the right to go to any of the schools within the district. The district is currently
working with the City. on a car pool and a ride reduction plan. There will be a need to
continue the partnership with the City to ensure that the safety issues are mitigated. She
was pleased that the school district was now able to be in the fore front of establishing a
process which will address the impacts to the school and that the City encourages developers
to work with the school district early on in the development planning.
Tom deRegt, New Cities Investment Company, 9781 Blue Larkspur Lane, Monterey,
informed the Commission that he has worked on this project since 1992 as the agent for VA
properties who acquired the property in 1993. Informational meetings began in May 1992.
Between May and September, he interviewed City Council Members and Planning
Commissioners to try to get direction on the process. The City decided that the process
should be a "Specific Plan ". In 1992, the city was approached to suggest an alternate
process, a joint study session between Council and Commission. During the specific plan
process, all public meetings and community meetings were attended. Property owners met
with the neighbors early on. After the specific plan was approved, as the property owners
agent, he interviewed a dozen builders and developers. Several potential land uses were
discussed, all consistent with the specific plan. Based on input, it was decided to enter into
a contract with Greenbriar Homes. He continues to work with Greenbriar Company and
complimented Ms. Meyer for hiring excellent consultants. He felt that an award winning
plan was before the Commission. He thanked city staff for its assistance and requested
Commission approval of the plans at its next meeting.
Peter Leslie, 13100 Saratoga Avenue,4 informed the Commission that he also worked with
Greenbriar Company and stated his support of the specific plan.
THE COMMISSION RECESSED AT 9:45 P.M. THE COMMISSION RECONVENED
AT 10:00 P.M.
Carol Meyer, requested any initial feedback be provided regarding the 4.7 acres proposed
for open space so that they. could be addressed at the next meeting.
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO . CLOSE THE PUBLIC.
HEARING AT 10:02 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISS J MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 14, 1994
PAGE - 14 -
Commissioner Siegfried stated that he has followed the history of the Paul Masson site and
understood the neighbors concerns. He agrees that development of the site needed to be
that of residential and that he would not consider anything other than residential
development now or in the future. He expressed concern that from the existing trees to
Saratoga, McFarland and Montrose, you. have 3,500 to 3,700 square foot homes, the backs
which are basically straight lines. The effect of that would be that until the landscaping
grows, you would look over Saratoga Road with minor setbacks from house to house of a
straight wall with openings of 1144 feet between the homes. More importantly, he was
concerned about the view from Montrose. You have 18, 26 foot tall buildings with three
models with three different backs with 11 -13 feet of spread between houses. What conceals
that effect are the existing Monterey Pines that may or may not exist for some length of
time. He felt that it would be difficult to .plant tall landscaping in front of the Monterey
Pines and then have then die a few years from. He has a problem of perception, not
particularly about the inside of the development because the inside of the development
would be seen only by the individuals who buy and live in it. But for those who drive
around it or live next to it. One has to understand that for a period of time, we will be
looking at 3,700 square foot building on what is going to be perceived from the outside as
7,000 square. foot lots. That is a very large massive building. He felt that some
consideration should be given to try to do something to modify the straight line effect and
some additional consideration has to be given to the long term tree landscaping along the
Montrose side of the property, given the fact that none of us know how long the Monterey
Pines may live.
Commissioner Abshire commented that he spoke with Greenbriar representatives. He
informed the representatives that his concerns were that of schools and safety. He sees this
project adding at least one percent to the population of Saratoga and a two percent increase
to the school enrollment. Because of its location, it's almost impossible for the children to
walk or ride a bicycle to school. He felt that transportation problems would occur. He
recommended that the City look into the safety of children getting to school from this
development and alternative transportation would also need to be considered. Overall, the
concept was a good one and understands why the. neighborhood supports the project. He
shared Commissioner Siegfried's concern that the development would have a real crowded
appearance because of large homes proposed on small lots.
Commissioner Patrick expressed concern with the size of the homes and wanted to make
sure that the project meets the guidelines of the conceptual plans that were approved, but
also the spirit of the concept. She calculated that only four of the lots were 10,000 square
feet. The vast majority of the lots were smaller than that. She also noted that there were
three car garages in every house which were not included in the square footage of the
houses pursuant to the concept previously approved. She felt that every attempt has been
made by Greenbriar to build the largest possible house and the greatest number of houses
on this site. She also expressed concern regarding the number of homes proposed.
Vice - chairman Murakami stated that he opposed the project at its onset. Since the Council
reversed the Commission's decision, he was looking at the proposal in a more liberal view.
He expressed concern with the average square footage of the homes. Another concern was
PLANNING COMMISS `T MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 14, 1994
PAGE - 15 -
the one shared by Commissioner Siegfried, that being of the alignment of the homes on the
backside of McFarland. Discussed at prior meetings were the staggering effect of the lots.
In looking at the drawings, especially the back side, they give the appearance of a straight
wall. He stated that he would like to avoid the look of Cupertino. However, he
understands that these homes are varied in style and colors. Maybe that would help the
physical perception looking from the outside. He stated his willingness to work on this
project and understands that the citizens want this development approved.
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /ABSHIRE MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC
HEARING AND CONTINUED THE PUBLIC HEARING TO SEPTEMBER 28 WITH
THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IN LIGHT OF WHAT HAS BEEN STATED IN
PUBLIC TESTIMONY, IT WOULD BE ANTICIPATED THAT AT THE NEXT
HEARING, THE. PUBLIC TESTIMONY WOULD BE BASED ON NEW
INFORMATION SUBMITTED (I.E., CALCULATION OF AVERAGE SQUARE
FOOTAGE, STRAIGHT LINE AFFECT ALONG MONTROSE AND SARATOGA
AVENUE SIDES, ALTERNATE LANDSCAPE PLAN TO MITIGATE LIFE SPAN OF
MONTEREY PINES). THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 (COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR,
CALDWELL, AND KAPLAN ABSENT).
Community Development Director Curtis stated that he did not believe that the remainder
of the agenda anticipated any legal issues and requested that the Commission excuse the
City Attorney.
5. DR -94 -015 - Weng /Fung; 19462 Burgundy Way, request for Design Review
approval to constrict a new one -story 5,638 sq. ft. residence pursuant
to Chapter 15 of-the City Code. The subject property is approximately
42,320 sq. ft. and is located within an R -1- 40,000 zone district.
Planner Walgren recommended that agenda items 5 and 6 be considered at the same time
as they are related. He presented the staff reports for both agenda items 5 and 6.
Vice - chairman Murakami questioned if staff found the entry design for parcel B acceptable.
Planner Walgren stated that the front architectural entrance to the residents was acceptable
to staff.
Commissioner Abshire questioned why every proposal before the Commission proposed to
maximize lot coverage?
Vice - Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing for agenda items 5 and 6 at 10:26 p.m.
David Pruitt, designer for Parcels B and D, informed the Commission that in working with
staff, there was concern that the Commission, in the past, had a problem with grandiose
entries that stand out as a prominent architectural feature. He felt that due to the size and
width of the home, he had to proportion the entry to where it was in the right balance, size -
wise, accommodating the needs of the owner for a covered entry and keeping a formal feel
because of the French -style elevation.
0919CE o2 O&MZUQX5�
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE - SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 - (408) 867 -3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ann Marie Burner
P3;'1. J3CC :'c
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Planning Commission
FROM:
James Walgre , Associate Planner
DATE: September 28, 1994
SUBJECT:, Planned Development -Final Plan
Greenbriar Homes Company; 13150 Saratoga Avenue
Background:
This application for Planned Development -Final Plan approval to
construct 94 single family detached residences at the former Paul
Masson Winery site was first presented to the Planning Commission
at the September 14, 1994 public hearing. Concerns were raised at
that meeting by the Commission regarding the total average square
footage of the proposed 94 homes and the "solid wall" visual effect
the homes would have from Saratoga Avenue and McFarland Avenue
frontages and from the Montrose Street homes (minutes from the
meeting are included in the agenda packet).'
The questions of the maximum average square footage arose,
apparently, from an informational packet that was distributed by
the applicants to the Planning Commissioners (which was not
received by staff) that provided anticipated percentages of the
three floor plans. Based on a proportionately greater number of
the larger floor plans, the average living areas of the total 94
homes would have exceeded 3,066 sq. ft.
Following public hearing discussion, including substantial
neighborhood support of the proposal, the item was continued to
'tonight's meeting with the following direction to the applicants:
Indicate that the average living area square footage of the
total 94 homes does not exceed 3,066 sq. ft.
Printed on recycled paper.
Greenbriar Homes company; 13150 saratoga Avenue
Page Two
Address the "solid wall" visual effect of the perimeter homes.
Address the potential future loss of landscape screening
when /if the Monterey Pines along the east, property line
decline.
Resubmittal:
The applicant's have resubmitted reduced copies of Exhibit "A" for
Planning Commission distribution. These plans now reflect the
3,066 sq. ft. living area average for all 94 homes. The attached
Exhibit "B" represents their design proposal to address the
Commission's building elevation concerns. Along Saratoga Avenue
the homes are staggered 5 to 10 ft. to provide relief from the
straight-line-rear elevations. The rear yards, and the Saratoga
Avenue soundwalls, are also staggered to maintain maximum rear yard
areas. This staggering within the Saratoga Avenue perimeter
greenbelt is acceptable to staff, and in fact will likely improve
the soundwall's appearance, so long as the net landscaped area
remains the same.
The proposed building and soundwall offset is proposed only for
Saratoga Avenue at this point. To address the McFarland Avenue
frontage and the Montrose Street homes side, the applicants have
agreed to plant (or have planted) trees within . every, rear yard.
Staff has included a condition that a minimum of one 24 inch box
and one 15 gallon native and /or other suitable drought tolerant
trees be planted within each rear yard prior to issuance of Final
Occupancy approval of any home. This would be in addition to the
permitted greenbelt, internal common /public open space and private
front yard landscaping. This rear yard planting will ensure future
screening of the rear elevations of the homes and provide eventual
replacement value when /if the Monterey pines along the east
property line decline.
Recommendation:
Staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission in the report
presented at the September 14th public hearing was that if no new
information was submitted which would effect the environmental
analysis, staff supported continuing the public hearing to
September 28, 1994 to adopt the Planned Development -Final Plan
approval Resolution and the environmental Negative Declaration.
The extended public hearing review period for the Negative
Declaration has now expired, and to date staff has not received any
new information which would effect staff's recommendation to adopt
Greenbriar Homes Company; 13150,Saratoga Avenue
Page Three
a Negative Declaration. If the Planning Commission finds that the
proposed changes sufficiently address their earlier concerns, staff
would recommend approving the .project by adopting the attached
Resolution and Negative Declaration.
Attachments:
1. Resolution PD -94 -002
2. Environmental Negative Declaration
3. Letter from Debra Cauble dated 9/22/94
4. Letter from Applicant dated 9/14/94
5. Staff Report dated 9/14/94
6. Plans, Exhibit "A"
7. Saratoga Avenue Modifications, Exhibit "B"
DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED
(Negative Declaration)
Environmental Quality Act of 1970
The undersigned, Director of Community Development of the CITY OF SARATOGA,
a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation, has determined, and does
hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental
Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the
California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653- of the City of Saratoga,
and based on the City's independent judgment, that the following described
project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on
the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Request for Planned Development -Final Plan approval to construct 94 single
family detached residences at the 24 acre former Paul Masson Winery site.
The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Saratoga Ave. and
Route 85 and is zoned Multiple Use - Planned Development (MU -PD).
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
Carol Meyer c/o Greenbriar Saratoga Road Company
4340 Stevens Creek Blvd. #275
San Jose, CA 95129
REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION
It is staff's determination that this development will have no significant
environmental impacts. The Plan is consistent with the City's General Plan
designation and the MU -PD zoning regulations governing the property. For
expanded discussion, see Initial Study dated August 15, 1994 and Staff Report
(and attached Exhibits "B" through "E", incorporated by reference) to
Saratoga Planning Commission dated September 14, 1994.
Executed at Saratoga, California this 9/4* day of �e C�6-� , 1994.
DIRECTOR OF OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
�° �� • �� p quo aai i ubu GREE:\BR1AR CU 1® U
Staff Analysis:
Page 71:
Greenbriar Response to Conditions of Approval for
PA 94- 002 -Paul Masson Winery Site
Common Open Space -- shouldbe 4.78 AC, not 4.R AC
nevelopmrat Agreement bullet point three:
improvements would occur in a sequence beneficial rn the community. Fo,,
example, perimeter landscape and pedestrian improvements would be required to
be completed before home construction could begin.
Clutnge to:
Improvements would occur in a sequence beneficial to the community. For
example, perimeter landscape and. pedestrian improvements would be required to
he completed before home occupancy could occur.
This is requested because we will do these improvements concurrently with Phase 1
infrastructure improvements and home construction. Tlus would insure that all perimeter
improvements are completed prior to occupancy of any homes.
Last sentence, last Paragraph:
Approval of the Final Plan would be contingent on the Planning Commission and
City Council aeeepusnee of the Development Agreement.
Change to:
Approval of the Final Map would be contingent on the Planning Commission and
City Council acceptance of the Development Agreement.
This is more consistent with common practice. It allows time to finalize the Agreement
without delaying the approval of the Final Plan.
Page 72: Top paragraph, last sentence:
..with the requirement that the perimeter improvements arc completed prior to
construction of homes for either phase.
change to:
..with the i- equirement that the perimeter improvements are completed
concurrently with the construction of homes for phase 1_ .
ua; 14/ U4 15: u3 1&406 984 7 u60 CREENBR1:iR CO
Page 74: Section 1, Community Development Department, Condition 2c.:
Improvements would occur in a sequence beneficial to the community- For
example, perimeter landscape and pedestrian improvements would he required to
be completed before home comtruction could begin-
Change to:
Improvements would occur in a sequence beneficial to the community. For
example, perimeter landscape and pedestrian improvements would be required to
be completed before come occupancy could occur.
This is requested because we will do these improvements concurrently with Phase 1
infiastructurc improvements and home construction. This would insure that all perimeter
improvements are completed prior to occupancy of any homes.
Page 74: Section 1, Community Development Department, Condition 3dii:
Lots 9 -12 and 90 -93 meet minimum I%IU -PD required Setbacks of Soft as
measured from the respective streetiine.
DELETE CONDITIO
Cneenhriar is requestistg approval with setbacks as shown. 'I1ie setbacks requested are as
follows:
PL Setback Curb Line Setback
Lot 9
41.0
51.0
Lot 10
42.8
52.8
Lot 11
40.0
50.0
Lot 12
40.0
50.0
Lot 90
48.0
70.0
Lot 91
43.9
65.9
Lot 92
43.1
65.1
Lot 93
41.7
64.7
Page 74: Section 1, Community Development Department, Condition 3diii:
Ilie soundwall on Lot 13 is setback 25 ft from McFarland Ave. streetline.
DELETE CONDITION
The proposed setback of 10 ft is 5 ft more than was presented on the Conceptual Plan and
in our opinion offers an attractive transition between the pedestrian access and the
existing adjacent property.
Q00d
S
Ub-' 1-1 - b4 15:U4 V4U6 Bbd 7 UbU
GREEABRiAR CO
A
Page 75: Section 1, Community Development Department, Condition 6:
G
The maximum average floor area of structure living areas shall not exceed 3,066
sf.
Change to:
The maximum average flour area of structure living areas of the three
floorplans shall not exceed 3,066 sf.
Greenbriar's understanding at the Council was that the three plans would average a not to
exceed size of 3066 sf.
Page 78: Section 1, Public Works Department, Cundidun 24:
..1f a pbmed Final Map is submitted, only those lots wthin that particular phase
may be graded....
Change to
...Tf a phased Final Map is submitted, only those lots within that particular phase
may be fine graded. Grading required for site balancing or drainage ccntrol
shall be allowed on entire site if needed....
The grading operations may require "balancing" of the site. therefore, rough grading on
the subsequent portion of the site may be required.
Page 80: Section 1, Central fire District, Condition 40:
...Hydrants shall be installed and ut:c opted prior to ounstruction of any hones.
DELETE THIS PORTION OF CONDITION
Typically we will utilizc an existing Hydrant(such as one on Saratoga Avenue) or
establish a temporary hydrant for ennsnuction purposes.
Page 80: Section 1, Central fire District, Condition 42:
'...wiih u xule for -vehicular traffic, ...
change to
—with bollards for vehicular trathc......
This may be a more attractive solution to restricting EVA only.
4k
matteoni
Saxe
NW a nE A T R
September 22, 1994
Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RECEIVED
S r P 2.3 1994
. L-161VIVIN ; DEPT.
RE: Final Development Plan - Former Paul Masson Site
Honorable Members of the Commission:
Kodak Center
1740 Technoiop Onee
Suitt 250
San Jose. CA 95110
408441 -7&V
FAX 40S 441-730-1
Norman E. Mattenni
Allan Robert Saxe
Margaret Ecker Nanda
Peggy M. O'Laughlin
Debra L.Cauble
ludv C. Tsai
Bradley M. Matteoni
On September 28, 1994, you will conduct a second public
hearing on the application of Greenbriar. Saratoga Road Company for
approval of their Final Development Plan. On behalf of the pro -
perty owner, BA Properties, I urge you to approve the application.
BA Properties acquired the subject property from Dividend
Development in May 1993. At that time, the City had already begun
the process of developing a Specific Plan-for the site. We under-
stand that the genesis for this effort was the City's uncertainty
about the ability of Dividend to follow through on its previously -
approved project. While our client had initial concerns about the
time and expense associated with such an undertaking, the decision
was made to participate in the ongoing process, and cooperate with
the City and the neighbors in exploring the most appropriate uses
for this unique property.
As the Commission is aware, this flat infill site is not
only relatively large by Saratoga standards, but also is constrain-
ed by surrounding uses. It is adjacent to both a major collector
street (Saratoga Avenue) and the new Highway 85. It adjoins single
family homes to one side, faces a townhouse development across
Saratoga, and has office uses to the northeast. Thus, the
landowner faced the challenge of finding a use for the property
that would not only meet the needs of the community, but would also
be marketable in light of its location.
At the conclusion of the Specific Plan process, it
appeared clear to the property owner that the land use alternative
which was more appropriate for the site was single - family resident-
ial. The site is not zoned R -1; throughout the planning process
81
Planning Commission
September 22, 1994
Page two
the city has let stand the MU(PD) zoning. We believe this recog-
nizes the unique site characteristics and constraints. However,
BA Properties had communicated with neighboring property owners and
got the clear message that higher density housing or commercial
uses would not be supported. Accordingly, the search began fora
quality developer who could design and build a quality single
family project in accord with the community's desires and the
Specific Plan guidelines. After careful consideration, the
property owner determined that Greenbriar was best qualified to
meet this goal.
We have not been disappointed with the efforts made by
Greenbriar to address neighbors' concerns and comply with the
requirements of the Specific Plan.
The density originally proposed was reduced; traffic,
circulation, and open space issues were addressed. It is rare to
have the kind of community support that Greenbriar has earned for
this project. we believe the City Council recognized this when,
in April of this year, it approved the conceptual development plan
for the site.
Now, after this lengthy and thorough planning process,
you are asked to approve the final development plan. BA
Properties urges you to recognize the efforts made first by the
landowner, and then by its carefully chosen developer, to design a
quality project of which Saratoga can be proud. Let the neighbors,
who have so diligently participated in 18 months worth of surveys,
public hearings, workshops, and meetings, go home knowing that the
industrial site which existed next door when they bought their
homes will finally be converted to an attractive, compatible, use.
Thank you for your consideration.
r�
V Fy` truly ya rs,
DEBRA L. CAUBLE
DLC:sd
cc: Kathy DeSpain
Tom deRegt
Carol Meyer
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No. /Location: PD-94-002; 13150 SARATOGA AVENUE
Applicant /Owner: GREENBRIAR HOMES COMPANY
Staff Planner: James Walgren
Date: September 14, 1994
APN: 389-11-012,013 & 014 Director Approval:
16 15 U Z>aratoga Ave.
File No. PD -94 -002; 13150 Saratoga Ave.
EXECUTIVE SUNKARY
CASE HISTORY:
Application filed:
6/15/94
Application complete:
8/24/94
Notice published:
8/31/94
Mailing completed:
9/01/94
Posting completed:
8/25/94
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Request for Planned Development -Final Plan approval to construct 94
single family detached residences at the 24 acre former Paul Masson
Winery site. The subject property is located at the northeast
corner of Saratoga Ave. and Route 85 and is zoned Multiple Use -
Planned Development (MU -PD). An Environmental Initial Study, as
required by the California Environmental .Quality Act (CEQA) has
been prepared. Based upon review of the'Initial Study, staff will
recommend adoption of a "Negative Declaration" for this project.
Pursuant to Section 21091 of CEQA, an extended public review period
is required for the Negative Declaration. Therefore, the project
will be presented to the Planning- Commission, public testimony will
be received and the application will be continued to a subsequent
public hearing date for final consideration.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the information received to date, staff is anticipating
recommending approval of the application and the environmental
Negative Declaration with the conditions contained in the draft
Resolution. If no new information is submitted which would effect
staff's environmental analysis, staff would recommend continuing
the public hearing to September 28, 1994 to adopt the Planned
Development -Final Plan approval Resolution and the environmental
Negative Declaration.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Analysis
2. Draft Resolution PD -94 -002
3. Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration
4. City Council Resolution 94 -17
5. Plans, Exhibit "A"
6. Traffic Impact Analysis, Exhibit "B"
7. Traffic Noise Assessment Study, Exhibit "C"
8. Carbon Monoxide Impact Study, Exhibit "D"
9. Fiscal Impact Study, Exhibit "E"
10. Neighborhood Petitions Supporting Project, Exhibit-'IF"
File No. PD- 94- 002; 13150 Saratoga Ave.
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: MU -PD GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Multiple Use
PARCEL SIZE: 24.44 acres
LOT COVERAGE:
STRUCTURE HEIGHT:
SIZE OF
STRUCTURES:
Plan A
Plan B
Plan C
Garage:
Living Area:
TOTAL:
PROPOSAL MU -PD & SPECIFIC PLAN
REQUIREMENTS ALLOWANCES
33% 60%
26 ft. 26 ft..
570 sq. ft.
2,943 sq. ft.
3,513 sq. ft.
Garage: 548 sq. ft.
Living Area: 3,124 sq. ft.
TOTAL: 3,672 sq. ft.
Garage: 555 sq. ft.
Living Area: 3,202 sq. ft.
TOTAL: 3,757 sq. ft.
COMMON OPEN SPACE:
DWELLING UNIT
DENSITY:
4.8 acres
PROPOSAL
94
na *
na *
na *
4.78' acres
SPECIFIC PLAN
RECOMMENDATIONS
< 104 **
LOT SIZE: 6,048 - 10,627 sq. ft. 10,000.sq. ft. * **
(7,400 sq. ft. average)
* Restricted to an average of 31066 sq. ft. of living area by
City Council Resolution No. 94 -17
** Restricted to 94 units per City Council Resolution No. 94 -17
* ** Accepted in this configuration by City Council based on unique
configuration /benefit of I'loopl, linear open space plan
File No. PD -94 -002; 13150 Saratoga Ave.
PROJECT DISCUSSION:
overview:
The Greenbriar Homes Company has recently submitted a Planned
Development -Final Plan application to build 94 single family
detached homes at the former Paul Masson Winery site. The
following brief chronology of site activity is provided as
background information for_the new Planning Commissioners:
• Following the winery's closure in 1985, the City initiated
rezoning of the property from Light Industrial (winery
designation) to Multiple Use-Planned Development
• In 1988, the City Council approves Dividend Development's
Conceptual Plan to .build 75 residential townhomes on the
northern half of the site, with the southern half devoted to
an approximately 200 unit senior health care and living
facility.
• In 1989, the City adopts the Environmental Impact Report and
approved Dividend's Final Plan. This approval is still valid,
and would otherwise expire in August, 1996.
• Apparent from discussions with Dividend Development
representatives that the senior project will not be built, the
City Council directs Community Development Department staff in
1993 to prepare a Specific Plan for the property. The purpose
of the Plan is to provide clear direction to future applicants
as to what the City would prefer to see built on the site, and
how.
•. Paul Masson Specific Plah is adopted by City Council
Resolution in October, 1993.
• Greenbriar Homes submits a Conceptual Development Plan to
build 95 detached homes on the site in January, 1994.
• During public hearings, the Planning Commission and Greenbriar
Homes reach an impasse on details of the proposal. A primary
concern raised by a majority of the Planning Commissioners was
with regard to the large homes on relatively small parcels.
• Greenbriar then appeals the project to the City Council. The
City Council approves a modified Conceptual Plan.in April,
1994.
Large numbers of neighbors spoke in favor of the Greenbriar Homes
proposal at both the Planning Commission and City Council public
hearings. Petitions submitted at those meetings have been
resubmitted with this.packet at the request of those neighbors.
File No. PD -94 -002; 13150 Saratoga Ave.
Conceptual Plan v. Final. Plan:
The Multiple Use - Planned Development (MU -PD) Zoning Ordinance
requires that a preliminary Conceptual 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. 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.
This Final Plan application is for final environmental analysis and
project consideration of the 94 single family homes. Compliance
with the approved Conceptual Plan does not guarantee approval of
the Final Plan The Planning Commission may approve, reject or
modify the Conceptual Plan based on the findings contained in the
MU -PD Zoning Ordinance and reiterated in the attached Resolution.
Environmental Initial Study:
Pursuant to CEQA and the MU -PD Zoning Ordinance, an assessment of
the proposal's potential environmental impacts needs to be
performed at the time of Final Plan review. Staff's Initial Study
could determine that; a) the development would not cause any
significant environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration could
be adopted, b) potential impacts could be reduced or corrected by
adopting a conditional Mitigated Negative Declaration, or c)
potential impacts are severe enough to warrant the preparation of
an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) . An EIR would propose project
alternatives to minimize a development's negative effects.
To assist staff with our environmental determination, Greenbriar
Homes was requested to submit the following Initial Study support
documents:
• Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by DKS Associates (August,
1994)
• Traffic Noise Assessment Study prepared by Edward L. Pack
Associates, Inc. (May 19, 1994)
• Carbon Monoxide Impact Study prepared by LSA Associates, Inc.
(August 12, 1994)
• Fiscal Impact Study prepared by Sedway & Associates (July 19,
1994)
Based on staff's review of the application and the conclusions of
these documents, staff is recommending approval of the Negative
Declaration.
File No. PD -94 -002; 13150 Saratoga Ave.
It should be noted that environmental constraints have been
identified in these studies. The traffic analysis, for example,
identifies the Saratoga Ave. /Cox Ave. and the Quito Rd. /Cox Ave.
intersections as having substandard "levels of service" (LOS)
ratings during peak traffic hours. The carbon monoxide and noise
impact studies have also identified anticipated impacts associated
with the opening of Route 85, and Saratoga Avenue vehicular traffic
(though reportedly at healthful and acceptable levels) . None of
these impacts, however, are expected to be aggravated by
Greenbriar's proposal. From a traffic standpoint, single family
homes would generally generate the least amount. of additional
vehicles onto Saratoga Ave., as compared to other-MU-PD permitted
land uses (e.g. multiple- family, professional office, commercial,
etc.). With regard to noise and air quality impacts, these are
impacts on the site - not impacts generated by development of the
site. Appropriate conditions have also been included in the
approval Resolution to minimize these impacts on future residents.
Development Agreement:
As a condition of Conceptual Plan approval, the City Council wanted
to see some type of agreement with Greenbriar Homes ensuring that
this proposal would be built as approved and in a'timely manner.
City. staff is currently reviewing /preparing a draft Development
Agreement which would ensure the following:
• The development is constructed as approved.
• Improvement requirements, such as dedicating the common open
space for public use, paying the approximately $767,000 in
required public park maintenance fees and contributing towards
the various intersection and median improvements, would be
guaranteed.
• Improvements would occur in a sequence beneficial to the
community. For example, perimeter landscape and pedestrian
improvements would be required to be completed before home
construction could begin.
• Guarantees Greenbriar Homes 10 years to complete the project.
This Development Agreement would be finalized and presented to the
Planning Commission separately at a later date. Approval of the
Final Plan would be contingent on the Planning Commission and City
Council acceptance of the Development Agreement.
Phased Development:
Greenbriar Homes is requesting approval to construct the
development in two phases. As indicated on the Tentative Map,
Exhibit "A ", Phase 1 includes the northern half of the site and
File No. PD -94 -002; 13150 Saratoga Ave.
Phase 2 the southern half. This proposal is acceptable to City
staff, with the requirement that perimeter improvements. are
completed prior to construction of homes for either phase.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the information received to date, staff is anticipating
recommending approval of the application and the environmental
Negative Declaration with the conditions contained in the draft
Resolution. If no new information is submitted which would effect
staff's environmental analysis, staff would recommend continuing
the public hearing to September 28, 1994 to adopt the Planned
Development -Final Plan approval Resolution and the environmental
Negative Declaration.
CITY OF SARATOGA
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY: CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING
POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
PROJECT: 94 -Lot Single- Family Planned Development FILE NO: PD -94 -002
LOCATION: 13150 Saratoga Ave. (northeast corner of Route 85)
I.
1. Name of Proponent: Greenbriar Saratoga Road Company
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent:
Carol Meyer c/o Greenbriar Saratoga Road Company
4340 Stevens Creek Blvd. #275
San Jose, CA 95129
3. Date.of Checklist Submitted: August 15, 1994
4. Agency Requiring Checklist: City of Saratoga
5. Name of Proposal: (none at this time)
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Unstable earth conditions or in changes in
geologic substructures?
X
b.
Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
over - crowding of the soil?
X
C.
Change in topography or ground surface relief
features?
X
d.
The destruction, covering or modification of
any unique geologic or physical features?
X
e..
Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site?
X
f.
Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a river or
stream or the bed of a lake?
X
g.
Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud -
slides, ground failure or similar hazards?
X
YES MAYBE NO
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Substantial air emissions.or deterioration of
ambient air quality?
X
b.
The creation of objectionable odors?
X
C.
Alteration of air movement, moisture or temp-
erature, or any change in climate, either
locally or regionally?
X.
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Changes in currents, or the course or
direction of water movements in fresh water?
X
b.
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff?
X
c.
Alterations to the course.or flow of flood
waters?
X
d.
Change in the amount of surface water or any
water in any water body?
X
e.
Discharge into surface waters, or in any altera-
tion of surface water quality, including but not
limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity?
X
f.
Alteration of the direction or rate of flow or
ground waters?
X
g.
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an-aquifer by cuts or
excavations?
X
h.
Substantial reduction in the amount of water
otherwise available for public water supplies?
X
i.
Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding?
X
j.
Significant changes in the temperature, flow, or
chemical content of surface thermal springs?
X
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species, or number of any
species of plants (including trees, shrubs,
grass crops, and aquatic plants)?
X
5.
6.
7.
8.
0
YES MAYBE NO
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of plants?
C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area,
or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
X
X
X
Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of
any species of animals (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish, or insects)? X
b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of animals? X.
C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area
or result in .a barrier to the migration or
movement of animals? X
d. Deterioration to existing wildlife or fish
habitat? X
Noise. Will the proposal. result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? X
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X
Light and Glare. Will the.proposal produce new,
light or glare? X
While 94 detached single family homes will generate a
certain amount of residential and street lighting, it
will not be to the degree which would be considered an
environmental impact. Single family development of
the site would likely generate the least light or glare
of all the various land uses permitted.under the MU -PD
zoning classification for this site.
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial
alteration of the present or planned land use of an
area? X
The site was previously developed with a light industrial
land use - the former Paul Masson winery. The now vacant
property is now proposed to be developed with single
family homes. This is not 'a substantial alteration to either
the previous or planned use of the site.
YES MAYBE NO
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources? X
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable - natural
resource? X
10. Risk of Upset. Will the,proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the
event of an accident or upset conditions. X
b. Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or an emergency evacuation plan? X
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area? X
The development will provide 94 new single family homes.
While this is a change from the site's previous use, it
is not a substantial population alteration.
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional housing? X
13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result
in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular
movement? X
According to the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by DRS
Associates (dated August 1994) for the project, the 94 new
homes will generate 900 vehicular trips per day, with 72 trips
occurring during the A.M. peak hour and 96 trips occurring
during the P.M. peak hour. Their analysis concludes that
the project would not cause any of the study area intersections
to operate below an acceptable level.
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
X
c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation
systems? X
0
YES MAYBE NO
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation
or movement of people.and /or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazardous to motor vehicles,
bicyclists,or pedestrians?
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern-
mental services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
C. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
f. Other governmental services?
The 94 new homes will require additional public services.
However, all applicable service providers have.been
notified of this proposed development and have responded
that sufficient - public services are available.
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing
sources of energy, or require the development
of new sources of energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for
new systems, or substantial alterations to the following
utilities?
a. Power or natural gas?
b. communications system?
C. Water?
d.. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
YES MAYBE NO 1
f. Solid waste and disposal? X
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)? X
b.. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc-
tion of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or
will the proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact
upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational
opportunities? X
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result.in the alteration of or
the destruction of a prehistoric or historic
archeological site? X
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or
aesthetic effects to a.prehistoric or historic
building, structure, or object? X
C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a
physical change which would affect unique ethnic
cultural values?
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or
sacred uses within the potential impact area? X
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance:
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish
wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or
prehistory? X
YES MAYBE NO
b. Does.the project have the potential to achieve
short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term,
environmental goals? (A.short -term impact on
the environment is one which occurs in a rela-
tively brief, definitive period of time while
long -term impacts will endure well into the
future) . X
C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or
more separate resources where the impact on each resource is
relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those
impacts on the environment is significant).
X
d. Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly? X
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Refer to Staff Report (and attached Exhibits "B" through "E",
incorporated by reference) to Saratoga Planning Commission dated
September 14, 1994.
IV. DETERMINATION:
DATE
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
_X_ I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will'be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect
in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
SIGNATURE
For: PAUL L. CURTIS
Community Development Director
RESOLUTION NO. 44 -17
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA GRANTING AN APPEAL FROM
THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
PD -94 -001, GREENBRIAR.DEVELOPMENT COMPANY;
FORMER PAUL MASSON WINERY, 13150 SARATOGA AVENUE
WHEREAS, Greenbriar Development Company, the applicant, has
applied for conceptual development plan approval for development
of a 24 acre site in the MU -PD zoning district with 95 single
family detached residences; and
WHEREAS, on March 8, 1994, the Planning Commission of the
City of Saratoga held a duly noticed public hearing on said
application at which time all interested parties were given a
full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and
following the conclusion thereof, the Planning Commission, denied
the application; and
WHEREAS, applicant has appealed the denial of the Planning
Commission to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on April 6, 1994, the City Council'(Councilmember
Monia being absent) conducted a de novo public hearing on the
appeal at which time any person interested in the matter was
given a full opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the staff
report, minutes of proceedings conducted by the commission
relating to the application, and the written and oral evidence
presented to the City Council in support of and in opposition to
the appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Saratoga as follows:
A. By a split vote (Councilmember Anderson voting in
opposition) the appeal from the Planning Commission is hereby
granted and the decision of the Planning Commission is reversed,
to wit: the applicant has met the burden of proof required to
support the application and the following findings have been
determined:
The conceptual development plan, subject to the conditions
set forth herein is consistent with the Goal.Statements and
Implementation Measures for density, circulation, development
April 14, 1994
273 \res \grebriar.res 1
regulations, greenbelt buffering and common greens and
landscaping, as set forth in the "Paul Masson Specific Plan ",
adopted by the City Council on October 6, 1993.
The conceptual development plan, subject to the.conditions
set forth herein is consistent with the purposes and objectives
established for the MU -PD zoning district.
B. The application of Greenbriar Development Company for
Conceptual Development Plan Approval be and the same is hereby
granted subject to the following conditions:
1. The Final Development Plan shall be substantially
in compliance with the approved Conceptual
Development Plan, including, but not limited to,
the following design parameters:
a. The Residential -Low Density plan shall not
include more than 94 single family detached
residences.
b. The internal loop road shall not be less than
28 ft. in paved width; allowing parking along
one side of the road only. Cul -de -sacs shall
be a full 36 ft. in paved width to allow
parking along both sides.
C. The average home size shall not exceed 3,066
sq. ft. (excluding the garages).
d. Residences shall not exceed 26 ft. in height.
e. Future homes shall maintain a minimum
side -yard setback of 5 ft. from.property
lines and a minimum separation of 11 ft. from
structure to structure. At least 25% of the
homes shall have a minimum.distance of 12 ft.
between them on one side and at least 24% of
the homes shall have a minimum distance of 13
-ft. between them on one side.
f. Front yard setbacks shall be 20 ft. as
measured to.the front 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. These setbacks may be increased if
deemed necessary by the City in order to,
provide sufficient on -site vehicular apron
parking. "
April 14, 1994
273 \res \grebriar.res 2
2. The Final Development Plan shall incorporate, at a
minimum, the following common open space
requirements:
a. 4.78 acres of common open space. This 4.78
acres shall not include any of the
landscaped /open space areas within the
Saratoga Avenue or McFarland Avenue public
rights -of -way.
b. The Saratoga Avenue perimeter greenbelt
buffer shall be extended to include McFarland
Avenue.
c. • A pedestrian walkway connection /open space
feature shall be provided at the northeast
corner of the site (within the vicinity of
lots #12 and #13) to allow pedestrian
circulation through this portion of the
property to McFarland Avenue. This feature
shall be similar in design to the proposed
pedestrian connection at Afton Avenue and
shall be a minimum of 20 to 40 ft. in width.
3. The applicant /property owner shall pay park-in -
lieu fees, as established by City Council
Resolution, for each of the 94. lots.
4. As a condition of Final Plan approval, the
applicant /property owner shall enter into a
development agreement to ensure that the entire
development is completed.
5. All requirements for Final Plan submittal
contained in the Multiple Use - Planned Development
(MU -PD) zoning ordinance shall apply, including,
but not limited to:
a. An economic analysis of the development in
terms of cost and revenue to the City.
b. Any environmental support documentation
deemed necessary by City staff.
The conceptual development plan approval only constitutes an
indication that the City is initially receptive to the proposed
development and is willing to consider the project in more
detail. This approval confers no vested rights or other rights
April 14, 1994
273 \res \grebriar.res 3
upon the applicant to proceed with the project and the City may
hereafter reject the final development plan even though it
complies with the approved conceptual plan.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Saratoga held on the 20th day of Apri 1
1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Anderson, Burger, Kohler, Monia and Mayor Tucker
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
Deputy City Cler
April 14, 1994
273 \res \grebriar.res 4
—14ayor
RESOLUTION NO. 94 -17
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA GRANTING AN APPEAL FROM
THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
PD -94 -001, GREENBRIAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY;
FORMER PAUL MASSON WINERY, 13150 SARATOGA AVENUE
WHEREAS, Greenbriar Development Company, the applicant, has
applied for conceptual development plan approval for development
of a 24 acre site in the MU -PD zoning district with 95 single
family detached residences; and
WHEREAS, on March 8, 1994, the Planning Commission of the
City of Saratoga held a duly noticed public hearing on said
application at which time all interested parties were given a
full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and
following the conclusion thereof, the Planning Commission, denied
the application; and
WHEREAS, applicant has appealed the denial of the Planning
Commission to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on April 6, 1994, the City Council (Councilmember
Monia being absent) conducted a de novo public hearing on the
appeal at which time any person interested in the matter was
given a full opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the staff
report, minutes of proceedings conducted by the commission .
relating to the application, and the written and oral evidence
presented to the City Council in support of and in opposition to
the appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the .City Council of the
City of Saratoga as follows:
A. By a split vote (Councilmember Anderson voting in
opposition) the appeal from the Planning Commission is hereby
granted and the decision of the Planning Commission is reversed,
to wit: the applicant has met the burden of proof required.to
support the application and the following findings have been
determined:
The conceptual development plan, subject to the conditions
set forth herein is consistent with the Goal Statements and
Implementation Measures for density, circulation, development
April 14, 1994
273 \res \grebriar.res 1
regulations, greenbelt buffering and common greens and
landscaping, as set forth in the "Paul Masson Specific Plan ",
adopted by the City Council on October 6, 1993.
The conceptual development plan, subject to the conditions
set forth herein is consistent with the purposes and objectives
established for the MU -PD zoning district.
B. The application of Greenbriar Development Company for
Conceptual Development Plan Approval be and the same is hereby
granted subject to the following conditions:
1. The Final Development Plan shall be substantially
in compliance with the approved Conceptual
Development Plan, including, but not limited to,
the following design parameters:
a. The Residential -Low Density plan shall not
include more than 94 single family detached
residences.
b. The internal loop road shall not be less than
28 ft. in paved width; allowing parking along
one side of the road only. Cul -de -sacs shall
be a full 36 ft. in paved width to allow
parking along both sides.
c.. The average home size shall not exceed 3,066
sq. ft. (excluding the garages).
d. Residences shall not exceed 26 ft. in height.
e. Future homes shall maintain a minimum
side -yard setback of 5 ft. from property
lines and a minimum separation of 11 ft. from
structure to structure. At least 25% of the
homes shall have a minimum distance of 12 ft.
between them on one side and at least 24% of
the homes shall have a minimum distance of 13
ft. between them on one side.
f. Front yard setbacks shall be 20 ft. as
measured-to the front 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. These setbacks may be increased if
deemed necessary by the City in order to
provide sufficient on -site vehicular apron
parking.
April 14, 1994
273 \res \grebriar.res 2
2. The Final.Development Plan shall incorporate, at a
minimum, the following common open space
requirements:
a. 4.78 acres of common open space. This 4.78
acres shall not include any of the
landscaped /open space areas within the
Saratoga Avenue or McFarland Avenue public
rights-of-way.
b. The Saratoga Avenue perimeter greenbelt
buffer shall be extended to include McFarland
Avenue.
C. A pedestrian walkway connection /open space
feature shall be provided at the northeast
corner of the site (within the vicinity of
lots #12 and #13) to allow pedestrian
circulation through this portion of the
property to McFarland Avenue. This feature
shall be similar in design to the proposed
pedestrian connection at Afton Avenue and
shall be a minimum of 20 to 40 ft. in width.
3. The applicant /property owner shall pay park-in -
lieu fees, as established by City Council
Resolution, for each of the 94 lots.
4. As a condition of Final Plan approval, the
applicant /property owner shall enter into a
development agreement to ensure that the entire
development is completed.
5. All requirements for Final Plan submittal
contained in the Multiple Use - Planned Development
(MU -PD) zoning ordinance shall apply, including,
but not limited to:
a. An economic analysis of the development in
terms+iof cost and revenue to the City.
b. Any environmental support documentation
deemed necessary by City staff.
The conceptual development plan approval only constitutes an
indication that the City is initially receptive to the proposed
development and is willing to consider the project in more
detail. This approval confers no vested rights or other rights
April 14, 1994
273 \res \grebriar.res 3
upon the applicant to proceed with the project and the City may
hereafter reject the final development plan even though it
complies with the approved conceptual plan.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Saratoga held on the 20th day of Apri 1 ,
1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Anderson, Burger, Kohler., Monia and Mayor Tucker
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
- ayor
ATTEST: `
A., (:! &"'
Deputy City Cler
April 14, 1994
273 \res \grebriar.res 4
city council Minutes 7 April 6, 1994
A. Appeal of Denial of a conceptual Plan Approval to construct 95
single family detached residences at the 24 -acre former Paul
Masson Winery site at 13150 Saratoga Avenue north of Route 85
in a Multiple Use- Planned Development (MU -PD) zone district
(Developer, BA Properties, Inc. / Greenbriar Homes)(PD 94 -001)
Community Development Director Curtis presented the Report dated April
6, 1994. He explained that this item is an appeal of. the March 8,
1994; Planning Commission denial of a Conceptual development Plan for
the former Paul Masson Winery Site located on Saratoga Road at Route
85. He explained that the project proposes a subdivision for single -
family residential development. consisting of 95 houses having an
average floor area of 3600 square feet on lots having an average of
7700 square feet. Director Cutis noted that included in the Council
packet were the DRAFT Planning Commission minutes which had been
approved with corrections on April 5, 1994. He noted that the
corrections were distributed to the Council earlier this evening and
reviewed the corrections.
Councilmember Anderson asked about the subdivision to which
Commissioner Murakami referred on Page 5 of the minutes. She asked
the name of the subdivision. A member from the Development team stated
that the subdivision to which Commissioner Murakami referred was the
Barrington Bridge Subdivision which is a small lot subdivision.
Councilmember Anderson expressed disappointment with the fact that the
Council did not have the opportunity for a site visit to this
subdivision. She stated that she was unaware of the Barrington Bridge
subdivision in Cupertino and, had she known about it, she would have
visited it.
Councilmember Anderson also asked if there was a response to
Commissioner Kaplan's question (On page 7, 3rd paragraph) which
referred to liability of the City with regard to the State's affordable
housing requirement.
Community Development Director began to elaborate on the issues of
affordable housing. Councilmember Anderson clarified her earlier
question by explaining that she was wondering if staff had responded
to Commissioner Kaplan's question posed at _the March 8th Planning
Commission meeting.
Director Curtis stated. that staff had not responded to Commissioner
Kaplan's question and continued his report.
Councilmember Burger noted that a resident of Saratoga expressed
concern to her with regard to the "on -site storm water retention
facility" reference on Page 18 of the Specific Plan. She asked if
the recognition that this must be built was included in the Greenbriar
plan.
City Council Minutes 8 April 61 1994
Community Development Director Curtis stated that at this point in the
planning stage this facility is not noted on the plans. He explained
that this application is a conceptual plan only and the storm water
retention facility would need to be addressed in the final plans.
Councilmember Burger inquired as to how the City of Saratoga defines
common space versus open space. She asked if common space is all
public or all private or if it can be a mixture.
Director Curtis explained that common space can be either or both, but
in this project the design review finding requires a certain amount of
common open space - which is open space to be consolidated and used by
the residents of this project and is not required to be publicly
dedicated or maintained.
Councilmember Burger asked if the proposed linear park or the path is
the required common open space.
Curtis explained that the linear open space does not meet the
requirements of a "park ". He explained that the pathway and the linear
open space along Route 85 sound wall is the design review requirement
for common open space.
Councilmember Anderson inquired as to .what feature of the plan meets
the Specific Plan requirement (Page 15 #5) for traffic noise
mitigation /attenuation.
Curtis explained that the project has not yet reached that point and
that there are various options available to the developer with regard
to meeting this requirement. He noted- that. this issue would be
addressed further along in the planning process.
Councilmember Anderson asked who had submitted the "Suggested
Conditions of Approval" page stapled to the April 4, 1994, letter from
DKS Associates.
Councilmember Burger stated that she believed that these two documents
were probably two different documents. The Suggested Conditions of
Approval were submitted by the developer and the DKS Associates letter
was probably a response to a question she (Burger) had asked in regard
to trip generation while visiting the developer. She stated that these
two documents were probably mistakenly stapled together.
Councilmember Anderson. stated that she would have to assume that the
suggested conditions of approval was a movement from the position that
the developer held with the Planning Commission. She asked if this
assumption was correct.
Staff explained that they had not yet had a chance to review the
suggested conditions which were just submitted. Staff suggested that
the Council defer the question to the developer.
Councilmember Anderson asked about the concerns voiced by Planning
city council Minutes 9 April 6, 1994
Commission Kaplan with regard to the City's position on affordable
housing issues and potential law suits. She asked City Attorney Riback
how comfortable the City of Saratoga should be with making an approval
in light of pressure being applied from the state with regard to
affordable housing. She also asked what the State could do, who could
the state sue over this issue and who would the liable party be if this
project was approved and the State did sue.
City Attorney Riback stated that he did not believe that the State
would file a law suit over any particular project approval. He stated
that he believes that the State, if it does anything, would challenge
the City's failure to have a properly adopted Housing Element. He
noted that the State may challenge and attempt to have the City's
zoning ordinance set aside or challenge the City's the ability to
support the zoning ordinance and /or building regulations. Basically,
he explained, what the State can do is to attempt to prevent the City
from approving (or denying) any projects in the future until the
Housing Element is properly certified.
Councilmember Anderson stated that she believed the developer's
preference for the open space would be designation as a public piece
of open space that is handled through a landscaping and lighting
district as opposed to the piece of land being a private open space
which is owned by the specific community and managed by the homeowner's
association. She asked about the City Attorney's comfort level with
regard to the City not being in the position at a later date as to
having to take over the maintenance of the common ground. She stated
that she would not like to see the City in that position and, if there
was any doubt as to what the future situation could be, she would like
to make sure that the land is designated as private open space to
eliminate any chance of the City having to maintain the piece of
property. She also inquired as to the future residents of the project
challenging the,general public's use.of the open space.
City Attorney Riback explained that there is currently a movement to
eliminate the establishment of LLA's. He stated that he did not
believe that if any action .was taken to change the current LLA
regulations that the change would be retroactive. He stated that he
did not believe there is a high level of risk of this happening. He
noted that with the establishment of any LLA there is a benefit to some
extent to other residents.
Councilmember Burger expressed concern with regard to the residents of
this project trying to restrict access to the common open space.
City Attorney Riback stated that such a restriction could not be
implemented. The proposal for the open space is for it.to be a public
open space.
Mayor Tucker asked if there was an economic analysis with this project.
Community Development Director Curtis stated that an economic analysis
was not yet prepared for this project. He explained that at the time
city council Minutes 10 April 6, 1994
the original development was proposed there was'an economic analysis
done which discussed the revenue generation of the various potential
developments of this property. He noted that residential. development
was the second to the least revenue generator for the City.
At this point the Councilmembers divulged their ex parte communications
as follows:
Councilmember Kohler met with the developer and requested a traffic
study report from the developer. 'He also stated that he had many
telephone calls from the neighbors who expressed some concerns, but
were 100% in favor of the project.
Councilmember Burger stated that she had met with the developer and
received many phone calls from residents.
Councilmember Anderson stated that she also met with the developer,;
received a number of phone calls and she also visited the Blairemore
project.
Mayor Tucker stated that she met with the developer, visited similar
sites, received many phone calls with only one expressing opposition
to the project. She also had a conversation with Councilmember
Anderson regarding the project.
At 9:00 p.m., Mayor Tucker opened the public hearing.
Paul Lettieri, project landscape architect, gave a slide presentation
outlining various features of the project such as the site in general,
the linear park, the cul -de -sac, the streets and their various widths
of 28 and 36 feet, street parking restrictions, the. main entrance
element, landscaping of the development, the pedestrian pathway, the
fence delineation of the front yards, the proposed parks /open space at
the south edges of the development, the pedestrian access to McFarland,
the staggered setbacks of the proposed houses, the interior and
exterior elevations of the houses and the various styles of the
proposed homes. Mr. Lettieri spoke in favor of the proposal and urged
the City Council to overturn the Planning Commission's denial and
approve the project.
Carol Meyer, representing Greenbriar, the developer, addressed some of
the concerns raised by the Planning Commission and the City Council.
She explained that the developer had originally looked at proposing 106
homes. She noted that the number of homes proposed is now 94. She
announced that the proposal now is to dedicate the full 4.78 acres of
open space as public open space and to pay the park fees plus maintain
the park through an assessment district made up of the homeowners of
the homes (in the project) . Ms. Meyer stated that the proposed average
house size exclusive of the garage is 3,066 square feet (100 feet less
than originally planned). She noted that the maximum height of the
structures would be 25 feet opposed to the initial height of 28 to 30
feet. She reported that the developer is now proposing that the
distance between the homes be 11 to 13 feet. She explained that this
reduction was accomplished by reducing the width of the houses and
City Council Minutes 11 April 6, 1994
removal of the lot. She noted that the front yard setbacks would be
between 18 and 22 feet to accomplish the goal of having great
articulation between the homes. Ms Meyer explained that the reason for
these changes was to attempt to address the concerns of the neighbors
and the Planning Commission. She stated that during the Planning
Commission meeting there was a movement to reduce the number of lots
within the development to 75 which the developer felt would not work.
She stated that the project meets all the aspects of the Specific Plan
and the MU -PD zoning and that the project would provide for a logical
transitional use between the townhouses, the highway 85 corridor, the
office uses and the single family neighborhoods. She asked the Council
for their support and approval of the project. She briefly re-
outlined the proposal and answered various questions from the Council
with regard.to the project..
Councilmember Kohler inquired if the developer was willing to write a
subdivision contract which would prohibit the project from being
developed in phases thus allowing a potential for parts of the
undeveloped area to be sold off for other uses. He stated that he was
not in favor of phasing the development of the site.
Ms Meyer stated that the developer would be agreeable to such a
contract.
Goodwin Stienberg, project architect, began to address the Council when
Mayor Tucker explained that the applicant had used up the initial time
allotted for project presentation. Mayor Tucker stated that if the
Council had questions for him he would be called on and that he may
want to. participate in the final statements of the applicant at the end
of the public hearing.
Chris Favero, 19549 Vineyard Lane, explained that she was on the
Homeowners Board for the homes across the street. She stated that the
homeowners of that community support the project as presented by
Greenbriar. She explained that the neighbors want a single - family
development on the site, not a commercial or multi - family development.
She stated that the neighbors are concerned with the traffic impacts,
density and crime and therefore support this single - family development.
She urged the Council to approve the plan and expressed concern that
should the plan be denied the City may loose this developer and a more
intensified use of the property could be proposed. She again urged
approval of the project.
Tom Sloan, 18900 McFarland Avenue, explained that he was initially
leery about the proposal, but after review of the plan he feels the
proposal is good. He stated that Saratoga does not need another square
park and noted that the linear park would help bring the new
neighborhood together with the existing neighborhood. He stated that
although the proposed homes are large, he does not feel they will
adversely impact the streetscape. He urged the Council to approve the
project and noted that the various members of the development team are
renowned and award winning.professionals in their various fields. He
labeled the proposal as a terrific project.
city council Minutes 12 April 6, 1994
George Detre, 19818 Vineyard Lane, stated that he was disappointed with
the Planning Commission's denial of the project and pointed out that
several years ago a project with approximately 283 units was approved
for this site with no mention of traffic and density concerns. He
expressed his support for the project and urged the Council to approve
the project.
Rebecca Chaney, 18859 Afton Avenue, explained that she had been
following the issue of the Paul Masson site for nine years and had
attended the various meetings, talked to the neighbors, and sent
letters with regard to the development of the site. She stated that
many residents are in support of this project. She stated that she is
happy with the plans, the house sizes and is looking forward to the
linear park. She pointed out that the traffic impacts of this project
would be less than any other use of this site. She thanked Planning
Commissioner Wolfe for his support of the project and the other
Commissioners for their opposition toward commercial use of this site.
Ms Chaney explained that she had spoken with Councilmember Monia who
had expressed to her his support of the proposal and indicated that
should this Council meeting result in a tie vote, he would vote in
favor of the project and break the tie vote.
Councilmember Anderson stated that she seriously objects to a
Councilmember expressing support of a project and promising a vote
prior to reviewing it at the public hearing. She stated that she feels
that a decision should be made after reviewing the project and
listening to the public comments. She stated that she thought to
promise a vote before hearing the testimony of the public is completely
inappropriate when that Councilmember has chosen to attend a concert
instead being present for the Council meeting.
E. L. Vincent, 13617 Westover Drive spoke in favor of the project in
general, since it proposes no commercial. He did, however, express
opposition to the plan as proposed because of the exceptions to the
street widths and the lot sizes. He urged the Council to uphold the
Planning Commission's decision. He stated that he did not want the
City to prostitute its building codes and zoning codes with regard to
the street widths and lots sizes. He stated that there are people
within Saratoga who would like to see the codes upheld. ' Mr. Vincent,
in response to Councilmember Anderson's question regarding Mr.
Vincent's position on the project, explained that he would like the
lots to be R1 -10 (10,000 square feet) with or without the open space.
Mr Vincent stated that he objected to the 7,700 square foot lots -
noting that he felt that the project had high density and narrow
streets.
There was brief discussion regarding the formula used to calculate the
average lot sizes. Community Development Director Curtis noted. that
the project would adhere to all building codes and that the proposed
widths of the streets had been accepted by the Fire and Public Works
Departments.
City council Minutes 13 April 6, 19 9.4
Martin Chaney, 18859 Afton Avenue, explained that he and his wife had
fully participated in the various meetings and etc. with regard to the
development plans for the Paul Masson site. He pointed out that 3 of
the 5 examples in the Specific Plan for development of the site call
for residential development. He noted that this proposal meets the
lowest density called out in the Specific Plan and stated that the
neighbors are in favor of a residential development - specifically the
Greenbriar proposal. He stated that the development would be
consistent with and would compliment the existing neighborhood. He
stated that he felt the linear park and the price range of the proposed
homes would enhance the quality of life in the neighborhood. He felt
that the plan mitigated noise concerns and the development would help
to support the City parks and the village merchants. He asked that the
Council approve the project so it may proceed.
Gary Lang, 13172 Montrose Street, stated that he also had followed the
development plans for the site. He noted that the Specific Plan
conveys a desire for residential development of the site and that this
plan meets all the "shoulds" and "shalls" in the Specific Plan. He
explained that the developer worked with the neighbors and the City and
has addressed. the traffic concerns. Mr Lang urged the Council to
accept the conceptual plan so the developer may move on with the
project.
Debra Lang, 13172 Montrose Street, spoke in favor of the proposal and
urged the Council to support the application. She stated that Single -
Family Residential development was the most responsible approach to the
traffic concerns. She stated that the Greenbriar plan was a good plan
noting that the project was the creation -of award winning
professionals, that the house sizes would meet the needs of today's
family, the linear park and landscaping was a smart choice for times
of drought, and that,the plan provides safety to Saratoga with regard
to the traffic, impacts from the new Rt. 85. Mrs. Lang urged the
Council to approve the project.
Nancy Anderson, 13561 Lomond Ct., stated that she had received a number
of phone calls from residents who were concerned with a potential huge
block of stucco and wood houses and the loss of the area's feeling of
open space. She stated,that she was afraid that the project may be
another "Seven Springs ".
Tom de Regt, 9781 Blue Larkspur Lane, Monterey, representing BA
properties offered a brief history of the site, previous owners and
previous development plans. He explained that BA properties reviewed
the Specific Plan, solicited proposals for site development and decided
that residential development would be most appropriate. He explained
that 6 proposals were received, but only one proposal used the low
density option called out in the Specific Plan - the Greenbriar
proposal.' He noted the preference of the neighbors for lower density
development of the site. He stated that based on the Specific Plan and
the input from the neighbors at various meetings, the Greenbriar
development proposal was designed to be sensitive to Saratoga and its
residents. Mr de Regt urged the Council to approve the proposal.
city council Minutes 14 April 6, 1994
Jeff Schwartz, San Marcos Road, urged approval of the project as
proposed. He pointed out that the proposal makes sense and meets the
City and Specific.Plan requirements. He stated that the project would
be compatible with the area and urged the Council to give some weight
to the conceptual plan so the project could move ahead.
Judy Homen, 13159 Montrose Street, explained that she had followed the
development proposal for this site. She stated that the Greenbriar
proposal offers a unique plan to Saratoga with its utilization of an
award winning architectural firm, the proposed landscaping, and its
park /open space element. She stated that the project has really put
a sense of community into Saratoga with the overwhelming support it has
received from the residents. She noted that if the Council, as elected
officials, truly represent the residents they will acknowledge the
desire of the community to have this development and will approve the
project.
Art Bliss, 12430 Curry Ct. , pointed out that no variances are being
pursued for this project. He urged the Council to be responsive to
their constituents and approve the project. He stated that the plan
is not R1- 10.and that there is no need for it to be R1 -10 or meet the
R1 -10 regulations. He urged the Council to give the developer a fair
shake. He recalled the density of the previously approved project and
noted that this plan would be better for Saratoga. He also
acknowledged the expertise of the development team and urged approval
of the project.
Faith Schmidt, 1999 Merrit Ct.,. stated that the development is a
beautiful and desirable development, but with regard to the State
regulations pertaining to affordable housing, the development does not
meet the State's objective of smaller homes in order to maintain
affordability for young families and senior citizens. She urged the
Council in reviewing the project to consider young families and older
individuals and to seek out opportunities for smaller homes.
There was no one else from the audience wishing to speak. Mayor Tucker
asked the audience to indicate by a show of hands who was in favor of
the project and who was not in support of the project.. Four
individuals indicated that they were not in support of the project.
The remainder of the audience (full auditorium) indicated support for
the project.
Mayor Tucker asked the applicant for their final comments.
Carol Meyer,. representing Greenbriar, responded to some of the issues
raised by the public. With regard to Mr. Vincent's opposition to lots
less than.10,000 square feet; Ms. Meyer noted that the lots are only
1.5% shy of 10,000 square feet. With regard to Ms Schmidt's concern
with the size of the proposed homes, Ms Meyers pointed out that these
homes are only 13.5% larger than the standard 3,200 square feet allowed
in the R1 -10 zoning district. She noted that the project meets all the
requirements set forth in the'MU -PD zoning code and urged the Council
City Council Minutes 15 April 61. 1994
to approve the project.
Goodwin Stienberg, project architect, explained that the development
was designed with the Saratoga community in mind. He noted that he
and his firm have worked in Saratoga before and are aware of the
concerns of the community. He stressed that the development is
sensitive to the community and would be an exceptional development.
Mr Stienberg explained that relative to affordable housing, many of
the future residents of the new development would be current Saratoga
residents moving from their smaller, more affordable homes to the
Greenbriar development, thus opening up a number of affordable homes
within Saratoga. He asked for the Council's approval of the project
as presented.
AT-10:20 P.M., MAYOR TUCKER CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.
Councilmember Burger thanked the Planning Commission for their efforts
which, she stated, have prompted the developer to make some of the
modifications presented at this meeting. She stated that she supports,
in concept, an all residential development of the site which helps to
address safety and traffic concerns. She stated that this plan is not
an R1 -10 development, but is sensitive to the surrounding neighbors.
She noted that she initially (at the beginning of the meeting) had some
concerns with regard to the project, but those concerns have since been
addressed.
BURGER /KOHLER MOVE TO OVERTURN THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF THE
CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND APPROVE THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND TO CONVERT THE
PROPOSED PROJECT MODIFICATIONS INTO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. THOSE
MODIFICATIONS /CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ARE AS FOLLOWS:
• THE FULL 4.78 ACRES OF COMMON OPEN SPACE BE PROVIDED.
• THE SETBACKS (SIDE) SHALL BE INCREASED TO MEASURE BETWEEN 11-
13 FEET.
• PAYMENT OF THE FULL PARK IN -LIEU FEES
• REDUCTION IN THE AVERAGE HOUSE AVERAGE HOUSE SIZE NOT TO
EXCEED 3,066 SOUARE FEET EXCLUSIVE OF THE GARAGE
• THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE HOMES SHALL BE 25 FEET (Note: See
change below)
• THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF HOMES IN THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE 94.
• AN LLA DISTRICT SHALL BE ESTABLISHED
• THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE A 20 -40 FOOT WIDE PEDESTRIAN
ACCESSWAY TO MCFARLAND AVENUE WALKWAY BETWEEN. LOTS 12 AND 13
CONNECTION
THE FRONT YARD SETBACKS SHALL VARY FORM 18 FEET TO 22 FEET.
Councilmember Anderson inquired about the portion of Councilmember
Burger's motion limiting the height of the proposed homes to 25 feet.
She pointed out that most of Saratoga allows for a height of 26 feet.
She explained that if the architect was given the additional foot to
work with it may help to eliminate boxiness or bulkiness of the homes.
She stated that she does not have a problem with a maximum height of
26 feet.
City Council Minutes 16 April 6, 1994
There was brief discussion with regard to the point made by
Councilmember Anderson and there was consensus of the Council that a
maximum height of 26 feet would be acceptable.
BURGER AMENDED HER. MOTION TO CHANGE THE ALLOWABLE MAXIMUM HEIGHT TO 26
FEET. THIS AMENDMENT WAS ACCEPTABLE TO COUNCILMEMBER KOHLER, THE
SECONDER OF THE MOTION.
Councilmember Anderson expressed concern with regard to the 18 foot
front yard setbacks with regard to on -site parking difficulties.
Councilmember Burger explained that the varying front yard setbacks
would allow the developer and the staff some latitude during the design
review phase of the project..
Mayor Tucker reminded the Council that their mission tonight was to
review and vote on the conceptual plan and not to deliberate so much
on the specifics of the development.
City Manager Peacock explained that the proposal is very specific with
regard to the front yard setbacks. He stated that the proposal
specifies that the front yard setbacks be 20. feet as measured to the
front property line., except that up to 25% of the lots may have front
yard setbacks of 18 feet if an equal number.of homes have.front yard
setbacks of at least 22 feet. He also noted that the setbacks could
be increased if the City deems it necessary in order to provide for
adequate on -site vehicular parking area.
Councilmember Burger stated that her motion was intended. to include
this description of the front yard setbacks and she asked that staff
include the appropriate wording in the resolution for approval.
Community Development Director Curtis asked for clarification of the
motion with regard to the open space requirement and whether it was
the Council's intent to count the greenbelts along McFarland and
Saratoga Avenue in with the required 4.78 acres of open space. The
Director explained that the Specific Plan stated that the perimeter
greenbelt on McFarland and Saratoga should not be included in the 4.78
acres of open space and since this aspect of the Specific Plan is a
"should not" there is latitude for changes /modification by the Council
with regard to this issue..
Councilmember Burger stated that the 4.78 acres of open space is
exclusive of the Saratoga and McFarland greenbelt frontages.
Discussion commenced with regard to whether the conceptual plan
included the greenbelts along McFarland and Saratoga Avenues in with
the calculation of the 4.78 acres of open space. The Council asked
for clarification from the applicant.
Paul Lettieri, representing the applicant, explained that only the area
up to the property line had been included in the open space
city council Minutes 17 April 6, 1994
calculation. He further explained that the area between the sound
wall and the property line had been included, but not any of the land
outside the property line - between the property line and the
curb /streets. Mr. Lettieri approached the dais to point out on the
plans the location of the wall, the property line and the location of
the curb in order to assist the Council in understanding what land had
been included and what land had not been included in the open space
calculation.
In response to Councilmember Anderson's inquiry regarding the open
space issue, Community Development Director explained that at the
Planning Commission meeting the open space proposal was for 4.32 acres
including the peripheral area. He stated that the Planning
Commission's goal was to increase the open space to 4.78 exclusive of
the Saratoga /McFarland greenbelts. He stated that he needed
clarification as to whether the Council wanted this open space
calculation to include the Saratoga and McFarland greenbelts.
It was the consensus of the Council that the 4.78 acres of open space
be exclusive of the areas within the Saratoga /McFarland Avenue right -
of -ways.
Councilmember Anderson asked about the issue of requiring an economic
analysis on the project.
Councilmember Burger stated that if an economic analysis on the
conceptual plan was a requirement of the zoning code then she would be
willing to add this to her motion.
Mayor Tucker stated that she had asked staff about whether an economic
analysis should be done for the project. She explained that staff had
reported that an economic analysis would be.more appropriate if the
project contained commercial uses. Mayor Tucker reminded the Council
that staff had explained earlier in the evening the economical impacts
this project would have on the City. She stated that if no. one had any
major concerns with staff explanation, she was happy with this
approach, but felt that it should be in writing.
Councilmember Burger again stated that'she would to add to her motion
a requirement for an economic analysis.
Councilmember Anderson stated. that if an economic analysis was going
to be considered at all it should be considered before the Council
makes a final vote on the project. She stated that this is why she
had been concerned about this project from the beginning. She stated
that while she agrees with the neighbors that.the project is ideal,
she is not sure that it would be ideal for the people who are going to
eventually live there because of its close proximity to the freeway.
She explained that she believed an economic analysis would clearly
depict that this project would bring more money into the City if it
were a mixed use project than a residential project. She stated that
she felt the council had a responsibility to look into this issue.
City Council Minutes 1s
April 6, 1994
Mayor Tucker and City Manager Peacock explained that a economic
analysis would look specifically at the proposed project with regard
to how much money the new development and its residents would bring
into. the City, but also how much it would cost the City to provide
services to the project.
Councilmember Anderson discussed the issue of the amount of money this
project would generate in comparison to a project that included some
commercial uses. She mentioned the library tax issue that will appear
on the upcoming ballot and reiterated that the amount of money that
will be generated by the project will be small and that the rest of the
City would either have to accept additional taxes or possibly less
services.
Councilmember Burger noted that Saratoga is primarily a residential
community and with a residential community their are certain
constraints present because of the lack of a large number of commercial
areas. She noted that there are empty commercial buildings all over
town and that Saratoga is primarily a residential community. She
stated that she would be willing to amend ,,her motion to include an
economic analysis of the project.
Councilmember Kohler explained his second of the motion by recalling
the development of the Specific Plan for the site and the purposes of
the Specific Plan. He noted that the project comes close to R1- 10,000
standards and that the project has received overwhelming support by the
citizens of Saratoga and also provides cohesiveness to the
neighborhood. He stated that he felt that if Saratoga looked toward
a higher density, a senior housing project or an alternative housing
project on the site it would be a lose /lose situation for Saratoga and
its residents.
COUNCILMEMBER BURGER AMENDED HER MOTION SO THAT LANGUAGE BE INCLUDED
IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WHICH REQUIRES THE PROJECT TO BE DEVELOPED
AS A WHOLE AND NOT IN PHASES. COUNCILMEMBER KOHLER (SECONDER OF THE
MOTION) ACCEPTED THIS AMENDMENT.
Councilmember Anderson expressed a desire to resolve the issue of
private versus public ownership of the common space.
City Manager Peacock stated that he did not feel that this issue had
to be decided tonight and explained that the; issue would be resolved
in the final plans of the development. He stated-that an alternative
that has not yet been considered, but which has been used previously,
is that the City does not take a fee simple interest in the property,
but instead (the City) has an easement for open space which allows it
to be in an LLA -1, allows the City to spend the money, allows the City
to maintain it etc., but also it (the easement) can be abandoned and
the City can quit claim deed the easement back to the Homeowners
Association.
Councilmember Anderson asked if this was the point at which to require
a Homeowners' Association. She also noted that she did not know if the
City Council Minutes 19 April 6, 1994
developer had intended for there to be a homeowners' association under
the scenario where there would be a public park.
City Manager Peacock responded that the Council could at this time
require a homeowners' association. He explained a 95th lot-would have
to be created that would contain all the open space in it and would be
held in common by the Greenbriar Homeowners' Association.
Councilmember Anderson pointed out that a Greenbriar's Homeowners'
Association already existed in Saratoga and she requested that this
property's homeowners' association be given a different name.
a
v
Councilmember Anderson suggested that the isue of the common open
space be left open to be decided upon at the final plan stagek --
Councilmember Anderson read aloud page 326 of the ordinance and pointed
out that there is more to density than the number of units on a parcel.
She wondered why the R1 -10 regulation should be abandoned in the mu-
PD project. She stated that she did not care for the Blairemore site
which appeared to her to be boxy and close to the street. She
apologized to the members of the public who had called her with regard
to the project and explained that she had literally been bombarded with
telephone calls and had many hours on the phone. She suggested, in the
future, that concerned residents form groups and have representative
talk to the Council opposed to all the individuals contacting the
Councilmembers. She stated that she felt that the Planning Commission
had a good point in trying to require the proposal to more closely
maintain R1 -10 standards. She stated that she would not be voting in
support of the project be cause she supports the Planning Commissions
position and feels that the traffic impacts of the freeway will be so
horrendous that it won't matter what is built there.
City Attorney Riback announced that he had been informed by the
applicant there may have been a slight misunderstanding that needs to
be clarified regarding the applicant's proposal for 94 lots and the
inclusion of the Saratoga /McFarland strip of open space. He suggested
the Council ask for clarification from the applicant.
Per the Councils request, Carol Meyer, representing the applicant,
explained that at the time the project was before the Planning
Commission it was the applicant's intention that just the buffer part
in front of the wall along Saratoga Avenue was included in the 4.32
and now the 4.78 acres of open space because one can walk all the way
around (the project) and it is a meandering walkway and is part of the
site. she explained that none of the right of ways had been included
in the open space number (4.78 acres). She explained that the
developer had intended this strip in front of the wall to be included
in the open space number and to disallow this may squeeze the project
with regard to the 4.78 open space requirement. She stated -that the
Planning Commission did not seem to object to this strip of land being
included in the open space area.
Councilmember Burger stated that her motion included only that portion
City Council Minutes 20 April 6, 1994
outside the wall to the dark line (property line).
Carol Meyer stated that this was fine.
City Manager Peacock clarified that the 4.78 acres is exclusive of any
public right of way improvements that may be made along McFarland
and /or Saratoga.
Mayor Tucker stated that she would be.voting in favor of the project.
She stated that she had really agonized over it and that she hopes the
applicants take into consideration the various house sizes and place
the larger homes on the larger lots.
City Manager Peacock recapped the motion as follows:
THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION BE OVERTURNED AND THE CONCEPTUAL
PLAN BE APPROVED CONDITIONALLY ON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS
• THERE BE 4.78 ACRES OF COMMON OPEN SPACE PROVIDED EXCLUSIVE OF
SARATOGA AND MCFARLAND AVENUE RIGHT OF WAY FRONTAGES
• THE SIDE YARD SEPARATION BETWEEN THE HOUSES SHALL BE A MINIMUM
OF 11.FEET.
• THREE - QUARTERS OF A MILLION DOLLARS BE SET ASIDE FOR PARR
DEVELOPMENT
• REDUCTION IN THE AVERAGE HOUSE - AVERAGE HOUSE SIZE NOT TO
EXCEED 3,066 SQUARE FEET EXCLUSIVE OF THE GARAGE
• THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE HOMES SHALL BE 26 FEET
• THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF HOMES IN THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE 94.
• THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE A 20 -40 FOOT WIDE PEDESTRIAN
ACCESSWAY TO MCFARLAND AVENUE BETWEEN LOTS 12 AND 13
• THE FRONT YARD SETBACKS BE AS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT WITH A
MINIMUM OF 18 FEET WITH AN EQUAL NUMBER OF HOUSES OFF -SET BY 22
FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACKS.
AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS BE PROVIDED WHICH INDICATES THE COSTS AND
REVENUES TO THE CITY
• A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SHALL BE EXECUTED TO REQUIRE THIS PLAN
(AND NO OTHER PLAN) BE IMPLEMENTED IN ITS ENTIRETY.
Mayor Tucker stated that the Council did not have to address the LLA
because it would. be part of the final plan consideration. City Manager
confirmed Mayor Tucker's statement.
MAYOR TUCKER CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. THE MOTION PASSED 3 -1 (ANDERSON
OPPOSED).
City Manager clarified that this motion was to direct staff to prepare
a resolution to approve the application. He noted that the final
resolution would come back before the Council for a confirming vote
under consent items in two weeks.
At 11:02 p.m., the meeting waskrecessed and at -11:18 p.m. the meeting
was reconvened.
B. Animal Control ordinance (second reading and adoption) providing.
October 6, 1994
Members of the City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Councilmembers,
We, the residents of The Vineyards at Saratoga strongly support the proposal by
Greenbriar Homes to build 94 single family homes on the Paul Masson Winery 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.
The plan conforms to the lowest density alternative allowed in the Site Specific Plan.
In particular, the home sizes proposed, and approved at the Conceptual Plan stage,
meet the MUPD requirements and the total living area is significantly less than the
Dividend project previously approved. We believe that the proposed development will
greatly enhance the neighborhood.
We urge you to approve the proposed development as proposed by Greenbriar.
Sincerely,
RESIDENTS OF THE VINEYARDS AT SARATOGA
NAME ADDRESS
�L 1 Cr'J y %1 �C- ✓ ,.i 9 J % L �r i . (: 1' %
C>
,625o 7
October 6, 1994
Members of the City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Councilmembers,
We, the residents of The Vineyards at Saratoga strongly support the proposal by
Greenbriar Homes to build 94 single family homes on the Paul Masson Winery 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.
The plan conforms to the lowest density alternative allowed in the Site Specific Plan.
In particular, the home sizes proposed, and approved at the Conceptual Plan stage,
meet the MUPD requirements and the total living area is significantly less than the
Dividend project previously approved. We believe that the proposed development will
greatly enhance the neighborhood.
We urge you to approve the proposed development as proposed by Greenbriar.
Sincerely,
RESIDENTS OF THE VINEYARDS AT SARATOGA
NAME ADDRESS
4 9aaly /,--) Z o'' 1, .
October 6, 1994
Members of the City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Councilmembers,
We, the residents of The Vineyards at Saratoga strongly support the proposal by
Greenbriar Homes to build 94 single family homes on the Paul Masson Winery 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.
The plan conforms to the lowest density alternative allowed in the Site Specific Plan.
In particular, the home sizes proposed, and approved at the Conceptual Plan stage,
meet the MUPD requirements and the total living area is significantly less than the
Dividend project previously approved. We believe that the proposed development will
greatly enhance the neighborhood.
We urge you to approve the proposed development as proposed by Greenbriar.
Sincerely,
RESIDENTS OF THE VINEYARDS AT SARATOGA
NAME ADDRESS
Z �Co
�Q r I
-��� l `f G z S— .✓� /Nx'Y�o �.,��c'z— �Sa`,f'!�7"aC�9-
ra
October 6, 1994 .
Members of the City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Councilmembers,
We, the residents of The Vineyards at Saratoga strongly support the proposal by
Greenbriar Homes to build 94 single family homes on the Paul Masson Winery 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.
The plan conforms to the lowest density alternative allowed in the Site Specific Plan.
In particular, the home sizes proposed, and approved at the Conceptual Plan stage,
meet the MUPD requirements and the total living area is significantly less than the
Dividend project previously approved. We believe that the proposed development will
greatly enhance the neighborhood.
We urge you to approve the proposed development as proposed by Greenbriar.
Sincerely,
RESIDENTS OF THE VINEYARDS AT SARATOGA
NAME ADDRESS
October 6, 1994
Members of the City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Councilmembers,
We, the residents of The Vineyards at Saratoga strongly support the proposal by
Greenbriar Homes to build 94 single family homes on the Paul Masson Winery 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.
The plan conforms to the lowest density alternative allowed in the Site Specific Plan.
In particular, the home sizes proposed, and approved at the Conceptual Plan stage,
meet the MUPD requirements and the total living area is significantly less than the
Dividend project previously approved. We believe that the proposed development will
greatly enhance the neighborhood.
We urge you to approve the proposed development as proposed by Greenbriar.
Sincerely,
RESIDENTS OF THE VINEYARDS AT SARATOGA
NAME ADDRESS
?1/07 V;';-7:1 L rd L a� P
October 6, 1994
Members of the City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Councilmembers,
We, the residents of The Vineyards at Saratoga strongly support the proposal by
Greenbriar Homes to build 94 single family homes on the Paul Masson Winery 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.
The plan conforms to the lowest density alternative allowed in the Site Specific Plan.
In particular, the home sizes proposed, and approved at the Conceptual Plan stage,
meet the MUPD requirements and the total living area is significantly less than the
Dividend project previously approved. We believe that the proposed development will
greatly enhance the neighborhood.
We urge you to approve the proposed development as proposed by Greenbriar.
Sincerely,
RESIDENTS OF THE VINEYARDS AT SARATOGA
NAME ADDRESS
� e �'V
f �
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2506
MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 19, 1994.
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS
AGENDA IT]
CITY MGR.
DEPT. HEA]
SUBJECT: Resolution amending budget for contract landscape
maintenance services for Saratoga Avenue medians
Recommended Motion(s): Move to adopt the Budget Amendment
Resolution.
Report Summary: Attached is a resolution which, if adopted, will
amend the current budget by approving an inter - activity transfer of
$5,085. The funds would be transferred from the Contract Services
budget (Account 4510) in the Parks /Open Space activity (Activity
36) to the Contract Services budget in the Medians /Parkways
activity (Activity 35). The funds would be used to pay for
contract landscape maintenance services for the new Saratoga Avenue
median and parkway landscaping in the vicinity of the new freeway
interchange through the remainder of the fiscal year. The contract
rate to maintain this new landscaping is $565 per month.
The new landscaping was turned over to the City earlier this month
after a 90 day maintenance period. It is proposed to continue the
maintenance of this landscaping on a contract basis rather than
utilizing in -house staff primarily due to limited staff resources
at this time.. I also view this as an opportunity to experiment
with contracting out for certain services traditionally performed
in -house and to measure the cost effectiveness of contracting for
this particular maintenance activity. What is learned from this
experience will help guide future budgetary and programming
decisions related to how the City performs its landscape
maintenance functions.
Fiscal Impacts: The transfer of funds has no effect on the City's
overall budget. The funds to be transferred result from savings in
budgeted expenditures for contract landscape services for the Civic
Center complex.
Advertising. Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The budget
transfer will not be approved and the contract for landscape
maintenance services will not be implemented. Staff will be forced
to curtail in -house landscape maintenance services throughout the
City in order to free up enough resources to assume maintenance
responsibilities for the Saratoga Ave. landscaping.
Follow Up Actions: The budget transfer will be made and the
landscape maintenance contract will be implemented.
Attachments: 1. Budget amendment resolution.