Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-30-1985 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, October 30, 1985 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Senior Room, 19655 Allendale Ave., Saratoga, CA TYPE: Special Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Burger, B. Harris, J. Harris, Peterson, Pines and Siegfried Absent: None Chairman Peterson i.ntroduced the Planning Commission and Staff and explained the process on the Paul Masson property. He stated that tonight the Commission will focus on the ESA Site Development Study, Analysis of Alternatives. The public hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. Jan Newton, ESA Senior Economist, passed out the four summary tables and gave a presentation on the economics content of their report. She explained how they had arrived at the six alternatives and discussed them. She referred to the two summary tables on the economics of the alternatives. Wendy Lockwood, ESA Project Manager, discussed the traffic generated by the current winery operation and that which would be generated by the various alternatives. She showed the effects of the trips on various intersections. She noted that the figures were for the peak hour, 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. Carol Machol asked for the breakdown figures used to arrive at the cumulative figures. Ms. Machol questioned the figures used, since they were done when West Valley is not active. Ms. Lockwood commented that they had recounted the intersection and it did not show a significant variation. She commented that 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. is the worst hour relative to traffic. 'Dick Drake stated that he feels there should be a review of the traffic relative to the needs of the seniors in Saratoga, who do not go to work everyday, instead of using general statistics. Chairman Peterson commented that at some point and time in the process there will be a specific plan and EIR presented, which will address that issue. Chairman Peterson noted that, relative to the figures on page 27, there would not be more than 10,000 sq. ft. of retail per acre, or a total of 160,000 sq. ft. on 16 acres, rather than the 280,000 sq. ft. listed. Carol Machol, Ronnie Way, submitted material illustrating the points she addressed. She commented that one of the things missing from the consultant's report was the impact of the freeway interchange if one were to go in on Saratoga Avenue. She stated that she personally would prefer single-family residential homes, simply because it would lower the density on Saratoga Avenue. She discussed the traffic maintenance figures listed in the League of California Cities Handbook. Ms. Machol also discussed the information given to the City Council by the freeway consultant relative to Caltrans' preliminary projections for 1980. She indicated that it states that the existing traffic on Saratoga Avenue is currently 28,000 vehicles per day, and if an interchange were put in at Saratoga Avenue, it would go up to 55,000 cars per day. She noted that the traffic maintenance figures indicated that a maximum capacity on a four-lane divided road is 36,000 cars, and when it becomes two lanes the maximum is 12,000 cars. She added that obviously we are at gridlock already, and this is not counting any of the projects being considered. She asked the Commission to consider not including any massive project that would bring this gridlock in, simply because they demand an interchange there. She referenced the Caltrans EIR and urged the Commission to read it, specifically relative to an interchange. She commented that it seems odd that a City that is so concerned about Planning Commission Page 2 Minutes - Meeting 10/30/85 neighborhood watch groups would consider an interchange or a project that would bring in an interchange because of the vandalism. Ms. Machol also noted that the report does not cover the emission controls that would be necessary because of park and ride lots, nor does it address what happens to the traffic when it comes off on the interchange. She referenced the paper she had passed out relative to the slump in the hotel business. She commented that she feels that a project in the City that is heavier than single family homes is going to destroy it, and she asked the Commission to please consider this. Kathy McGoldrick, Paseo Presada, discussed three points: (1) What is the rush?, (2) Market feasibility, and (3) Predetermination of interchange at Saratoga Avenue because what is decided about the Paul Masson property. She commented that one reason suggested to justify this rushing of the new zoning and the General Plan Amendment was in deference to the owners of Paul Masson, so they are not left with large taxation on empty property. She stated that if this is the justification she proposes that there are some fiscal modifications that could be worked out that would be amenable to everybody. She commented that she does not see how any developer of property is even going to bid on this property until they know what is going to happen with the freeway. She stated that she feels that we should wait to see what the actual figures are on the Owen property. She indicated that she feels that market feasibility cannot be talked about without talking about the freeway, and if the final decision on the freeway issue is not to be decided, then you cannot possibly talk about market feasibility. On the final point, she stated that in general there is a public distrust of elected officials, whether it is warranted or not, and it would be a serious breach of trust if the decision on the Paul Masson property were to be used as a reason to justify an interchange for the freeway. Joe Parker, of the Vineyards, asked that the multi-family residential be broken into different categories, one of those being the consideration of having senior persons living in at least a part of it. He commented that he feels that the figures will be considerably different if this is done. Richard Drake, President of the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council, spoke for the Board of Directors. He stated that he was delighted to see at least one of the alternatives related to multi- family housing. However, he feels that it needs to have a significantly greater focus than simply a cost revenue equation and a traffic equation. He commented that he hoped the Commission would introduce the whole vital subject of the livability in Saratoga for older citizens. He stated that he feels this subject must be thought through, and this is the last chance that the City has. He asked that the Commission think about whether or not it is much more desirable than the alternates that you have to introduce within the limits of maintaining high quality Saratoga living standards, but at the same time introduce something that will help solve the serious problem of the aging. He urged that some alternatives be considered that would not only be multi-family, but even open the door to some kind of retirement home possibilities. Morris Katz, President of Paul Masson, stated that they strongly support this public review to discuss the ideas for the site. He commented that they, like others, welcome all new ideas in addition to those that have been set forth. He stated that they have not attempted to market the property so as to avoid any intimidation in any direction because of the sensitivity, and they can appreciate the feelings of their neighbors. He added that they are waiting very anxiously for the process to proceed. He indicated that circumstances in the industry have pushed their timetable up for their move. Mr. Katz stated that they do not see themselves strongly in favor of any one particular alternative. He added that they believe for the property to develop a market value that would be satisfactory to them, based on the investment that has already been made in the property, it would probably take a mixed type of usage. He commented that they defer to the City to decide on that type of mixed use. He stated that they offer all of their resources to help resolve Planning Commission Page 3 Minutes - Meeting 10/30/85 the issue of rezoning. Don Skinner, PMC Associates, explained that they are working with the winery on some of the technical questions in the General Plan Amendment and rezoning. He stated that their preliminary report indicates that there is a strong market for most of the alternatives that are being considered. He stated that, relative to single-family housing, there is an indication that there is a strong demand in this area; however, the question has been raised as to what the market would be on this particular site because it is adjacent to the freeway. He stated that they were going to get more information as to whether there is a market for a hotel here, since the people questioned were split 50-50 as to that issue. Mr. Skinner commented that their study indicates that almost' all of the alternatives probably would have a market whether or not there is a freeway off-ramp; however, they will be getting more information on this issue relative to a hotel. He indicated that they would have more information in a few weeks. Mr. Skinner commented that their study indicates that there would be a market for a neighborhood center or more specialized stores. Carol Machol referenced the petition that had been submitted a year ago with 1800 signatures, stating that they did not want an interchange on Saratoga Avenue. She noted what has happened to Los Gatos, where they put in just one off-ramp. Linda Callon commented that she is the liaison from the City Council to the Planning Commission on this issue. She explained the timeframe for the project. She stated that, according to the Council's schedule, they will have made the interchange decision prior to the Council sending out the preferred alternative for a Draft EIR. She indicated that the City Council is holding regular public hearings on the 85 issue, with the next meeting on November 7, 1985. Shelley Williams stated that the deadline for input for the Route 85 Draft EIS is December 6, 1985. Relative to the Paul Masson property, he suggested the use of a specia~ type of discount center, i.e. Price Club. He stated that there would still be area for other uses. He commented that he feels the hotel use would be a good use for the property also. He added that he would recommend that the City keep the options open on freeway interchanges. Chairman Peterson noted that he has not heard anyone speak to tieing what we are doing to a freeway interchange. He commented that he did not hear the City Council suggest out of the six alternatives that we ought to assume that there is going to be a freeway interchange or not. He stated that the Commission is not concerned with that; they are focusing on the Paul Masson property. Commissioner Siegfried added that he is not aware of any hidden agenda, and certainly the suggestion to go forward and consider various issues had nothing to do with the freeway issue. He stated that he thinks the Commission has to obviously consider whether or not there is an interchange there because that has a traffic impact. However, in no way was anybody instructed to give any thought to deciding that something should be on the site that would cause an interchange to be there or not. Michael Denevi' stated that they are proposing the atheletic club concept. He handed out a sheet regarding a meeting for the area homeowners relative to their presentation on November 12th from 7:00 to 9:00 at Paul Masson to present their proposal and answer any questions and take input from the homeowners. Bill Newbower, of the Vineyards, noted that Mr. Jarling, who is Chairman of the California Transportation group that is making the study of the 85 freeway, was not aware that Owen is building on Cox or that Paul Masson is closing. He expressed concern that planning is taking place at such a distant level. Commissioner J. Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner - 3 - Planning Commission Page 4 Minutes - Meeting 10/30/85 Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Chairman Peterson noted that the next meeting on the Paul Masson property is December 3, 1985. It was moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Secretary RSS:cd - 4 -