Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10-01-1986 City Council Agenda packet
AGENDA BILL NO. //4/ DATE: 10/1/86 (9/26/86) DEPT.: Engineering CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: CONGRESS SPRINGS PARKING LOT Summary: Bids received 9/17/86 as shown on attached Summary. Low bid of Wattis Construction ($59,193.38) is less by about 14% below engineer's estimate. Use agreement from P.G. E. has not been received but we have terms verbally. They are not onerous and it will save time to award this contract subject to receipt of the P.G. E. paperwork. Fiscal Impacts: $59,193.38 P.G. E. costs. Exhibits /Attachments: Bid Summary. Staff Report. Council Action _X. CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM 41: Recommended Action: Award contract to Wattis Construction for a contract amount of $59, 193.38 subject to receipt and execution of P.G. E. agreement. Authorize City Manager to execute the P.G. E. Agreement. TIME: r _vv= 3 :00p,m. BID BI D SUMMARY- PARK /NG LOT Engineer's h /:mo% 14414/13 t skucfiar, H rnrp r,Stou• "azza ,15/ric /!o F?Qischfts�ciiof7 Ite Description uantity Q Unit it i Amount i Amount Unit Amount mount no Amount CI "Ping 16 1u'p Sum c S. 2,500. ad" 5 340.00 7 380, 4 16 860 '4 4440.00 Grad h- /1u6groc1%19 39,450 s.F. 0.50 /9725.000.25 9,862.5G 0,16 0.2• 7 890.•. 0. s 835.X 5"Asohn Concr 1,240 Ton 35.00 4340 .X32.55 40 362. CU 37.. 45 880. 30." 37 ZOO. 43,400.0 R C. C. Ori vex Jeeress /or! 36 L .F. 15.00 540. 26.00 936.00 24.4 864 •i 4&s 1440..• 36. 'i 1 080.0 Doub le Ye //a u Stripe 95 L F. 1.00 95.00 0.60 57.00 0.4 41.80 1.00 95... 0. 57.00 4 "5o/iciWLii e 511 pe 2 072 L,F. 0.50 4036.00 0.29 600.88 0.17 0.2 5 I 725.Z0 Hark/Al.'s Le9e s 34 Ea. 5.OG 70.0) 5.50 187.00 6,1 20',1. 10. 340. •e 102.00 ""I Concre /e Bumper gars 12 0 Ea. 7.50 900.00 15. 1848.00 /3.. a 560.4 2 040.00 /4, I 1,68040 TOTA L 8/D AMOUNT: 68 66, r 59191,38 62 599. 7 27`20 City of Sar atoga Community Development Department Sheet 1 of 1 PROJECT CoNGaESS ..530,6w vas PA Re UMIVW' ©2 0 'V 0 REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: CONGRESS SPRINGS PARKING LOT DATE: 09 -26 -86 COUNCIL MEETING: 10 -03 -86 At your last meeting I reported to you that we had received bids on the Congress Springs Parking Lot but could not award the contract because we had not received the use agreement from P.G. E. We still have not received this document but we are aware of the conditions. They are: Processing fee $1750 (no cost thereafter). Provide protection of tower legs. Pay cost of providing access inhibitors on towers (cost not known but should be nominal). We expect this agreement momentarily and suggest the following procedure to expedite this project: 1. Award contract subject to receipt and execution of P.G. E. agreement. 2. Authorize City Manager to execute P.G. E. agreement if it is in accordance with our understanding as defined above. `AGENDA BILL NO. i /4 3 DATE: 9/23/86 (10/1/86) DEPT.: Planning GPA -86 -2, C -234 Duncan, General Plan Amendment from RVLD (Very Low Denity) SUBJECT: to M (Medium Density) and rezoning from R- 1- 40,000 to R -1- 12,500: Property located at the SW corner of Glen Una and Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. Summary: 1. Applicant is requesting an amendment to the General Plan and rezoning of 1.9 .acres of vacant property to allow construction of senior citizens homes at the above referenced site. 2. On September 10, 1986, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and discussed the request. Significant protest was registered (see Planning Commission minutes dated 9/10/86) and the Commissioners felt that the approval would changetthe character of the neighborhood. 3. The Planning Commission recommends that the Council deny the amendment to the General Plan and rezoning of the property. Fiscal Impacts: Exhibits /Attachments: None CITY OF SARATOGA 1. Memo to City Council dated 10/1/86 2. Staff Report to Planning Commission dated 9/10/86 and correspondence 3. Minutes of Planning Commission dated 9/10/86 4. Correspondence to City Council 5. Plans AGENDA ITEM (74 CITY MGR. APPROVAL Aaie Recommended Action: 1. Conduct the public hearing, and 2. Approve the Negative Declaration (no adverse impacts on the environment) 3. Deny_ General Plan Amendment 4. Deny the rezoning Council Action Approved recommendation. oo REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: ISSUE The applicant is requesting that the General Plan be amended from very low density designation to medium density and the 1.9 acres of vacant property rezoned from R -1- 40,000 to R -1- 12,500. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the Council deny the requests. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND JUSTIFICATION Staff recommends that the Council concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. The lengthy public protest registered at the Planning Commission meeting reinforced the concept that the proposal is not supported by the Glen Una neighborhood and would set a precedence to allow piecemeal changes to the various residential neighborhoods. Also, the proposal is premature and too small in scope. The City is analyzing the needs for seniors on a City -wide basis for the welfare of all residents of Saratoga. An amendment of this nature is not appropriate at this time and should be considered in light of that analysis, sometime next year. Y uek Hsia P1 ning Director YH /kc /dsc OgU'W cD2 0 'X oC� GP -86 -2, C -234 Duncan, Request for General Plan Amendment and Zone Change at the southwest corner of Glen Una Drive and Saratoga -Los Gatos Road 1 DATE: 9/23/86 COUNCIL MEETING: 10/1/86 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION GP 86 -2, C -234 Request for General Plan Amendment and rezoning 9/10/86 Location: SE corner of Glen Una Saratoga -Los Gatos Road 19645 397- 19-14- 15271 3 97 /4 -12 /962/ 5/0 -05 -/7 /95 _510 -05 19 50 510-05-22 /5234 510 -o5 -04 /525G, 5 o5 03 /6280 510 -05- 02 ."7 -19-13 I/430 5t0 -03 -14 19 62 5 19585 eta oS- sto•o5- 12 11 /0 51o•G5- (A) 19r '510.05 25 (6) 14634- 5 10-0 5 -24 (3) 15155 3 97 19 26 C4) 1515 3 97-/9 -29 510- 0 /9 510- 05 -21 1 1565 510-05 09 15217 C5) 397-19- 30 1 9 511 5to -o5 -23 /9519 510- o5 -27 (3) 15190 397-1 /l (2) 15230 3 97 /0 -10 (l) 1 5270 397-lo -o9 (4) 15 160 397-10 12 DATE: 9/10/86 APN: 510 -05 -033 ISSUES: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: KC /dsc FROM: Kathryn Caldwell APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: GP -86 -2, C -234, Southeast corner of Glen Una Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. APPLICANT: Paul Alice Duncan PROJECT QESCRIPTION: Request for amendment to the City's General Plan to change land use designation from very low density residential (1 dwelling /40,000 sq.' ft.) to medium density residential (1 dwelling unit per 12,500 sq. ft.) and rezone property from R -1- 40,000 to R -1- 12,500 sq. ft. (P.C.) to accomodate a housing project for seniors 55 years and older. 1. Proposal is premature. There is no demonstrated need for senior housing at this site. Other sites are available and being studied. 2. Approvals would set a precedence for changing the designation of a few lots at a time rather than revise the General Plan in the public interest as required by law. 3. The character of the neighborhood could be changed without a demonstrated support for this change from the residents of the neighborhood and in conflict with goals and policies of the General Plan. 1. Approve the Negative Declaration 2. Deny the request for General Plan Amendment per the staff report. 3. Deny the request for rezoning as inconsistent with the General Plan. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Negative Declaration 2. •Technical Information and Staff Analysis 3. General Plan, pages 4 -26 and 4 -27 4. Traffic Report 5. Application 6. Letters from residents s /Saratoga NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 Paul Alice Duncan 217 Oak Meadow Drive Los Gatos, cA. 95030 Executed at Saratoga, California this day of Yuckuek Ilsia Planning Director C 234 File No: GP 86 The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code,_and.Resolu- tion of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no'significarit effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION General Plan Amendment from RVLD (residential, very low density) to medium density and rezoning of property from R -1- 40,000 to R -1- 12,500 (PC) to accomodate development of 8 residences to house senior. Property is 1.982 acres in size located at the southeast corner of Saratoga -Los Gatos Road and Glen Una Drive. Property is a flat lot where services are available. A traffic report has been prepared for the project. No adverse impacts on the environment will result from increased densites as proposed. .LEc_ DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER 19 FILING FEE: GENERAL INFORMATION: 14. Associated projects: CITY OF SARATOGA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT QUESTIONNAIRE (To be crrspleted by applicant) DATE: FILE NO: 1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: E. Paul and Alice P. Duncan 217 Oak Meadow Drive, Los Gatos, CA 55030 2. Address of project: Nnna 1 1S. Anticipated incremental development: None FORM EIA -la Assessor's Parcel Number: 510-05-033 3. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: Rodger W. Griffin, Paragon Design Group, Inc. 405 Alberto Way, Suite B, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 358-3707 4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains: 5. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: Architectural Approval 6. .Existing zoning district: R- 1- 40.000 7. Proposed use of site (project for which this form is filed): 55+ years citizen housing 8. Site size: 1.982 Acres 9. Square footage: 86,325 sq. ft. 10. Number of floors of construction: 11. Amount of off street parking: 11 spaces open 16 garage 12. Attached plans? Yes X No 13. Proposed scheduling: Start construction September, 1986 16. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sires, range of sale prices -or rents, and type of household si :c expected: 6 -3 Bdrm 1.607 so. ft. 2 4 244MitribtlOw 1 2 -2 Bdrm 1,191 sq. ft. 2 it 17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities: N/A 18. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities: N/A 19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project: N/A 20. If the project involves a variance, conditional -use or rezoning appli- cation, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required: Re -zone to R -1- 10,000 to provide needed housing for Saratoga's current senior citizens. Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES NO X X X 21. Change in existing features of any lakes or hills, or sub- stantial alteration of ground contours. 22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. r 23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. Proposed increase in DU /A X 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. X 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. X 26. Change in lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. _X 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. YES NO 23. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. X X X X 29. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. 30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas-, etc.). 32. Relationship to•a larger project or series of projects. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: 33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing struc- tures on the site, and the use of the structures. Vacant site with gentle slope up from Glen Una Saratoga Road, rising approximately 10 ft. to the Southwest corner. Site has been a previous home site and contains both mature trees, young trees and shrubs. Site is annually disked for weeds. 34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the tyre of land use (residential, commercial, etcs.), intensity of land use (one family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.) and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.). Surrounding properties are single family homes of both one and two story. Plant material is similar to proposed site. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements and information presented are true and correct to the best of my know ledge and belief. DATE: gnaturc For: e CITY OF SARATOGA CRITER ?A FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (TO BE COMPLETED BY PUBLIC AGENCY) PROJECT: 1k30/0N? &Mn1 kA 6Mt kl!V4- LOCATION: So-4' ,,O- trne/ p7 sc ams Czt K). 64en I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent: qa 1 i(_c DJ'ICCAA (4-63) 3 ciS Tz 3. Date of Checklist Submitted: 6.- 8 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: 0 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: FORM EIA -lb II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe"answers are required on attached sheets.) 1. Earth. Will the .proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over- crowding of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? FILE NO: 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: '7 ad- M ec-Co'" cA gs YES MAYBE Nc v e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of a lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or region- ally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements in fresh water? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water or any water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? 7• Significant changes in the temperature, flow, or chemical content of surface thermal springs? 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)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? YES MAYBE T 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? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals includ- ing reptiles, fish, or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing wildlife or fish habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? -4- 1 ti v 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? `C!ClL x.� ll'7.Cfd- ,�iiliC A 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposa result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (inlcuding, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? YES MAYBE N b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? C.• 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 governmental 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? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? -6- 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 systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 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? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? -7- YES MAYBE r 6 V 1- 20. Cultural Resources." a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? 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? 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 or 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? 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.) -8- V c. Does the project have impacts which are indivi- dually 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.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION a. ti DATE: IV. DETERMINATION 1 On the basis of this initial evaluation: (D 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. O I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: C LIB,, SIGNATURE y For: �L i,. �'tl< -G /.f -10- (rev. 5/16/80) C -234, GP -86 -2, Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. Glen Una Dr. TECHNICAL INFORMATION /STAFF ANALYSIS COMMISSION MEETING: 9/10/86 APN: 510 -05 -033 APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: GP -86 -2, C -234, Southeast corner of Saratoga Los Gatos Road and Glen Una Drive. ACTION REQUESTED: Recommendation to City Council for approval of General Plan Amendment and rezoning to accomodate development of residential units units for citizens 55+ years of age. APPLICANT: Alice &.Paul Duncan PROPERTY OWNER: Same OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Design review, tentative map ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Negative declaration proposed. ZONING: R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential, very low density) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single family residential PARCEL SIZE: 1.982 acres (86,325) NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: Gentle slope from Glen Una, rising approximately 10 ft. to the southwest corner. Mature trees exist at the site. STAFF ANALYSIS: Applicant is requesting an amendment to the General Plan and zoning to increase densities from 1 dwelling unit/40,000 sq. ft. to 1 dwelling unit /12,500 sq. ft. for two parcels totaling almost 2 acres. General Plan Amendment As the Commission is aware, the General Plan is a long -range planning document to guide the growth and development of Saratoga for the next 20 years. In reviewing proposals for general plan amendments, the Planning Commission should assess whether the proposed amendment is "in the public interest" (Gov't. Code Sec. 65356); that is, whether the proposal has support of a broad concensus and whether the City determines the change is necessary. The General Plan should not be amended merely because a property owner or group of citizens desires the amendment. (General Plan Guidelines, 1983) Significant to the application at hand are: (1.) the description of the Glen Una area of the General Plan (Area I), (2.) the Housing Element and, (3.) the goals, objectives and policies for the City to follow with regards to GP -86 -2, C -234, Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. Glen Una Dr. housing. General. Plan Amendment cont. Area I describes. the predominate land use of the Glen Una area to be single family on lots of one-half and one acre. In keeping with this description, the land use map of the General Plan designates the subject properties RVLD (residential very low density 1.09 dwelling units per acre). The next closest designation is low density (RLD 2.18 dwelling units per net acre), west of Pepper Lane. Although the public has been noticed of the proposed change to medium density, no support has been forthcoming; in fact, several neighbors in the Glen Una area have reviewed the file at City Hall and expressed opposition to the proposal. Staff expects this opposi- tion to be further expressed to the Commission before or during the public hearing. The Housing Element of the General Plan references the Senior Citizens Housincr Needs Analysis and describes the housing units built between the 1977 report and the adoption of the Housing Element in May, 1984. To further provide for senior housing, the City has recently completed an amendment to the City Code to allow senior facilities at the former Paul Masson winery site on Saratoga Ave. Finally, the Planning Department is undertaking to inventory potential sites for senior housing, establishing need and type of housing. A preliminary draft report to the Planning Commission is scheduled for April, 1987, with completion of the report by the end of the fiscal year. The Planning Commission should have this information in order to determine the extent to which the General Plan Housing Element and Land Use Plan should be amended. Finally, the following Goals, Objectives and Policies of the General Plan relate to the subject application: Goal: Goal: LU.8.0 Affirm that the City shall continue to be predominantly a community of single family detached residences. LU.8.1 Existing non developed sites zoned single family detached residential should remain so designated. H.2.0 Maintain and enhance the character, quality and livability of the City's residential neighbors. H.2.6 Maintain the general low- density character of existing single family residential areas. GP -86 -2, C -234 Glen Una Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. Zoni nq In order to implement the General Plan, zoning regulations have been adopted (Title 14 of the City Code) to control densities, land uses and the design of projects in different areas of the City. Typically, senior housing is located in an area where zoning allows higher densities for condominium type living arrangements, without the typical quarter, half or acre lot sizes and accompanying maintenance. In order to accomodate these needs in the Zoning Ordinance, the City has recently completed an amendment to the City Code to include senior facilities at the former Paul Masson winery site on Saratoga Avenue. In addition to zoning laws, specific zone designations are adopted on a parcel -by- parcel basis to be consistent with land use designation of the General Plan. In this case, most of the Glen Una area is zoned R -1- 20,000 and R -1- 40,000, consistent with the very low density designation. (The subject properties are currently zoned R- 1- 40,000 which allows only one dwelling unit for each 40,000 square feet of area.) These specific zone designations are aimed at protecting the integrity of the Glen Una area as a predominantly single family residential neighborhood "which ranges in density from two units per acre to one unit per acre." (G.P. pg. 4 -26) RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above information, staff recommends denial of the requests for the following reasons: 1 Amendment is premature. The analysis of needs and sites for senior housing is to be completed this fiscal year. The Planning Commission should consider amending the General Plan based upon the updated information so that the Commission can find that the amendment is for the welfare of the majority of Saratoga residences. 2 Amendment is too confined. It should encompass a broader area. Only two parcels are being considered for increased densities in an area surrounded by lots that are close to one acre in size. The amendment should address the housing needs of the entire city, as well as the Glen Una neighborhood. 3. Amendment will set a precedence for piecemeal changes to the character of Saratoga residential neighborhoods described in the General Plan. There has been no demonstrated support for a change to the Glen Una neighborhood of single family detached homes and violates goals of the General Plan. 4. Denial of the amendment to the General Plan dictates denial of the rezoning. The City cannot rezone property which would conflict with the General Plan. AREA I GLEN UNA The Glen Una area is bordered by Saratoga -Los Gatos Road on the east, the City boundary on the south and west and Madronia Cemetery on the north. Almost all of Glen Una is developed, or protected as open space. The dominant land use is single family residential which ranges in density from two units per acre to one unit per acre. The northern portion of Glen Una is relatively flat. However, the terrain becomes more steep to the south until, in some places, the City's maximum of forty per cent slope for developable sites restricts potential new development. The elevation of much of the southern portion of Area I is too high to be served by San Jose Water Works and is served by a private water company. County Sanitation District N. 4 sewer service extends throughout most of this area. All sites are served by electricity and telephone service. The Glen Una area contains the Sisters of Notre Dame Novitiate. In addition, there is a church and Madronia Cemetery. The area is served by unique open space and recreational opportunities the Villa Montalvo County Arborteum and Hakone Gardens. Eventually the City plans to expand Hakone Gardens by a little over an acre to provide additional parking. San Jose Water Works pumping station is located on Vickery Lane. Although much of the area immediately adjacent to the City is developed in residential uses, one of the City's Urban Service Areas abuts the Glen Una area at Bohlman Road. The headwaters of Wildcat Creek are found in Area I and meander through it. Concern has been expressed in the area pertaining to the future development of vacant or underdeveloped parcels in the R -1- 20,000 District (Low Density Residential) near its interface with the R -1- 40,000 District (Very Low Density Residential), particularly in terms of traffic increases with future development. Factors such as slope, soil stability, rift zones, access and geologic problems should also be considered before development is permitted. As with other areas, Glen Una is bordered by arterials on two sides. However, unlike most of the other areas, residents of Glen Una have only limited access to these arterials. The collector streets in the Glen Una area are north -south oriented and provide access to Villa Montalvo Arboretum and the Sphere of Influence Park /Hume, Piedmont Lane, Montalvo Road and Bohlman Road. The only east -west collector is Mendelsohn Lane. Piedmont Lane and Montalvo Road are designed and utilized as a one -way pair to accommodate traffic to and from Villa Montalvo Arboretum. Piedmont Lane is a private road maintained by area residents. AREA I GUIDELINES FOR AREA DEVELOPMENT 1. Residential development densities shall be as shown on the General Plan Map, however, if significant geotechnical or traffic problems could occur, it may be required to reduce densities. 2. Provide bike and walking paths wherever possible.' 3. The City, in cooperation with the State, should draw up an overall landscaping plan for Saratoga -Los Gatos and Saratoga Sunnyvale Roads including the planting of trees to break up the tunnel effect of sound barrier walls. 4. Safe access should be provided at Mendelsohn and Piedmont Lanes. 588201/TIS/D- GU:86308 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED GLEN UNA RETIREMENT COMPLEX Prepared For: Mr. Mrs. Paul Duncan Prepared By: Barton Aschman Associates, Inc. July 1986 RECEIVED JUL 2 5 1986 PLANNING DEPT. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. INTRODUCTION 1 Project Description 1 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS Street System 3 Signalized Intersections 3 Surrounding Development 3 Transit Service 3 Traffic Volume and Levels of Service 4 3. PROJECT IMPACT 4. SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX Traffic Counts Level of Service Calculations PAGE 6 Trip Generation 6 Trip Distribution 7 Trip Assignment 7 Intersection Level of Service 7 9 3 1. INTRODUCTION Mr. Mrs. Paul Duncan have proposed the development of an 8 -unit retirement complex in Saratoga, California. The two -acre site, presently vacant, is located on the southwest corner of the Fruitvale Avenue /Glen Una Drive and Saratoga -Los Gatos Road intersection (see Figure 1). Barton Aschman Associates, Inc. was retained to prepare a traffic impact analysis for the proposed project. This report examines existing traffic conditions in the vicinity of the site and describes the impact of the proposed project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed development is an 8 -unit retirement complex composed of four duplex buildings clustered around a central court. The remainder of the site will be landscaped. The complex will offer no on -site meal, medical, or other services so will essentially be a condominium project for senior citizens. Site access will be provided by a driveway off of Glen Una Road. 'a i u VILLA MONTALVO ARBORETUM O SITE GLEN UN N NTS WEST VALLEY COLLEGE ALLENDALE 4v 0 cc 0 SITE LOCATION BARTON ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES. INC. FIGURE L I 11 1 1 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS A description of the transportation facilities serving the site, a description of development surrounding the site, and an evaluation of the current street system operating characteristics are presented in this chapter. STREET SYSTEM Saratoga -Los Gatos Road is the main regional arterial serving the site. It is a four -lane, divided highway from Glen Una Drive east to Los Gatos but narrows to two lanes between downtown Saratoga and Glen Una Drive. Saratoga -Los Gatos Road is also a designated California" State highway, State Route 9, which runs between Santa Cruz and Los Gatos. Fruitvale Avenue is a collector street beginning opposite Glen Una Drive at Saratoga -Los Gatos Road and continuing north to Saratoga Avenue. Fruitvale Avenue has two lanes at its south end and widens to four lanes where it passes West Valley College. Glen Una Drive is a two -lane local street providing access to the hillside homes south of Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. The project would have direct access off of Glen Una Drive. SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS There is one signalized intersection in the vicinity of the site: Saratoga -Los Gatos Road at Glen Una Drive /Fruitvale Avenue. This intersection has separate left -turn lanes and signal phases for traffic on Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, with shared through and left -turn lanes and single phase operation on Glen Una Drive /Fruitvale Avenue. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT Surrounding development consists entirely of single family detached homes on both sides of Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, Glen Una Drive, and Fruitvale Avenue. TRANSIT SERVICE The project site is directly served by two Santa Clara County Transit bus routes. Route 27 runs between Santa Teresa Hospital in San Jose and West Valley College and passes by the site on Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. This route operates every 20 minutes -3- Monday through Friday from 5:30 am to midnight and every 30 minutes on weekends and holidays from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm. Route 54 also serves the site, although infrequently, as it passes through the Saratoga -Los Gatos Road and Glen Una Drive /Fruitvale Avenue intersection. This route connects West Valley College with Sunnyvale; it passes by the site once every hour from 6:00 am to 10:00 pm on weekdays and once every two hours from 10:00 am to 8:00 pm on weekends and holidays. TRAFFIC VOLUME AND LEVELS OF SERVICE Because Saratoga -Los Gatos Road is a state highway, daily traffic volume data are available from Caltrans. According to the most recent published information (1984), average daily traffic on Saratoga -Los Gatos Road is 30,500 at Fruitvale Avenue. A rule -of -thumb value for the capacity of a 4 -lane divided arterial is 35,000 vehicles per day, which indicates that Saratoga -Los Gatos Road is relatively busy. To get a better idea of traffic conditions at the project site, peak hour turning movement counts were conducted at the Saratoga -Los Gatos Road and Fruitvale Avenue /Glen Una Drive intersection. The counts were conducted from 7:00 am to 9:00 am and from 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm on two typical weekdays in July 1986. (The count data are included in the appendix). The counts show that the peak traffic hour at the intersection is in the morning from 7:15 am to 8:15 am. The peak hour traffic count was used to calculate a volume -to- capacity ratio and associated level of service (LOS) designation for the intersection. LOS designations, ranging from A to F, are qualitative measures of intersection performance (see Table 1). Level of Service A represents free flow conditions, and Level of Service F represents totally jammed conditions. The methodology used to calculate level of service is described in TRB Circular 212 Interim Materials on Highway Capacity, 1980. The Saratoga -Los Gatos Road and Fruitvale Avenue /Glen Una Drive intersection is presently operating at LOS C (volume 70% of capacity) in the morning peak hour (7:15 8:15 am) and at LOS B (volume 66% of capacity) in the afternoon peak hour (5:00 6:00 pm). Traffic engineers consider Level of Service B or C to be within acceptable standards of performance. That is, it can be said that traffic is flowing smoothly in the vicinity of the site. -4- TABLE 1 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS Level of Volume -to- Capacity Service Interpretation Ratio (V /C) A, B C D F Uncongested operations; all queues clear in a single signal cycle. Light congestion; occasional backups on criti- cal approaches. Significant congestion on critical approaches but intersection functionaL Cars required to wait through more than one cycle during short peaks. No long- standing queues formed. Severe congestion with some long- standing queues on critical approaches. Blockage of intersection may occur if traffic signal does not provide for protected turning movements. Traffic queue may block nearby intersection(s) upstream of critical approach(es). Total breakdown, stop- and-go operation. 1.0 And Greater -5- Less Than .7 .700 .799 .800 .899 .900 .999 P I 3. PROJECT IMPACT The determination of the amount of new traffic associated with the proposed retirement complex encompasses three steps. In the first step, trip generation, the amount of traffic generated by the project is estimated. Next, the distribution of these trips is determined. In the last step, the trips are assigned to the roadway network based on the trip distribution. TRIP GENERATION The proposed land use type retirement complex is not well- represented in trip generation literature. That is, few studies have been done of this type of development by which trip generation could be accurately estimated. Therefore, trip generation rates applicable to regular condominium developments were used in this analysis. The standard Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) condominium rates are shown in Table 2. These rates probably overstate the amount of traffic that will be generated by this project. Because project occupants will be of retirement age, they will probably not make as many trips as regular condominium owners. For example, they probably won't drive to work or have children that need to be driven to activities. In addition, some may use the bus because transit service is convenient to the site and some senior citizens prefer not to drive. TABLE 2 TRIP GENERATION Daily Trip AM AM PM PM Generation Daily Rate Trips Rate Trips Rate Trips In Out In Out In Out In Out 8 units 5.2 trips 42 .07 .37 1 3 .37 .18 3 1 per unit trips per trips per unit unit -6- Peak Hour Trip Generation The number of new trips generated by the project, under these worst case assumptions, will be 42 trips per day. Peak hour trip generation will be four trips, one inbound and three outbound in the morning and the reverse in the afternoon. TRIP DISTRIBUTION This report assumes that new project trips will be distributed according to the same pattern displayed by existing traffic entering and exiting Glen Una Drive. The pattern is as follows: 60% To /from the east on Saratoga -Los Gatos Road 30% To /from the north on Fruitvale Avenue 10% To /from the west on Saratoga -Los Gatos Road 100% TRIP ASSIGNMENT The new trips generated by the project were assigned to the road network according to the pattern discussed above. Figure 2 shows the expected turning movement pattern. INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE Project traffic was added to existing traffic and the level of service at the Saratoga Los Gatos Road and Fruitvale Avenue /Glen Una Drive intersection was recalculated. The analysis was conducted for the morning peak hour, which is when traffic volume is highest in the area. Table 3 shows that the project will have no impact on volume -to- capacity ratio or level of service. This is not surprising since the project will generate only four peak hour trips. No traffic impact mitigation measures will be necessary. TABLE 3 PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS Intersection Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. Fruitvale Ave./ Glen Una Dr. Existing Existing Project V/C LOS V/C LOS .70 C .70 C It PROJECT TRAFFIC BARTON.ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES. INC. 2 FIGURE 4. SUMMARY This report discusses the estimated traffic impact of a proposed 8 -unit retirement complex on Glen Una Drive in Saratoga, California. The nearby signalized intersection Saratoga Los Gatos Fruitvale Avenue /Glen Una Drive is operating at Level of Service C during the peak hour (7:15 8:15 am). The proposed project would generate (at most) 42 daily trips, including four trips during the peak hour. Because of the small number of new trips expected, the project will have no impact on traffic conditions, and no mitigation measures are necessary. o Traffic Counts o Level of Service Calculations APPENDIX DUNCAN GLEN UNA SARATOGA HWY 9 AND GLEN UNA /FRUITVALE 7/21/86 COUNT TURNS /TEAPAC BEGIN N- APPROACH E- APPROACH S- APPROACH W- APPROACH TIME RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT 700 0 1 35 75 372 0 0 2 1 1 63 715 0 2 42 111 408 1 0 4 1 2 72 1 6 44 44 730 0 0 47 76 464 2 716 745 3 0 39 81 248 9 13 3 1 9 7 116 0 51 90 4 543 3 800 1 0 36 83 378 2 11 6 815 4 2 41 62 218 2- 2 3 117 9 114 1 0 45 465 830 2 3 26 32 251 0 3 2 9 144 6 4 1 5 144 845 2 1 40 30 247 1 4 7 1 483 1 5 1 483 TURNS /TEAPAC 15 MINUTE VOLUME COUNTS: APPROACH /EXIT TOTALS BEGIN TIME 700 715 730 745 800 815 830 845 36 44 47 42 37 47 31 43 15 MINUTE VOLUME COUNTS: MOVEMENT TOTALS APPROACH TOTALS N E S W 447 520 542 338 463 282 283 278 3 5 4 20 19 12 5 12 64 75 123 103 124 124 135 150 EXIT TOTALS N E S 77 98 2 373 116 114 5 409 77 165 9 465 88 142 18 255 90 161 11 381 63 166 11 225 34 155 12 253 38 188 7 250 TURNS /TEAPAC AM PEAK -HOUR SUMMARY FROM 700 TO 845 HOURS MOVEMENT PARAMETER DHV (VPH) DISTR PHF PEAK TIME PEAK VOLM APPR /EXIT PARAMETER DHV (VPH) DISTR PHF PEAK TIME PEAK. VOLM N- APPROACH E- APPROACH S- APPROACH RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT 4 2 164 2 1 96 .33 .25 .87 745 815 715 10 6 164 351 1498 19 80 .79 .81 715 715 351 1498 14 1 .39 730 15 APPROACH TOTALS N E S W 170 1863 48 425 7 74 2 17 .90 .86 .60 .86 730 715 745 800 173 1863 56 533 26 14 8 54 29 17 .50 .58 .50 745 800 730 35 16 10 EXIT TOTALS E g 371 582 43 1510 15 23 2 60 .80 .88 .60 .81 715 800 745 715 371 670 52 1510 550 644 716 503 643 465 454 483 27 6 92 1 .75 .84 .38 745 800 715 34 501 6 INT TOTAL INT TOTAL W APPROACH INT RT TH LT TOTAL 2506 100 .88 715 2506 INT N W TOTAL 2506 100 .88 715 2506 DUNCAN GLEN UNA SARATOGA HWY 9 AND GLEN UNA /FRUITVALE 7/18/86 COUNT TURNS/TEAPAC 15 MINUTE VOLUME COUNTS: MOVEMENT TOTALS BEGIN N- APPROACH E- APPROACH TIME RT TH LT RT TH LT 1600 5 2 69 48 181 4 1615 7 0 37 39 166 8 1630 7 4 46 30 205 2 1645 4 1 49 27 154 3 1700 9 2 43 41 200 9 1715 7 2 51 36 154 12 1730 6 6 59 46 206 5 1745 1 6 45 34 203 7 TURNS /TEAPAC BEGIN TIME N 1600 76 1615 44 1630 57 1645 54 1700 54 1715 60 1730 71 1745 52 MOVEMENT PARAMETER DHV (VPH) DISTR PHF PEAK TIME PEAK VOLM APPR /EXIT PARAMETER DHV (VPH) DISTR, PHF PEAK TIME PEAK VOLM 15 MINUTE VOLUME COUNTS: APPROACH/EXIT TOTALS APPROACH TOTALS 233 213 237 184 250 202 257 244 E S W 11 18 27 10 10 5 5 9 APPROACH TOTALS N E S 330 325 365 280 343 296 399 306 N- APPROACH E- APPROACH RT TH LT RT TH LT 237 953 29 1344 9 37 1 52 .83 .93 .73 .84 1645 1700 1600 1700 239 953 66 1344 S- APPROACH W- APPROACH RT TH LT RT TH LT 6 2 3 0 326 4 6 5 7 2 316 7 3 16 8 2 350 13 7 1 2 0 274 6 .5 5 0 1 335 7 2 2 1 0 290 6 2 3 0 1 388 10 6 3 0 2 304 0 54 51 59 34 53 44 59 37 EXIT TOTALS N E S W 401 359 399 330 383 343 449 355 TURNS /TEAPAC PM PEAK -HOUR SUMMARY FROM 1600 TO 1745 HOURS 6 189 10 180 8 220 4 160 12 209 14 162 1 2 212 15 204 INT TOTAL 23 16 198 157 763 33 15 13 1 4 1317 23 10 7 84 16 80 3 52 45 3 .64 .67 .84. .85 .93 .69 .63 .65 .25 .50 .85 .57 1630 1700 1645 1700 1700 1700 1600 1615 1600 1615 1700 1615 27 16 202 157 763 33 22 27 20 5 1317 33 650 600 686 528 657 563 732 611 S- APPROACH W- APPROACH INT RT TH LT RT TH LT TOTAL 2563 100 .88 1700 2563 EXIT TOTALS INT W N E S W TOTAL 193 1530 53 787 8 60 2 31 .82 .85 .88 .93 1600 1700 1700 1700 198 1530 53 787 2563 100 .88 1700 2563 INT TOTAL 650 600 686 528 657 563 732 611 i DUNCAN GLEN UNA SARATOGA HWY 9 AND GLEN UNA /FRUITDALE EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR 7/21/86 COUNT INPUT DATA SUMMARY PARAMETERS MOVEMENT LANES VOLUMES APPROACH NORTH PHASE TYPE 1 G/C RATIO 0.50 RT REDUCTN 0.00 CYCLE LENGTH 90 OUTPUT SUMMARY CRITICAL MOVEMENTS BY APPROACH TOTAL CRITICAL VOLUME VOLUME /CAPACITY RATIO NORTH APPR EAST APPR RT TH LT RT TH LT 1 1 0 1 2 4 2 164 351 1498 83 27 A4 196 NORTH /SOUTH CRITICAL VOLUME 190 EAST /WEST CRITICAL VOLUME 776 966 0.70 A1= 166 B2= 164 EAST 3 0.50 0.00 SOUTH APPR WEST APPR RT TH LT RT TH LT 1 1 1 14 26 14 8 SOUTH WEST CYCLES /HOUR 40 A2= 26 B1= 8 1 0.50 0.00 A3 ;749 B4 14 CIRCULAR 212 PLANNING 1 2 1 6 392 27 3 0.50 0.00 CRITICAL MOVEMENTS: A(2)+B(2) CRITICAL MOVEMENTS: B(3) +A(3) MAXIMUM CRITICAL VOLUME= 1375 LEVEL OF SERVICE 'C' 1 1 1 1 DUNCAN GLEN UNA SARATOGA HWY 9 AND GLEN UNA /FRUITDALE EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR 7/18/86 COUNT INPUT DATA SUMMARY PARAMETERS MOVEMENT LANES 1 1 0 1 2 VOLUMES 23 16 198 157 763 APPROACH NORTH EAST PHASE TYPE 1 G/C RATIO 0.50 RT REDUCTN 0.00 CYCLE LENGTH 90 OUTPUT SUMMARY CRITICAL MOVEMENTS BY APPROACH TOTAL CRITICAL VOLUME VOLUME /CAPACITY RATIO NORTH APPR EAST APPR RT TH LT RT TH LT 63 23 A4 659 NORTH /SOUTH CRITICAL VOLUME 215 EAST /WEST CRITICAL VOLUME 692 907 0.66 3 0.50 0.00 A1= 214 B2= 198 A2= B1= 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 33 15 13 1 4 1317 23 15 1 SOUTH APPR WEST APP14 RT TH LT RT TH LT CYCLES/HOUR 40 SOUTH WEST 0.50 0.00 A3 382 B4 33 CIRCULAR 212 PLANNING 3 0.50 0.00 CRITICAL MOVEMENTS: A(1) +B(1) CRITICAL MOVEMENTS: B(4) +A(4) MAXIMUM CRITICAL VOLUME= 1375 LEVEL OF SERVICE 'B' DUNCAN GLEN UNA SARATOGA CIRCULAR 212 HWY 9 AND GLEN UNA /FRUITDALE PLANNING AM PEAK HOUR EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INPUT DATA SUMMARY PARAMETERS NORTH APPRR EAST APPR SOUTH APPR WEST APPR MOVEMENT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT LANES 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 VOLUMES 4 2 164 351 1498 15 26 15 8 6 392 27 APPROACH PHASE TYPE 1 3 1 3 G/C RATIO 0.50 0 .50 0.50 0.50 RT REDUCTN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CYCLE LENGTH 90 CYCLES /HOUR_= 40 OUTPUT SUMMARY CRITICAL MOVEMENTS BY APPROACH VOLUME /CAPACITY RATIO NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST B3_= 27 A4 196 i AI= 166 B2= 164 A2= 28 B1= 8 A3 749 B4 15 NORTH /SOUTH CRITICAL VOLUME 192 CRITICAL MOVEMENTS: A(2) +B(2) EAST /WEST CRITICAL VOLUME 776 CRITICAL MOVEMENTS: B(3) +A(3) TOTAL CRITICAL VOLUME 968 MAXIMUM CRITICAL VOLUME= 1375 0.70 LEVEL OF SERVICE 'C' Chairman, Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Chairman, cc Rodger W. Griffin Paragon IECCvV��� AUG 1935 PLANNING DEPT. E. Paul Duncan August 18, 1986 Re: C-234/GPA-86-2 Duncan SW Corner Glen Una/ Saratoga Gatos Road We respectfully request revision of our original zoning application for R:-1-10, to R-1-12.5. We believe that this reduction in density is a significant change and brings our request into close conformance to the surrounding uses. Respectfully submitted, Alice P. Siegr t-Duncan FEE: 1,000 575 COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS: A_ D_ CaCI,D r te": rl NL1mb Name of Legal Property Owner E. Paul and Alice P. Duncan Property Address D. Project Information: C APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING (PUBLIC HEARING) APPLICATIONS SHALL BE SUBMITTED BY APPOINTMENT ONLY Address Present Zoning R 1 40,000 Proposed Zoning R 10 IT Pc— ua to ecc] veuu 1 y» Fr- SL d.., ed /ZS /f CITY OF SARATOGA RFC e 17f 2 I for Environmental Clearance 250 F1D -P5 -0" 217 Oak Meadow Drive, Los Gatos, CA 95030 Telephone (408) 395 -6472 Legal Description (Attach Metes and Bounds description) See Attached B. Applicant's Name E. Paul and Alice P. Duncan Address 217 Oak Meadow Drive, Los Gatos, CA 95030 Telephone (408) 395 6472 C. Briefly Describe Proposal Re -zone property to allow eight single -story private residences for citizens of 55+ years of age. Size of Parcel 86,325 sq. ft. 1.9816 acres Present Use of Property Vacant Proposed Use of Property Senior citizens housing IMPORTANT for Public Heari PLEASE DO NOT SIGN THE FOLLOWING UNTIL APPLICATION IS PRESENTED AT THE CITY OFFICES I, Paul Duncan Alice Duncan the owner of the property described in the attached description, hereby request that R 10 PD zoning be applied to the above CHARLES H. ROBBINS 19348 MONTE VISTA DRIVE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 September 4, 1986 To: Planning Commission, City of Saratoga Subject: GP -86 -2, C -234 Duncan, Glen Una Drive and Saratoga Los Gatos Road. I am very much opposed to the request to rezone the 1.982 acre site at the corner of Glen Una and Saratoga -Los Gatos Road from R1 -40000 to R1- 12500. I was against the origInal proposal to change to RM.5000 and feel the same way toward the present proposal. This property is located in an area that is presently enttrely R1 -40000 with beautiful, well kept homes. This area needs to be preserved, not downgraded by alltwing spot zoning as is proposed. Saratoga is a lovely city largely because of the consistent policy to maintain land use density at a low level. If the property were rezoned to R1- 12500, it would decrease property values of all existing single family homes in the neighborhood. As an owner for nearly 30 years of a home in this neighborhood, I object to such a decrease in my equity. In addition, a change increasing the number of building sitesiper acre would be the beginning of the decline of the neighborhood. If this property were rezoned, many other properties in the neighborhood would request downgrading of zoning. And with the precedent set, additional rezoning requests would be hard to deny. The appropriate use for the property is for a single family residence. The site is large and was probably sized at 1.982 acres originally to allow a single home to be set back well away from the main road. It was originally the location of a single family home and a new single family home should be built there. Sincerely, Charles H. Robbins Planning Commission Ly Liyd 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California, 95070 Dear Commissioners, 1 was veru disappointed to learn of your cancellation of the hearing scheduled for August 27 concerning the property located at Glen Una and Hiway 9 (application C-234/GPA-86-2 Duncan Southwest Corner Glen Una and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road). My wife and 1 have no%, received a copy of the revised application for a 'variance for the same property. We remain strongly opposed to this application and request that the commission take the following actions: Deny the variance both in its original form and in its revised form. The original application and the new version of the application demonstrate the complete disregard this applicant has for the Glen Una area of Saratoga. Both plans call for a complete change in the general zoning that exists in the area in question. This property should contain ONE single family dwelling just as it did when this petitioner purchased it (before they removed the existing house). Do not allow any further delay in the hearing of this application. The applicant knows that there is strong neighborhood resistance to this plan and appears to be planning a protracted process to gain your approval. You should hear from the community. Letters to you from the applicant (Duncan to Dunlap 4/30/66) claiming neighborhood acceptance are simply NOT true and greatly misrepresent the nature of the neighborhood. 3. Continue the tradition that Saratoga will not be subjected to real estate speculation wherein investors buy into desirable areas; demolish existing properties; wait a few years while the community forgets the past; apply for zoning changes and develop high density properties for commercial gain. This is not Cupertino let's not make their error. An application which would allow for the construction of even eight units should be rejected; only one residence belongs on this lot. As I stated in my previous letter (copied enclosed this historic part of Saratoga should not be tampered with by non-resident developers. Very truly yours, E. Hoyt K:vamme 1.9490 Glen Una Drive Saratoga RECEIVED SEP 3 1986 PLANNING DEPT. ember Dear Commissioners, Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Ctoveo Saratoga, California, 95070 SEP 3 19$6 PLANNING DEPT. 4qust 19, i Ply wife and have received your notice of a public: he arin,g c:onc:erning application C 34 /GPA -E;6 -2 Duncan, Southwest Corner Glen Una and Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. We strongly oppose this application and feel that the commission should reject this application ors the following grounds: 1. The entire area surrounding the property in question is zoned for very low density residential. Rezoning this 1.982 acres would create a high density island in the middle of low density d, ^tellings and would not therefore, be consistent will any general plat. concept. 2. Much of the reputation of 'Saratoga as an attractive low density housing area is the result of the fact that as visitors to our city proceed to and from the village area along Saratoga Los Gatos Road, they see only low density residential housing having sizable setbacks from the road. This application would endanger this ambiance for which Saratoga has.been known. There are plenty of other areas in the city which have denser zoning (such as west of the village area and along Saratoga Avenue near the Masson property) but these are not the areas which have established much of Saratoga's reputation for excellence. 3. This application is opposed by every neighbor in the area adjoining or near the property in question. Representations that this proposal 13 acceptable to the neighborhood are simply not true. 4. The present owner of the property can only be classed as a real estate speculator. When the property was purchased, it contained a single family dwelling which had been a Saratoga home for most of this century. The new owner never occupied the horse. Every other buyer in this neighborhood has sought to improve the historic homes which they purchased; this house was demolished immediately after the property was purchased and the parcel has been "for sale" ever since. Surely, the cornrnission does not want to encourage speculators buying homes in the city, demolishing there, applying for rezoning for "vacant" property_ and changing the face of 'Saratoga. An application which d al 1 OW for the construction of .o twenty eight living units on this small, island parcel should be rejected as :spurious. The property in question is not newly improved; it has been part of the Saratoga scene for rnost of Saratoga's history; it has been a single family home site; it is located among some of this city's most historic homes; it should not be changed now to satisfy the speculative desires of a non-resident developer. Please deny this application and maintain the current zoning in perpetuity; its zoning and that of the neighboring properties are part of the historic basis for the !special nature of what has made Saratoga special. Very truly yours, E. Floyd Kvamme 19490 Glen Una Drive Saratoga Lot 397/10/006 F.P J2 1986 19431 Saratoga Road Saratoga, California August�19 1986 3/ City. of Saratoga Planning Commission Saratoga, California Reference: Notice of Hearing- C 234/GPA -86 -2 Duncan, SW Corner Glen Una Saratoga LosGatos road, Request for rezoning from R -1- 40,000 to-R14-574. R -/2000 PD We write to be on record as strongly opposed to any such rezoning as proposed under the Referenced Notice above. The only acceptable variance, to us, would possible be two single damily residences on the 1.982 acres depending on layout. We desire that this Saratoga neighborhood be maintained as now zoned for no greater density than R 40,000. We do not want a Condominium eyesore with the attendant traffic and general (number of people) increase in this entire area. We bought here specifically to be in a rural type setting devoid of Apartments, Condominiums, and crowded housing. It is strange to us that such a preposterous proposal as the Referenced one is even granted a hearing. Since the whole area is R 1- 40,000 or less dense as zoned for many years,,:to even countenence such a proposal sets a very dangerous precedent. We came here expecting to be protected.from' density by existing zoning laws enforced by our City Management.'.: Z 6L-Za)Cd`i .14'v d'f:thd Elizabeth P. Andrus Walter S. Andrus 076 1;7-cam spe, 74 -124Xis7 J yv o-G C ems- /2 GOO No 7