Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-31-1986 City Council Agenda packetAGENDA BILL NO. O DATE: July 31, 1986 DEPT.: City Attorney SUBJECT: Summary: On July 16, 1986, the City Council reviewed a proposed ordinance which would add a new Article 15 -21, Planned Development District, to the City's Zoning Ordinance, and amend various other sections of the Zoning Ordinance to conform them with the proposed new Article. A public hearing was conducted, completed and closed. The City Council then reviewed and modified the proposed ordinance and instructed the City Attorney to rewrite the ordinance in final form for introduction and first reading at the August 6, 1986, City Council meeting. The requested revisions have been made by the City Attorney and the revised ordinance is submitted herewith for introduction and first reading. Fiscal Impacts: Unknown. Exhibits /Attachments: Recommended Action: Introduce Ordinance No. 71.,5 as revised 7/18/86 by first reading in full, or, upon unanimous vote of the Councilmetnbers present, introduced by reading of title only. No further public hearing is required. A second reading and adoption of the ordinance could be scheduled for a Council meeting to be held at least five days after introduction of the ordinance. Adoption of negative declaration, as per recommendation of Planning Director. Council Action CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM 64 Ordinance Amending Zoning Ordinance to Establish a Multiple Use Planned Development District Ordinance No. 71•.5, revised 7/18/86. Eleven pieces of correspondence received by the City. Negative declaration. 8/6: Approved negative declaration; introduced ordinance as amended. Saratoga Area SENIOR COORDINATING COUNCIL P. 0. Box4.93 Saratoga, California 95070 July 29, 1986 Mayor Hlava and Members Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 The Saratoga_Area Senior Coordinating Council's Spec -ial Housing Committee has reviewed proposed Ordinance 71.5 establishing a Planned Development District and amending certain sections of Chapter 15 of the City Code. This, of course, relates to land use of the site known as the Paul Masson property. We are aware of the tentative changes proposed at the City Council Meeting on July 16, 1986 and understand that these changes, if enacted would: 1. Permit up to twenty senior citizen housing units per acre exclusive of any area occupied by medical facilities (such density to include the bonus required under Section 65915 of the Government Code.) 2. Eliminate the Hotel or Motel option from the site area. 3. Increase the maximum site area use for senior citizen housing from 30% to 50 In order to assist your deliberations on this important legislation, we have further analyzed our recommended configuration for a pos- sible C.C.R.C. (Continuing Care Retirement Community) which may be incorporated in the site plan. We have also developed a dimension- al concept for the residence facility in order to test the feasi- bility of the currently proposed ordinance provisions. Reduced to its simplest form, an optimum 200 dwelling unit plan would require an average of 1,062.5 square feet each (see footnote below.) The basic residence construction would require 212,500 sq.ft. Auxiliary construction would consist of: Dining Room and Kitchen areas 3,500 Corridors and Ramps (assumes no elevators) 23,000 Recreation Room, Library, Conference and Admin- istrative space 5.000 Total requirement excluding medical facility....244,000 Note: Basic residence consists of: 80 units 750 sq.ft. each 60,000 sq.ft. 80 units @1200 sq.ft. each 96,000 sq.ft. 40 units @1412.5 each 56,500 sq.ft. Totals 200 212,500 Complete details of these and all other estimates are available. -2- It is assumed that a two -story configuration would be used and thus the ground area to be covered would be. 122,000 sq.ft. If a garage cannot be economically located beneath the residential buildings then asphalt covered surface for parking will be required at one and one half spaces per dwelling unit or 300 X 350 sq.ft. each or 105,000 sq.ft. It is also estimated a medical facility consisting of 18, two bed units to accommodate 36 patients (125 sq.ft. per bed) plus nurses station, restrooms, examining room and dispensary would require 5,000 sq.ft. Thus, total impervious area required would be 232,000 sq.ft. This compares with the maximum net site coverage to be per- mitted if ten acres are used for the project of 400,000 sq.ft. (10.x 40,000 sq.ft. per acre) x 60% or 240,000 sq.ft. This leaves a comfortable 8,000 sq.ft. for walkways, any other impervious surfaces and estimating variances. Further, this analysis assumes use of only ten acres for this usage rather than thirteen which would be possible under the 50% limit for senior citizen housing. We believe, therefore, that your current requirements will, indeed, permit the development of a facility which will be viewed as a quality community. We, of course, look forward to the determin- ation that such a program is economically realistic as the site is configured by prospective developers. We are aware that some uncertainty could ensue if a developer should choose to maximize use of the existing buildings on the site and propose a configuration within the site area limits but excluding any senior_ housing complex (e.g., all single or multi family. dwellings, retail or personal service establish- ments, offices, athletic facility or school.) Such a proposal might be difficult to deny after the expenditure of large sums for design which are fully within the ratios set forth in the ordinance. To preclude this, you may wish to specify that a senior housing complex using up to 50% of the site, shall be made an integral part of the development with the other uses made optional as stated. This would establish the basic char acter the P.D. and provide important direction to the Develop- ment community. There appears to be wide community acceptance for this form of land use. We appreciate this opportunity to clarify our views and to assist on this matter which is of vital importance to the future of Saratoga. ectfully, Ber oevs, Chairman Special Housing Committee cc:`iiarry Peacock, City Manager Ann Marie Burger, Chair, Planning Commission Respectfully submitted, Saratoga, California July 24, 1986 Re: Paul Masson Property 1986 5 City Council City of Saratoga Saratoga, California Honorable ladies and gentlemen: I would like to have you consider a point that I feel is absolutely crucial in the proposed ordinance pertaining to the above property; that being the the variety of allowable uses and the percentagejln the proposed ordinance. There are 6 categories of allowable uses, totaling 205 Since 100% is the maximum'a developer could legally come up with the 100% wiLth NO residential devel�,®ent, as follows: Office 15% Retail 15% Athletic Facil. 25% School 45% 100% All allowable How can the Planning Commission or the City Council legally say "We don't like it, go back to the drawing boards What is needed is an absolute minimum of residential development, including sensor citizen housing. I would suggest 50`e -607o depending on how important you consider thisAtem. Since Saratoga was levatied on the premise that we would have an essentially residential community and since the city has developed along that line, it is important that residential single family, multiple family and senior housing be the mainstay of any development. It is unfair to both the citizenry and a potential developer to be given guidelines that are so vague and so broad that it would take months and years of haggling to come up with a mutually satisfactory plan. Planning Commissions and city councils should do the advance planning that tell developers what the land can or must be used for. Any planned development, which has residential as a must, will still give the city complete control over any project. In conclusion, I consider it imperative that any developer must include a large percentage of the property as residential under any development mix. MILES RANKIN PS: Is it possible to have reserved 1.12 acres for mass transit parking: It is bound to come one of these years. cc January 30, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Saratoga. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mayor Clevenger: We have been watching with great interest the plans for the Paul Masson property. We were very happy _to_learn that there is a possibility that there might be some form of senior citizen housing. In the past I have responded to a number of surveysregarding senior citizen housing in the City of Saratoga. We have lived in Saratoga 22 years and think it is the perfect place to live. We would like to spend the rest of our lives here. My husband is 70 and I will be 67. We shop here, have our doctors here, go to Sacred Heart Church. We love the peace and quiet. However, we will be forced to sell our home in the future (not to distant future), because our income has been so drastically reduced because of retirement in 1972 and the cost of living continuously on the rise. We would hate to have to move to an area where we would have to put bars on the windows and be afraid to go out at night. If there is any kind of a waiting list for housing we would like to be considered. Will you please let us know where we could go to apply for such housing or where to go to be put on a list? At the present time there is a waiting list of at least three years for housing for seniors in most areas. I sincerely hope that in the final. plans for the _Masson property there will be some form of housing for seniors that are presently living in. Saratoga and wish to stay here. Sincerely, DOROTHY STEPHAN (Mrs. Erich Stephan) t 41 :t i.. C.t 146 '&-d og 7 7C i' _,e,-4. lUctie ,c,6,6ed r.,2 r,af_j le.(t,t64-ot-4 ,6--e/Letel-,72- 4 .e--(eLm,6-6___ r t e x n 9. e a t, ei 4 9 r i ttz?.... w n Div ri („et- V I A f'6-d f i 11 i 4L,L _At 62 6- 1 /40---e-- __.11,e-?- itet., 4-ei-Ztr 1 i Q--diee i c-e_C-_- 0 1 J F G wit i g,,ft. o L e CD c Cth CSR so-to l G7t3... �J \r\\?.). EN\Cb 1 �P 4 6 %L f 7 ?L l� i: c— .ella�t .rzc r -d�Q V a k r-� "'r.:. JLa. i 1 fq?--- 7 11.;\ G e4 h-( �t -e'L"' Ms. Marty Cleavenger Mayor of Saratoga Saratoga City Council Saratoga, Ca 95070 Dear Ms. Cleavenger and Council Members: Enclosed are two articles from the Saratoga Advocate Newspaper. After reviewing them, I hope you would agree with my chagrin that our teenage children must leave the area to find an appro- priate setting for their Proms. Perhaps one alternative to the Paul Masson land would be a Saratoga Pavilion, much like the Concord Pavilion. It could be multi purpose and developed into a park, house a large outdoor and indoor dance floor plus amphitheater. With proper management, large bands and'celebri- ties could be brought in, much like the Gaul Masson concerts in the Vineyards and the Concord Pavilion. As a citizen and a parent of school children, I would prefer the Paul Masson land be used to assist the local residents. I have been unable to attend the hearings related to the pro- posed uses. I hope this will help "cast my vote so to speak. I find that sending our teenagers out of the area for their large school functions is worrisome and unnecessary and feel that as a parent, I would like to see the teenagers housed within our own city limits for their recreational activities. Thank you for your attention to this meat "ter. Yours truly, /I1 t/ Kaye Holbrook 20980 Canyon View Dr. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 February' 3, 1986 4arkinie Trevino:: Jan Newton, 'arienior eenomist are the other alternatives pro-. working with Environmental poSed in the "Paul Masson Vine- A PricexCliib athlete facility Sciences Inc. (ESA). yards Site Development Study nd single-family residential According to a summary Analysis of Alternatives," com- nits were among the sugges- table distributPd during the piled by the consultants. ions made by participants at a hearing, the hotel/motel project Project manager Wendy A. earing• on future uses of the would generatei, $945,000 an- Lockwood, who headed the traf- 'aul Masson site. nually, 'most of it from the fie studies, pointed out that re- The proposals were pre-' transient occupancy tax ap- tail projects are usually very ented ;at a special public proved last spring: high generators of vehicle trips. searing held by the Saratoga The athletic facility, multi- One retail suggestion made ?tanning _Commission that was:, family residential, hotel and by Saratoga realtor Shelley S. attended by more than 40 peO4, retail project, Which Newton Williams Jr. for the Saratoga pie. pointed out was Only alterna- Avenue site was the construe- Also on hand were the city's tive proposal that had come tion of a members-only cash and consultants, who gave a brief from a private source, would carry operation known as the overview of the site studies, which concluded that a hotel/motel housing 450 rooms would generate nearly $1 million a year in revenue. "Those results were fairly startling to me, actually," said esa er, omes gge!ted for Single-family :,residential: multi-family residential; an office building; and a mixed- use, retail/residential project 1 generate approximately $474,000 Price Club. and be the second highest "You would be able to milk revenue producer. *i 'sales tax revenues from other areas," Williams told the com- mission. He said the Price Club in Redwood City, is the nearest one to this area and that shop- pers frinh many neighboring areas take adVantage of pur- chases of food in bulk available there. For eicample, Williams said later, he has bought four-foot long package&of tortilla chips at the Price Price Clulirmembership is limited to persons who own their own businesset and groups such as credit unions and federal, state and city employees. Richard Drake, president of the Saratoga Area Senior Coor dinating Council; told the com- mission that he,hoped it would consider "the whole vital sub- ject of livability for seniors in Saratoga." He added that the demogra- phics are changing in the city and that the average age of L ""milizur asson Saratoga residents is increasing annually. In addition, "Young people can't afford to move in to Sara- toga, and seniors can't afford to move out." Morries Katz, president of Paul Masson, said the company. which currently maintains 10 percent of its production staff at the 28.5-acre site has been 4!'ovetwhelined by inquiries" 'from the public. 'Were waiting Very anxious- ly for the process to proceed." Katz said the relocation of the entire company to Gona- zales, Calif., will be completed before the original projected time of April 1986, Please turn to page 3 ADVANCE REALTY 2315 South Bascom Avenue Campbell, California 95008 Business (408) 559 -8500 Residence (408) 395 -9584 DAVID GINA HECKLEY REALTORS® City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Coucil Members: This letter is to express our support and excitement for the proposed new tennis resort to be developed on the Paul Masson Winery site on Saratoga Avenue. We have seen the presentation for the resort and can only feel it would be a fine facility and a real asset to the Saratoga community. The theme of the project reflects a first -class facility and portrays the aesthetic values of the area. In addition to the added revenue for the City, we feel this proposal is the best use of the present site, since the existing structure will be utilized. We believe it will also be the easiest to welcome for neighboring residents since traffic and noise is minimal. We have been members of the Los Gatos Swim and Racquet Club for several years and we know the integrity of the Denevi family. We are certain they can bring a beautiful, well -run sport resort to this community, and we sincerely support their project. We hope you will give every consideration to this proposal. If we can be of any assistance in the future, please let us know. Sincerely, David Giha Heckley 18451 Via Bonita Monte Sereno, CA 95030 408- 395 -9584 cc Ronald Denevi, Manager Los Gatos Swim Racquet Club Each Office Is Independently Owned And Operated January 6, 1986 Saratoga City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Friutvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Council Members: December 3, 1985 Attached is a petition signed by 151 adult residents /homeowners of the condominium complex called The Vineyards of Saratoga, concerning the use of the Paul Masson Winery site. As the Council Members consider the various alternatives, we request that this petition be given serious consideration in the final decision process. Respectfully submitted, 7ti El abeth ReplogYe, President, Homeowners Association 1 Petition to the Saratoga City Council Martha Clevenger, Mayor Linda Callon Virginia Laden Fanelli Joyce Hlava David Moyles With regard to the use of the Paul Masson Winery the undersigned residents of The Vineyards of Saratoga spirit of preserving the rural and residential charact Saratoga and to minimize traffic congestion, noise, ai and adverse visual impact, petition the Saratoga City adopt one of the following uses for the site. 2. 3. 4 5. 6. 7. 8.- 9. 10.x; SIGNATURE ADDRESS 14/ i A cons i 13. A )o* 1. Single family residences. 2. Multi family residence (i.e.) low density condominiums /townhouses with large open areas between the buildings. Any use tied to or predicated on an interchange or on /off ramps on Saratoga Ave. connecting with the proposed Route 85 corridor is not acceptable due to the potential gridlock, pollution and noise associated therewith. Increasing the tax base of Saratoga by promoting commercial growth and development will destroy the very character of Saratoga which we want to preserve. Respectfully submitted. site we, in the er of r pollution Council to DATE A A, ."J c r V e/ /9 fS F S —a' s' 1 is /l-19-cfJ 2 Gam. "�d A/U /g /es- fl l 90, a' /Ad /iiS o4 �C gel. 1 .aarz.4-r 199 v�� 4. //A -0 /0'.- 1 .7: 11120iff 1 AlLe 1 14 Ale L___D (Js ft-- S7471-A-r2" e;Pc.J"J c A S A- pJ o good 4n) V A FvfL2 D cr Atoll "-)e-T-- Al EE 0 l R97--03J-0 1 7;7 u A-AC: 7 4- /4-ritets /Nce L. 3 1 c_ 0 /2_ Tot Saratoga City Council SAa Saratoga Planning Commission Other Options THE GOOD GOVERNMENT G OUP of Saratoga, California, Inc. P. 0. Box 371 Saratoga, California 95070 Oct-Ober 29, 1985 Results of Paul Masson Property Usa fey Opti.. .Mustier of Veto' Single Family 1esideotial 1a9 Mn1ti•Paatly Residential 66 Offiees 16 1zed •use, Retail, Residential ithletio Pasility and Additional Dses 69 Mel/Motel 53 Senior Reusing 26 Parks and Open Spas* .36 6:e1f Course Light Industry 13 Cultural and drtistio Uses- 10 Retail Only Other Unclassified 2f Ballets with tee nasty alternatives _11 SaratoganA sin6 957. 44-gri Vie-e; 4 1 /id's' Results are snow tabulated on the swrvy enosrniad future wises of the Paul !Masson property larat g. Avon's. She *pinion poll was soot in September to all Saratoga heroes by- th. Geed Oevsrament Group in amnesties with its annual meabsrahip drive. The questionnaire ssnt.out was based ea the eatsgeriss used by the City's sonenitant, SSA. What is the best future use of the Paul Masson Property on Saratoga Avenue? Please check your first preference (one response per voter), cut along the dotted line and return by October 15. Single Family Residential Mixed -use, Retail i Residential Multi- Family Residential Athletic Facility and Additional Dses Offices Hotel /Motel Other (Please Specify She response of 600 votes is ansidered very geed for a poll ot.this type. Of this member, abaut half are members -of the Geed Goverment group as kalf are net. It is significant that -with the survey as part.f the GGG membership drive, the membership is up substantially this year with a.largs masher of people she have mover been.menbers befere.iatereat is the Pail.Masaen property is apparently very high.in the.essae*ity..lhe 600 responders were interested ~ugh to pay the 22 conts•poatag. rsquir.d.• 1 GOOD GOPNINT GROUP Caution shoed be taken is interpreting the results beeause of the inferaation, or leek of it, available te the voters. The report to the Council by !SA, the saneulting firs, vas net available to the public till nest of the votes mere in. Consequently the reported affects of traffic and the finaneial effost on the City of the various options "ere not taken into asoomst, at least 'quoit of the voters. Nor did votes have detailed specific proposals te oensider. Aloe, ne information vas available en the velum of the existing Paul Nissen buildings sr the most of removing then. The Good Government Orem, hopes the results sf this opinion poll mill be of value to the City in rushing a deeisien en that to aso pt for the Paul Masson property, Sincerely, Otw, (41 fart- Charles N. Bobbins President 2 Caution should bo taken is interpreting the results beeauso of the information, or lack of it, available to the voters. The report to th. Council by 1St, the 'insulting firs, eras net available to the public till most .f tho votes vere in. Cens.qu ntly the roportod effects of traffic and the financial attest en the City of th. various options were not taken into ase .met, at Toast b7 scot of d. voters. Nor lid vot.s have detailed specific proposals to 'ensid.r. Also. no information vas available en the value of the misting Paul Masson buildings or the Best of removing thesa, The Heel Government Group hopes the roseate of this .pinion poll mill U. of vain to the City in reaching a d.eision .n ghat to accept for the Paul Mksaen property, 8inaer.ly, 0/ far4"-' Charles N. Robbins President 1 RE: Highway 85 I1 e Quito Park Homeowners Association P.O. Box 2893 Saratoga, California 95070 City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 October 24, 1985 On September 24, 1985 the El Quito Park Homeowners Association hosted a meeting of eight Homeowners Associations to discuss the development of Highway 85 and the Paul Masson Property. Six of the eight representatives stated that their members DID NOT WANT THE FREEWAY. The question was raised (and asked, but not answered, at the October 2nd City Council meeting) whether or not the City could legally say NO to the freeway being built within the City? A consensus was reached that if the freeway MUST be built, it should be DEPRESSED 20 ft. and 35 ft. at Saratoga Avenue (due to the springs). All of our streets would remain at present grade with no raised streets or overpasses. Caltrans projects traffic on Saratoga Avenue would increase from the present 28,000 vehicles per day to 55,000 vehicles per day (by 1990) if the only interchange within the City is built at Saratoga Avenue. Per police statistics, CRIME INCREASES in areas with EASY ACCESS to freeways. A consensus was reached that we want NO INTERCHANGES WITHIN THE CITY. RE: The Masson Property A consensus was reached that we want NO COMMERCIAL, NO ATHLETIC FACILITIES, NO HOTEL OR MOTEL OF ANY KIND. Two thirds of those present expressed a strong preference for SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES. The Masson report did not take into consideration the traffic that would be generated by the development of Highway 85 and its possible interchanges. Due to the overwhelming objections to an interchange in the heart of the City and the strong preference for single family homes; We urge you to remove from consideration any project that requires an interchange at Saratoga Avenue. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS EL QUITO PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION EIA -4 File No. C -23 Saratoga DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 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, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653— of the City of Saratoga, 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 Amendment to the City Code, establishing the "Planned Development" zoning district including regulations for development, parking and design review. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION The project will not have a significant effect on the environment since it establishes specific controls over land use which do not presently exist. Each development project under the proposed regulations will be subject to further review under CEQA. Executed at Saratoga, California this 25th day of June 1986. YU► UCK HSIA PL NING DIRECTOR DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER