Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-04-1992 CITY COUNCIL AGENDASARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ? 33 AGENDA ITEM "T MEETING DATE: August 4, 1992 CITY MGR.�� ORIGINATING DEPT.: Public Works ' P SUBJECT: Acceptance of donated blueprint machine Recommended Motion(s): Move to accept the donated blueprint machine with thanks. Report Summary: Warren McDowell, the City Surveyor, has donated to the City a blueprint machine for which he no longer has a need. The machine is a Bay Reprographic VK -48, is in excellent condition and is located in the Engineering file room. The machine is ideally suited for low volume printing and over the long run, should save the City a considerable amount of staff time and money presently spent on outside reproduction services. Additionally, the machine. offers the City the opportunity to charge for reproductions requested by the public which will cover the cost of its maintenance and operation. Fiscal Impacts: None. Follow Up Actions: A letter of thanks will be sent to Mr. McDowell. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The machine will be returned to Mr. McDowell with a note thanking him for his offer. 'i I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL � 3 �Lv MEETING DATE: August 4, 1993 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Public Works • AGENDA ITEM 4Z CITY MGR. rG�� SUBJECT: Engineering Dep't. Quarterly Activity Report: April - June, 1993 Recommended Motion(s): Receive and file. Report Summary: Attached is the Quarterly Activity Report for the Engineering Department for the three months ending June 30, 1993. This is the last such report which will combine information about the Building and Engineering Divisions' activities as the Building division is no longer under my control. In my next quarterly report, which will cover the activities of the Public Works Department, I will begin to include information about Maintenance and Environmental Program activities as well as continuing information about Engineering activities. Fiscal Impacts: None. Follow Up Actions: None. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: N/A ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT QUARTERLY ACTIVITY REPORT APRIL - JUNE, 1993 1. HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT - Engineering Division: No. of authorized Engineering positions - 4 Current No. of Engineering employees - 4 No. of authorized Engineering staff hours - 2,048 No. of Engineering staff hours worked - 1,889 Percentage of Engineering staff hours worked - 92.2% Building Division: No. of authorized Building positions - 5, Current No. of Building employees - 5 No. of authorized Building staff hours - 2,560 No. of Building staff hours worked - 2,303 Percentage of Building staff hours worked - 90.0% Internships and Volunteers: No. of authorized Internship hours - 0 No. of Internship hours worked - 0 Percentage of Internship hours worked - N/A No. of Volunteer hours provided to Engineering Division - 29 No. of Volunteer hours provided to Building Division - 48 Contract Employees: No. of hours worked by Contract Employees - 576.5 Total cost for Contract Employees - $19,218 Human. Resource Administration: No. of Departmental personnel recruitments performed - 0 No. of employment applications reviewed - 0 No. of employment interviews conducted - 0 No. of new employees hired - 0 No. of resignations /terminations - 0 No. of Employee Performance Evaluations completed- 1 2. FINANCIAL AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT - Program 21 - Development Regulation: Approved Program budget - $117,240 Expended Program budget - $74,027 Percentage expended - 63.1% Approved Personnel budget - $36,865 Expended Personnel budget - $30,980 Percentage expended - 84.0.% Approved Materials and Operations budget - $80,375 Expended Materials and Operations budget - $43,047 Percentage expended - 53.6% Approved Capital Equipment budget - 0 Expended Capital Equipment budget - 0 Percentage expended - 0 Program 22 - Inspection Services: Approved Program budget - $321,433 Expended Program budget - $296,565 Percentage expended - 92.3 Approved Personnel budget - $300,722 Expended Personnel budget - $280,475 Percentage expended - 93.3% Approved Materials and Operations budget - $10,611 Expended Materials and Operations budget - $9,806 Percentage expended - 92.4% Approved Capital Equipment budget - $10,100 Expended Capital Equipment budget - $6,284 Percentage expended - 62.2% Program 2.3 - General Engineering: Approved Program-budget - $191,909 Expended Program budget - $187,964 Percentage expended - 97.9% Approved Personnel budget - $110,284 Expended Personnel budget - $114,749 Percentage expended - 104.0% Approved Materials and Operations budget - $75,275 Expended Materials and Operations budget - $69,419 Percentage expended - 92.2% Approved Capital Equipment budget - $6,350 Expended Capital Equipment budget - $3,796 Percentage expended - 59.8% 3. BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY Building Plan Checks: No. of Building Permit applications processed - ? No. of Building Permit plan checks completed - ? No. of Building Permit plan checks pending - ? Total Building.Permit plan check fees collected - $45,064 Grading Plan Checks: No. of Grading Permit applications processed - 8 No. of Grading Permit plan checks completed - 6 No. of Grading Permit plan checks pending - 2 Total Grading Permit plan check fees collected - $2,710 Building Permits: No. of Building Permits issued - No. of active Building Permits - No. of Building Permits expired No. of Building. Permits finaled Total Building Permit Fees colle, Total Construction Tax collected 417 ? ::ted - $110,307 - $46,909 Grading Permits: No. of Grading Permits issued - 11 No. of active Grading Permits - 52 No. of Grading Permits expired - 0 No. of Grading Permits finaled - 10 Total Grading Permit fees collected - $5,385 4. BUILDING INSPECTION ACTIVITY - Building Permit Inspections: No. of Building Permit inspections performed - 2,675 No. of Stop.Work Orders issued - 0 No. of Stop Work Orders lifted - 0 No. of Stop Work Orders pending - 0 Grading Permit Inspections: No. of Grading Permit contract inspection hours - 78.5 Total cost of Grading Permit contract inspection - $2,439 No. of Stop Work Orders issued - 0 No. of Stop Work Orders lifted - 0 No. of Stop Work Orders pending - 0 5. ENGINEERING PERMIT ACTIVITY - Encroachment Permits: No. of Encroachment Permits issued - 39 No. of active Encroachment Permits - 45 No. of finaled Encroachment Permits - 110 Total Encroachment fees billed - $5,027 Truck Route Permits: No. of Truck Route Permits issued - 0 Total Truck Route Permit fees collected - $0 6. ENGINEERING INSPECTION ACTIVITY - Encroachment Permit Inspections: No. of Encroachment Permit inspections performed - ? No. of Encroachment Permit contract inspection hours - 78.5 Total cost of Encroachment Permit contract inspection - $2,355 Route 85 Inspection: No. of Route 85 contract inspection hours - 149 Total cost of Route 85 contract inspection - $5,364 7. DEVELOPMENT REGULATION - Development Application Reviews: No. of Planning /Zoning applications reviewed - 15 No. of Tentative Building Site applications reviewed - 0 No. of Building Site Exemptions issued - 1 No. of Tentative Map applications reviewed - 0 No. of Lot Line Adjustment applications reviewed - 1 No. of Certificate of Compliance applications reviewed - 0 No. of Certificates of Compliance issued - 1 No. of applications reviewed for Geotechnical Clearance - 5 No. of applications awaiting Geotechnical Clearance - 15 No. of Geotechnical Clearances issued - 2 Total fees collected for Geotechnical reviews - ? Total fees paid to City Geotechnical Consultant - $3,350 Final Map Processing: No. of Final Building Site Approvals pending - 0 No. of Final Building Site Approvals granted - 0 No. of Final Map Approvals pending - 7 No. of Final Map Approvals granted - 0 No. of Lot Line Adjustments pending - 1 No. of Lot Line Adjustments approved - 1 Total Map Check fees collected - ? Total fees paid to City Surveyor - $6,325 Improvement Plan Review.: No. of Improvement Plans submitted for review - 1 No. of Improvement Plan reviews - 0 No. of Improvement Plans approved - 0 No. of Improvement Plans pending approval - 2 Total Improvement Plan Check fees collected - ? Development Inspection: No. of Development contract inspection hours - 77.5 Total cost of Development contract inspection - $2,391 Total Development Inspection fees collected - ? STATUS OF MAJOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS - There are seven major subdivisions which have received Tentative Map approval, but none have yet to be submitted for Final Map approval. These subdivisions are the five lot DiManto subdivision on Peach Hill and Madrone Hill Roads (SD 88 -005), the sixteen lot Kerwin Ranch development (Tract No.8559), the Dividend Development project at the former Paul Masson Winery site on Saratoga Ave. (Tract No. 8311) , the five lot Vidanage subdivision at the Saratoga Nursery property on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. (Tract No. 8487), the six lot Estrade subdivision on Sousa Lane (SD 89 -016), the Peninsula Townhomes project at the former Hubbard and Johnson lumber yard on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. (Tract No. 8483), and the . eight lot Sisters of Mercy subdivision on Douglas Lane, Tract No. 8600. Nothing has progressed to date on the four lot Serena Investments subdivision off of Mt. Eden Rd (SD 87 -008) since approval of the final map in August of 1991. Construction is nearing completion on the Cocciardi- Chadwick subdivision (Tract No. 7770) in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement approved last fall. Miscellaneous roadway finish work and the landscaping restoration are all that remains to be done. 8. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM MANAGEMENT - Capital Project Summary: No. of Capital Projects programmed - 17 No. of Capital Projects in design - 9 No. of Capital Projects under construction - 4 No. of Capital Projects completed - 4 Approved Capital Project budget - $2,961,015 Expended Capital Project budget - $1,506,449 Percentage expended - 50.9% Human Resources: No. of staff.hours worked on Capital Projects - 291.5. Approved Capital Project Personnel budget - $30,300 Expended Capital Project Personnel budget - $32,987 Percentage expended - 110.0% Capital Project Design: Approved Capital Project Design budget - $93,200 Expended Capital Project Design budget - $130,477 Percentage expended - 140.0% Capital Project Construction : Approved Capital Project Construction budget - $2,755,765 Expended Capital Project Construction budget - $1,314,885 Percentage expended - 47.7% Capital Project Inspection: Approved Capital Project Inspection budget - $81,750 Expended Capital Project Inspection budget - $28,100 Percentage expended - 34.4% 9. GENERAL ENGINEERING - Traffic Engineering: No. of reports to Public Safety Commission - 3 No. of Traffic Work Orders initiated - ? National Flood Insurance Program Administration: No. of inquiries responded to - Approx. 20 /month Complaint Response - Engineering Division: No. of complaints received - 0 No. of complaints resolved - 0 No. of complaints pending - 0 Complaint Response - Building Division: No. of complaints received - 0 No. of complaints resolved - 0 No. of complaints pending - 0 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL J EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 3 T / ' AGENDA ITEM 1� MEETING DATE: August 4, 1993 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager's Office SUBJECT: Donation of Various Furnishings and Equipment from SASCC for Audit and Insurance Purposes Recommended Motion: Accept the donations on behalf of the City. Direct items to be placed on City inventory by the Finance Director. Report Summary: In accordance with the 22 October 1987 agreement between SASCC and City, SASCC has provided an updated list of furnishings and equipment which are to become the property _of the City in furtherance of Section A.1. of the agreement and a list of items to be retained in SASCC ownership as provided in Section B.6., a copy of which is to be kept on file with the City Clerk. Fiscal Impacts: None. City has a blanket insurance policy to cover all furnishings and equipment. Follow Up Actions: Finance Director to place items on City's Fixed Asset Inventory. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Provisions of the 22.October 1987 agreement would not be followed. The furnishings and equipment would be uninsured. r' / pj�49 z SASCC JUL 2 3 1993 .� J L►YTp(.� G ri070 i+ �, (�41 a673f1i MM 237 �ROnr�r July 15, 1993 Mr..Harry Peacock, Manager 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Peacock, Please see the attached lists of furnishings and equipment which the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council has acquired and dedicated to the City of Saratoga per the City - SASCC agreement which is re- newed annually. On advice of auditor we have compiled a cumulative list from'1982 to end of Fiscal Year 1992 - 93. We request the City of Saratoga to formally accept these items and suggest action on the Consent calendar of the next scheduled City Council meeting.. The items listed become city property but are retained for exclusive use by Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council. A separate list includes property donated to- SASCC and not transferred to the City of Saratoga. Aau er �e l , Bowl President CC: Susan Grose Brewer, Grose & Co. hp 7/93 Page 1 SARATOGA'.AREA)SENIOR COORDINATING COUNCIL Items to be donated to the City of Saratoga but held for exclusive use of SASCC. Senior Center SASCC Furnishings Dishes, miscellaneous, 4 speakers Farrow & Soennichsen 4 paintings Howard Long Value $1000 $350 $315 $430 $850 $3600 $100 $ 60 $ 50 $130 $300 $125 $ 5 $ 50 $185 $175 tableware, kitchen items Fund 1981 -92 130 straight chairs 17 tables (oblong & round) " 20 card tables 1 microphone - speaker system and lectern 2 IBM typewriters 1 Xerox memory- writer 1 warming table 1 Everex Computer 1 HP Laser Jet Printer 1 overhead Projector 1 16mm Projector - 1 slide projector 1 16mm movie projector 1 sharp copy machine SF7750 & stand Reception Desk & Credenza Henry Kraus 1 reception area clunter /drop down desk Schwartz /McMillan 1 typewriter desk Ray Johnson 1 credenza to 2 drawer files it 2 armchairs GE 6 straight office chairs GE 3 steno chairs GE 1 steno chair H. Williams 1 5- drawer storage file GE 2 armchairs IBM 3 4- drawer files GE 4 typing tables GE, Cummins, Ford 2 Storage files IBM 1 heavy -duty paper cutter l.check writer 1 folding table 2 side chairs (rust) 2 side chairs (yellow) 4 double pedestal office desks w/ teak covers GE. 1 gray metal work or conference table GE 3 bookcases GE 1 walnut book case Ray Johnson 1 TV console w/ attachment for Summit League deaf 3 Bulletin boards Trapman 12 Hanging wall cabinets, Trapman Stereo Cabinet Sherrard 1 Artificial Xmas Tree Toevs 1 Sony CD Player Robbins 4 speakers Farrow & Soennichsen 4 paintings Howard Long Value $1000 $350 $315 $430 $850 $3600 $100 $ 60 $ 50 $130 $300 $125 $ 5 $ 50 $185 $175 Adult DayCare Center Donor Value 2 cffice desks & table GE $1175 1 Bulletin Board Rowley $ 35 1 Cabinet countertop. Todd Undeteimined Stereo Record Player va ue 4 Bulletin boards Trapman, GE, Johnson $140 3 file cabinets Rufo $250 2 Black chairs IBM $1195 1 Brown office chairs IBM .$1065 6 rectangular tables Building Expansion Fund $10,000 3 1/2 roundtables " of 20 armchairs it $ 80 2 love seats Mackey- Dibocca $250 1 block coffee table Bencze Value un- 1 copy machine P. Bowlin $700 Adult DayCare Center Donor Value Laser Printer IBM $1175 Computer Cassette Player Simner $100 Stereo Record Player 4 Food Carriers Salvation Army $750 Cart for food carrier Rufo $250 Typewriter IBM $1195 Memorial donations .$1065 Patio Furniture: 2 umbrellas $600 & 4 chairs & Table Rotary 4 fabric side chairs Gordon $ 80 1 easel Mackey- Dibocca $250 8 track player & tapes Bencze Value un- determined 1 Heavy Duty Cart - $200 IBM Wheelwriter 30 Series Typewriter $550 Everest Jennings Wheelchair 2 layer cabinets M. Belotti $250 1 rolling bulletin _ board 1 portable TV Se.t Beaton $ 75 SARATOGA AREA SENIOR COORDINATING COUNCIL Items to beheld for SASCC Use and Ownership. Senior Center Donor Value Mahogany,Desk A. Dees $500 I Mah.Jong Set " $300 1 spinet piano Dennis $500 Bremen(Canada Gulbrondsen 1 player piano & rolls $2500 1--antique porcelain punch bowl Dolge $300 1-wall.mural- -- B: Belsito 2- paintings M. Hinde 1- painting,-Big Sur J. Caldwell $1500, 1 floral print B. Laughlin 1-presentation easel Gordon 8 Pictures (wall) Adult DayCare Donor Value Winter Spinet Piano Saratoga Federated Church $400 VCR with Monitor(Zenith) Memorial Donations $1065 3 Paintings Gordon Undetermined SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. c� 3 7 MEETING DATE: August 4, 1993 ORIGINATING DEPT. Public Works SUBJECT: Miscellaneous Traffic Matters AGENDA ITEM 'i' CITY MGR. Recommended Motion(s): Move to adopt the attached Motor Vehicle Resolutions: 1) Establishing a No Passing Zone on Fourth Street between Big Basin Way and Springer Ave., 2) Designating the intersection of Clemson Ave. /Swarthmore Dr. /Vanderbilt Dr. as a Stop intersection, 3) Prohibiting parking on a portion of Trinity Ave., 4) Designating the intersection of Lynde Ave. /Reid Ln. as a Stop intersection, 5) Designating the intersections of Ljepava Dr. /Shadow Mountain Dr. and Miljevich Dr. /Shadow Mountain Dr. as Stop intersections, and 6) Designating the intersection of Bucknall Rd. /Paseo Presada as a Stop intersection. Report Summary: Each of the traffic issues covered by the attached Resolutions have been reviewed by the Public Safety Commission and come to you with their recommendation for approval. Fiscal Impacts: Approximately $1,000 in labor and materials to install all of the required signs and markings. Follow Up Actions: Work orders will be prepared and the traffic changes will be implemented. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The traffic changes will not be made. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0. :� 3 � 3 MEETING DATE: August 4, 1993 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Public Works '• SUBJECT: Leonard Road Assessment District AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. Recommended Motion(s): Move to adopt resolution accepting petitions. Report Summary: August 4 is the deadline when the City Council must accept the petitions from the property owners to advance the Leonard Road Assessment District. Accordingly, the attached resolution should be adopted if enough petitions are received by the City prior to your meeting. At this time, I have still not received petitions in support of the project from enough of the property owners to move the process forward. The attached letter was mailed to all 13 property owners last week. Hopefully, it will generate a response from the remaining property owners yet to respond. Fiscal Impacts: None at this time. Follow Up Actions: Unknown at this time. It depends on whether enough petitions in support of the project are submitted prior to your meeting. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: You must formally accept the petitions to advance the assessment district process. You cannot accept the petitions if enough are not received from property owners in support of the project. If enough petitions are received and you choose not to accept them, then you will, in effect, cause the process to be abandoned. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ACCEPTING PETITION (LEONARD ROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) The City Council of the City of Saratoga resolves: Certain owners of real property have filed with the Clerk of this body a petition, signed by them, requesting the public improvements described in the petition, the cost to be specially assessed against land benefitting from the improvements. The petition contains an express waiver of statutory proceedings under the Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931, as provided in Section 2804 of the Streets and Highways Code. The City Council finds that all of the owners of more than sixty percent in area of the land subject to assessment for the proposed improvements have signed the petition. Accordingly, the City Council accepts the petition and directs that special assessment proceedings shall be undertaken by the terms of the petition, and without further compliance with the Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931. This action is final within the meaning of Section 3012 of the Streets and Highways Code. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of 1993, by the following vote-: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: By Grace E. Cory, Deputy City Clerk SF2- 18137.1 o� SARA O ro 9LIFO,R�1� OTTE 13771 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Ann Marie Burger Willem Kohler Victor Monia TO: Leonard Road Property Owners within the Proposed Assessmeriten Tucker District FROM: Larry I. Perlin, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Status of Assessment District Proceedings DATE: July 23, 1993 The purpose of this memo is to bring you up to date on recent developments concerning the proposed assessment district and on the current level of response to the petitions which were mailed to the thirteen property owners last month. On July 7, the City Council took a number of actions relating to the refinancing of the outstanding bond obligations for the Village Parking District No. 3. As you may recall, the City has also arranged for additional bonds to be issued as part of this refinancing process to fund the Leonard Road improvements. These additional bonds will be held by the City until it is determined whether the Leonard Road Assessment District proceeds. If the District does not proceed, then the additional bonds can be retired at no cost. However, in order to retire these bonds at no cost, it is necessary for the bonds to be called for redemption on December 15, 1993. Beyond that date, the City will begin to incur an approximate $500 per month carrying cost for the bonds. In order to call the bonds on December 15, the bondholders must be notified at least 30 days in advance of the call, November 15. This means that the Assessment District must be formed and all proceedings concluded by, at the latest, the City Council meeting prior to November 15, which is November 3. Using November 3 as the target date for concluding the assessment district proceedings means that the Engineer's Report on the proposed District, as well as the plans and specifications for the improvements, have to be approved by the City Council at their meeting on September 15. Finally, in order to have sufficient time to prepare the Engineer's Report, plans and specifications for the September 15 meeting means that the petitions must be approved by the City Council at their meeting on August 4. a. ntea cn 11 . As of today, 9 out of the 13 petitions have been returned to me with 7 of the 9 indicating support for the proposed project and 2 indicating opposition. A summary of the petitions returned thus far is as follows: Property Owners in support: Reikes, 20541 Leonard Rd. Hansen, 20561 Leonard Rd. Delamater, 20583 Leonard Rd. Duffy, 20637 Leonard Rd. Gerhardt, 13345 Leonard Rd. Kennedy, 20520 Leonard Rd. Martin, 20540 Leonard Rd. Property Owners opposed: Durket, 20701 Leonard Rd. Perry, 20615 Leonard Rd. Property Owners yet to respond: Loh, 20651 Leonard Rd. Davis, 20681 Leonard Rd. Schuyler, 20711 Leonard Rd. Mostaan, 20720 Leonard Rd. Unless and until I receive petitions in support of the project from property owners representing at least 60% of the total area of the properties included, the Assessment District proceedings cannot advance. Therefor, it is imperative that those property owners who have yet to respond do so by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 4. If sufficient petitions are not received by that time, then the process will be stopped and the proceedings abandoned. As always, if there are any questions about the project, the proposed Assessment District or anything else, please call me during the day at 867 -3438. I, Larry I. Perlin cc: City Attorney City Council City Manager SAR ATO�Gf A CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. D, 3 � 7 MEETING DATE: August 4, 1993 ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Clerk AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVA SUBJECT: Confirmation of Report and Assessment of Weed and Brush Abatement Charges Recommended Motion: Adopt resolution. Report Summary: Under State and local laws, local governments abate the seasonal fire hazards of weed and brush growth on undeveloped property. For the County and several cities, including Saratoga, this weed and brush abatement program is administered by the County Fire Marshal's Office. In many cases, property owners find it convenient to have government take care of weed and brush removal and to pay through a property tax lien. This past year, the County performed weed and brush abatement on 6 parcels in Saratoga. Tax liens and assessments on the owners of these parcels totalled $937.72. In order to recover this cost, it is necessary for the Council to adopt a resolution confirming the assessments and directing the County Auditor to enter and collect the assessments on the property tax bill. Fiscal Impacts: None upon City if resolution is passed. City may be liable for work performed by contractor for any assessments not levied. Follow Up actions: None; this is the last City action in the weed and brush abatement cycle. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: See Fiscal Impacts. Attachments: Resolution with list of assessments. SARATLOLG`A CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. P 3 TJ AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: August 4, 1993 ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Clerk CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Confirmation of Report and Assessment of Weed Abatement Charges Recommended Motion: Adopt resolution. Report Summary: Under State and local laws, local governments routinely abate the seasonal fire hazards of weed growth on undeveloped property. For the County and several cities, including Saratoga, this weed abatement program is administered by the County Fire Marshal's Office. In many cases, property owners find it convenient to have government take care of weed removal and to pay through a property tax lien. This past year, the County performed weed abatement on 98 parcels in Saratoga. Tax liens and assessments on the owners of these parcels totalled $31,534.03. In order to recover this cost, it is necessary for the Council to adopt a resolution confirming the assessments and directing the County Auditor to enter and collect the assessments on the property tax bill. Fiscal Impacts: I None upon City if resolution is passed. City may be liable for work performed by contractor for any assessments not levied. Follow Up Actions: None; this is the last City action in the weed abatement cycle. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: See Fiscal Impacts. Attachments: Resolution with list of assessments. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: August 4, 1993 ORIGINATING DEPT. Public Works AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. SUBJECT: Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1: Confirmation of Assessments for FY 93 -94 Recommended Motion(s): Move to adopt Resolution No. 93- 018.4, a Resolution Overruling Protests and Ordering the Improvements and Confirming the Diagram and Assessment for Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1 for Fiscal Year 1993 -94. Report Summary: Further to the Protest Hearing held on July 7 and subsequent Council direction, I have recalculated the Landscaping and Lighting assessments for FY 93 -94 as follows: 1. The three month reserve allocation for all Zones is eliminated. 2. Property tax revenues in Zones 1 -8 do not reflect any shift to the State. 3. Actual year end carryover amounts are used instead of preliminary estimates. 4. Costs for weekly sweeping of the four Village Parking Districts are still included in Zones 8, 19, 20 and 21. Assuming this is consistent with the Council's intentions, then you should adopt the attached Resolution confirming the proposed assessments so this information can be transmitted to the County Auditor for placement on next year's property tax roll. Attached to this report are updated tables reflecting the new assessments. Fiscal Impacts: The assessments flow to the City along with the property tax payments from the County. The assessments cover the full costs of providing services to each of the Zones and are included in the revenue projections approved as part of the City's adopted budget. Follow Up Actions: The Engineer's Report will be transmitted to the County Auditor so that the assessments can be added to the property tax roll. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The assessments will not be confirmed and presumably, the Engineer's Report will be modified again. However, the deadline for transmitting the Engineer's Report to the County Auditor is August 10. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. �( � � ! AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: August 4. 1993 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT. CITY MANAGER /� SUBJECT: Revisions to City Code - Article 7 -20 Animals and Fowl Recommended Action(s): Introduce Ordinance Revising Article 7 -20 Report Summary: Since the County discontinued all animal control services to incorporated cities July 1, we have been in the process of setting up programs and procedures for the City to take over certain aspects of the services. Revisions to Article 7 -20 of the Code delete references to the County and give the City Council authorization to set fees and direct operations. Only the sections of Article 7 -20 which need revision are attached. New language is underlined, and the old is shown with a strikeover. Fiscal Impacts: Not know at this time Follow Up Actions: 1. Publish ordinance revising code sections 2. Implement fee schedule Consequences of Not Acting on thg Recommended Potions: City Code will not be in conformance with required animal control duties o:\j"n\7- io.r®Y SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. -� 24 ( MEETING DATE: August 4, 1993 ORIGINATING DEPT. Public Works AGENDA ITEM $i CITY MGR. SUBJECT: Approval of Cooperative Agreement with Santa Clara County Traffic Authority for construction of Bonnet Way Soundwall Recommended Motion(s): Move to approve the Cooperative Agreement and authorize its execution by staff on behalf of the City. Report Summary: Attached is a draft of a Cooperative Agreement between the City and the Traffic Authority pertaining to additional reimbursement owed to the City due to construction of the Bonnet Way soundwall. As a result of the City extending the wall on either end, the Authority was able to reduce the lengths of two freeway walls by an equivalent amount and credit the cost savings to the City to offset the additional cost of the wall extensions. This additional credit due the City amounts to $78,820 and can be paid only upon both agencies entering into another Cooperative Agreement with one another. The City Attorney has reviewed the draft of the Agreement and is satisfied with its contents. Fiscal Impacts: The adopted budget includes these additional funds as revenue to support Capital Project No. 9113. Follow Up Actions: The Agreement will be executed by both agencies and then the City will invoice the Authority for the credit amount. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The Agreement will not be approved and the City will be unable to receive the credit until an Agreement is reached. D R.AFT COOPERATIVE NO. 1 ROUTE 85 BETWEEN THE CITY OF. SARATOGA AND THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRAFFIC AUTHORITY FOR MODIFICATIONS OF SOUNDWALLS ADJACENT TO BONNET WAY This Agreement is entered into on the day of , 1993 between the SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRAFFIC AUTHORITY, a public entity of the State of California (referred to hereinafter as "AUTHORITY ") and the CITY of SARATOGA, a municipal corporation of the State of California (referred to hereinafter as "CITY "). n RECITALS 1. CITY contemplates constructing on and near State Highway Route 85 between Prospect Road and San Tomas Aquino Creek in the City of Saratoga in Santa Clara County, improvements I consisting of modifications to soundwall at Bonnet Way referred to herein as "PROJECT ". AUTHORITY contemplates modifications (deletions) to Soundwall No. 6 from (Station 0 + 85.33 to 9 + 60.00) to (Station 2 + 99.66 to 9 + 60.00) and Soundwall No. 20 from "LOL" 388 + 22 to 385 +32.67 adjacent to Bonnet Way referred to herein as "CHANGE ORDERS ". AUTHORITY contemplates including CHANGE ORDERS into two on -going AUTHORITY and STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its Department of Transportation (referred to . hereinafter as "STATE "), Highway Projects EA 437564 and EA 437744. 2. Construction of PROJECT is necessary to mitigate noise and impacts associated with the construction of Route 85 between Prospect Road and San Tomas Aquino Creek which is part of the AUTHORITY's Measure A Program. 3. CITY and AUTHORITY have previously entered into an agreement (1 -SAR) concerning construction of soundwall at Bonnet Way. COOP106.20 -21 Agreement No. 4 -SAR June 15, 1993 Page 1 of 7 4. CITY will fund the costs of redesign, and construction administration of PROJECT. 5. CITY and AUTHORITY will share the cost of construction as specified in this agreement. 6. CITY will redesign, construct, and provide construction administration for PROJECT. Construction administration shall include pre- contract administration (processing of PS &E through a bidding process for advertising, bid evaluation, and award of a contract for constructing PROJECT), construction contract administration, construction engineering, inspection, materials testing, claims processing and closeout. 7. CITY shall assume all maintenance of PROJECT. 8. AUTHORITY and CITY do mutually desire to set forth herein the terms and conditions under which PROJECT and CHANGE ORDERS will be redesigned, constructed, financed and maintained. Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: i SECTION I AUTHORITY AGREES: 1. To initially pay CITY $78,820, which is AUTHORITY's estimated construction cost savings for CHANGE ORDERS, as specified in Section II, Article 5 below. 2. To deposit with CITY, within thirty days of receipt of invoice from CITY $78,820, as specified j in Article 1 above. COOP 106.20 -21 Agreement No. 4 -SAR June 15, 1993 Page 2 of 7 3. That AUTHORITY's total obligation for redesign, construction and construction administration of CHANGE ORDERS is estimated to be $78,820, and in no case will AUTHORITY's total obligation for PROJECT exceed the total cost savings to AUTHORITY for CHANGE ORDERS. This total obligation shall be increased to cover costs in excess of the initial estimated total cost of CHANGE ORDERS only by vote of AUTHORITY, the certified results of which will be incorporated into the Agreement by letter after negotiations of change order costs without the necessity of a written amendment. 4. Upon completion of construction of PROJECT and all work incidental thereto, and resolution of all claims filed by the construction contractor, to provide to CITY a detailed statement of the total actual costs of CHANGE ORDERS. 5. Within thirty days after receipt of detailed statement from CITY as specified in Section II, i Article 7, AUTHORITY will submit an invoice to CITY for refund for AUTHORITY overpayment if the actual total cost of PROJECT is less than the estimated amount paid to CITY under this agreement. COOP106.20 -21 Agreement No. 4 -SAR June 15, 1993 Page 3 of 7 SECTION II CITY AGREES: 1. To proceed with PROJECT following execution of this cooperative agreement between CITY and AUTHORITY; or, in the event the PROJECT does not proceed for any reason, to so notify AUTHORITY. 2. To redesign PROJECT, to a length and height equal to or greater than requirements for said soundwall in the Stage II, Noise Imoact Assessment Report, Feb 1991 and to provide a minimum of 6 decibels of noise attenuation. 3. To provide construction administration for PROJECT. a 4. To construct PROJECT, and to complete construction of PROJECT, no later than July 29, 1994. i 5. To submit to AUTHORITY, within thirty days after execution of this Agreement, an invoice for $78,820, which is the estimated cost of CHANGE ORDERS. 6. To maintain PROJECT facilities, constructed under this PROJECT in accordance with RECITALS, Article 6 above and make no claim against AUTHORITY for any portion of such maintenance expense. COOP106.20 -21 Agreement No. 4 -SAR June 15, 1993 Page 4 of 7 7. Upon completion of construction of PROJECT and all work incidental thereto, and resolution of all claims filed by the construction contractor, to provide to AUTHORITY a detailed statement of the total actual costs of construction of PROJECT. Within thirty days of receipt of invoice from AUTHORITY as specified in Section I, Article 4, to refund to AUTHORITY overpayment if the actual total cost of construction for PROJECT is less than the final amount of CHANGES ORDERS. SECTION III IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED: 1. Prior to award of the CHANGE ORDERS, this Agreement may be terminated by either AUTHORITY or CITY or,by mutual consent. In the event of such termination, CITY shall bear j total actual costs expended for PROJECT to date of termination. i 2. That neither AUTHORITY, nor any officer or employee thereof, shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted by CITY or any contractor hired by CITY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to CITY under this Agreement. It is also understood and agreed. that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, CITY or any contractor hired by CITY shall fully indemnify and hold AUTHORITY harmless from any liability imposed for injury, as defined by Government Code Section 810.8, occurring by reason of anything done or omitted by CITY under this Agreement or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to CITY under this Agreement. COOP106.20 -21 Agreement No. 4 -SAR June 15, 1993 Page 5 of 7 3. That neither CITY nor any officer or employee thereof, shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted by AUTHORITY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to AUTHORITY under this Agreement. It is also understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, AUTHORITY shall fully indemnify and hold CITY harmless from any liability imposed for injury, as defined i by Government Code Section 810.8, occurring by reason of anything done or omitted by AUTHORITY under this Agreement or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to AUTHORITY under this Agreement. COOP106.20 -21 Agreement No. 4 -SAR June 15, 1993 Page 6 of 7 4. Except as otherwise provided in Articles 1 and 2 of this Section III, the portions of this Agreement pertaining to the construction of PROJECT shall terminate upon completion and acceptance of the PROJECT by CITY and upon fulfillment by AUTHORITY and CITY of their respective financial obligations under this Agreement. SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRAFFIC AUTHORITY CITY OF SARATOGA By JAMES T. BEALL, JR. Chairperson APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: KEVIN D. ALLMAND Deputy County Counsel Attest: PHYLLIS A. PEREZ Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and Secretary, Santa Clara 'County Traffic Authority COOP106.20 -21 June 15, 1993 By HARRY PEACOCK City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: MICHAEL RIBACK City Attorney Attest: GRACE E. CORY Deputy City Clerk Agreement No. 4 -SAR Page 7 of 7 SARATOGACCI%TY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2-24 / MEETING DATE: August 4, 1993 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manger's Office AGENDA ITEM 4L APPROVAL - SUBJECT: Addendum to Urban County Joint Powers Agreement for Fiscal Years 1994 -1996: Recommended Motion: Approve addendum to urban county joint powers agreement. Report Summary: At the City Council's July 8 meeting, Council approved the resolution authorizing execution of the joint powers agreement for Saratoga to continue participation in the Urban County Community Block Grant Program for. fiscal years 1994 -96. Shortly thereafter, the City received notification from the County that additional provisions must be incorporated into the document. The County has indicated that these provisions do not add requirements but essentially clarify policies already implied in the language of the original.JPA. Fiscal Impacts: None. Saratoga will receive annual allocations of CDBG funds based upon distribution formula agreed upon by the participating agencies. The joint powers agreement is the vehicle by which the City is eligible to receive these funds. Follow Up Actions: Forward Addendum to Urban County Joint Powers Agreement for fiscal years 1994 -1996 to the County of Santa Clara.. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motion: The City of Saratoga would be ineligible to apply directly for CDBG funds and therefore would lose these funds. Attachments: 1. Memorandum from Charles Chew, HCD Program Manager 2. Addendum to Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and Cooperation Agreement for Fiscal Years 1994 -1996 Motion and Vote: ;r Countyof Santa Clara' Office of Planning and Development Housing and Community Development 1735 North First Street, Suite 265 San Jose. California 951 12 (408) 441 -0261 (408) 441-0365 FAX July 20, 1993 M E M O R A N D U M To: HCD Coordinators From: Charles Chew, Program Manager �it/��' /�� Subject: ADDENDUM TO URBAN COUNTY JOINT POWERS AGRE MENT 1994 -1996 Legal Counsel for HUD Region IX has reviewed our proposed Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JPA) boilerplate language for the 1994 -1996 period and has notified the County of Santa Clara that, while the boilerplate is substantially correct and complete, six new provisions must be incorporated into the document. These provisions do not add requirements but essentially clarify policies already implied in the previous JPA language. These provisions are: 1) That the JPA agreement covers both the CDBG Entitlement program and the HOME Investment Partnership program; 2) that participating Small Cities or State period in which they'ar cities may not apply fo CDBG Programs for fisca e participating in the r grants 1 years urban co under during unty's the the CDBG program;. i 3) that participating cities may not join in a HOME Consortium except through the urban county, regardless of whether the urban county receives a HOME formula allocation; 4) that the JPA agreement remains in effect until the CDBG and HOME funds and income received with respect to the three -year qualification period (and any successive qualification periods under agreements that provide for automatic renewals) are expended and the funded activities completed, and that the county and participating units of general local government may not terminate or withdraw from the agreement while the agreement remains in effect; ; 5) that the JPA agreement expressly states that the cooperating units of general local government have adopted and are enforcing a policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non - violent civil rights demonstrations; and Board of Supervisors: Michael `1. Honda, Zoe Lofgren, Ron Gonzales, Rod Diridon, Dianne McKenna County Executive: Sally R. Reed 6) that the cooperating units of local government have adopted and are enforcing a policy of enforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such non - violent civil rights demonstrations within jurisdictions. These provisions are contained in CPD Notice 93 -13 issued March 19, 1993 and are to be included in all future Joint Powers Agreements. We are proposing to include these provisions by way of an Addendum to the existing boilerplate document which meets with HUD approval. County Counsel.concurs with this approach and has reviewed and approved the language of the enclosed Addendum. Our deadline for submission to HUD has been extended to Friday, August 6, 1993. We have also included a revised page 12 which includes- a final provision in a new Paragraph 20 that serves to legally incorporate the proposed Addendum into the JPA boilerplate document by reference. You will need to substitute this new page 12 for the previous page 12. Finally, if you already have an executed signature page you may use this for both the boilerplate and the addendum and inform your council about the addendum. Or you may wish to have a separately executed signature page for the addendum. Either way is acceptable. Please call if you have any questions. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.: ,3 3 AGENDA ITEM: Q� MEETING DATE: August 5, 1993 DEPARTMENT.: Community Development CITY MGR. APPROVAL: SUBJECT: Specific Plan for the 24 -acre former Paul Masson Winery Site located at the northeast corner of Saratoga Avenue and Route 85 Recommended Motion: Adopt the Specific Plan, with minor changes, and associated environmental Negative Declaration as recommended by the Planning Commission by a unanimous vote at their June 23, 1993 public hearing. Report summary: Background: Community Development Department staff has been directed to prepare a Specific Plan for the former Paul Masson Winery site. This Plan is intended to provide both appropriate development guidelines for the property and up -front guidance for potential developers as to what the City feels are appropriate land use configurations for the currently vacant site. From a technical perspective, staff relied on field site analyses of existing site conditions and development opportunities and constraints inherentjto the property in developing the document's Goal Statements, Implementation Measures-and Land Use Plans. Public Input: In order to allow early public involvement with the preparation of the Specific Plan, staff -first distributed a questionnaire to over 900 of the closest residents (based on an approximately 1,000 foot radius from the site) and other interested individuals and community groups. This questionnaire, which is summarized in the Specific Plan and included in its entirety in the attached Appendix, solicited comments regarding what the adjoining neighbors perceived to be the major issues relative to potential future development of the property. I Two community informational meetings were also held on March 4th and April 22nd. These meetings were attended by roughly 45 and 30, respectively, of the immediate neighbors. Each of these meetings, as well as the Planning Commission's June public hearing and tonight's City Council public hearing, were noticed'to the approximately 900 people on staff's mailing list, and announcements were published in the Saratoga News. Articles have also been printed in the Saratoga News and the San Jose Mercury's local section reporting on the progress of the Specific Plar throughout its development. J Neighborhood Concerns: The strongest sentiments expressed by the area residents in their questionnaire responses, at the community meetings and at the public hearing were: • Residential development preferred • Two -story height limit • No through access of Afton Avenue to either Saratoga or McFarland Avenues All of the attached Land Use Plans recommend that the southeast half of the site be devoted to residential development. The two -story height limit and Afton Avenue "no through access" provisions have both been included in the Plan's Implementation Measures. Property Owner's Concerns: Since the Planning Commission's June 23rd public hearing, staff has met with the property owner's (BA Properties, Inc.) representatives to discuss concerns with some of the final language included in the Specific Plan. Debra Cauble's attached letter, dated July 22, 1993, summarizes their concerns. Staff's responses are as follows: • • Buffer for Parcel APN 380 -11 -006 Staff has no objections to the proposed language changes - the Implementation Measure still achieves its objective. Greenbelt /Common Open Space Staff feels these changes are acceptable, with the exception of the elimination of the second sentence. As a clarification, the language should be amended to "The Saratoga Avenue and McFarland Avenue perimeter greenbelts should not be allowed to contribute to the 50% (approximately 4.8 acres) common green landscape requirement." The intent of this Measure was to not allow perimeter buffering, which would be visually separated and could also be physically separated by a sound wall, to contribute to the required internal common open space. Land Use Plans Staff disagrees on this issue. The Planning Commissioners clearly intended to allow the Plans to remain flexible so as not to preclude any truly creative and desirable alternatives. Staff finds that the language on pages 4 and 22 accomplish this objective. However, throughout the Planning Commission's adjourned and public meetings, there was a clear "preference" by the Planning Commissioners that these were appropriate land use configurations for the site. Conversely, staff was directed to eliminate Land Use Plans which the Commission did not consider appropriate (see attached minutes dated 6/1/93). • Storm Drainage Staff recommends including this clarification. Fiscal Impacts: None Follow Up Actions: None Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motion: Property would continue to be regulated by the Multiple Use - Planned Development (MU -PD) Zoning Ordinance, without benefit of specific development guidelines indicating what the City finds to be appropriate land use controls and configurations for the site. Development proposals would be considered following the submittal of an application to the City. Attachments: 1. Paul Masson Specific Plan 2. Environmental Negative.Declaration 3. Letter from Debra Cauble dated 7/22/93 4. Planning Commission minutes dated 6/23/93, 6/1/93 and 5/18/93 5. Correspondence received at the 6/23/93 public hearing i wp \james \exesumm \masson DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 The undersigned, Director of Community Development of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation, has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653- of the City of Saratoga, and based on the City's independent judgment, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preparation and adoption of a Specific Plan for the 24 -acre former Paul Masson Winery site located at the northeast corner of Saratoga Ave. and Route 85. The purpose of the Plan is to provide more detailed development standards than contained within the-existing MU -PD zoning regulations which govern the property. The Specific Plan will also assist any future potential developers of this currently vacant site in anticipating what the City will find to be an appropriate use of the property. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION It is staff's determination that this Specific Plan will have no significant environmental impacts in ;itself. The Plan is consistent with the City's General Plan and the MU-PD , zoning ordinance. The alternative land use plans contained herein are also consistent with the approved project for the site and the mitigation measures outlined in the adopted EIR for that project. If a new application is made to develop the site, an amended or new EIR may be required. Pursuant to the MU -PD zoning regulations, if an EIR is required, the "project" shall be the conceptual development plan as approved by the Planning Commission. Executed at Saratoga, California this day of , 1993. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER S I am writing to follow up on our meeting last week regarding the revised Specific Plan. Tom DeRegtjand I appreciated the opportunity to discuss with you and James Walgren the changes you have made to the Plan since the Planning Commission's public hearing. As we indicated, there are a few -items which we anticipate raising with the City Council. It would be.our hope that you would ' be',able -to concur in our request to the Council that the language of the Plan be modified as discussed below. Buffer for parcel APN 389 -11 -006. BA Properties recognizes the need to provide appropriate buffering for the existing residential parcel. We are concerned, however, about the specific language you have included in paragraph 8 on page 17 of the Plan, because we believe it can be interpreted to require a level of buffering which is unreasonable and may not even be possible, although we do not believe either staff or the Commission intended such an interpretation. Accordingly, we would like to see the language modified along these lines: I "If vehicular access is proposed abutting the existing residence (APN 389 -11 -006), sufficient visual and sound buffering treatments shall be provided to pretest e resid� - == `�e€f „a +� ^��; ^ mitigate to a reasonable level the noise- and visual impacts of such access:" An Asstwimiun hwhOing d h,f —ional Corp. RECEIVED Matteor � 26 1993 SaxeJUL Urr I. PLANNING Nan A W Y E R S July 22, 1993 Kodak Center 1740 Technoloo Drive Suite 350 San Jose. CA 95110 Paul Curtis Planning Director 4084.41 -76`O City of Saratoga FAX 408 441-7302 13777. Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Nonnmt E. Ndatrzoni RE: Paul Masson Specific Plan Allan Robert Saxe Margaret Ecker Nancla Pegom M. O'Laughlin • Dear Paul' Debra L.Cauble )tiny C. Tsai I am writing to follow up on our meeting last week regarding the revised Specific Plan. Tom DeRegtjand I appreciated the opportunity to discuss with you and James Walgren the changes you have made to the Plan since the Planning Commission's public hearing. As we indicated, there are a few -items which we anticipate raising with the City Council. It would be.our hope that you would ' be',able -to concur in our request to the Council that the language of the Plan be modified as discussed below. Buffer for parcel APN 389 -11 -006. BA Properties recognizes the need to provide appropriate buffering for the existing residential parcel. We are concerned, however, about the specific language you have included in paragraph 8 on page 17 of the Plan, because we believe it can be interpreted to require a level of buffering which is unreasonable and may not even be possible, although we do not believe either staff or the Commission intended such an interpretation. Accordingly, we would like to see the language modified along these lines: I "If vehicular access is proposed abutting the existing residence (APN 389 -11 -006), sufficient visual and sound buffering treatments shall be provided to pretest e resid� - == `�e€f „a +� ^��; ^ mitigate to a reasonable level the noise- and visual impacts of such access:" An Asstwimiun hwhOing d h,f —ional Corp. VAINk14�'S. G Paul Curtis July 22, 1993 Page 2 Greenbelt /Common open space. As we discussed, we find the language in paragraph 2 at the bottom of page 19 (under "Common Greens and Landscaping ") to be unduly restrictive in view of the specific configuration of this site. This language, together with other parts of the Plan dealing with landscape buffer requirements, appears to require a 50 -foot landscape buffer area around the perimeter of the site, no part of which can be designed to fulfill requirements for common open space. Yet, buffer zones along the Route 85 soundwall, the western part of the Saratoga frontage, and the rear of the site are not located such that such landscaped areas would contribute to off -site visual buffering. Accordingly, the Plan should provide flexibility in function of the perimeter areas so that common) area amenities (such as play areas or par - courses, for example) might be incorporated into the buffers where appropriate. This level of detail should best be left for review at the time a specific site plan is presented. To this end, we' suggest the following changes to the paragraph in question: "The site perimeter greenbelt buffers may contribute to the 40% (approximately 9.6 acres) landscaped area percentage ;. "-he e belts sheuidnet be- lrewed te " ian�seape requirefftent. The roughly 4.8 acres of common open space should be located internally -- nd eefl_se_lidat'ed and designed in such a manner as to maximize its accessibility space and useability by residents of the development." Land Use .Plan. We have strong concerns about the language which has been .added to the Plan regarding the meaning and use of the Land Use Plans. on the bottom of page 4, and on page 22, the Plans are described as the community's "preferred land use configurations." Throughout the Specific Plan process, the Plans have been presented and discussed as examples of possible land use configurations rather than preferred alternatives. Paul Curtis July 22, 1993 Page 3 From comments by the.Commissioners at their workshops, we understood the Commission consensus to be that the Plans were just illustrative examples. Accordingly, BA Properties did not present alternative plans to the Commission, nor urge that certain configu- rations be considered preferred alternatives. Norm Matteoni raised this issue again at the Commission' s public hearing, and proposed specific language to clarify the pur- pose of inclusion of the Plans as examples rather than preferred alternatives. As the minutes reflect, Commissioner Jacobs express- ed support for this proposed language at several points in the meeting. Toward the end of the hearing, the City Attorney reviewed the proposal and advised it should be modified as follows: "As examples of possible land uses the following illustrative maps are set forth. These maps are guidelines. These land use plans are not all inclusive." The minutes for the meeting then reflect your comment that staff would work with this language. We believe :that the language you have included is not consistent with the Commission's action at its public hearing, and ask that it be modified accordingly prior to consideration of the Plan by the'Council.1 Storm drainage. At our meeting you indicated that the language in paragraph 8 on page 18 should refer to "detention" of storm water rather than "retention." We would Pike to see this correction made before the Plan goes to Council. Thank you for your cont Specific Plan with us. C cc: James Walgren Kathy DeSpain Tom DeRegt Norm Matteoni willingness ss the Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 23, 1993 Page 8 The meeting was recessed at 8:17 p.m. and reconvened at 8:26 p.m. Commissioner Jacobs re- joined his fellow Commissioners at the dias. 4. Paul Masson Specific Plan; the Saratoga Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on. the draft Specific Plan for the former Paul Masson Winery site, located at the northeast corner of Saratoga Ave. and Route 85. The purpose of the Specific Plan is to ensure that appropriate development guidelines are in place for any future development plans for the 24 acre property. Planning Department staff will be presenting an overview of the development of the Plan and the various land use.alternative proposals. The Planning Commission will then open the public hearing to take testimony and then either recommend adopting the Plan as submitted to the City Council or direct staff to revise the Plan for further Planning Commission review. Planner Walgren presented the Report dated June 23, 1993. Planner Walgren's report included a history on the site, background information on community meetings regarding this site, objectives of a Specific Plan, implementation measures, explanation of the community survey and circulation issues. Chairperson Moran noted that under the Circulation section, the first entry states that no through vehicular access shall be permitted connecting Afton Avenue with either Saratoga Avenue or McFarland Avenue. She inquired whether such access would be prohibited should a future plan proposing through access come before the Commission. In response to Chairperson Moran's question, Planner Walgren explained that the implementation measures of this document are prefaced by the words "should" or "shall ". He explained that the word "should" is used in this document as encouragement and can be deviated from if the end result is appropriate. He further explained that use of the word "shall ", as used in this document and specifically in the section to which Chairperson Moran referred, is a requirement and would require a formal modification of this document. He noted that the document prohibits a through access, but it does allow for a limited access such a cul -de -sac extension that could to finish off Afton. He pointed out #3 on page 17 which limits the number of parcels to 20 which can be served by such a cul -de -sac proposal. M Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 23, 1993 Page 9 Commissioner Asfour inquired about Page 17, #3 and wondered about this section and the secondary emergency access. Planner Walgren explained that the number 20 was arrived at through this Specific Plan process as a reasonable number of parcels for a cul -de -sac on this site. he noted that the secondary emergency access requirement for a cul -de -sac with more than 15 parcels is from the subdivision code. He explained that the emergency access could be located anywhere off the cul -de -sac and is a gated access that only the fire district and health services can get through with the appropriate keys. Commissioner Wolfe inquired if the fire department had reviewed the 5 plans and if there were any concerns. Planner Walgren stated that the fire district had reviewed and approved of the plans, but that when a specific development proposal is made the appropriate fire agencies would review the specifics of the proposal. Commissioner Moran instructed the audience on the appropriate procedure when addressing the Commission and advised them of the time limit. CHAIRPERSON MORAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:37 P.M. Peter Leslie, 13100 Saratoga Avenue, stated that he was concerned with Figure 5, Page 12 of the Plan, with regard to the close proximity of the access road to his property. He expressed such concerns as noise, increased traffic, and traffic fumes. He requested that the access be re- located away from his house and suggested' that the access be located farther north near the water works. Mr. Leslie stated that given a little more time he may be able to come up with other suggestions for alternative access location. Commissioner Jacobs inquired how close the house was to the road that used to serve the winery. Mr. Leslie stated that he was unsure because he had not resided in the house during that time. Myra Chaney, 18859 Afton Avenue, submitted and read a letter from Alma Chaney. The letter expressed concern with what certain the types of development will do to the area. She pointed out that the area has no sidewalks and that many children play in the street and urged the Commission keep this in mind when reviewing the plan and any future development plans for this site. Miss Chaney also submitted a petition signed by 41 children representing similar concerns. 9 Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 23, 1993 Page 10 Rebecca Chaney, 18859 Afton Avenue, submitted a letter and expressed concern with the future use of the site especially with regard to a potential of increased traffic. She urged the Commission to make sure that Afton and McFarland would not be connected through to Saratoga Avenue and explained that there are many children and elderly in the area. The letter she submitted had the signatures of 36 residents expressing this concern. She also submitted a letter from Mr. Frank Linn. Deborah Lang, 13172 Montrose, submitted a letter and expressed concern with increased. traffic. She suggested that with regard to #3 on Page 17 the number of homes on a cul -de -sac on this site should be limited to 15 in order to eliminate the need for a secondary emergency access. She explained that by doing this many neighbors may be alleviated of their concerns regarding increased traffic and through connections of the neighborhood streets to Saratoga. Avenue. James Ousley, 20707 Seafor Avenue, stated that he felt that the Plan presented stiff criteria which would allow ;the land to be developed only by a large developer. He said that the Plan promotes cohesive development and he preferred to see the property be developed one piece at a time like other residential areas. He stated that the Plan is too restrictive and prevents density similar to that which is in the vineyards. He also stated that he thought that the City's intention to set aside a 50 foot buffer along Saratoga would be a significant demand to on a developer. He stated that because of the restrictions placed by this plan on the site, it may be a long time before the site is developed. He stated that the site is a good site and can be reasonably developed and that the City could use the development fees that would be generated by the development of this site. Ray Pasentino, clarified that the main entrance to the Paul Masson was approximately 75 -100 feet south of where the access is located on Figure 5, Page 12. He noted that area proposed as an access served previously as the driveway to the winery tasting room. Mike Speckman, 13214 Montrose, expressed concern with regard to the access road and the signal intersection at Saratoga and the subject site. He explained that once Highway 85 is opened, traffic at this intersection would increase and an access road to the site at this point (Figure 5) may be a dangerous location with regard to traffic back -up. He also reported that the dust has been a issue since the demolition and expressed certain health concerns. He stated that he was pleased to see that many of the view points expressed at the community meetings have been reflected in staff's presentation. He spoke in favor of limiting the number of homes to be serviced by a cul -de -sac on the subject site (Page 17, #3) to 15. 10 Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 23, 1993 Page 11 Leo Barnard, 13151 Paseo Presada, Saratoga Parks and Recreation Commissioner, stated that he did not see any strong encouragement for incorporation of a neighborhood park. He stated he would like to see a park or a recreational area as part of this plan because of the density increase as a resulting from development of this site. He explained that Quito Park would be impacted by the residents of this site: Judy Homen, 13159 Montrose Street, reported on the numerous activities that have taken place on this property - the demolition, vagrants, parking and etc. She noted that the neighborhood has had to endure these occurrences and asked if there was any kind of guarantee the Commission could give that would assure the neighbors that there would be no through access of Afton to Saratoga Avenue. She also asked how only 15 homes could be proposed for a 13 acre parcel unless the homes are very large homes. Chairperson Moran explained that the Plan as presented tonight prohibits through access of Afton to Saratoga or McFarland and that the action the Commission would be taking would be only a recommendation. She further explained that the City Council would be the body which would make the final decision or approval of the plan. She explained that if, in the future, a developer brings a proposal before the City that deviates from the approved plan in a way that calls for amendments to the Specific Plan, the neighbors would be noticed of the public hearings. Chairperson Moran advised the neighbors to continue following the plans for the site. She stated that no absolute guarantees could be made and that when a development proposal is made there is a possibility for changes. She stated that such changes would require extensive review and public hearings. She again stated that the neighbors would be noticed that such changes are being considered. Planner Walgren explained that as the Plan is proposed the language reads that no through vehicular access shall be permitted connecting Afton Avenue with either Saratoga or McFarland. He also pointed out that the Plan also requires the use of Afton as access for only residential land uses. He stated that this language is very binding. He went on to explain that the plan also limits the number of parcels that can use Afton as access via a cul -de -sac to 15, or 20 if there is a secondary emergency access provided. He stated that there has been interest in limiting the number of parcels, on a cul -de -sac off of Afton to 15. He noted that the Plan, at this point, is not set in concrete and this change could be made. He also stated .that should the Plan be approved by the City Council, the language used which prohibits connection of Afton to either Saratoga or McFarland is very binding. 11 Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 23, 1993 Page 12 Commissioner Jacobs stated that no one has expressed support for connecting Afton to Saratoga or McFarland, not even the property owner. He stated that he felt that the Commission is supportive of the neighbors desire to keep the streets unconnected. He stated that while there are no absolute guarantees he feels that a connection of the street would be very unlikely. He stated that some access from Afton into the development via a cul -de -sac is a reasonable design feature to integrated the development into the neighborhood. He explained that traffic concerns are something the Commission felt could be addressed and mitigated. Judy Homen suggested that #3 on Page 17 limit the number of homes served by a cul -de -sac to 15 and change the first line to read: "If Residential development is proposed to access off Afton Avenue it shall be via cul -de -sac serving not more than 15 residential parcels." Planner Walgren stated that this suggestion could easily be implemented since #1 on Page 17 precludes through access. Norm Matteoni, 1740 Technology Drive, San Jose, representing the property owner - BA Properties, stated that the property owner is not asking for through access of Afton. He also stated that the proposed access to the property and the signalized intersection (Figure 5), are dictated by certain fixed aspects such as the approved Vineyard Development plans. He noted that the plans presented in the Specific Plan are just examples of possible land use plans /guidelines and that the plans are not all encompassing. Mr. Matteoni presented the following language to clarify the purpose of the proposed Specific Plan: "As examples of possible land uses the following illustrative maps are set forth. These maps are guidelines. The actual applications of development after public review if approved will establish the precise development. These land use plan are not all inclusive." He suggested that the City may want to use this language as an introduction to the Specific Plan. He stated that the owner's intent is to produce a quality design that may have multiple uses and develop the property in a coordinated fashion. He also answered questions from the Commission. Commissioner Jacobs expressed interest in including the language read by Mr. Matteoni as an introduction to the Specific Plan. Planner Walgren noted that a letter had been received by Mr. and Mrs. Kramer requesting that Afton not become a through access and that any land use proposal for the property be limited to residential. 12 Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 23, 1993 Page 13 Planner Walgren also stated that it was the intent of staff that the final section of the Plan provide a descriptive that these plans included are preferred plans /guidelines as far as land use grouping which doesn't effect implementation measures such as access and green belt buffers. He explained that the language would reflect that these plans (as far as land use groupings) are only a guide, are not all inclusive and can be modified or deviated from if a better project is the result. There was no one else wishing to speak. ASFOUR /JACOBS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:10 P.M. PASSED 5 -0. Chairperson Moran stated that she has no interest in a through access of Afton to Saratoga or McFarland and can support the change of the "should" on Page 17, #3, to "shall" with regard to allowing access of Afton into the site via Cul -de -sac only. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he is in agreement with Chairperson Moran and stated that he could support limiting the number of parcels served by this cul -de -sac to 15. Commissioner Wolfe expressed his support for the comments made by Chair Moran and Commissioner Jacobs. Commissioner Asfour and Murakami also concurred with the comments made by Chair Moran and Commissioner Jacobs. Commissioner Asfour inquired if the Planning Commission would be able to see the Final Draft of the Specific Plan with the changes and the introduction incorporated prior to its review by the Council. Planner Walgren stated that it could come back before the Commission prior to City Council review. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he did not feel it necessary to bring the plan back before the Commission. He stated that the Commission has the plans that will be included and that the only other thing that he (Commissioner Jacobs) would like to see is incorporation of the language read by Mr. Matteoni. He stated that once the Commission agrees on whatever changes there are, the staff will make these and the item can be sent on to the Council. 13 Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 23, 1993 Page 14 Chairperson Moran expressed agreement with Commissioner Jacobs Chairperson Moran asked staff to address Mr. Barnard's expressed concerns regarding the lack of parks in the Specific Plan for the site. Planner Walgren noted that Page 19, Common Greens and Landscaping section integrates common areas and open spaces into the Plan. Planning Director Curtis explained that development of this site especially a residential development would be subject to park in -lieu fees which would be put in the fund for purchase of park land or improvements to parks that would serve the residents of this development. He also explained that the City cannot impose, as a mandate, the establishment of a fully improved park within this site that is totally paid for by the developer and which serves people from outside this development. He explained that the City can only require the developer to pay the development's share of park fees. Commissioner Jacobs inquired as to how much land the City could require with regard to meeting the needs of the people of such a development. Director Curtis noted that there portion would be in the form an in -lieu park fee. Commissioner Jacobs asked how much property or donation of property would meet the development's need. He stated that his concern related to the developer paying an in -lieu fee for a park that would be located some distance away from the development and end up not actually serving the people from the development. City Attorney Riback explained that the General Plan does not designate that a portion of this land be used for park/ recreational area and in order to require a developer to implement a park /recreation area on this site a Policy would have to be included in the General Plan calling for a park on this site. He explained that the formula for the size of a park is defined in the General Plan as 3 acres per every 1,000 residents. He noted that the City can only require a park on site if it is set forth in the Recreation Element of the General Plan. Commissioner Moran inquired if the Area Plan calls for a park. Mr. Barnard indicated a desire to address Chairperson Moran's question. JACOBS /MURAKAMI MOVED TO RE -OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:20 P.M. PASSED 5 -0. 14 Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 23, 1993 Page 15 Mr Barnard stated that there is no park proposed on this site or in the plan. He stated that the Parks and Recreation General Plan that addresses the City's needs through the year 2000 concludes that the City is underplanned for parks by 40 %. He stated that the opportunity should be taken in the future to have developments of this size and even smaller provide park capability wherever possible. He stated that he did not feel that the Plan addressed this issue and urged the Planning Commission to look at the Park Plan before coming to any conclusion with regard to the Specific Plan for this site. In response to Chairperson Moran's inquiry as to whether Mr. Barnard had any language that he would like to see added to the Plan which would address this issue, Mr. Barnard explained that he had not had a chance to review the Specific Plan prior to the meeting and did not have any language readily available. He stated that if allowed some time to review the Plan he could probably come up with some language. He urged the Commission to take every possible opportunity to create additional parks/ recreational areas in the City. WOLFE /JACOBS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:23 P.M. PASSED 5 -0. Commissioner Asfour noted that the Plan calls for common greens and, landscaping as outlined on Page 19 and explained by Planner Walgren. He questioned whether this would be adequate for the residents of a future development. i Commissioner Jacobs stated that he is troubled to find out for the first time tonight that a requirement cannot; be made for the provision of parks in any plan provided to the Commission because apparently there is no provision for this in the General Plan. Planning Director Curtis clarified that the City cannot require the developer to dedicate a portion of this land be dedicated as park land that will serve people who live off -site. If this is done the City will have to pay for this land. He explained that only dedication for exaction the City could get from development of this site is from the need that is generated from the residents on this site. Commissioner Jacobs asked how much real property can be expected for service to the residents of this site. Planner Walgren called attention to Page 19 of the Plan and explained that the net site area covered by structures and other impervious surfaces shall not exceed 60% and that at least 40% - 9.6 acres of the remaining property be landscaped and that at least 50% - 4.8 acres of the landscaped area be designated and recorded (deed restricted) for the common use and enjoyment of the residents. He further explained that this 15 Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 23, 1993 Page 16 portion of the property cannot be fenced in, but can be either concentrated or broken up /distributed over the property. He also noted that the required greenbelt area is not comprised in these requirements for common areas and landscaping. He noted that the Plan does not specifically state this and that the Commission may want to add language to this effect. Planning Director Curtis and Planner Walgren answered questions from the Commission with regard to the Plan's "Common Greens and Landscaping" requirements, various City requirements and limitations to implementation of parks, in -lieu -park fees and acquisition of land for park uses. The Commission went through the Specific Plan page by page in order to identify any changes. There were no changes to Pages 1 through 14. Page 15 - Planner Walgren suggested that the following language be added as a Goal Statement: "Pedestrian connections should be provided wherever it is feasible to do so in order to provide pedestrian circulation within the development itself and between the new and existing neighborhoods." Chairperson Moran suggested that #4 be modified to read: "Ensure that future development of the site minimizes the potential for Route 85 interchange traffic to negatively impact this site and adjoining neighborhoods by promoting appropriate circulation patterns. Page 16 - no changes Page 17 - Chairperson Moran and Planner Walgren co- operatively modified #3 (Circulation) to read as follows: "If Residential development is proposed to access off Afton Avenue it shall be via a cul -de -sac servicing not more that 15 residential parcels and /or units to prevent the need for a secondary emergency access." Planner Walgren suggested that the phrase "(approximately 13 acres)" be stricken from the #2 (Development Regulations). Chairperson Moran suggested #2 (Development Regulations) read as follows: "The east portion of the site shall be devoted to Residential -Low or Medium Density development." Page 18 - no changes 16 Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 23, 1993 Page 17 Page 19 - #5 (Greenbelt Buffering) Planner Walgren suggested that the following be added at the end: "These treatments should also provide pedestrian access connections wherever appropriate." #1 (Common Green and Landscaping) Chairperson Moran directed staff to draft language that would specifically exclude greenbelts and buffer zones from this section's requirements and provide language that calls for development of parks on the site to be in conformance with the guidelines in the Recreation Element of the General Plan. Page 20 - no changes Page 21 - (Land Use Plans) Commissioner Jacobs suggested that the language offered by Mr. Matteoni be incorporated into this section. City Attorney Riback reviewed the language and advised staff to use the following language for this section - Planning Director Curtis read this into the record: "As examples of possible land uses the following illustrative maps are set forth. These maps are guidelines. These land use plans are not all inclusive." Planning Director Curtis stated that staff would work with this language Commissioner Wolfe commented that whatever is done as far as developing this site will be an improvement. He stated that he feels the City needs to be flexible with regard to proposals for development of this site. He noted that this site will serve as an entryway into Saratoga and the City needs to work to ensure that this site aesthetically pleasing and suggested that any commercial development carry the same architectural theme as the library building. Chairperson Moran noted that the concerns expressed by Mr. Leslie with regard to the proposed access for this site being in close proximity to his residence and its potential of increased traffic, traffic fumes, and noise needs to be addressed. 17 Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 23, 1993 Page 18 Planner Walgren noted that this intersection has been identified as an existing condition and that the following language as another Implementation Measure can be added as an Implementation Measure to help mitigate Mr. Leslie's concerns: "If vehicular access is proposed abutting the existing residence identified as 13100 Saratoga Avenue (A.P.N) sufficient buffering treatment shall be provided to protect the residence from traffic and traffic noise impacts. These bufferings can be landscaping, setbacks, sound attenuation walls or any combination of the above." Planner Walgren stated that this would probably go under the landscaping requirements of the Plan. JACOBS / ASFOUR MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ACCEPT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WITH REGARD TO THE PAUL MASSON SPECIFIC PLAN. THE MOTION PASSED 5 -0. ASFOUR / JACOBS MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF THE PAUL MASSON SPECIFIC PLAN AS AMENDED (ABOVE). THE MOTION PASSED 5 -0. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS None COMMISSION ITEMS None COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes - 6/2 and 6/5/93 Oral City Council Planning Director Curtis announced that at the last City Council meeting the City's budget was reviewed. With regard to impacts to the Planning Commission, Planning Director Curtis explained that two Planning Department positions had been cut - 1 iE-3 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Tuesday, June 1, 1993 PLACE: Senior Center - Adult Day Care Center, 7:30 p.m. 19655 Allendale Avenue TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting ---------------------------------------------------------------- The meeting is a study session between applicants, interested citizens and staff, to discuss continued applications, advance planning projects and general planning issues. The Planning Commission has a policy that no decisions will be made at these sessions. A written report will be made of the proceedings. ROLL CALL - Present: Chair Moran, Commissioners Asfour', Caldwell, Murakami and Wolfe Absent: Commissioner Jacobs Staff. Present: Planning Director Curtis and Associate Planners Walgren and White ITEMS OF DISCUSSION 1. PAUL MASSON SPECIFIC PLAN Planning Director Curtis began the discussion by providing a summary of the previous May 18th adjourned meeting and the resulting objectives of tonight's meeting. These were: • Decide whether or not specific land use configurations should be incorporated into the Plan via maps. While the maps provide a convenient visual representation of land use alternatives, they may tend to limit the flexibility of the Specific Plan. • If the land use maps are incorporated into the Plan, do the Commissioners want to add and /or delete any of staff's draft proposals? • Is the Planning Commission comfortable with scheduling this item -for the June 23, 1993 public hearing? Following discussion amongst the Commissioners on the various maps and what they represented, and input. from Bank of America representatives, the Planning Commission suggested eliminating map no.'s 1 and 2. Two additional maps were requested in their place; one showing 100% single- family homes and the other showing 100% townhomes. Based on these modifications, the consensus of the Commissioners was that the draft Specific Plan was ready for a June 23rd public hearing. Adjournment - This item was concluded at 9:30 P.M. The meeting adjourned following discussion of the Tree Preservation Ordinance Amendment and the Open Space Element. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Tuesday, May IS, 1993 PLACE: Senior Center - Adult Day Care Center, 7:30 p.m. 19655 Allendale Avenue TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting The meeting is a study session between citizens and staff, to discuss continued planning projects and general planning Commission has a policy that no decisions sessions. A written report will be made o ROLL CALL applicants, interested. applications, advance issues.. The Planning will be made at these f the proceedings. Present_: Chair Moran, Commissioners Asfour, Caldwell, Jacobs and Murakami Staff Present: Planning Director Curtis, Associate Planner Walgren and Assistant Planner Dias Absent: Commissioner Wolfe ITEMS OF DISCUSSION 1. REVIEW OF PAULIMASSON SPECIFIC PLAN. i Chair Moran began the meeting by asking each participant to introduce themselves. In addition to the Planning Commissioners and staff in attendance, representatives of Bank of America (property owners) were also in the audience: Thomas deRegt, New Cities Investment Co.; Norman Matteoni and Debra Cauble, Legal Counsel, and; Kathy DeSpain, BA Properties, Inc. A representative of Mr. Richard Oliver, former property owner, was also present. Planner Walgren then explained that the purpose of tonight's meeting was to review and comment on the draft Specific Plan for the former Paul Masson winery site. Following Planning Commission review of the text document, a presentation of the draft alternative land use plans would then be made by staff. The Planning Commission then reviewed the document section by section. Staff noted the comments for inclusion in the draft Specific Plan to be presented at the June 23, 1993 public hearing. Action Minutes - Regular Adjourned Planning Commission 5/18/93 Concluding review of the text document, the Commission then reviewed the five draft alternative land ,use plans. Following questions and comments from both the Planning Commissioners and Bank of America representatives, the item was continued to the June 1, 1993 study session to further analyze the various land use plans and their ramifications. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. �K6� ►1 xf oc U . To whomever this may concern: We are residents of Afton Avenue who are concerned about the future use of the Paul Masson site. We feel that any type of development which causes more traffic on our street, especially any development which includes opening Afton Avenue to Saratoga Avenue or McFarland, will be detrimental to our neighborhood. Please remember us when you make your decisions about the development of the Paul Masson site. XT--- 19 20 21 22 LVLLi/ Z� ` -, Address: r G • ♦ g F Cr V-ILO 1 � i lip FAIR r 73`3 .4(�,) d �� 9 SQ 2 (!5 1 8 71 -m 4Ve c�� I �� �� ►`i t �� Uri / 5-c)-7 c) i (b- -774 g4ci� NVe', qSo -] 0 cl 070 C2 Name. �� Address: 23 loo S�� 24 e4- /x. 5,41en ro ?eo 25 I g�o2 ,,.� A vE C,-ARA7 P , � �. i. , 29 i. // MAI M WO �3911I QtAn Ciule SS 6=Io �o -`r— ��v 74 -y4 CA} —367 Owl, L, 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 i ET (P & 0 fnn- a yc" Sara4-)9g6b7 -6 6J y5v% (Q Y�L futn'* 4t. fc. mi To: Saratoga City Council From: Frank D. Linn 18718 Afton Avenue, Saratoga Date: June 21, 1993 As a resident of Afton Avenue, I am greatly concerned about any development of the former Paul Masson Winery property that would result in an extension of Afton Avenue through to Saratoga Avenue. It seems to me that an extension of Afton Avenue to Saratoga Avenue would invite automobile traffic to use Afton Avenue as a short cut route to get from Highway 85 to Quito Avenue and destinations beyond. Such freeway exit traffic would be entirely incompatible with the family residential nature of our neighborhood. Not only would the volume of traffic along our residential street be greatly increased, but the nature of such freeway exit traffic would suggest that a significant proportion of the traffic would be traveling at speeds greater than the residential speed limit, despite traffic laws to the contrary. We residents of Afton Avenue do not welcome this kind of freeway commute traffic impact on our street. I have young children who walk along and ride bicycles on Afton Avenue and regularly cross the street to visit friends. Their safety is my greatest concern. I urge our Saratoga City Council to preserve the family residential nature of our neighborhood and the safety of our children by preventing any attempt to extend Afton to Saratoga Avenue. t�'4 4U"tj SAM: U .�t �C- 0'3. �11;15113 fau�- To whomever this may concern: My name is Alma Chaney. I am taking the time to write to you because I am concerned about what certain types of development on the Paul Masson site could do to my neighborhood. My area has no sidewalks so 1, as well as the other youth of this area, use the streets as a recreation area. Together, we enjoy riding bikes, rollerblading, and playing in the street. We are worried that, if you open Afton Avenue to traffic from Saratoga Avenue and McFarland, we will no longer be able to play or walk in the street; increased cars will make the streets unsafe for us. Do not forget our safety when you plan the future of the Paul Masson site. Name: Age: Address: .- D Koa A car p� ` � 1 l <31 U. � Vlm Avc, l To whomever this may concern: 5U41*( 44- &-. q My name is Alma Chaney. I am taking the time to write to you because I am concerned about what certain types of development on the Paul Masson site could do to my neighborhood. My area has no sidewalks so 1, as well as the other youth of this area, use the streets as a recreation area. Together, we enjoy riding bikes, rollerblading, and playing in the street. We are worried that, if you open Afton Avenue to traffic from Saratoga Avenue and McFarland, we will no longer be able to play or walk in the street; increased cars will make the streets unsafe for us. Do not forget our safety when you plan the future of the Paul Masson site. Age: Address: i-L ►=85'� Af'rc) Y) Ave, , 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 raw � r WEA PFA.4 � 1.32 l'f SfE_ / �U4 �yZ4 0rlill� � - 13 3 d n-�o s e S -4 A '131:1.6 �n�r P Sfa 13Z , 187 ft) I8-7 �a � �. S. Name: 22 ai n -e— 23 _Do ei. \� iYlc�voU 24 25 26 Age: Addits - S `( -�'-tt r tq ve r'J/ . -S tai 0 4rtxv a ►9, -0-4,0 CA J� �� 76 ���la►�4 v --P��a � 27 l_($, 9 -L�7 Au e— ScrncJo_cl, cc 28 LL 29 �&M �Z l `v�(2, 4 n Ave . 1� 30 � e 1-31'A (0o66rc S rqJ ck 31 '3113151 6i(fn 32 -,v'�? 'V �(� '� © 6A Co Qj (off 33 34 35 36 -,I/j 37 N 38 C 39 4034 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 C{h CL ces ot-r�-- Co (le c- e k ��4-z, ,, Tu, -v— Z � � 9 q 3 W ,����q�� To whomever this may concern: We are residents of Montrose who are concerned about the future use of the Paul Masson site. We feel that any type of development which causes more traffic on our street, especially any development which includes opening Afton Avenue to Saratoga Avenue or McFarland, will be detrimental to our neighborhood. Please remember us when you make your decisions about the development of the Paul Masson site. Name :: 1 Address: I I A Bldg -s7- 1_32111' W -a-1 rg c Y-r S is `5b?J r,: e 9�07C c ?r 9,5"0 7 b PT 07J O'er 7 Jn7c 3 1�v lgovlfv-os���,'saVajoqC -950`7 0 i A J r Address: I I A Bldg -s7- 1_32111' W -a-1 rg c Y-r S is `5b?J r,: e 9�07C c ?r 9,5"0 7 b PT 07J O'er 7 Jn7c 3 1�v lgovlfv-os���,'saVajoqC -950`7 0 •� _ r,- �. 30 ,•' 31 32 JA4r c Uryh,e n - 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Address: i3 X03 nip, ire f,4- l� J3oz —g-/l ,,,v,, wre -:er4 (?,& - is o ?�e) )31? 7J')I O)J7 O.SE S7- GA 9 A-a7 a 0647 si, e,4 gSd 7d I3 0 9 7 f/� ,,s�z. ;. ��. g;3o 7 o 3 I3/' /,? 31f 1`12-�� -73-G7b 5070 r5�76 �/l jb�,w 4�4- RECEIVED JUN 21 1993 J�he- ZZ , 1443 PLANNING DEPT C i �- y 04� Sa.ra fo a �l uv� 11 i �y Co rn rn i ss �� ►� 1 777 { rui+val -e Av,e.KU e. 5, rckA -o 8 q , C /� q 5076 Tlannin� comm155iov)exs: -I-c re- i -�raf� ou r U i ec.� cc� rn - q e 5 +10nai "rte) �e and n5 `� I�. d ec� I v pmt Uf �o r rvr�r D u 6 a ul MaSSD✓1 `P uo,nom'y e Af +ova � � r,,,�os+ i m Pvrtanf i55UeS tS uo aaess -The -�"r54 awd one a �}-�fo � a rnUS4- �ma�n Closed. Olen i ng �- acceSS . 0+-o �ou�d be d.e va 54-a.fi m5 �° roU -�o S a��9a A-Ve-�u� � � o�,� !d u5 c A-Ffo n -I-U cc�f d 5 el- h-e�9 h borh ovc� . 1%P,{1 i s � n a n i n cruse `.w' h!x)�od . � �,,�' ��eeway c4u �v1° n �-fn�S nee ' rQh a.�d res rd�s mho I � � 6� m I�Gf -ed )4'e -FGc of -�-11� 5 n-e1� hborhood woul�:l oq a,+- ` � ' he c e efo ped a5 resideAha.(. I(-e (aid should N,X.I- use- � �, ads round'�5 ne- Ajhbor o paaj rt"h� sur (eaS e JL-L etov,�- you ld at � erc ��ct� v r �"�� -a' 1 cl "e1 o p Anu comet d es +1d►� . �� a.� ��� +ro con po15e� ,a,h l Cr -� �0 su I b� i M Pac w'I -�-tel ,-)e- pj.,ase p,� 5er`re `fie `� o Fvr our Q f -"elf (oh. e� � f l vy . Th a-n K �� U �r� y V► cK ► * DU vo I<ra..wi -er 1303 Mont -":5c- 5f CA 95070 r� L L-n:, rr _[ZZ1 I U x.111. ter'. l� MATTEONI SAXE NAN DA } (408) 441 -7800 L A W Y E R S (408 44X -730? v SENT BY. FAX.. TO: Paul FROM: Norman E: Matteoni DATE: .June.: 23, 1993 RE: Specific. Plan:`..for Paul.Masson.Site Attached you Will find a copy of the letter that z wrote to each of the Commissioners. It was my intent to copy you and ..I. may have done So.,, but when I look at the persons listed on the letter, your name is missing. Also, I was expecting a copy of the final draft specific plan with the staff report and had not received one in the mail, but. I.cal,led your office today and am arranging to pick up,a.copy tomorrows %md attachment S matteoni Saxe Nay L A W Y E R 3 June 17, 1993 Commissioner Gillian Moran Saratoga Planning Commission 14701 Farwell Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Paul Masson Specific Plan; Hearing June 23, 1993 Dear Commissioner Moran: As you know, our firm represents BA Properties, Inc., a subsidiary of Bank of America, which now owns the Paul Masson site on Saratoga Avenue. The following are comments concerning the draft specific plan which Staff has prepared and which is the subject of the hearing on June 23. BACKGROUND Prior to the date when BA Properties took title to the land, the City.commenced a process which is intended to provide a specific plan for the site. At the beginning of this process, the City was apparently concerned about the uncertain direction of the prior property owner, Dividend. Under California law, a specific plan is a document adopted by a City to implement its General Plan for a desig- nated geographic area of a municipality. In our experience, it is somewhat unusual to use a specific plan for a single property of only 24 acres. Nonetheless, we wish to work with the city because the City has determined that this is the appropriate course. You should know that BA Properties is an owner who wants to actively move forward .with precise zoning and development of the property. c.,A 9,; 11 L. 4r r. -41 .-GC Affan Folic Sat. ")dTa L.:ald?ie. F� Commissioner Gillian.Moran June 17, 1993 Page z From our perspective, it is important that the specific plan allows sufficient flexibility to enable a quality, marketable project to be designed and built. USES We ask that the specific plan provide guidelines but not preclude particular uses. The document does not set forth information on which to base decisions on traffic, noise, or other problems with any particular use. Thus, the City should retain the ability to look at a particular plan at the time of application and then determine its workability. This approach should put the emphasis on good design. MODIFICATION.OF THE LANGUAGE IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Thp environmental section of the draft specific plan presumes a certain level of analysis required when a developer comes forward for the specific approvals. This should be modified. If next projnc:t application is similar to the existing approved project in terms of uses and densities, a new EIR is not necessary. This document should not presuppose an EIR_ Thus, the specific plan should provide that appro- priate CEQA review will be conducted at the time of a develop- ment application. Further, if the Commission wants to forbid any land use such as commercial (which I argue against above), it should do no only after specific environmental review. THE SPECIFICITY OF THE PLAN The plan, if adopted by the City, should not limit the flexibility which exists under the current MU -PD zoning F . -it DFF I : ES TO 74111 F'. t_ -t r Commissioner Gillian Moran June 17, 1993 Page 3 regulations. As currently drafted, the plan does impose limitations on use combinations, densities, and coverage ratios by repeating standards found in the zoning ordinance, whi.1A not including reference to the zoning provision which allows the Commission to deviate from those standards under appropriate, circumstances. Note that under Municipal Code 515- 21.080,.the Commission can modify the standards in sub - subsections .020, .040, and .050. The plan appears to foreclose such modifications. MAP EXAMPLES Finally, the draft spnciric plan includes maps to assist in understanding the variations on development that may come forth. If the maps are to be included, the text should note that they are examples and not the only development alternatives. CONCLUSION We do ask that the Commission not insert restric- tions or languago that prevents any of the currently permitted uses. Moreover, 'wo aok that the specific plan contain sufficient flexibility to allow creative solutions to issues . and concerns identified through the specific plan. very -�trul y,ouv�_ NORMAN E. MATT NI NEM:md C.=C:: Kathy L. DeSpai.n Tom S. deRegt TOTrL- P . t_i'.