HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-26-2005 Planning Commission Minutes
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, October 26, 2005
PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chair Nagpal called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl
Absent: Commissioner Kundtz
Staff: Director John Livingstone, Associate Planner Therese Schmidt and Planning
Intern Suzanne Thomas
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of October 12, 2005.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner
Schallop, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of
October 12, 2005, were adopted as submitted. (4-0-1-2; Commissioner
Kundtz was absent and Commissioners Schallop and Uhl abstained)
ORAL COMMUNICATION
Mr. Kai Chan, 19999 Cox Avenue, Saratoga:
• Asked when the City is going to fix the railroad tracks that cross Cox Avenue.
• Said that he addressed this issue at another meeting a year ago and nothing has been
done.
Director John Livingstone gave Mr. Chan a business card and asked him to call him for
assistance with the appropriate jurisdictional agency.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the
agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 20, 2005.
Planning Commission Minutes for October 26, 2005 Page 2
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
Chair Nagpal announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by
filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of
the decision, or ten (10) calendar days for a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Municipal
Code 15.90.050(b).
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar Items.
***
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
APPLICATION #04-189 (389-46-013 & 013) – SUB-ÅCUTE, 13425 Sousa Lane: The
applicant requests Conditional Use Permit and Design Review approval to place two
modular structures (one 1,440 square feet and one 1,200 square feet) on the parcel,
construct a trash enclosure and remove trees. The maximum height of the proposed
modular is approximately 12 feet. Total site coverage will not exceed 60 percent. The
site is zoned R-1-10,000 (THERESE SCHMIDT)
Planner Therese Schmidt presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant is seeking Conditional Use Permit and Design Review Approval
to allow for two modular structures, a trash enclosure, removal of accessory structures and
removal of a tree.
• Described the zoning as R-1-10,000.
• Stated that the applicant, Sub-Acute, operates a nursing home and day care facility that
requires a Conditional Use Permit.
• Stated that Design Review is required for structures more than 1,000 square feet. The
modular structures will provide storage for medical records and supplies as well as a
conference room.
• Reported that this application is exempt from CEQA and meets the zoning setbacks,
heights and parking requirements.
• Explained that the Arborist has recommended that one Ordinance-sized tree be removed.
In addition, the neighbors are asking for the removal of five additional trees. The applicant
is willing to remove the five additional trees as a good will measure for his neighbors.
• Reported that several concerns have been raised. One concern is an existing pass
through in the fence that allowed high school students access to the high school. Some
neighbors are requesting the permanent closure of that pass through while others want it
to remain open for use. The applicant has closed this pass through and is willing to keep it
closed or reopen it per the Planning Commission’s decision.
• Stated that the existing trash enclosure at the rear of the site will be moved to the front of
the parcel. While this is not a normal placement for a trash enclosure, in this case staff
supports it in this situation. The applicant is willing to relocate the trash enclosure or leave
it where it is depending upon Commission direction.
Planning Commission Minutes for October 26, 2005 Page 3
• Informed that the applicant is replacing a rear fence and adding additional landscaping
area as a buffer for adjacent residents for a total of 13-feet in width.
• Reported that 50 parking spaces are provided on site, with five handicapped spaces and
one van accessible space.
• Advised that an emergency generator was inadvertently left off the plans.
• Explained that the site can accommodate this emergency generator on site without losing
any parking.
• Suggested that a condition be added to accommodate the necessary emergency
generator.
• Stated that neighbors have also expressed concern about the density and number of
structures allowed on this parcel.
• Said that staff is supportive of the relocation of structures to the front of the parcel and/or
removing Building E, which would garner six additional parking spaces.
• Recommended that the Commission take action to allow the relocation or to require the
removal of Building E.
• Said that other neighbors were concerned that the project be completed in a timely
fashion.
• Stated that Conditions 1 through 19 must be implemented within six months of this
approval or Building D would lose its temporary occupancy status until all of these
conditions have been satisfactorily met.
• Reminded that this Conditional Use Permit would supercede any others issued over the
last 40 years.
Commissioner Hunter commended Planner Therese Schmidt for an outstanding presentation
on this project.
Planner Therese Schmidt thanked Commissioner Hunter and described the uses of the
buildings as follows: Building A houses the daycare Squiggles and Giggles, Building C
houses the Sub-Acute hospital, Building D is for storage and Building E is the larger building
for storage, office and meeting space.
Commissioner Cappello asked which five trees are proposed for removal by the neighbors.
Planner Therese Schmidt said that the only tree removal required to accommodate this project
is a privet tree. The others that neighbors are requesting to have removed are located in the
rear and are indicated in the Arborist’s report.
Commissioner Cappello clarified that the one tree that must be removed is located where
Building E would be placed.
Commissioner Rodgers told Planner Therese Schmidt that she gave a fabulous report and
thanked her for her thoroughness in working with the applicant and neighbors. She asked if
the pass through in the fence had been part of a previous Use Permit.
Planner Therese Schmidt replied that per her research it had not been a requirement under
any Use Permit.
Planning Commission Minutes for October 26, 2005 Page 4
Commissioner Uhl asked about having trailers on site prior to issuance of appropriate Use
Permit approvals.
Planner Therese Schmidt said that the applicant has told her that they have a long history of
using modular structures but that she was unable to find any corresponding permits. She
added that this situation came to the attention of Code Enforcement and the Use Permit
process was initiated. She added that Building E would be replacing an existing modular that
has been on the site a number of years.
Chair Nagpal clarified that this is without benefit of permits.
Planner Therese Schmidt replied correct.
Chair Nagpal asked staff if there have been other permanent modular structure approvals
outside of temporary use.
Director John Livingstone replied yes. A school recently had some put in that matched the
existing school buildings. They went through Design Review with the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Hunter reminded that a modular house was also approved at one time.
Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1.
Mr. Michael Zarcone, Project Applicant, Sub-Acute, 13425 Sousa Lane, Saratoga:
• Identified himself as the President of Sub-Acute.
• Thanked the Commission for its site visit the previous day.
• Stated that staff has been extremely helpful.
• Admitted that he is “guilty as charged” regarding lack of permits.
• Explained that he started leasing the property and later purchased it. Said that the Sub-
Acute facility is a 38-bed hospital conducted in Building C. Buildings A and B are where
residential care occurs with 25 residents. Another building, consisting of 2,500 square feet
is used for office use and supply storage.
• Said that the intensive care maximum patient load was reduced from ten to eight.
• Stated that Building A houses Squiggles and Giggles, an acute care daycare facility for a
maximum of 26 children.
• Added that Building B houses a County supported school that serves the developmental
and educational needs of the hospital’s child residents.
• Said that he understands the nearby residents’ concerns over the possibility of over-
utilization of this property.
• Said that modular buildings were brought on site years ago for office and storage uses.
Building E, which is 24 feet x 40 feet, would be replaced with a modular that is 24 feet by
60 feet.
• Stated that he is not opposed to the relocation of Building E and understands neighbors’
concerns.
Planning Commission Minutes for October 26, 2005 Page 5
• Said that they are giving up two storage spaces with this application so that the amount of
space would basically be the same.
• Stated that he was raised in Saratoga and now understands that his neighbors are upset.
He said that he was not trying to be difficult.
• Reminded that the neighbors do not object to the relocation of the modular to the front of
the property as well as the relocation of the trash enclosure also to the front of the
property.
• Added that he has arranged a change in pick up times from Green Valley. They have also
added rubber wheels to the garbage containers to quiet the noise made when they are
rolled around.
• Advised that they have also removed some lights from the site.
• Said that when he learned of neighbor concern about the pass through he had it closed off.
• Assured that he has tried to make as much effort as possible and that he would remove
requested trees and add fences as desired by the neighbors. He said that he would be
more sensitive to his neighbors in the future.
• Stated that these buildings are needed for office and storage space.
• Reminded that no Variances are sought.
• Said he hopes for approval and thanked the Commission for its consideration.
Commissioner Hunter:
• Said that as a long-time resident of Saratoga, she had never visited the Sub-Acute facility.
• Thanked Mr. Michael Zarcone for the opportunity to see what they are doing there.
• Stated that the facility touched her heart.
• Asked about how Building D would be lowered.
Mr. Michael Zarcone said that they would lower the ground and drop the building into the hole
so that it is at ground level instead of raised on a foundation.
Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Michael Zarcone if he has purchased these modular
buildings.
Mr. Michael Zarcone said that the modular buildings were originally leased and later were
lease to buy. The administration building has been owned outright for a long time now.
Commissioner Hunter said that the County Office of Education should be commended as well
for its efforts to bring a school on site to serve these children.
Chair Nagpal thanked Mr. Michael Zarcone for the tour. She stated her concern over the
compliance history of Sub-Acute and asked him what his plan is for maintaining compliance
into the future.
Mr. Michael Zarcone:
• Said that some of his employees are smokers. He plans to create a smoking area near
the front sound wall and as far away from nearby residents as possible.
• Pointed out that neighbors now have his cell phone and email contact information.
Planning Commission Minutes for October 26, 2005 Page 6
• Reminded that lots of neighborhood concerns were raised recently of which he had
previously been unaware.
Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Michael Zarcone if he has considered holding an open house
to allow his neighbors to understand the purpose of this facility.
Mr. Michael Zarcone said that he tried to do so in the past but no one came but his mom. He
said he would be willing to try to have such an event for the neighbors again in the future.
Ms. Teresa Mills, 13365 McCulloch Avenue, Saratoga:
• Stated that she is not opposed to the hospital and that she respects and appreciates what
they are doing.
• Declared that what she opposes is the way they have been operating in this residential
neighborhood.
• Expressed support for the relocation of the trash enclosure.
• Explained that trash was being picked up at 6 a.m. three times a week, with the related
noise disturbing her household.
• Said that in addition, her street’s trash was also picked up on a fourth day of the week and
also at 6 a.m.
• Stated that the relocation of this enclosure further from the homes is the best solution and
that she appreciates Sub-Acute’s willingness to do so.
• Reported that the trees the neighbors want removed have grown over their property lines
and homes as well as helping displace a fence.
• Pointed out that the proposed landscape barrier would not thrive beneath these overgrown
Acacia trees.
• Said that she recently spoke to the previous owner of her home who advised her that an
additional modular unit was placed on site in March of 2000. He was able to influence the
placement of that unit.
• Thanked the Commission for the opportunity to address this item.
Ms. Liz Goesseringer, 19489 Dorchester Drive, Saratoga:
• Stated her opinion that the City has a gem with this hospital and the Squiggles and Giggles
daycare facility.
• Said that these facilities are vital to the families served.
• Advised that she has a disabled child who goes to Squiggles and Giggles and that she
bought her house nearby in order to be close to this facility.
• Asked the Commission to please help accommodate their needs.
Mr. P.J. Goesseringer, 19489 Dorchester Drive, Saratoga:
• Stated that Squiggles and Giggles is a great place that is top notch. The workers are nice
and are like a second family.
• Informed that his sister has special needs and would have nothing to do without this
facility. Squiggles and Giggles offers fun art, parties and games for his sister. Squiggles
and Giggles offers great care for special needs kids.
Mr. Milton Wheeler, 18284 Montpere Way, Saratoga:
Planning Commission Minutes for October 26, 2005 Page 7
• Identified himself as a resident of Saratoga as well as the Administrator for Sub-Acute.
• Stated that he would come back at the end of the public hearing to make closing remarks
on behalf of the facility.
Ms. Mary Scates, 150 Evergreen, Boulder Creek:
• Said that she is a teacher at Sub-Acute with a Masters in Special Education.
• Said that she has been teaching for 16 years and currently serves students ranging in age
from three to 21 years who live at the hospital.
• Informed that the County runs the school for students who are too medically fragile to go
off site to attend school.
• Stated that it is a privilege to work with the students and staff here.
Ms. Susan Stevens, 1360 Garvans Drive, San Jose:
• Said that she has a 16-year-old daughter, Jacqueline, who has been served by this facility
since 1996. She started with special day care after school but later was no longer able to
attend public school. This is the only facility that she can attend now.
• Added that this is a special place for those who cannot take care of themselves.
• Reminded that necessary medical equipment and supplies need to be kept on site to serve
these children.
• Said that these modular buildings are necessary in order to give complete care.
• Said that what is best for the community as a whole has to be paramount. This facility
offers the community a much-needed service.
• Stated that a win-win resolution would be achieved with the relocation of the building.
Mr. Peter Commondour, 13338 Carrick Avenue, Saratoga:
• Said that he is not against this hospital but that he just wants to peacefully co-exist with it.
• Described the recent grand theft at his home due to people using the pass through in the
fence to access the area.
• Thanked Mr. Michael Zarcone for closing off the fence and said that he wants to be sure
that this pass-through stays closed. He does not want to see people coming through.
• Reiterated that he is not against this hospital or its mission.
Ms. Jackie Lee, 18560 Emanuel Court, Saratoga:
• Said that her home is located at the end of the Court with 150 feet of her property adjacent
to the hospital.
• Said that she has lived in this home for 10 years now.
• Stated that she has had bad experiences in dealing with this hospital and is looking
forward to starting from scratch with the hospital as far as neighborhood cooperation.
• Said that she would like to see frequent public hearings such as this one tonight in the
future.
• Reported that she spent the last 3.5 years trying to get the shared fence with the hospital
replaced.
• Said that in 2001, she first contacted Michael Zarcone and Milton Wheeler about fixing the
deteriorating fence. Nothing happened. In November 2002, two sections fell and she
obtained three repair quotations. They told her that they didn’t have the budget to share
the cost of the fence. In April 2002, they had workers take fence boards off thus
Planning Commission Minutes for October 26, 2005 Page 8
shortening the height of the fence. She had to get the Sheriff’s Office involved to stop
them. She hired an attorney in October 2002. That didn’t help. In July 2004, the
replacement fence was finally built.
Commissioner Hunter asked Ms. Jackie Lee if her home is where the wisteria is and does she
like it.
Ms. Jackie Lee said yes and explained that her gardener cuts it back each year. She
reiterated her desire to see future correspondence and to see this facility observe the Codes
of the City.
Commissioner Rodgers said that mediation processes are a good way to maintain good
neighbor and community relations.
Ms. Jackie Lee agreed.
Mr. Roy Dreisback, 18607 Emanuel Court, Saratoga:
• Said he supports this facility and has lived on this court for 26 years.
• Added that he thought the fence should be maintained without the pass through.
• Stated his understanding that the pass through was never required and that he wants to
keep the fence at a six-foot height.
Dr. Paul Quintana, 5 Palm Avenue, Saratoga:
• Advised that his wife serves as a Planning Commissioner for the Town of Los Gatos.
• Said that the issue at hand here is the modular buildings that they really need.
• Described a recent meeting where they had to take over space normally used by kids in
order to accommodate a larger consultation group to evaluate a patient’s needs.
• Said that he is here this evening in support of allowing these modular buildings on site.
• Stressed that they are really needed.
Dr. Stuart Slamowitz, 18268 Montpere Way, Saratoga:
• Said that he is here to show support for the Sub-Acute hospital.
• Said that this is a community-based issue.
• Stated the need to provide cost effective round-the-clock treatment of children with
cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, brain injuries, trauma and other needs.
• Informed that Squiggles and Giggles is a novel day care and full time school.
• Said that modular units would help in the management of storage and office needs.
• Explained that a medical practice today is complex.
• Thanked the Commission for its time.
• Reminded that Sub-Acute is the first such pediatric facility in California.
Mr. Baker Cleveland, 139 Essex Way, San Jose:
• Said that he has a few concerns but is supportive of this use.
• Stated that his wife works at Squiggles and Giggles.
• Said that his heart goes out to Michael Zarcone as he has been going over backwards to
meet the neighbor’s needs.
Planning Commission Minutes for October 26, 2005 Page 9
• Reminded that this is not a profit company.
• Advised that this facility helps children enjoy life.
• Pointed out that a simple swing to serve a handicapped child costs $2,000.
• Said that issues such as fences and tree removal can be something for which the
community offers help.
• Expressed concern that someone may take retribution against the hospital for closing the
pass through in the fence.
Ms. Carol Walker, 13345 McCulloch, Saratoga:
• Said that she and her husband, Don, have resided in the neighborhood for 33 years.
• Said that their main concern is the intrusion on their privacy.
• Explained that there have been broken trees, garbage and fence impacts.
• Said that the hospital itself is not a problem but the abuses on adjacent property is.
• Said that the only reason things have begun to happen over the last six months is that the
neighbors finally got angry.
• Agreed that there is no reason to re-open the pass through in the fence and that there
have been no problems since it has been closed off.
Ms. Anne Proctor, 20151 Thompson, Los Gatos:
• Said that she is the program director at Squiggles and Giggles.
• Reported that as technology improves, equipment needs grow. Storage space is a
tremendous issue.
• Stated that in order to adequately serve these patients, this requested space is needed.
• Said that she hopes this application is approved.
Ms. Edith Cruickshank, 18388 Baylor Avenue, Saratoga:
• Informed that she moved to Saratoga in order to be close to Squiggles and Giggles.
• Said that she has a daughter who needs the services offered by this facility.
• Reminded that issues often come up between neighbors and that Michael Zarcone is
doing a good job to work with his neighbors.
• Suggested that the past history be looked at separately from this request.
• Pointed out that usually both neighbors have to ante up for shared items such as fences.
Mr. Milton Wheeler, 18284 Montepere Way, Saratoga:
• Expressed his appreciation for the site visit yesterday.
• Explained that he has taught high school and served as principal for 30 years and loves
and appreciates kids.
• Said that he has a document with family signatures from Squiggles and Giggles.
• Asked supporters in the audience to stand.
• Suggested that the Use Permit be granted to allow the movement of the building up front
as this building is vital to their needs.
• Said that he felt that the Commission can see the need for this type of facility in the
community and that they were able to see an overall picture of what occurs on campus,
with the hospital, school and daycare. This is a valuable asset for Saratoga.
• Thanked the Commission for its consideration.
Planning Commission Minutes for October 26, 2005 Page 10
Commissioner Cappello asked Mr. Milton Wheeler about his impressions on neighbor
feedback and whether they had been aware of the frustration of the neighbors and whether he
had any remedy and/or recommendations.
Mr. Milton Wheeler said that communication between the hospital and community is vital. He
said that contact information has been made available and assured that he is on campus all
day and will be available to the neighbors. Stressed that communication on both sides has
been lacking in the past and he believed that it would improve a lot in the future.
Commissioner Cappello said that communication had not been well received in the past and
that sometimes mediation is needed. He asked if change is possible.
Mr. Milton Wheeler said he believed so.
Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that some free mediation services might be available
through Santa Clara County and should be investigated to help increase communication. She
assured that the Commission would attempt to solve as many issues as possible tonight. She
asked if this facility is a for-profit or non-profit facility.
Mr. Milton Wheeler replied that it is a for-profit but is not making a profit.
Chair Nagpal said that compliance efforts are higher now due to the need for a Use Permit.
She said that this represents a special use within a residential community. She expressed
support for a condition that promotes on-going interaction with the neighbors.
Mr. Milton Wheeler said that perhaps a periodic open house would help.
Chair Nagpal said that lots of special uses have on-going communication with surrounding
uses.
Mr. Milton Wheeler reminded that both sides have contact information now.
Planner Therese Schmidt:
• Said that two issues require further clarification.
• Explained that the generator needs Use Permit approval too.
• Added that no requirement for a fence opening to serve as a pass through was found to
have been imposed for any previous Use Permits that she researched.
• Pointed out that that this Use Permit would supersede any previous Use Permit.
Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1.
Director John Livingstone reminded that the Municipal Code gives the Planning Commission
on-going jurisdiction over Use Permits. The Commission may elect at any time to modify or
delete any conditions or add new ones as needed. If neighbors have any issues, the matter
could be agendized at a future meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes for October 26, 2005 Page 11
Commissioner Hunter questioned the smoking that occurs near neighboring fences as a
potential issue.
Director John Livingstone said that neighbors would write to the Commission and if it is
determined to be a matter that is appropriate for consideration it would be agendized before
the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Uhl:
• Stated that the intent of the Use Permit is to permit the modular structure that was installed
without a permit.
• Said that alternately that structure could be removed as enforcement.
• Said that it is clear that lots of compromise is needed.
• Stated that the neighbors and facility have correspondence regarding significant issues of
the past and that these must be prevented from reoccurring.
• Expressed his full support for what this hospital is doing.
Commissioner Cappello:
• Said that he is proud that this facility is located in Saratoga.
• Stated that what they are doing is just fabulous.
• Advised that with the tour of the facility he realized that the level of care required and
provided is heart warming.
• Pointed out that being located within a residential area is difficult and he can see where
struggles have taken place.
• Said that it is important that the hospital take on a much more neighbor-friendly approach.
• Said he would like to see quarterly neighborhood meetings.
• Expressed concern over the proposed generator location and is unclear exactly where it
would be on site and that a clarification of that issue would be great.
• Agreed that these buildings are needed and that he supports this project.
• Declared that he would like to see this hospital flourish.
Planner Therese Schmidt said that the generator would be placed on an asphalt area north of
Building B and south of Space #49. This generator is required by the State for emergencies.
Commissioner Hunter:
• Advised that during her tenure on this Commission projects such as Villa Fatima and St.
Andrews School have come before the Commission with neighbor concerns.
• Said that this is difficult for neighbors and for the hospital.
• Recounted that she has herself negotiated with neighbors over fence replacements.
• Said that while she normally stands by trees, in this case she can support the removal of
the proposed trees.
• Said that she has no objections and would like to say that this is a fantastic facility.
• Extended congratulations to all who work there. They can be proud of what they do for
this world.
Commissioner Schallop expressed his agreement with the previous comments.
Planning Commission Minutes for October 26, 2005 Page 12
Commissioner Rodgers:
• Said that she has nothing but admiration and respect for this facility and supports it 100
percent.
• Reported that she has represented facilities similar to this and understand the desire to
use maximum funding for the provision of care but they must also take care to include the
physical site and building maintenance.
• Pointed out that this matter is before the Commission for permits and land use issues.
• Said that the pass through in the fence is a real liability issue for the hospital and
encouraged them to check into that with their attorneys before reopening that pass through
since neighbors have already given notice of mischief and/or criminal activities using that
pass through.
• Stated her support for keeping that opening closed.
Commissioner Uhl suggested a change to condition of approval #19.
Planner Therese Schmidt said that it could be outright stricken.
Commissioner Hunter pointed out that she likes to keep kids off main highways and has mixed
feelings about closing the pass through. Said that if the neighbors do not object, she would
have no problem with having that opening.
Chair Nagpal sought consensus on the issue of the fence.
Commissioner Cappello supported leaving it as is. There is an option to reopen it in the
future.
Commissioner Uhl said that it should remain closed as it promotes crime when open. The
finding is required that this project does not impact the health, safety and welfare of the public.
That can be assured with the gate remaining closed.
Commissioner Schallop asked if the easement issue is before the Commission.
Planner Therese Schmidt said that this would be privately recorded.
Commissioner Schallop supported tying the closure of the pass through into the conditions of
approval for this Use Permit.
Chair Nagpal stated her preference to keep the pass through closed.
Commissioner Rodgers:
• Said keeping it closed is also important for the safety of patients and staff of the hospital.
• Expressed support for the relocation of Building E to the front of the property.
• Suggested closing off the bottom of Building E for safety and prevention of people
accessing the under part of the building.
• Stated her support for the trash enclosure.
Planning Commission Minutes for October 26, 2005 Page 13
Chair Nagpal said that something needs to be added to Condition #2-E regarding the
generator and the removal of condition #19.
Commissioner Uhl suggested adding a requirement for quarterly correspondence with the
surrounding neighbors.
Commissioner Rodgers said that the permanent closure of the pass through should also be
conditioned.
Chair Nagpal said that this condition should include fence maintenance and the closure of the
pass through.
Director John Livingstone said that the project would be approved per the attached plans,
Exhibit A, that shows fences and building placement.
Commissioner Rodger suggested taking out Condition #19.
Chair Nagpal thanked staff and the applicant for taking the Commission through the site
yesterday. Cautioned that she feels the intensity of this use is close to being maxed out on
this particular property.
Commissioner Rodgers agreed saying that without going to a second story or losing parking
the site would now be maxed out.
Chair Nagpal said that the Commission appears ready for a motion. Expressed appreciation
for the neighbors who have come out this evening and assured that going forward would be
for the best.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner Uhl,
the Planning Commission granted a Conditional Use Permit and Design
Review Approval (Application #04-189) to allow the placement of two
modular structures (one 1,440 square feet and one 1,200 square feet) on
the parcel, construct a trash enclosure and remove trees on property
located at 13425 Sousa Lane, for the following amendments:
• Adding an approval for the generator to this Use Permit;
• Amending Condition #2 adding a new paragraph E regarding the
generator and the need to provide four sets of plans to include the
generator’s location on site;
• Amending Condition #19 to read that the opening in the fence shall
remain closed and secured with a chain link fence.
• Adding Condition #22 that requires the establishment of a mechanism
to facilitate work between this facility and its neighbors;
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl
NOES: None
ABSENT: Kundtz
ABSTAIN: None
Planning Commission Minutes for October 26, 2005 Page 14
***
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2
APPLICATION #04-167 (386-44-040) – Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., Cox Avenue at
the railroad tracks east of Garnett Court: The applicant requests approval for a Conditional
use Permit to construct a small unmanned telecommunications facility. This will consist of the
installation of panel antennas on the existing PG&E tower and the installation of indoor
communications equipment cabinets inside a new ground-level shelter that will be
approximately 12 feet by 20 feet. (CONTINUED FROM MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 28,
2005) (SUZANNE THOMAS)
Planning Intern Suzanne Thomas presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a small
unmanned telecommunications facility on property located on Cox Avenue adjacent to the
railroad tracks.
• Described the facility as consisting of six panel antennas and one GPS system on an
existing PG&E tower.
• Stated that an equipment cabinet would be installed.
• Said that this would be a co-location site with the existing Nextel antennas.
• Reminded that this item was before the Commission at its meeting of September 28, 2005,
at which time the Commission asked for additional information and continued this item.
• Said that issues such as similar antennas at Congress Springs and a coverage gap were
raised.
• Said that coverage maps have been provided.
• Explained that Cingular uses numerous firms to contract new locations and providing one
overall plan is considered proprietary.
• Said that numerous letters from neighbors have been received but that there are no
unaddressed comments.
• Said that this installation would be visually unobtrusive and not injurious to the community.
• Reported that the applicant is present tonight together with technical staff.
Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.
Ms. Marsha Converse, Veloc.Tel, Inc., Applicant’s Representative, 4160 Hacienda Drive,
Pleasanton:
• Stated that Cingular agrees to the City’s policies.
• Reminded that this item was continued from September 28th because she was unable to
satisfactorily answer the Commissions’ questions on radio frequently coverage.
• Said that she has brought with her this evening two RF (Radio Frequency) experts.
• Assured that their RF levels are within FCC guidelines.
• Added that she is also accompanied by an EMF (Emissions Frequency) expert as well.
• Stated that all four of them are available for questions.
• Asked the Commission to support this co-location.
Planning Commission Minutes for October 26, 2005 Page 15
Commissioner Rodgers questioned the half-mile versus two-mile coverage range. While she
understands the range is typically two miles, this installation offers only half-mile coverage
range.
Commissioner Uhl asked why other antennas provide more coverage than this one including
another proposed for installation in Saratoga.
Mr. Alvin Avunkiv, RF Engineer:
• Clarified that they are proposing just one site. The second site depicted on the coverage
plan has been withdrawn.
Commissioner Uhl asked why they are so close together.
Mr. Alvin Avunkiv said that the placement depends upon the height and propagation of
antenna.
Chair Nagpal asked what generates a larger radius of coverage.
Mr. Alvin Avunkiv replied that it is how high you place the antennas. In a more open area, the
signal goes further that it does in a more cluttered area.
Chair Nagpal asked if this is real time data based upon dropped calls.
Mr. Alvin Avunkiv said that signal strength is applied to a mathematical tool.
Commissioner Cappello asked about the Congress Springs site and what is needed in order
to increase coverage from there.
Mr. Alvin Avunkiv replied that the height would have to be increased to between 100 and 120
feet.
Commissioner Uhl asked if that had been considered.
Mr. Alvin Avunkiv replied no.
Commissioner Uhl asked why not.
Ms. Marsha Converse said that it might be due to height limitations. She assured that
whenever feasible they increase heights on existing locations as a preference to establishing
a new location.
Chair Nagpal asked if existing sites are evaluated prior to searching for new ones.
Ms. Marsha Converse replied yes.
Chair Nagpal asked if Cingular evaluated increasing at Congress Springs.
Planning Commission Minutes for October 26, 2005 Page 16
Ms. Marsha Converse said that they are given a search range. Said that there is a pretty
substantial coverage deficiency and she is not sure that Congress Springs could provide the
needed coverage.
Commissioner Cappello asked if it is reasonable to assume that Cingular evaluated and found
the increase at Congress Springs not to be feasible.
Mr. Alvin Avunkiv reported that new sites cost much more than expanding existing sites.
Commissioner Cappello asked if any of the four representatives could outright answer this
question.
Mr. Sam McGowan, RF Engineer, Cingular:
• Said that there are other reasons they don’t want to raise towers.
• Said that these installations are designed to mitigate interference with itself. They have to
keep the towers lower so that they don’t get too far.
Commissioner Uhl said that even with the revised proposal it does not look like Cingular has a
far-reaching long-range plan. He cautioned that this community has a sensitivity to towers.
Commissioner Schallop asked if Commissioner Uhl has a particular question.
Commissioner Uhl stated that this design is probably good and sounds like a good solution.
Mr. Kai Chan, 19999 Cox Avenue, Saratoga:
• Said that his house is closest to this tower.
• Pointed out that Nextel is already here since 2002.
• Said that screening trees were planted at that time but have not grown. The landscaping
there now is ugly.
• Stated that now a second company is coming with more antennas more than 60 feet from
the ground. Nextel is at 75 feet.
• Expressed concern on health impacts although he understands that Director John
Livingstone has advised him that health issues relating to antenna installations are not
under City jurisdiction.
• Said that he has asked the City whether any further antennas are planned for this area in
the future, saying that he might have to move away from the area.
• Asked about landscaping proposed and questioned what might happen if equipment were
to overheat in this unmanned facility.
• Questioned if more radiation would be emitted when this equipment gets older.
• Asked who monitors safety.
• Reiterated his health impact concerns.
Chair Nagpal asked if a maintenance agreement is part of this approval.
Director John Livingstone said that staff has actually been increasing landscaping
requirements with such installations based upon past problems. Reiterated that the FCC has
Planning Commission Minutes for October 26, 2005 Page 17
the exclusive jurisdiction over emissions standards and cities cannot make findings regarding
health effects.
Chair Nagpal pointed out that an RF exposure report has been provided.
Ms. Marsha Converse:
• Reported that the EMF Expert, Bill Hammit, who is a registered professional engineer
prepared this report. He looked at both existing and proposed facilities. The exposure
level is 1.7 percent, which is just under 1 percent per carrier. There is no question that this
is a compliance level.
• Reminded that Congress pre-empted local jurisdictions on emissions.
Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.
Commissioner Cappello:
• Expressed appreciation for the applicant coming back, saying he knows it is not easy.
• Stated that this Commission has the obligation to the community since cell service is
widely used and owes its residents seamless coverage. This serves the community.
• Said that he is now convinced that this site is necessary to fill the existing gap in coverage.
• Cautioned that for future applications he will be more careful in scrutinizing sites since
most innocuous sites have now been used up. New applications will be closer to
residential uses and he wants to be sure that other sites are not possible before placing
close to residential uses. He wants to understand why any proposed site is absolutely
necessary.
• Said that he can understand that proprietary reasons existing for carriers to not share their
long-term plans.
• Stated his support.
Commissioner Uhl said that this design is very well done including its proposed landscaping.
He expressed support with the comments made by Commissioner Cappello that each site
must have supportable reasons.
Commissioner Hunter expressed appreciation for use of native plants in the landscaping.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Uhl, seconded by Commissioner Cappello,
the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (Application
#04-167) to allow the construction of a small unmanned
telecommunications facility that consists of the installation of panel
antennas on the existing PG&E tower and the installation of indoor
communications equipment cabinets inside a new ground-level shelter on
property located at Cox Avenue at the railroad tracks, east of Garnett
Court, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl
NOES: None
ABSENT: Kundtz
ABSTAIN: None
Planning Commission Minutes for October 26, 2005 Page 18
***
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3
APPLICATION #06-007 (397-10-030) – KLAYKO, 15175 Via Colina: The applicant
requests Design Review Approval to construct a one-story single-family residence on a
vacant lot. The total floor area of the proposed one-story residence, including an
attached second dwelling unit, is 6,012 square feet. A 5,947 square foot basement is
proposed including the dwelling unit. The maximum height of the proposed residence is
23.5 feet. The gross lot size is 1.12 acres and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. (CHRISTY
OOSTERHOUS)
Director John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows:
• Stated that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to construct a new one-story
single-family residence on a vacant lot with a basement and second dwelling unit for a total
floor area ratio of approximately 6,000 square feet.
• Said that the maximum height would be 23.5 feet.
• Described proposed materials as a slate roof, beige cement plaster and stone veneer.
• Reported that no tree removal permit is included and that the Arborist has proposed the
removal of Trees #3 and #4.
• Informed that the applicant is proposing a significant landscaping plan.
• Said that neighbor comments were received regarding concerns about trees, construction
impacts and mailboxes. Most issues have been addressed.
• Said that necessary findings can be made in the affirmative and recommended approval.
Commissioner Rodgers pointed out and questioned the number of fireplaces depicted on
Sheet 4 of the plans including one in the master bedroom, bedroom 2, office, living room,
family room and outside on a porch for a total of seven.
Director John Livingstone explained that there is no maximum number of allowable gas
burning fireplaces. The only restriction is one wood-burning fireplace per residence.
Commissioner Rodgers said that she does not see chimneys on the roof.
Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3.
Mr. Dave, Project Builder:
• Said that there are quite a few fireplaces but that they are gas appliances that have direct
vents and are very clean and very small. They are mostly decorative.
• Explained that this house would be heated through a hydronically-heated floor system.
• Said that only one chimney is used to support the one wood-burning fireplace that would
be on the outdoor porch.
Mr. Chris Spaulding, Project Architect:
• Said that the client is the one who wanted only gas fireplaces inside the home.
Commissioner Hunter asked if there is any solar component to this new house.
Planning Commission Minutes for October 26, 2005 Page 19
Mr. Dave explained that they are using a highly efficient boiler system to heat the entire
house. The house itself would be highly insulated. He added that the extensive tree shading
does not allow solar to be used on this house.
Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3.
Commissioner Hunter said that this is a spectacular piece of property and a very nice house.
She said she has no objection.
Commissioner Rodgers agreed and said she is glad that this is a single-story house that is
sensitive to the neighbors. Suggested that the wood fireplace designation on the plans be
swapped to more accurately reflect its proposed placement on the exterior porch rather than
indoors as currently labeled on the plans.
Commissioner Cappello said he appreciates two design features in particular. One is the L-
shaped house to help preserve a tree, which he feels is commendable. The second is the use
of a subterranean basement. Stated that he likes this design and supports it.
Chair Nagpal agreed that this is a spectacular site and a great house design.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Cappello, seconded by Commissioner
Rodgers, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval
(Application #06-007) to construct a one-story single-family residence
on a vacant lot located at 15175 Via Colina, with the clarification on the
plans on the placement of the only wood-burning fireplace to be located
on the porch, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl
NOES: None
ABSENT: Kundtz
ABSTAIN: None
***
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 4
APPLICATION #05-122 (510-06-006) SPITTS, 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road: The
applicant requests Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide a 140,394 square foot lot
(3.223 acres) with an existing residence into two separate building sites with a remainder
lot. The existing residence would be retained on Parcel 1. Parcel 2 would include a new
building site. Parcel 1 is 52,272 square feet (1.200 acres) and Parcel 2 is 57,630 square
feet (1.323 acres). The property is zoned R-1-40,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS)
Director John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows:
• Stated that the applicant is seeking approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide a
parcel into two parcels with a remainder lot.
Planning Commission Minutes for October 26, 2005 Page 20
• Said that the second parcel would include a new building site. The remainder lot would be
a conservation site. The existing single-family residence on Parcel 1 would be retained.
• Described the property as consisting of three acres. Each parcel would be approximately
one acre.
• Explained that a majority of this property is zoned R-1-40,000 and the site is accessed
from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road.
• Reported that the applicant held neighborhood meetings and subsequently substantially
revised their plans.
• Said that this new lot would be a true flag lot with access from Highway 9.
• Said that the Arborist’s report stated that three Oaks would be required to be removed with
the new driveway and new residence. The Arborist felt that these trees could be removed
and established replacement values.
• Recommended approval and advised that the applicant is present.
Chair Nagpal asked staff to confirm that the remainder parcel would be a part of Parcel #2 and
could never be sold separately or developed.
Director John Livingstone replied correct.
Commissioner Rodgers asked if Council took action at its last meeting to annex the portion of
the parcel that is located in County jurisdiction.
Director John Livingstone explained that annexation is a two-part process. One is initiation
and the other is completion. The initiation process was done and this annexation will go back
to Council for completion. He reminded that just a sliver of this property is in County
jurisdiction.
Commissioner Rodgers asked if this annexation must be completed before the Commission
can take any action this evening.
Director John Livingstone explained that the annexation process must be completed prior to
completion of the Final Map recordation.
Commissioner Uhl asked about shared easements for the driveway.
Director John Livingstone explained that there is no shared easement for the driveway. There
are two different driveways. Each parcel will independently include its own driveway. There
are no easements.
Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the driveway’s meandering shape was design to help
keep the huge Monterey Pines safe.
Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4.
Ms. Jolie Houston, Attorney Representative for Applicant:
• Said that everyone has worked hard on this proposal.
Planning Commission Minutes for October 26, 2005 Page 21
• Thanked staff for all of their help and said that a good design has been developed for this
property.
• Stated that the project Engineer and Arborist are here tonight.
• Reiterated that the rear parcel is a true flag lot with its own access. The remainder lot is
restricted through a covenant and cannot be built upon with any structures of any kind.
The remainder parcel is restricted to Parcel 2.
• Said that a row of Sycamore trees and trail will be preserved as a result of this remainder
lot.
• Said that this is a really good opportunity and that this project as proposed with a
remainder lot will help to shield view of the new house on Lot 2 from its neighbors.
• Suggested a change to Condition #5 adding language that “the Final Map shall have
recorded on Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 a requirement that the garage on Parcel 1 shall be
demolished and rebuilt prior to construction of a house on Lot 2.”
• This Condition would allow the Final Map to be recorded and either lot sold while ensuring
that the required garage conditions are still met. It gives some flexibility to the owners on
timing of any sale of parcels while ensuring that the City’s conditions are met.
Chair Nagpal said that if the garage stays on Lot 1 the lot would not be in conformance to
requirements. She added that the City is not asking that this garage be removed and rebuilt in
order to obtain the Tentative Parcel Map but only prior to recordation of the Final Map.
Attorney Jolie Houston said that they need a recorded Final Map in order to sell either parcel.
Chair Nagpal said that when the road/driveway goes in the garage must come out.
Attorney Jolie Houston agreed that the garage must be demolished and rebuilt prior to the
road going in.
Director John Livingstone said that staff’s main concern is enforcement that becomes more
difficult when two different owners own the properties. Staff feels that the cleanest way to
handle this requirement for the garage is to do it prior to Final Map.
Attorney Jolie Houston:
• Said that notes with these requirements would be included on the Final Map and would be
properly disclosed to any new buyer(s).
• Added that this gives more flexibility on how this property can be sold and developed.
• Assured that nothing would be done on Parcel 2 until the garage on Parcel 1 is demolished
and rebuilt.
Mr. Bob Sandy, 19400 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga:
• Explained that his home is one house over from this property.
• Stated that this subdivision of property does not make sense, particularly the 1,000 foot
long driveway to the back parcel.
• Said that the initial proposal was for a bridge over the creek, which made more sense.
• Stated that Saratoga-Los Gatos Road is dangerous.
• Disagreed with the position stated in the project file that there is no reason to complain
about access from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road.
Planning Commission Minutes for October 26, 2005 Page 22
Mr. Don Lucas, 19370 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga:
• Said that his property is contiguous to this property.
• Questioned the proposed length of the driveway to serve the rear parcel.
• Said that he has resided for 30 years on the parcel on the right side of this project site.
• Stated his belief that this property has been considered a non-conforming parcel for years
and did not meet requirements for subdivision over the last 30 years.
• Added that since the recent change of Directors, it has been determined by staff that this
subdivision does conform to subdivision requirements by removing the back portion of the
property and establishing it as a riparian corridor.
• Said that he objects to the placement of the driveway and suggested that it be relocated to
the other side of the property.
• Said he does not believe the Arborist’s evaluation that the driveway on this property would
not adversely impact the trees on his property.
• Said that there is no reason why the driveway could not be relocated to the other side of
this property.
• Added that moving the driveway would make the need to rebuild the garage mote.
• Suggested a continuance to allow him time to secure an Arborist of his own.
Mr. Henry Wu, 19290 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga:
• Said that his home is one house over and he purchased it 16 years ago.
• Explained that when he was searching for a property he was looking for a place that had
large lots, big trees and fewer neighbors to ensure more privacy. When he found his
property, it was ideal.
• Stated his desire to preserve the neighborhood as it is.
• Pointed out that the Spitts no longer live in this neighborhood and the only reason to split
their parcel is to increase its value.
• Suggested that the property be sold as it is and the Spitts can still make a lot of money.
• Objected to this proposal.
Mr. Bob Sandy said that the Bainter bridge plan should come back to the Commission.
Ms. Sally Lucas, 19370 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga:
• Said that she is an adjacent property owner to the west.
• Said that the Oaks proposed for removal are located in the direction in which their master
bedroom looks out.
• Advised that she and her husband are very concerned about the continued health of their
trees.
• Informed that they have spent between $8,000 and $10,000 each year in the care of their
trees and are concerned that the roadway over their tree roots would kill them.
Mr. Don Lucas said that he agreed with Mr. Sandy’s support of a bridge over Bainter Creek to
access the new proposed rear parcel on this lot.
Attorney Jolie Houston:
• Said that the Project Civil Engineer could best explain why the road location was chosen.
Planning Commission Minutes for October 26, 2005 Page 23
• Stated that more cut and fill would be required as well as use of retaining walls if the
driveway were to be located on the other side of this property.
• Said that the Arborist report was provided to Mr. Lucas and he was represented by an
attorney at the neighborhood meetings.
• Assured that the change in Planning Director has not impacted how this proposal was
reviewed.
• Added that the project was also reviewed by the City Attorney.
• Pointed out that any new house would require Design Review Approval with public
hearing.
• Said that the project meets the R-1-40,000 zoning requirements.
• Said that the Project Arborist is here and can reiterate his finding that the road would not
impact the Lucas’ trees. The removal of the Oak trees would not impact the Lucas’ house
and views.
Commissioner Cappello said that it might be helpful for the applicant to offer the same
information as was provided during the site visit on the safety of the driveway and approach
leading off the property as well as the proposed material for the driveway.
Attorney Jolie Houston advised that the access to Saratoga-Los Gatos Road from this
property has been deemed to be safe as per expert analysis.
Commissioner Rodgers thanked the applicants for not using a bridge over Bainter Creek. She
asked how designating the rear of this property as a Riparian corridor allows them to build on
a lot that was previously unbuildable.
Attorney Jolie Houston said that this remainder lot would be unbuildable. It cannot be sold
separately and as thus is excluded from the calculations required to subdivide the property.
Commissioner Rodgers said she still cannot understand why that is the case.
Attorney Jolie Houston said that if the parcel was split into just two lots, it would not comply
with subdivision requirements, which require specific minimum lot width measurements.
Chair Nagpal clarified that without the remainder lot this property would not be subdividable
because it is too long. The length of the lot has to be cut in order to have a depth and width
that can be subdivided. Code allows the creation of a remainder lot. This practice is valid
within the Subdivision Map Act.
Commissioner Rodgers asked whether the frontage along Bainter Road is not sufficient to
access the rear lot.
Ms. Jitka Cymbal, Project Civil Engineer:
• Explained that if this property were to be developed into just two parcels, the average
width of the rear parcel would be too narrow to meet minimum requirements. The property
narrows and is extremely deep.
• Assured that there have been no recent changes to local Ordinances or State law
regarding subdivision.
Planning Commission Minutes for October 26, 2005 Page 24
Chair Nagpal said that it appears that this concept was simply not previously evaluated.
Commissioner Uhl said it seems like they are trying to go around existing Code.
Director John Livingstone said that he did a lot of research and evaluated this proposal with
the City Attorney. He said that it is a valid means of the Subdivision Code and changes the
depth, which alters the width of the lots. Without the remainder lot, it would not be possible to
create two buildable lots on this property.
Chair Nagpal explained that it is too difficult if the lot is too deep.
Commissioner Uhl asked for further explanation on the width versus depth of a lot.
Commissioner Cappello asked for further input on the safety of access from Saratoga-Los
Gatos Road for the new lot.
Ms. Jitka Cymbal:
• Stated that access from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road was evaluated by experts who
determined it to be safe.
• Added that there are no visibility issues to turn right from the site onto Saratoga-Los Gatos
Road. No left turns can occur from the driveway due to an existing median.
Commissioner Hunter asked if any correspondence had been received from the neighbors on
the other side.
Ms. Jitka Cymbal said not to her knowledge. She said that these neighbors were present at
the neighborhood meeting.
Attorney Jolie Houston reported that a second neighborhood meeting was held with notice
being sent on August 4th. The first meeting had been held in July.
Commissioner Hunter asked if a driveway on the other side of this property had been
considered.
Ms. Jitka Cymbal:
• Reported that they had evaluated the possibility of placing the driveway on the other side
but there were several issues. One is the existence of large trees that would be impacted.
Additionally, the next door neighbor has a structure within 10 feet of this property line that
includes a 10 foot slope drop toward that structure from this parcel. A retaining wall would
be required to protect that structure. More cut and fill would be required. It was found not
to be possible.
Commissioner Hunter asked for further assurances about the impacts of the driveway on the
pine trees on the Lucas property.
Mr. Dave Dockter, Project Arborist:
Planning Commission Minutes for October 26, 2005 Page 25
• Said that they had explored several access options.
• Stated that the first option was access from the north side. This can be done safety away
from the Redwood trees so that no cuts into roots would occur. Additionally, a
predominate section of this roadway is in now. They are proposing no cut and instead will
build up to leave existing roots uncut. Very little area is compacted. They are proposing
the use of a geo grid that offers a soft footprint that offers a good stiff and thin sandwich
layer for the driveway.
• Added that with access from the south side of the property a lot of cut and fill would be
required as well as retaining walls and removal of Oak trees.
• Assured that he can offer a good comfort level that they would be staying away from the
neighbor’s tree roots and that there are lots of conditions of approval to assure that.
• Added that the City’s Arborist also peer-reviewed his report and recommendations.
• Reiterated that they will have a pretty solid soft footprint to the back lot with a minimum of
grading.
Commissioner Uhl asked about the potential of bridge access from Bainter Road. He asked if
the project could not be developed without the riparian corridor and whether access is
possible from Bainter.
Attorney Jolie Houston:
• Clarified that this property does indeed have legal access to Bainter Road.
• Explained that there was neighbor opposition to access from Bainter via a bridge at which
time her clients changed their plans.
• Reported that staff supported not having access from Bainter.
• Pointed out that no construction would occur in the conservation easement. This
remainder lot can neither be built upon nor sold separated from Parcel 2. However, an
access road could be put on it.
• Reiterated that this lot has legal access to Bainter.
Ms. Julie Lomas, 19405 Bainter Road, Saratoga:
• Said that this is more complicated than it has to be.
• Reported that she attended the meeting at which time the possible use of a bridge for
access was discussed.
Mr. May Liao, 19310 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga:
• Said he is the adjacent neighbor to project site.
• Said that he opposes this subdivision because it generates one more neighbor and less
privacy.
Mr. Steve Spitts, Property Owner and Applicant, 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga:
• Advised that he had corresponded with 26 families.
• Stated that allies and adversaries appear to come and go.
• Said that actually the optimal use of land would be through the use of bridge access from
Bainter Road but they altered their plans to accommodate neighbor concerns.
• Assured that they have done the best they could to accommodate the largest number of
neighbors while meeting the practices and policies of the City of Saratoga.
Planning Commission Minutes for October 26, 2005 Page 26
• Pointed out that this is a complicated and arduous process.
• Said that he lived on this property for 13 years and regrets that some of his neighbors do
not agree with his plan.
• Said he is hoping for approval.
Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4.
Commissioner Uhl said he still has questions as to how the Riparian Corridor makes this
property viable for subdivision.
Director John Livingstone:
• Pointed out that this is a three-acre parcel in an R-1-40,000 zoning district.
• Stated that one acre per parcel is what is required in order to subdivide in this zoning
district.
• Explained that the Code has minimum width and depth requirements for parcels.
• Advised that the portion of this property located toward the creek narrows quite a bit and
the width at the back gets too narrow to create a buildable lot.
• Said that three acres offer a large area with which to work. By losing the narrow portion of
the lot through the creation of this proposed remainder lot, the back property line for Parcel
2 is now located at a wider portion of the property that meets minimums standards. There
must be a certain width at the midpoint.
Commissioner Schallop pointed out that this subdivision still meets zoning requirements.
Commissioner Cappello:
• Assured that there is nothing backdoor or sneaky going on here.
• Said that this subdivision meets requirements.
• Pointed out that experts have determined that there would be no impacts to trees and no
safety concerns regarding site access.
• Said that there is no cut required into the ground and therefore no impacts on tree roots.
• Said that this subdivision creates lots that meet the requirements of the R-1-40,000 zoning
and therefore these lots fit into this neighborhood.
• Stated that there are no grounds for denial.
Commissioner Schallop agreed that the necessary findings can be made to support the
Resolution for this subdivision.
Commissioner Rodgers:
• Agreed with the previous comments.
• Pointed out that the additional conservation area will serve the community by helping to
preserve the rural aspect.
• Said that this project has created a second lot that offers a good building lot. This would
be a nice place upon which to build.
• Stated that this subdivision will benefit both the community and this landowner.
• Expressed agreement that the nine points can be made in the affirmative.
Planning Commission Minutes for October 26, 2005 Page 27
• Asked whether the requirement for the soft footprint for the road is called out for in the
Conditions of Approval.
Director John Livingstone replied that this condition is outlined in the Arborist Report.
Attorney Jolie Houston said it was item 19.
Commissioner Schallop said that regarding the applicant’s proposed modification to the
Conditions, he actually supports staff’s recommendation. He added that the neighbors seem
to prefer access to this site from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road.
Commissioner Hunter said that lots of correspondence has been received. Said that this is
spectacular property along Bainter. Said she reluctantly supports this application.
Chair Nagpal:
• Assured that the concept of a remainder parcel is not a new one at all.
• Said that with a three-acre parcel in an R-1-40,000 zoning district, two buildable parcels
are very appropriated. Use of a remainder parcel allows them to do that.
• Said that the issue of trees has been addressed.
• Said that the Bainter Road access had been considered and the neighborhood in general
wants access to be from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road.
• Said that she can see why the applicant wants the requirement for the garage demolition
and reconstruction to be in effect following the Final Map but it is hard to enforce.
Therefore, she too supports staff’s recommendation that this action occur prior to
recordation of the Final Map while the property still has just one owner.
Commissioner Rodgers said that this is a creative proposal. While the neighbors were under
the impression that this property could not be legally subdivided, it was actually always
possible to divide it but no one figured out exactly how until now.
Commissioner Uhl said that while he is not comfortable he sees no reason to deny this
proposal relative to the required findings. He said he would support this project although it
makes him uncomfortable.
Motion: Upon motion of Chair Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Schallop, the
Planning Commission approved a Tentative Parcel Map (Application #05-
122) to subdivide a 140,394 square foot lot (3.223 acres) with an
existing residence into two separate building sites with a remainder lot
on property located at 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, by the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl
NOES: None
ABSENT: Kundtz
ABSTAIN: None
***
Planning Commission Minutes for October 26, 2005 Page 28
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 5
APPLICATION #05-179 (386-26-070 & 071) – CITY OF SARATOGA, 19848 Prospect
Road: The applicant requests a Tentative Subdivision Map, General Plan Amendment
from a Quasi Public Facility to Medium Density Residential, General Plan Conformity
Determination for Property Disposal and Mitigated Negative Declaration, to demolish the
existing church facility and replace it with nine single family residential lots. (JOHN
LIVINGSTONE)
Director John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the City of Saratoga is the applicant in this request.
• Said that the applicant seeks approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map to allow the
subdivision of the former Grace Lutheran Church into nine singe-family residential parcels
ranging in size between 10,000 and 17,000 square feet in a new cul de sac.
• Explained that once the entitlements for a subdivision are finalized, this property would be
sold to a developer.
• Stated that this evening’s consideration takes three parts. First is the adoption of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration. Second is the General Plan Amendment and
Determination of Conformity with the General Plan. Third is the Tentative Subdivision
Map.
• Informed that these would be large lots that meet minimum requirements. An island at the
center of the cul de sac bulk helps preserve existing trees.
• Said that this proposal meets required findings and recommended that the Commission
forward a recommendation to Council for approval.
• Said that several meetings were held including meetings with neighbors, a Study Session
on site with the Planning Commission up to this evening’s Public Hearing.
Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that her copy of the Initial Study is missing pages.
Director John Livingstone apologized and said that problems must have occurred with the
copy machine.
Commissioner Rodgers asked about the concept of dividing this parcel in to 10 lots, nine with
homes and one common lot for a park. She said she would like to see this done but
understands that the Community Development Director has tried and found it to be
impractical.
Commissioner Hunter said she does not think that there is any problem with that concept and
that small, contained parks exist in other parts of the City.
Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5.
Mr. Bill Ford:
• Said that his property is contiguous to the southwest corner of this property.
• Said he submitted a letter on August 24th.
• Stated that his first concern is that the elevation of the church property and how it would
impact surrounding properties as far as when houses are built here.
Planning Commission Minutes for October 26, 2005 Page 29
Director John Livingstone said that this issue has been thought about quite a bit. He added
that staff felt it is best to wait for a specific developer to deal with each parcel on a case-by-
case basis. The applicant could decide on all one-story or two-story structures. This is a
detail item to be dealt with at Design Review rather than at Subdivision.
Mr. Bill Ford:
• Said that he would lose three large trees located along the property line, Trees #35, #37
and #39.
• Added that there is also a substantial hedge of English Laurel and three Camphor trees
that are not Ordinance protected.
• Asked that the protection of this landscaping be conditioned in order to leave a buffer
there.
• Announced that the White Socks won.
Mr. John Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale, Saratoga:
• Said that he is representing the group, Citizens to Create the North Saratoga Community
Center.
• Advised that he is also a former Councilmember who appreciates seeing young
representatives on the Planning Commission.
• Said that he does not think that comments raised by opponents have been responded to
adequately including comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
• Said that one concern is why the Grace Church property was not considered in the total
community planning and needs.
• Said that the selling off of this property will have a significant impact on recreation.
• Questioned how staff can say that there is no negative impact on recreation when there is
a shortage of recreational facilities in the community.
• Expressed concern about rezoning this last major property from public use to residential.
• Said that an assessment of long-range community needs is needed before selling off the
last large parcel.
• Recommended the establishment of a citizen committee.
• Thanked the Commission for its consideration and its service to the community.
Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5.
Commissioner Hunter asked about a lack of response to community comments.
Director John Livingstone:
• Said that Council made the decision to sell this property and that question is not before the
Commission.
• Added that the Commission would have to feel that there is an environmental impact to
deny support of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Commissioner Hunter said that the loss of trees represents an environmental impact.
Planning Commission Minutes for October 26, 2005 Page 30
Director John Livingstone said that the limited number of trees proposed for removal does not
reflect a significant environmental impact. The total number of trees on site is 13. The
removal of any trees would be mitigated with replacement trees.
Commissioner Hunter asked if Trees #35, #37 and #39 could be preserved.
Director John Livingstone said that this issue is not necessary as part of the Tentative
Subdivision. Tree removal can be considered with specific Design Review proposals.
Commissioner Uhl said that Trees #35, #37 and #39 are ranked as poor and are guarantee to
be removed. He added that in order to be pro-active, it makes sense to start planning for
replacement trees now.
Commissioner Hunter pointed out that many of these trees are in poor shape due to the
cutting that has occurred to keep them off the wires.
Commissioner Cappello supported the concept of considering trees when specific Design
Review applications come before the Commission because at that time it would be known
where replacement trees need to be placed.
Director John Livingstone said that the City Arborist attended one meeting. Some trees are in
poor condition due to topping. They would be replaced with better species in better locations.
There will ultimately be a better tree cover and buffer at those locations.
Commissioner Uhl said that the adjacent neighbors might want to take efforts on their own lots
to plant screening landscaping.
Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that the Arborist was most concerned about the trees on
proposed Lot 8 as they are the most important trees on this property.
Commissioner Hunter said that she is concerned about the Negative Declaration declaring no
impacts when there could be impacts down the road.
Chair Nagpal reminded that what has been prepared is a Mitigated Negative Declaration with
mitigations proposed. She pointed out that every project has some sort of impact.
Commissioner Cappello pointed out that extensive reviews of this material have occurred.
There have been meetings at the site with neighbor input. The Arborist walked through the
property.
Chair Nagpal reminded that the decision to sell was made by Council. The Commission is
reviewing a proposed Tentative Subdivision.
Director John Livingstone advised that Council is the body that approves the Final Map.
Chair Nagpal asked if the three actions could be taken under one motion.
Planning Commission Minutes for October 26, 2005 Page 31
Director John Livingstone said that separate motions would be appropriate.
Commissioner Hunter said that this subdivision makes her sad. She said that it is a big
decision to sell off property and she did so as Vice Chair of a School Board Subcommittee
that subdivided two school sites in 1976 when living in Southern California.
Chair Nagpal reminded that this Commission is not making that decision.
Commissioner Rodgers:
• Reiterated that this decision has already been made by Council.
• Stated that the Planning Commission’s decision here is on land use.
• Said that she would like to see more of a sense of neighborhood with this subdivision and
that she would like to see one park lot incorporated into this map.
Commissioner Hunter said that she appreciates the concerns and thoughts about that.
Motion: Upon motion of Chair Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the
Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation to Council for the
adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Tentative Subdivision
Map proposed for property located at 19848 Prospect Road, by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl
NOES: None
ABSENT: Kundtz
ABSTAIN: None
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner
Cappello, the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation to
Council for the approval of a General Plan Amendment from a Quasi Public
Facility to Medium Density Residential and for a General Plan Conformity
Determination for Property Disposal as proposed for property located at
19848 Prospect Road, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl
NOES: None
ABSENT: Kundtz
ABSTAIN: None
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Schallop, seconded by Commissioner
Cappello, the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation to
Council recommending the approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map to
create nine single-family residential lots on property located at 19848
Prospect Road, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl
NOES: None
ABSENT: Kundtz
ABSTAIN: None
Planning Commission Minutes for October 26, 2005 Page 32
***
DIRECTOR’S ITEMS
There were no Director’s Items.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Commissioner Hunter advised that she attended Village Revitalization meetings.
Chair Nagpal stated that the joint session with Council was a good meeting.
COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Communications Items.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Upon motion of Commissioner Uhl, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, Chair Nagpal
adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of
November 9, 2005, at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk