HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-20-1989 COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORTSr
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: September 20, 1989 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager
SUBJECT: Amendment to Maintenance Agreement Between the City and the Hakone
Foundation
Recommended Action: Approval of Amendment to Maintenance Agreement and
authorization for Mayor and City Clerk to execute the same.
Report Summary: On January 1, 1988, the City entered into an agreement with
the Hakone Foundation for the performance of maintenance and repair work at Hakone
Gardens. A copy of such agreement is attached hereto. Paragraph 2 of the
Maintenance Agreement reflects the provisions of the Lease Agreement between the
City and the Foundation requiring that all rental charges and cash donations shall first
be applied toward payment of maintenance and repair costs owed by the Foundation to
the City. The City Council has recently agreed to postpone this obligation until
July 1, 1990, which date may be extended by further action of the City Council to
July 1, 1991. The Amendment to the Maintenance Agreement will allow the
Foundation to utilize this revenue for any legitimate purpose.
Fiscal Impacts: Loss of all rental charges and cash donations received by the
Hakone Foundation that otherwise would have been paid to the City as reimbursement
for maintenance and repair costs.
Attachments: (a) Amendment to Maintenance Agreement;
(b) Maintenance Agreement.
Motion and Vote:
AMENDMENT TO MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT dated , 1989, by and between
THE HAKONE FOUNDATION, a nonprofit trust created under that certain Trust
Agreement dated December 19, 1984, ( "The Foundation "), and THE CITY OF
SARATOGA, a municipal corporation ( "City "), is made with reference to the following
facts:
A. The Foundation and City are parties to a certain Maintenance
Agreement dated January 1, 1988, pertaining to the maintenance and repair of the
public park known as Hakone Gardens.
B. The parties desire to amend said Maintenance Agreement as
hereinafter set forth.
follows:
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. Paragraph 2 of the Maintenance Agreement is amended to read as
112. Payment of Maintenance Costs.
Notwithstanding Paragraph 6.4 of the Lease
Agreement, the Foundation shall not be required to
apply rental charges and cash donations toward
payment of maintenance and repair costs owed by
The Foundation to City until July 1, 1990, which
date may be extended to July 1, 1991, by resolution
of the City Council. Until such time as The
Foundation again becomes obligated to apply rental
charges and cash donations toward payment of
maintenance and repair costs, such revenue may be
utilized for any legitimate purpose of The
Foundation."
2. Except as herein amended, the Maintenance Agreement is declared to
be in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day
and year first above written.
Attest:
Hakone Foundation
By
Trustee
51
Trustee
City of Saratoga
By
City Clerk
Mayor
r '
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, dated January 1, , 1988, by and
between THE HAKONE FOUNDATION, a non- profit trust created -under that certain
Trust Agreement dated December 19, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Foundation "), and THE CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter
referred to as "City "), is made with reference to the following facts:
A. City is the owner of certain real property and improvements thereon
located in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California, known as
Hakone Gardens (hereinafter referred to as "the Property ").
B. The Property has been dedicated by City for use as a public park and
has been developed as a distinctive authentic Japanese garden.
C. The Foundation has been established for the purpose of operating,
maintaining, preserving and improving the Property.
D. City has leased the Property to the Foundation, pursuant to the terms
of that certain Lease Agreement between City and the Foundation dated
January 1, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as "the Lease Agreement ").
E. Article VI of the Lease Agreement requires the Foundation to
maintain the Property in good order, condition and repair, but further provides that
ordinary maintenance and repair work shall be performed by City and the actual cost
thereof shall be paid by the Foundation, as charged from time to time by City.
F. The parties desire to execute this Agreement for the purpose of
establishing their respective rights and obligations concerning maintenance and repair
of the Property.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows:
1. Maintenance by City. : City shall continue to perform ordinary
maintenance and repair work in and upon the Property with the same frequency and to
the same extent as performed by City prior to the execution of the Lease Agreement,
including, but not limited to, the following:
(a) Cleaning, maintenance and repair of all structures on the
Property.
(b) Cleaning and furnishing of paper products for all public
restrooms.
(c) Maintenance and repair of public parking areas and
driveways, including restripping of parking spaces when
necessary and installation and maintenance of signs,
pavement markings and other traffic control devices.
-1-
(d) Maintenance and repair of lighting fixtures, sidewalks,
pathways, foot - bridges, benches and fences.
(e) Maintenance of landscaping, including irrigation
facilities, pruning and fertilizing when necessary,
and replacement of plant material when necessary.
Nothing herein shall constitute an assumption by City of any obligation to make, or to
pay for the cost of making any capital improvements to the Property, nor shall City be
obligated to pay any person who has contracted directly with the Foundation for the
performance of maintenance work or any other type of services. The Foundation may,
at any time, assume responsibility for performing at its own expense any or all of the
maintenance and repair work described above by giving written notice of such
assumption to City.
2. Payment of maintenance costs. The cost of maintenance and repair
performed by City shall be charged to the Foundation in accordance with Paragraph
6.2 of the Lease Agreement and shall be paid by the Foundation in accordance with
Paragraph 6.4 of the Lease Agreement.
3. Administrative services. City shall also provide administrative
services with respect to the use and rental of the Property by members of the public,
including the taking of reservations, collection of rental charges, obtaining evidence of
insurance coverage when required, and scheduling of tours and special events. The
general overhead cost to City for providing such administrative services shall be
charged to the Foundation and paid in the same manner as maintenance costs.
4. Indemnity by City. City hereby agrees to indemnify and hold the
Foundation and its trustees free and harmless from and against any and all claims,
demands, causes of action, damages, liabilities, costs or expenses, resulting from any
negligent acts or omissions by City in connection with City's performance of the
maintenance and repair work hereunder.
5. Termination of Agreement. This Agreement shall automatically
terminate upon any cancellation or termination of the Lease Agreement or upon any
termination of the Trust Agreement pursuant to which the Foundation was created. If
not sooner terminated as provided herein, this Agreement shall remain in force for an
initial term of one (1) year, commencing on January 1, 1988 , and
shall automatically be renewed for additional one 1 year terms unless cancelled by
either party upon written notice received sixty (60) days prior to the anniversary date.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day
and year first above written.
THE CITY OF SARATOGA TF
By �+ B5
P
Attest: zQz.c_, � -2- By
City Clerk
10
SARATOGA CITY COUNCII,
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. / / D 0� AGENDA ITEM gg
MEETING DATE: September 20, 1989 CITY MGR. APPROVAL �.—
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Attorney
SUBJECT: Renewal of Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program
Recommended Action: Adoption of resolution to extend the existing DBE Program for
an additional year from October 1, 1989, through September 30, 1990.
Report Summary: As one of the technical requirements for the receipt of federal
funds to assist in the financing of the bridges on Quito Road, the City adopted a
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program on April 19, 1989. The Program is
intended to facilitate the opportunity for minority and female owned businesses to
submit bids and receive awards of contracts on federally funded projects. Under the
applicable regulations, the DBE Programs are required to run during the federal fiscal
year of October 1st through September 30th. Consequently, the original program
adopted by the City will expire on September 30, 1989. The proposed resolution will
renew the existing program for an additional year until September 30, 1990. The same
goal of 10% (as also adopted by CalTrans) will be continued during the renewal period.
Fiscal Impacts: None.
Attachments: Proposed Resolution.
Motion and Vote:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA RENEWING THE CITY'S
DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE
PROGRAM
WHEREAS, on April 19, 1989, the City Council adopted a Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise (DBE) Program, a true copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit
"A" and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the adopted DBE Program expires on September 30, 1989; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to renew the DBE Program for an
additional year,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Saratoga as follows:
1. The adopted DBE Program attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is renewed
and extended to cover the period from October 1, 1989, through September 30, 1990.
2. The overall DBE goal established by the Program shall remain at 10%
during the period of renewal, and all other terms and provisions of the DBE Program
shall remain in full force and effect as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and
made a part hereof.
3. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to publish notification of
the annual DBE goal for the renewal period, as required under Part IV of the DBE
Program.
s s s
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Saratoga held on the 20th day of September, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-1-
Mayor
E X H I B I T "A"
DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) PROGRAM
CITY OF SARATOGA
I. Policy Statement
It is the policy of the City of Saratoga to utilize Disadvantaged Business
Enterprises (DBE) and firms as defined in 49 CFR Part 23 in all aspects of
contracting to the maximum extent feasible. This policy which is fully described
herein constitutes policy and commitment to substantially increase DBE
Utilization in all program activities funded wholly or in part by any U.S.
Department of Transportation model element.
This Agency, its contractors and subcontractors, which are the recipients of
Federal -aid funds, agree to ensure DBE firms have the maximum opportunity to
participate in the performance of contracts and subcontracts. In this regard,
this Agency and all of its contractors and subcontractors will take all reasonable
steps in accordance with 49 CFR 23 to ensure that DBE and firms have the
maximum opportunity to compete for and perform contracts.
II. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Liaison Officer
The City Engineer is the DBE Liaison Officer for this agency and shall report to
the City Manager.
III. Duties of the DBE Liaison Officer
The DBE Liaison Officer shall develop, manage and implement the DBE Program
on a day - to-day basis. The Liaison Officer shall:
A. Arrange solicitations, time for the presentation of bids, quantities,
specifications, and delivery schedules so as to facilitate the participation
of DBEs. Where such changes are found necessary to increase DBE
utilization, they will made in consultation and cooperation with the
functional unit involved.
B. Provide guidance to DBEs in overcoming barriers, such as inability to
obtain bonding or financing.
-1-
C. Carry out information and communication programs on contracting
opportunities in a timely manner.
D. Investigate the services offered by banks owned and controlled by
Disadvantaged Business Enterprises.
E. Unless noted elsewhere herein the listing of DBEs certified by Caltrans will
be utilized as businesses to be included in the solicitation of bids. Said
listing is to be made available to all project bidders. Such listing will
include the following information: Name, address, telephone number,
ethnic and /or sexual ownership, type of work performed by firm.
F. Prior to approval of the substitution of any DBE subcontractor, the prime
contractors will be required to prove performance of good faith efforts to
replace the DBE with another eligible DBE.
G. Establish a DBE overall annual goal. The goal shall be evaluated annually
and adjusted as necessary.
H. Establish an appropriate individual project DBE goal for each Federal Aid
Project advertised.
I. Perform good faith analysis when the project goal is not achieved.
J. Maintain such documentation as is necessary to verify performance of all
activities included in this program.
IV. Public Notification
A. At the time of submittal of this program to the State Department of
Transportation, a notice in both minority and majority local media will be
published. Said publication shall include:
(1) The annual overall DBE goal.
(2) Notification that a description of how the goal was set is available
for public inspection for a period of 30 days.
-2-
(3) Notification that both U.S. DOT and this agency will accept
comments on the goal for 45 days from the date of the notice. The
notice shall advise interested parties that comments are for
information purposes only.
B. This program will be reaffirmed by public notice annually at the time of
publication of overall goal. If substantial changes are made to this
document, the entire document shall be subject to notification noted in A
above.
C. In addition to the foregoing, interested disadvantaged and majority
contractor organizations will receive direct mailings of this complete
program.
V, Establishment of Goal
A. The DBE goal will be established both annually (overall) and on a per
contract basis. The overall goal will be based on planned contract activity
for the coming year. The overall goal established will be subject to
methodology and procedures established in 49 CFR 23, Subparts (C) and (D)
and take effect on October 1st of each year.
B. The overall DBE goal established with this initial program is 10% and
covers the period October 1, 1989, to September 30, 1990.
C. Individual project goals will be established based on the following criteria:
(1) Attainment of established overall goals.
(2) Size of project.
(3) Opportunities for DBEs as subcontractors, vendors and suppliers.
(4) Minority population of geographic area in which work is to be
perf ormed.
-3-
(5) , DBE goals being utilized in the geographic area by other State,
Federal or local jurisdictions.
(6) Availability of certified DBEs.
(7) Past experience on projects similar to the project being evaluated.
(8) Such other factors as may effect the utilization of DBEs.
Complete evaluation documentation will be retained for each project.
D. Projects which do not contain a specific goal will contain the following
provisions:
(1) "Policy. It is the policy of the Department of Transportation that
disadvantaged business enterprises as defined in 49 CFR Part 23 shall
have the maximum opportunity to participate in the performance of
contracts financed in whole or in part with Federal funds under this
agreement. Consequently, the DBE requirements of 49 CFR Part 23
apply to this agreement."
�.: (2) "DBE Obligation. The recipient or its contractor agrees to ensure
that disadvantaged business enterprises as defined in 49 CFR Part 23
have the maximum opportunity to participate in the performance of
contracts and subcontracts financed in whole or in part with Federal
funds provided under this agreement. In this regard, all recipients or
contractors shall take all necessary and reasonable steps in
accordance with 49 CFR Part 23 to ensure that disadvantaged
business enterprises have the maximum opportunity to compete for
and perform contracts. Recipients and their contractors shall not
discriminate on the basis of race, color, natioinal origin, or sex in the
award and performance of DOT - assisted contracts."
VI. Contract Procedure
This program shall be implemented through the utilization of a contract special
provision which will be provided /updated as necessary by Caltrans'Division of
-4-
Local Streets and Roads. These procedures require bidders to submit the names
of DBE subcontractors and suppliers, a description of the work each is to
perform or material to be furnished, and the dollar value of each DBE
subactivity.
VII. DBE Notification
Projects will be advertised in local newspapers and minority focus newspapers
when possible. These ads will include reference to DBE requirements and will
indicate the DBE project goal.
DBE supportive service assistance centers will receive notification of projects
scheduled to be advertised. Such centers, will be afforded the opportunity to
receive complimentary plans and specifications for projects within their
geographical area of responsibility.
VIII. Selection Criteria for Projects with DBE Goal
Every project containing a DBE goal shall be evaluated by the DBE Liaison
Officer or his /her designee to ascertain bidding contractors' efforts to attain the
DBE goal. The award of any project must be concurred with by the DBE Liaison
Officer or his /her designee before said contract may be awarded. Should there
be disagreement between functional units concerning contractors' efforts to
attain contract goals for DBE participation, the matter shall be referred to the
City Manager or his /her designee, for final determination.
Competitors that fail to meet the DBE goal and fail to demonstrate sufficient
reasonable good faith efforts shall be declared non - responsive and ineligible for
award of the contract.
All contracts that contain a DBE goal, pursuant to this policy, will be monitored
on an ongoing basis by project personnel during the course of construction. The
DBE Liaison Officer is to be immediately advised of any circumstances wherein
contractor compliance with the DBE provision is questionable. The contractor
shall submit a final report for each project which includes total payments to the
prime contractor as well as any payments the prime contractor has made to DBE
subcontractors, vendors and suppliers. If the report indicates the prime .
contractor has not achieved the project goal, project personnel shall attach an
96M
evaluation, in narrative form, of the reasons for failure to attain the goal and
any corrective action that was taken.
Prime contractors will be required to notify the Agency of any situation in which
regularly scheduled progress payments are not made to DBE subcontractors,
vendors or suppliers.
IX. Counting DBE Participants
This Agency, its contractors, and subcontractors shall count DBE participation in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.47, Title 49 of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
X. Records and Reports
A. The DBE Liaison Officer shall maintain such records, and provide such
reports, as are necessary to ensure full compliance with this policy. Such
records and reports shall include, as a minimum, the following information:
(1) Awards to DBEs.
(2) Awards to majority contractors.
�._ (3) Final project reports concerning DBE utilization.
(4) Such other data as is needed to fully evaluate compliance with this
program.
B. The DBE Liaison Officer shall submit reports to Caltrans and /or to the
appropriate U.S. DOT element as required. These reports will include:
(1) Number and dollar value of contracts awarded.
(2) Number and dollar value of contracts and subcontracts awarded to
DBEs.
(3) Description of general categories of contracts awarded to DBEs.
-6-
(4) The percentage of the dollar value of all contracts awarded during
the year which were awarded to DBEs.
(5) Indication as to the extent of which the percentage met or exceeded
the overall goal.
(6) Reports shall be broken down separately by ethinic grouping.
%I. Complaints
Any complaints received by the Agency concerning this program will be
investigated by the DBE Liaison Officer. He /she will endeavor to resolve said
complaints within 90 days after receipt. The appropriate DOT element and
Caltrans will be furnished a copy of the complaint and may be invited to
participate in the investigation/ resolution. The DOT element and Caltrans will
receive a complete investigative report on the complaint and may be requested
to concur in the proposed disposition of said complaint.
Contractors will be directed to notify the Agency of any complaints they may
receive concerning this program.
-7-
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.� AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: September 20, 1989 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: Building Department
SUBJECT: Requirement for Occupancy Inspection Upon Change of Ownership or
Change of Use
Recommended Action: Adoption of ordinance adding a new Article 16 -71 to the
building regulations and adoption of resolution establishing fee for occupancy
inspections.
Report Summary: On September 6, 1989, the City Council introduced the
ordinance adding a new Article 16 -71 to the City Code to require an occupancy
inspection upon certain transfers of real estate, change of use or establishment of a
new business. The revised draft dated September 6, 1989, contains a definition of
"single - family dwelling," in order to clarify such term includes a condominium or
townhouse unit and that a site containing a principal residence and a lawful second
unit shall be considered a single - family dwelling.
In addition to the second reading and adoption of the ordinance,
it is necessary for the Council to amend the schedule of fees to establish the standard
charge for the conduct of an occupancy inspection. The Building Department has
recommended that the fee be established at $165 for both the mandatory and
voluntary inspections.
Fiscal Impacts: It is anticipated that the cost of staff time for the conduct of
occupancy inspections will be recovered through the collection of inspection fees.
Attachments: (a) Proposed Ordinance; -7 t, 6 F
(b) Resolution No. 2383.6, establishing a $165 fee for
occupancy inspections.
Motion and Vote: Ordinance introduced on September 6, 1989, by a vote of 3 -1,
with Councilmember Moyles dissenting and Councilmember Peterson absent.
ORDINANCE NO. 71.68
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
ADDING ARTICLE 16 -71 TO THE CITY CODE
CONCERNING OCCUPANCY INSPECTIONS
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows:
SECTION 1: A new Article 16 -71 is added to Chapter 16 of the City Code, to read
as follows:
Sections:
16- 71.010
16- 71.020
16- 71.030
16- 71.040
16- 71.050
$16- 71.010
"ARTICLE 16 -71
OCCUPANCY INSPECTIONS
Definitions
Requirement for inspection
Nature of inspection
Corrective action
Voluntary inspections
Definitions
For the purposes of this Article, the following words and phrases shall have the
meanings respectively ascribed to them in this Section, unless the context or the
provision clearly requires otherwise:
(a) Business means any activity for which a business license is required under
Chapter 4, Article 4 -05 of this Code, except a business conducted within a single
family dwelling as a home occupation.
(b) Change of use means any change in the character or use of a structure that
would place the building in a different division of the same group of occupancy under
the Uniform Building Code or in a different group of occupancies under said Code.
(c) Single family dwelling means a detached dwelling unit, or a condominium
or townhouse unit, which is separately owned and intended for occupancy by one
family. A site containing a single family dwelling as the main structure thereon and
second unit for which a permit has been issued pursuant to Article 15 -56 of this Code,
shall be treated as a single family dwelling for purposes of this Article.
(d) Transfer of ownership, as applied to real property or a business, means any
conveyance, assignment, or other transfer, by any means, of more than fifty percent
of the equitable ownership interest in the real property or business.
Rev. 9/6/89
-1-
S16-71.020 Requirement for inspection
(a) An occupancy inspection pursuant to this Article shall be required prior to
the occurrence of any of the following events:
(1) Transfer of ownership of any real property, except a site having a
single family dwelling as the main structure thereon.
(2) Transfer of ownership of any business.
(3) Change of use of any structure.
(4) The original issuance of a new business license pursuant to Article 4-
05 of this Code, except a license to engage in a home occupation. No
inspection shall be required for the annual renewal of a previously
issued business license.
(b) No transfer of ownership shall be invalidated as a result of the failure to
arrange for a prior occupancy inspection, but such inspection may be initiated and
conducted by the City at any time after discovery by the building official that the
transfer has occurred. The obligation to take corrective action, as described in
Section 16- 71.040 of this Article, shall be imposed upon the current owner of the real
property or business.
§16-71.030 Nature of inspection
(a) Request for inspection. Occupancy inspections shall be conducted by the
building official, or his designated representative, upon a request and appointment
being made by the owner or occupant of the real property or the owner or operator of
the business. An inspection fee shall be charged, in such amount as established from
time to time by resolution of the City Council.
(b) Scope of inspection. Where an occupancy inspection is being made in
connection with the transfer of real property, the entire site to be transferred shall be
inspected. Where the occupancy inspection is being made in connection with the
establishment or transfer of a busness or a change of use, the premises where such
business or use is conducted shall be inspected.
(c) Subject of inspection. The occupancy inspection shall be made for the
purpose of determining whether the real property or premises and the proposed use
thereof comply with the following:
(1) All applicable zoning regulations of the City;
(2) All applicable state and local building codes and regulations,
including, but not limited to, the uniform codes adopted in this
Chapter;
(3) All applicable federal, state and local statutes, ordinances, rules and
regulations pertaining to hazardous materials or hazardous wastes,
including, but not limited to, requirements for the establishment and
Rev. 9/6/89
-2-
maintenance of any business, management or emergency response
plan.
(d) Inspection report. Within ten days after completion of the inspection, the
building official shall issue an inspection report to the person who originally requested
the inspection, or to the owner of the property if no prior request was made. The
report shall also be made available to any other person requesting a copy thereof. The
report shall include any directive issued by the building official for the performance of
corrective work described in Section 16- 71.040 of this Article.
(e) Duration of inspection report. The inspection report shall be effective for
a period of eighteen months from the date of the report. If the intended transfer of
ownership or establishment of business or change of use is not accomplished within
such period of time, an updated report must be obtained from the building official.
(f) Reliance upon inspection report. The inspection report shall not constitute
and shall not be construed as a representation or warranty by the building official that
no violation of law exists except as may be stated in the report. Nothing contained in
the report shall prevent the City, or any other public agency, from enforcing any
statute, ordinance, rule or regulation if a violation thereof is later found to exist.
S16-71.040 Corrective action
(a) Upon a determination by the building official that a violation of any
statute, ordinance, rule or regulation described in Subsection 16- 71.030(c) exists, the
building official may order such corrective work to be performed as he deems
necessary or appropriate to protect the health or safety of the occupants of the
structure and the general public.
(b) The corrective work shall be commenced and completed within such times
as specified by the building official. Unless authorized by the building official, no
business license may be issued or change or use established until the corrective work
has been completed to the satisfaction of the building official.
S16- 71.050 Voluntary inspections
Any owner of a single- family dwelling, or the authorized agent of such owner,
may voluntarily request that an occupancy inspection of the property be conducted
pursuant to this Article. The inspection report shall have the same force and effect as
a report issued in connection with a mandatory inspection."
SECTION 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or
unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it
would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and
phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections,
sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional.
Rev. 9/6/89
-3-
SECTION 3: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its
passage and adoption.
The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the
waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 20th day of
September, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Rev. 9/6/89
-4-
MAYOR
RESOLUTION NO. 2383.6
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING THE SCHEDULE
OF FEES AS ADOPTED IN RESOLUTION NO. 2383
WHEREAS, on October 15, 1986, the City Council of the City of Saratoga
adopted Resolution No. 2383 establishing a schedule of fees for various applications,
permits, extensions, renewals, services and other matters enumerated therein; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2383 has been amended by Resolution No.
2383.1 adopted on February 18, 1987, Resolution No. 2383.2 adopted on September 2,
1987, Resolution No. 2383.3 adopted on November 4, 1987, Resolution No. 2383.4
adopted on October 19, 1988, and Resolution No. 2383.5 adopted on July 5, 1989; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to further amend Resolution No. 2383
to establish a fee for the conduct of occupancy inspections pursuant to Article 16 -71
of the City Code,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Saratoga that pursuant to Section 16- 71.030 of the Saratoga City Code, an inspection
fee is hereby established in the amount of $165 for the conduct of an occupancy
inspection under Article 16 -71 of the City Code.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Saratoga held on the 20th day of September, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
R
N
MEETING OA=8 9 -20 -89
ORIGINA== oZ" Fnaineerina
AGE=
CITY MGR. APPROVALA�
BUBJECTs Final Map Approval for $D 89 -004, Philip Bray, Saratoga Hills
(2 Lots) and Accept Openspace Easement
Recommended motion:
Approve Resolution No. SD 89- 004 -01, approving Final Map for
Philip Bray and accept open space easement.
Report 9
1. SD 89 -004 is ready for Final Approval.
2. All requirements for the City and other departments have
been completed.
3. All fees have been paid.
Fiscal ZmoactaI
None.
Attachments:
1. Resolution No. SD 89- 004 -01.
2. Open Space Easement Agreement.
3. Resolution approving Tentative Map.
4. Location Map.
M"Lan and Vote:
RESOLUTION NO. SD 89-004-01
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Philip Bray
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
SECTION l:
The 2.967 Acres and 1.078 Acres Parcel shown as
Parcel A and B on the Final Parcel Map prepared by Louis M.
Bini Associates, Inc. and submitted to the City Engineer,
City of Saratoga be approved as two (2) individual building
sites.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and
passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the
day of
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
f
CITY CLERK
19 by the following
MAYOR
T_
RESOLUTION NO. SD -89 -004
RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF
BRAY, 21459 SARATOGA HILLS ROAD
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the
Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision
Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tentative map approval of
two (2) lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD -89 -004 of
this City, and
WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed
subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement,
is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans
relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible
with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified
in such General Plan, reference to the Staff Report dated 6/28/89 being
hereby made for further particulars, and
WHEREAS, this body has heretofor received and considered the
Negative Declaration prepared for this project in accord with the currently
applicable provisions of CEQA, and
WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through
(g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said
subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in accord with
conditions as hereinafter set forth.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public
hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity
to be heard and to present evidence;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the
hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the 18th day of
April, 1989 and is marked Exhibit "A" in the hereinabove referred file, be
and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said
approval are as follows:
N.A. 1. Pay storm drainage fee in effect at the time of obtaining final
approval.
2. Submit parcel map to City for checking and recordation (pay
Done required checking and recordation fees). (If parcel is shown on
See Parcel Map existing map of record, submit three (3) to scale prints) .
3. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easements, as
required.
D one 4. Construct access road 18 ft. wide plus 1 ft. shoulders using 2 -1/2
See Improvement A.C. aggregate base from Saratoga Hills Road to within 100 ft. of
Plans
proposed dwelling.
I
SD -89 -004; 21459 Saratoga Hills Rd.
a. The minimum inside curve radius shall be 42 ft.
DONE b. The minimum vertical clearance above road surface shall be
15 ft.
c. Storm runoff shall be controlled through the use of culverts
See Improvement Plans and roadside ditches.
5. Construct turnaround having 32 ft. radius or approved equal using
2 -1/2" A.C. on 6" aggregate base within 100 ft. of proposed
dwelling.
6. Construct driveway approach 16 ft. wide at property line flared to
24 ft. at street paving. Use 2 -1/2" A.C. on 6" aggregate base.
7. Construct valley gutter across driveway or pipe culvert under
driveway as approved by the City Engineer.
8. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as
required at SaratogaHills Road and access road intersections.
9. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change,
retard or prevent flow.
See Improvement 10. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills.
Plans
DONE 11. Engineered improvement plans required for:
a. Access road construction.
DONE 12. Pay plan check and inspection fees as determined from improvement
plans.
DONE 13. Enter into improvement agreement for required improvements to be
completed within one (1) year of receiving final approval.
DONE 14. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements.
N.A. 15. Overlay Saratoga Hills Road for entire frontage using Petromat and
1 -1/2" A.C.
N.A. 16. A sanitary sewer connection shall be required in accordance to West
Valley Sanitation District requirements.
With Building 17. Domestic water shall be supplied by San Jose Water Company.
Plans
N.A. 18. All the requirements of Santa Clara Valley Water District regarding
registration and treatment of existing wells shall be met prior to
final map approval.
With Building 19. New structures on lots A and /or B shall require design review
Plans approval .
20. No tree removal shall be permitted except those approved by the
r
SD -89 -004; 21459 Saratoga Hills Road
Planning Commission as part of the design review approval, unless a
tree removal permit is obtained per Article 15 -29 of the zoning
ordinance.
With Building 21. The total square footage of the structures on lot B shall not exceed
Plans 4,000 sq. ft.
22. Structures on lot B shall be one -story only and no higher than 20 ft.
DONE, See Parcel 23. The portion of lot A and B between Saratoga Hills Road and the private
Map access road shall be indicated on the final map and dedicated as an
open space easement.
See Parcel Map 24. No further subdivision of any of lot A or B shall be allowed. This
restriction shall be recorded against the properties prior to issuance
of any permits.
Section 1. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions
within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall
be void.
Section 2. Conditions must be completed within 24 months or approval
will expire.
Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and
other Governmental entities must be met.
Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article
15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective ten
(10) days from the date of adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State
of California, this 28th day of June, 1989 by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Siegfried, Harris, Tucker, Tappan and Kolstad
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Burger
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Co ssion
The above conditions are hereby accepted:
. 1-y-12A /L"-, �3 B
Signature of A licant Date
hairman, Plan ing G6biftss ion:
RECEIVED
JUL 1.: )gby
PLANNING; OEpT
SUMMARY OF FEES & BONDS
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
TRACT NO
Storm Drain Fees
Park & Recreation Fees
Plan Check & Inspection Fees
Final Map Check Fees
SD NO 89 -004
N.A.
$10,054.00
$ 5,950.00
$ 300.00
.<I g q— eq el �
r
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. / � 03
MEETING DATE: September 20, 1989
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager's
AGENDA ITEM :74.
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: Resolution Revising Fringe Benefits for the City's Management Employees
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution No. 85 -9. Revising Fringe Benefits for the Management
Employees.
Report Summary:
The City's eleven Management positions are not covered under the recently
adopted Memorandum of Understanding which made changes to the salaries
and benefits for non - management employees. Resolution No. 85 -9.
restructures the benefits package for management employees and brings
them essentially at par with the non - management employees. These changes
in fringe benefits will simplify administrative procedures and will allow
the City to more easily comply with anticipated changes to the federal tax
laws.
Fiscal Impacts:
Increased zar allowances total $525 per month; one -time pay out of accrued
leave time of approximately $20,000; future leave payouts would be minimal.
Attachments:
1. Resolution No. 85 -9. �(
2. Report to Council from Assistant to the City Manager
Motion and Vote:
� 1
99 0AaW_° \U(QX,(_�JA\
�:3;;; ��►z��rr��.�Li..���c;� <<�I� . �. BIZ, ��r�x� ,�.�::�I,u= OIZNt.� <.�s��;�>
(4()S) 86734138
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
September 20, 1989 David Moyles
Donald Peterson
To: City Counc i l Francis Stutzman
From: Carolyn King, Assistant to the City Manager
Subject: Revision of Management Benefits
Recommended Action:
Adopt Resolution No. 85 -9. revising fringe benefits for the
management employees.
The City's eleven Management positions are not covered under the
Memorandum of Understanding which was recently ratified by the
employee association and adopted by the City Council. There have
not been any changes made in the past two years to the management
benefits while health and dental costs have been rapidly increas-
ing. The group has met to discuss their benefits package and has
made recommendations for certain changes which will bring them
essentially at par with the non - management employee benefits.
1. FULL COVERAGE OF HEALTH AND DENTAL INSURANCE: The change to
fully paid hea -Ith and dental premiums will eliminate the cash -
back aspect of the current package which is in the form of a
monthly allotment of $285 (up to $325 for those who cover
dependents on the health plan) for health, dental and life
insurance. The cost to the City will remain approximately the
Sallie.
2. CONTINUE CITY COVERAGE OF LIFE INSURANCE: The City offers
group term life insurance in the amount of twice the manager's
annual. salary. The cost to the City is approximately $35 per
month per employee.
EXTEND LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN TO INCLUDE MANAGERS: The
new long term disability plan for SEA employees provides full
coverage of salary and benefits by the City for the first six
months of disability. After that time, the group insurance
policy takes over and pays up to a maximum of $2,000 per month.
Since the size of our employee group requires that all employees
have the same long term disability insurance coverage, it is
necessary to extend the plan to the management group.
To: City Council Page 2
Subject: REvision of Management Benefits
September 20, 1989
4. EXTEND NEW ANNUAL LEAVE PLAN TO INCLUDE MANAGERS: The new
MOU combines all vacation, sick and personal leave for SEA em-
ployees effective January 1, 1990, and limits the total number of
hours of leave which an employee may carry over into a new calen-
dar year at 720. Accumulated hours above 720 will be paid off at
one -half the employee's rate of pay on an annual basis. The
recommended number of days of annual leave which management
employees would accrue is a total of five fewer days than the
separate leave policies allow. There are advantages to having
all employees on the same type of leave plan as it will greatly
simplify the administrative procedures. There are three managers
who will have more than 720 hours of accumulated leave time at
the end of December, and will be eligible for a pay out. This
would result in a one -time payout of over $20,000, but more than
$17,000 is for one individual who has been with the City for over
25 years.
5. INCREASE CAR ALLOWANCES BY $75 PER MONTH: By increasing car
allowances for the eight management employees who do not have
assigned City vehicles, the allowances will be more comparable to
those paid by other agencies. The $75 monthly increase will also
off -set the amount of cash from the health benefits package which
7 of the 10 managers will be giving up, and the loss of 5 days of
annual leave time. Monthly cost of the increase is $525.
Carolyn King
jm
• t
•.. =.
C. : •
SUBJECT: Final Map Approval for SD 89 -003,
Joe Mc Donald, Prospect"Rd., (1 Lot)
CM MKM. APPUMAL e
Racommendid Motion:
Approve Resolution No. SD 89- 003 -01 for approving Final Map
for SD 89 -003, Joe Mc Donald.
Ravort sunny:
1. SD 89 -003 is ready for Final Map Approval.
2. All requirements for the City and other departments have
been completed.
3. All fees have been paid.
Fiscal• Smoacts:
None.
Attachments:
.1. Resolution No. SD 89- 003 -01.
2. Resolution Approving Tentative Map.
3. Location Map.
Motion and Vote:
A.y
RESOLUTION NO. SD 89- 003 -01
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Joe Mc Donald
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
SECTION 1:
The 17,065.00 square feet Parcel shown as Parcel A
on the Final Parcel Map prepared by David Alvarez
and submitted to the City Engineer, City of Saratoga,
be approved as one (1) individual building site.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and
passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the
day of
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
I
CITY CLERK
, 19 by the following
MAYOR
RECEIVED
RESOLUTION NO. SD -89 -003 MAY -0 1989
RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP &LANNING DEPT
McDonald, 20904 Prospect Road
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the
Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision
Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tentative map approval of
1 lot, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD -89 -003 of this
City, and
WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed
subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement,
is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans
relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible
with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified
in such General Plan, reference to the Staff Report dated 3/22/89 being
hereby made for further particulars, and
WHEREAS, this body has heretofor received and considered the
Categorical Exemption prepared for this project in accord with the
currently applicable provisions of CEQA, and
WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through
subdivision, and ntentativeSeapproval exist with
grantedreineCaccord with
conditions as hereinafter set forth.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public
hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity
to be heard and to present evidence;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that -the tentative map for the
hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the 22nd day of
March, 1989 and is marked Exhibit A in the hereinabove referred file, be
and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said
approval are as follows:
N.A. 1. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final
Approval.
DONE 2• Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation (Pay required
checking and recordation fees). (If parcel is shown on existing map of
See Parcel Map record, submit three (3) to -scale prints.)
3. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 50 ft.
ft. Half- Street on Prospect Road.
4. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easements, as
required.
See Improvement
Plans
N. A.
DONE
See Improvement
Plans
DONE
DONE
With Building
Permit
N. A.
5. Improve Prospect Road to City Standards, including the following:
a. Designed Structural Section 40 ft. between centerline and
flowline
b. P.C. Concrete curb and gutter (R -36, V -24)
C. Pedestrian Walkway (4 ft. P.C.C.)
d. Undergrounding existing overhead utilities.
6. Construct Storm Drainage System and as directed by the City Engineer,
as needed to convey storm runoff to
watercourse. street, storm sewer or
7. Construct Standard Driveway Approaches.
8. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as
required at driveway and access road intersections.
9. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard
or prevent flow.
10. Obtain Encroachment Permit from SPRR for work to be done within their
right -of -way.
11. Engineered Improvement Plans required for:
a. Street Improvements.
b. Storm Drain Construction.
12. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement
Plans.
13. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be
completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval.
14. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements.
"15. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing:
a. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross - sections, existing
and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities)
b. Erosion Control Measures
16. In accordance with District Ordinances 85 -1 and 87 -3, the owner should
show any existing well(s) on the plans. The well(s) should be
properly registered with the District and either maintained or
abandoned in accordance with District standards. Property owners or
representative
extension 382, for information) regardingidwellZapermits 265-00, 6the
registering of or abandonment of any wells.
SD -89 -003, 20904 Pros -'t Road
With Building 17. A sanitary sewer connection will be required.
Permit 18. Domestic water shall be supplied by San Jose Water Company.
J19 Earth Materials - the site's earth materials (i.e., alluvium, fill and
bedrock) should be characterized and their distribution shown on an
original engineering geologic map and accompanying cross section(s).
20. Seismic Setting - The seismic setting of the property should be
characterized and potential seismic hazards (i.e., ground shaking,
ground rupture, etc.) to the proposed development should be evaluated.
The applicant's geologic consultant should accurately determine the
location of traces of the Shannon fault so that any building sites are
located at least 50 feet from nearby fault traces. Subsurface
exploration (i.e. trenching) will probably be necessary. The City
Geotechnical Consultant should be given the opportunity to inspect
any trenches after they have been cleaned and logged (minimum 24 hours
notice) .
The results of this investigation should be submitted to the City for
review by the City Engineer and Geologist prior to issuance of
building and grading permits.
Section 1. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions
within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall
be void.
Section 2. Conditions must be completed within 24 months or approval
will expire.
Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and
other Governmental entities must be met.
Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article
15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective ten
(10) days from the date of adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State
of California, this 22nd day of March, 1989 by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Guch, Harris, Burger, Kolstad, and Tucker
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Tappan and Siegfried
ATTEST: �,
Chairman, Plannin Comm' sio
g n
1't-J i
Secr tary, anning ommission
t
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: James Walgren
DATE: 3/22/89 PLNG. DIR. APPRV.
APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: SD -89 -003; 20904 Prospect Rd.
APPLICANT /OWNER: McDonald
APN: 366 -05 -06 Q
N
IHR
Project Si
L---]L
C -N
V
dry 2
01
SUMMARY OF FEES & BONDS
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
TRACT NO SD NO 89-003
Storm Drain Fees N.A.
Park & Recreation Fees $5,02-7.00
Plan Check & Inspection Fees $2,220.00
Final Map Check Fees $ 250.00
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. /70( AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: 9/20/89
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planning
CITY MGR. APPROVAT
V11" M&UA, Ise
SUBJECT: Appeal of DR -89 -013; Design Review Approval of a new
5,073 sq. ft. residence; Applicant: Ira & Mayumi Velinsky
Appellant: Mr. James E. Jefferson
Location: 15839 Hidden Hill Road
--------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends that the City Council direct the applicant to revise
the plans to locate the residence outside of the ravine and to reduce
the perceived bulk.
Report Summary:
The request has received extensive Planning Commission consideration at
both public hearings and study sessions. The Planning Commission acted
to approve the plan which has resulted in the neighbor's objection to
the building's location in a natural ravine, the impact on views and its
massive appearance. Because the site is severely constrained by factors
including the ravine, neighboring views and the site's prominent
location, the Planning Commission found the proposal to be a suitable
compromise which balanced the concerns surrounding this development.
Staff, on the other hand, felt that the proposal will have a significant
effect on the natural topography and alternate locations be explored.
Staff also suggested granting a variance in order to locate the home on
a portion of the site less constrained by topography. Staff feels that
the concerns regarding impact on views from the neighboring property as
well as from the surrounding canyons and the valley floor, could be
minimized by employing an unobtrusive residential design that is
consistent with this City's design objective to eliminate a massive or
bulky appearance.
Fiscal Impacts: None
Attachments:
Motion and Vote
1. Memorandum from Planning Director
2. Excerpt from Design Handbook
3. Appeal
4. Staff Reports
5. Minutes
6. Correspondence
oguw Qq §&T"ZUQ)0&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: 9/20/89
FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Appeal of DR -89 -013; Design Review approval of a new 5,073
square foot residence;
Applicant: Ira & Mayumi Velinsky;
Location: 15839 Hidden Hill Road
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Motion
Staff recommends that the Council direct the applicant to revise the
plans to locate the residence outside of the ravine and reduce the
perceived bulk.
nxyerTri oTv
The Planning Commission granted design review approval to allow
construction of a 5,073 sq. ft. single family residence in the HC -RD
zone and in an established neighborhood. The Planning Commission's
action was appealed by adjacent neighbors for reasons of
incompatibility, impact on the natural topography and interference
with views and privacy.
Project Setting
The applicants propose to construct a one and two -story home on a
site with a net site area of 47,154 sq. ft. The property is an
infill flag lot completely surrounded by existing residences. To the
north is the newly constructed residence accessed from Bainter; to
the east are two homes located along the access corridor; to the
south are the main residence and two rental units of property
accessed from Ravine Road; and to the west is an existing residence
also accessed by Ravine Road. All the surrounding properties are
visually connected by varying degrees to the subject site.
The site is topographically very diverse and complex. Probably the
most dramatic feature of the site is a 40 foot ravine which
traverses the southerly half of the site. The ravine is upslope
from two rental units south of the site; and, therefore, open and
visible to this portion of the neighboring property. Above the
ravine, to the north, is a substantially level portion of the site,
which is also higher than properties to the north. As a result, the
property is also open and visible from the valley floor as well as
from distances across nearby canyons.
DR -89 -013; Velinsky - 15839 Hidden Hill Road
The building site selected by the applicants straddles the top of
the ravine. As currently proposed, substantial portions of the
structure extend into or overhang the natural ravine. While the
setback to the property line in the ravine is 68 feet, the vertical
change in elevation results in a greater impact on the lower
properties across the ravine.
With the single exception of the garage, the architectural
elevations are one story, and utilize a wood and slate exterior.
The portion of the structure which overhangs the ravine will be one
story as well but will have a finished floor that will be located 11
feet above the natural grade; therefore, the building will appear
higher than the one story elevation when viewed from the ravine.
Background
The Council may recall when the site was annexed to the City in
November, 1988. The Council engaged in a discussion regarding the
merits of annexation of this parcel, and concluded by denying a
request for waiver of annexation. The Council's action is
referenced in minutes attached to this report.
The Planning Commission considered an initial version of the
applicant's proposal at a public hearing on June 28, 1989. The
applicants presented a predominantly two -story proposal with a
similar location in the ravine. The style of the home was geometric
and contemporary and included a wood siding and-slate tile exterior.
The plan was presented in application form to the Planning
Commission after staff had advised the applicants that they would
not be able to support the architectural concept and building
location because of inconsistency with the City's criteria.
Neighborhood concern was expressed over the proposed structure.
These concerns are detailed in minutes attached but can be
summarized as follows: 1) The depiction of the slope was incorrect
in that the ravine was much steeper than shown on the applicant's
plan. 2) The home was inconsistent with others in the neighborhood
being over 4,000 sq. ft. in size. 3) The lot would not be created
today if slope density requirements were taken into account. 4) The
placement of the home and driveway in the ravine deteriorated the
natural environment.
The Planning Commission concluded by directing the applicant to make
substantive changes to the proposed residence. Specific Planning
Commission concerns expressed at this initial hearing included
prominence of the site, the structures encroachment into the ravine,
and the incompatibility with this hillside area. The applicant
indicated a willingness to address these concerns; and the
application was continued to a study session.
On July 18, 1989, the applicant presented revised plans which showed
a predominately one story plan with conventional roof elements at a
Planning Commission Study Session. This plan is substantially the
same as the plan eventually approved by the Planning Commission and
DR -89 -013; Velinsky - 15839 Hidden Hill Road
currently under appeal. The Commission noted that the revised plan
also encroached into the ravine;although the encroachment was
reduced from the original proposal. On the whole, the Planning
Commission cited such features as the one story design, the low
profile gable roof system, and the variation in the elevations as
positive changes from the original proposal. However, issues
relating to the placement of the structure and its impact on the
natural topography as well as the perception of bulk were
exacerbated by the ravine location.
At this time, the Planning Commission also received additional
concerns from the neighbors about the revised house plans including
the depiction of the ravine, the perception of bulk of the revised
design and view impairment. Because the 155 +/- foot length of the
home was oriented over the ravine, the concern was that the home
appeared much larger when viewed from the property to the south.
The Planning Commission concluded its study session by adjourning to
a site visit on Saturday, July 22, 1989 to investigate the concerns
raised by neighbors.
At the site visit, the Commissioners, staff, concerned residents,
and the applicants were present to view the proposed development.
The applicant had laid out the building footprint, property lines
and building heights for inspection during the site visit. The
Planning Commission was able to visit all the surrounding properties
to inspect the proposed building from a variety of viewpoints.
Following the site visit, a public hearing was scheduled for August
9, 1989 where the revised plans were formally presented. Staff
prepared a recommendation for continuance to allow the applicant to
revise plans eliminating encroachment into the ravine. In order to
accomplish this and maintain a low one -story profile, staff
suggested the Planning Commission's consideration of a variance.
Because of the configuration of the lot, much of the apparent
building pad actually belongs to the neighboring property to the
north. Since the building area of the neighboring property is
substantially below the Velinsky property, staff felt that minimal
visual impacts would result from a reduced setback to the north.
The Planning Commission received testimony from both the applicant
and concerned neighbors. The applicant indicated a concern
regarding the reduced setback as this area was slated for outdoor
uses such as a pool. Further, the applicant expressed that moving
the home to the north out of the ravine would increase the grading
on the building location and was not advisable by the applicant's
civil engineer. Neighbors expressed concerns that the encroachment
into the hillside and the length of the south elevation resulted in
an overbuilt appearance that was incompatible with the surrounding
area since homes were noted by the neighbors to range between 600
sq. ft. to 4,000 sq. ft.
The Planning Commission reviewed all the previous testimony, staff
reports, study sessions and site visits and concluded that the
proposed location was best for several reasons: 1) moving the home
north would result in a view impairment to the home west of the
DR -89 -013; Velinsky - 15839 Hidden Hill Road
site; 2) reduction of the setback would produce a crowded appearance
when viewed from the northerly property; 3) the proposed house was
sensitively designed and would be compatible with the larger homes
in the neighborhood; 4) movement of the house to the north would
make the home more prominent on the ridge line and would be more
visually obtrusive from distant sites such as the valley floor and
Highway 9.
Conversely, staff felt that the movement of the home out of the
ravine closer to the north property and reducing the setback would
reduce the projects impact on the natural topography as well as
reduce the appearance of mass and bulk from the southerly view.
Staff feels that the Planning Commission's concern could be resolved
by considering a less obtrusive design for the revised location.
Issues
In staff's assessment, this is a problematic infill site to develop
with respect to neighbor compatibility. While it is true that
newer, larger homes exist in the area especially on Hidden Hill
Road, the site's exceptional topography and limited building area
produce practical constraints that will affect the eventual
development of a home on this lot. Staff has isolated what it feels
are the issues most critical to the design review as they may relate
to this site.
Issue 1. Does the proposal minimize change to the natural
topography? Policy #1 of the City's Residential Design Handbook
requires that buildings be located on sites with minimal disruption
to the natural topography. In implementing this policy, the City
strives to find building sites that are relatively unconstrained by
natural topography. Staff's recommendation encourages the
investigation of building sites that reduce impact to fulfill this
policy which staff views as an issue central to the pending request.
Issue 2. Does the proposal minimize building height and utilize
architectural features to eliminate a massive appearance? The
architectural elevations utilize a predominately one story design
which is appropriate for this sensitive site, because the visual
prominence from distances such as the valley floor and adjacent
canyons and ravines require the low profile of a one story design.
However, the linear nature of the building site also encourages a
linear house plan. This tendency of the site results in the need to
minimize the building length wherever possible as well as to break
the building into smaller masses. The exceptional nature of this
site and its visual prominence to the surrounding area, require a
design which also appears smaller and compatible with its
surroundings.
Issue 3.
conditions?
accurately
When the
independent
While the
Do the topographic contours accurately depict the site
The ravine is a major topographic feature which must be
shown on the approval of any development for this site.
question surfaced, staff responded by requesting an
engineer review the topographic contours in the field.
independent engineer, Jeff Lea, was able to perform an
DR -89 -013; Velinsky - 15839 Hidden Hill Road
informal visual comparison of the contours and site conditions, he
did indicate that the slope of the ravine appeared accurately shown.
The engineer did caution, however, that a survey would be necessary
to ensure complete accuracy of the topographic conditions. In
addition, the City Geologist reviewed the site in the field to
review slope conditions who also indicated that the contours
appeared to be representative of the site conditions.
The accurate depiction of the ravine is important for two reasons.
First, the maximum floor area allowed on the site is determined by
the average slope shown on the contour maps provided by the
applicant. Based upon the average slope of 23% on a net site area
of 47,154 yields a maximum building area of 5,142 sq. ft. The
applicants are requesting a building size of 5,073 sq. ft. A
change in average slope may affect the allowable floor area.
Second, the building is restricted from having an excessive slope
within its footprint. As the Council is aware, a building footprint
may not have greater than an average of 30% slope, and may not have
any portion which exceeds 40% slope or greater.
Issue 4. Does the site reduce visual impact to surrounding
properties as well as from distant views? Policies #2 and 3 of the
Residential Design Handbook require proposed structures to integrate
with their surroundings and avoid interference with privacy.
The Planning Commission concluded that the location of the residence
lower on the site in the ravine, produced a structure which
integrated better with the surroundings. Conversely, staff felt
that the higher location would promote privacy since the property to
the north is substantially lower which mitigates the visual
appearance. Further, staff feels that with a compatible unobtrusive
design, many of the visual impacts cited by the Planning Commission
can be reduced.
Options
Option 1: Remand the application to
Specific direction should be considered
design, relocate the structure outside of
variance to reduce the side yard setback
line.
the Planning Commission:
to maintain a
the ravine, and
to the northerly
one story
consider a
property
Option 2: City Council requests revisions to proposal and requests
the application for a side yard variance. City Council policy has
been to remand applications to the Planning Commission when
information is presented to the Council not previously considered.
Since the Planning Commission has evaluated the recommendation to
consider the variance, the Council may wish to conduct its own
review of design alternatives.
Option 3: Deny the Design Review Permit. Should the Council find
that revisions to the plans are not desired by the applicant nor is
a request for variance, the Council may elect to act to deny on the
basis that the proposal is inconsistent with the City Design
Guidelines. Specific findings discussed in this report which staff
has difficulty in recommending, include the proposal's impact on the
DR -89 -013; Velinsky - 15839 Hidden Hill Road
natural environment, interference with views and perception of bulk
and mass.
Option 4. Uphold the Planning Commission's decision and deny the
appeal. The City Council may conclude as did the Planning
Commission, that the site constraints are such that the encroachment
into the ravine will be tolerated in order to reduce the visual
prominence of the structure on the northerly neighborhood as well as
to reduce the visual impact to the valley floor and Highway 9.
! J P
teph n Em ie
Planning Director
SE /dsc
Excerpt from the. Design Handbook
POLICY 1
The bulk of a structure is
related to its floor area,
height, design and relation-
ship to its surroundings. A
structure is perceived to be
bulky when these elements are
combined in such .a way as to
create a residence that is out
of scale, visually and struc-
turally, with neighboring
residences and its own natural
setting. The residence then
appears massive, blocky, and
overwhelming to the eye. The
purpose of this policy is to
ensure the maximum integration
of structures with their natu-
ral and built environments.
MINIMIZE PERCEPTION OF BULK
3
Policy 1 TECHNIQUE #1: NN *Wze changes to natural topography
DO'S
• mtl& buy ld� unto
• P�alatnc� cud" avid -� ll.
• Uc u.vi8eir9vouv1&
srvzt6 -4o veduc, buAk.
• Screen �Lwd&f OV,6 ac
WAd"idc, � *mdu.res
DON'T'S
• ���d e�po�d
LLKAe f bor avea6.
• mid ��ce�,sc ve,
Sol( YewlftAk aAAd
«-
YES
NO
4
Policy 1 TECHNIQUE #4: Minimize building height
ht
DO'S
• Miv�iml2z arcao:�
hVloutih�,ww� �ntic�'..
• Vavy Inci%&f I voo�
ettiwicn,ES.
• Se.{ back ltiir�Mur
�OVh°"� a� structure
DON'T'S
• gvaid lame a floc
1
YES
NO
7
Policy 1
TECHNIQUE #5: Design structure to fit with existing neighborhood
DO'S
�sV^i \2f2 , YKbL% aAA&
Ub wed' Y�t�ct �o
Q� s1 -x qq �7al Ue*- h ,
Wt 5VX* C1 be.
wvAVa * ify(,e,.
I I DON'T'S
• Avai6 ova -4e mi
ye- Ci4 tm
• bo hot -6
4tv Zafiilt
YES
_
IMP�
NO
n..
S
Policy 1 TECHNIQUE #6: Use architectural features to break up massing
DO'S
uap w f4m.
?W4WA lam �v�.l
ur��cburl, cuinlna{s
ofPnar �ea�ure�.
• U,Se a conKbihafion
vet -hca.2 aHd. hcri-
ar+icuGA;�ows.
DON'T'S
• ftwid vakica,l .�ec�uzs
{Pnafi add -b %e,
• Amid [e-
rid
wd �a.eJS
• Fe. l Urgl,L
AA Uvi A Mt
9
POLICY 2
Preservation of the natural
landscape and environment is
one of Saratoga's most im-
portant goals. When a struc-
ture is designed to follow
natural topographic contours
and retain existing vegetation
and soil, its impact on the
natural setting is minimized.
This policy focuses on the
protection of Saratoga's
unique environmental quali-
ties and the design of struc-
tures that respect their
natural surroundings.
INTEGRATE STRUCTURES WITH ENVIRONMENT
10
Policy 2 TECHNIQUE #1: Use natural materials and colors
DO'S
• (,Q, VAS" 44v t
I�evu� W i 4h Koutl .rat
• 1�1.5e, Q �ii vwi�l -ed.
►titt,v�b,er � wtate�ia,fs
AM� Ch&(M CK a-
Ktit .
DON'T'S
ar vfe col OTS.
aid -rhat� -i ales .
•
Avid o&ewv,
Un wim -
bt
aAkd \ VW
YES
-v a,
NO
/ �gG I L M1 /�_ - ��, _.� /vim♦ -
11
Policy 2
TECHMQUE #3: Use landscaping to blend structure with environment
DO'S
• i�(S�, Vlol1�'11rC Vf,�Gfal�t0�U1.
• �rpaervL - e�,is-h
v a� ran
• U,Se, la�wclsca.r I a�
a Ykk-ht M -Wt
V •t wt--- 0- dens -i can
DON'T'S
• Dm� w>t ve�zfA.tLm
to (oorrer de.1,k ,
• Avid �,w1Ke
G3
Y
:'lei
•
13
Policy 2
T6C�QUE #5: Blend roof and
parking structures with environment
DO'S
0 K" Y11AfdiAtS AAA(
CdBYS flh Y006 {0 iiAG
0 Screw vKC&awiel
ej"eut.
we yrub "1;4,
• Ube, t ,,o ff
aMd bLuldiu� "v,.
DON'T'S
� � G�It�YlA�01tis
paw�i Cah'
• Mrsid e*eus;ue.,
uanbrnkevA vaa�
42- ur" -
• � Gfive mcrt .
YES
NO
15
POLICY 3
Residential privacy is a key
ingredient in the quality of
life in Saratoga. Privacy
problems and impacts should be
resolved and addressed in the
initial design stage, not with
mitigation measures proposed
as an afterthought. Particu-
lar attention should be given
to privacy concerns on sub-
standard, small and infill
lots.
AVOID INTERFERENCE WITH PRIVACY
I I
18
Policy 3 TECHNIQUE #1: Control view to adjacent properties
DO'S
• Miwiwze, scco1AA-6wy
WlN''fyyJ''01AYS #Li"J dAl2.
ItCly�v�fJ'OVIA'tA biDD�'tllA
� OYi2Wt u-ppw �otrY
I,utic hand area.
• U,se stwwturaf
�afua-vs to -Zirh�:F
dis�rnnau. viou.>.
DON'T'S
• Amd tm ihdow a ACI
• �"td Y� -C�u.0 �vuq� 1
r �►�cd seft�c't,�
w_
AW
•
s
19
Policy 3 TECHNIQUE #2: Locate buildings to minimize privacy impact
• L.aCtc, stm cl u �0
�crcase, vi�.�a,Q,
di�n�e- �bvt-we�v`
• �cre� Sekba�•k�
Wn lGu -cat, VA4.,t
p o 6b -S. �
DON'T'S
•
Avv-id 5t{1 S�YUG}UYES
lM &Y¢ck-
'5� AD
Y2� ?.�CPJS
20
YES
r{
,
k
~J
�P
Exis"
NO
Al
Spa
y
20
Name of Appellant:
Address:
Telephone:
Name of Applicant:
Project File No.:
Project Address:
Project Description:
%/ r-
Appeal Letter
APPEAL APPLICATION
Date Received: Y I' `�
Hearing Date:9�d9
Fee
CITY USE ON]
Decis ion Being Appealed:
U F /) () L ", r'
G /ounds
-G_; /r
p L A tjtJ i
_j5 AIJA
for the Appeal (Letter may be attached) • S T r�.vC-r viJ o t✓
✓ / ✓ � /1/i / T f ®/ sr W i if A r—{ l � � ic: Lj Gam ✓
L r
0 A1
i y
�% /7 01� %�'J ate✓ /� �i��'jl/F� %o�/ /u /.� Cl..
/it/ v,: ; P^� 1 I /.F W�':� -/ Jar "-F7 ',,0 r �< � /._f✓
�: ��i9-�-�� /: •err. J'��P/� ��, ^/
Tic f—� %4( =aV:
< .Z
ll AltllJ r, v L • i �
rl
�_ J i
ease do
not sign this application until it is presented at the
City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this
appeal please list them on a separate sheet.
THrS APPI.TCATTON 1`tUST BE SUBNIITTE•D WITFIIN TEN (10) CALLr1DAR DAYS Or
1`I DXFL OI� T11 E DE i S I 4,ti .
—
r(S
Decis ion Being Appealed:
U F /) () L ", r'
G /ounds
-G_; /r
p L A tjtJ i
_j5 AIJA
for the Appeal (Letter may be attached) • S T r�.vC-r viJ o t✓
✓ / ✓ � /1/i / T f ®/ sr W i if A r—{ l � � ic: Lj Gam ✓
L r
0 A1
i y
�% /7 01� %�'J ate✓ /� �i��'jl/F� %o�/ /u /.� Cl..
/it/ v,: ; P^� 1 I /.F W�':� -/ Jar "-F7 ',,0 r �< � /._f✓
�: ��i9-�-�� /: •err. J'��P/� ��, ^/
Tic f—� %4( =aV:
< .Z
ll AltllJ r, v L • i �
rl
�_ J i
ease do
not sign this application until it is presented at the
City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this
appeal please list them on a separate sheet.
THrS APPI.TCATTON 1`tUST BE SUBNIITTE•D WITFIIN TEN (10) CALLr1DAR DAYS Or
1`I DXFL OI� T11 E DE i S I 4,ti .
Staff Reports
AGENDA ITEM # 1
REPORT TO THE PLANNM CO gg
FPKM Tsvia Adar
DA! 8/9/89
APPlJCO MNM A UXxMM DR -89 -013, 15839 Hidden Hill Rdd.. WL ASV'
Ap"JCAW/0WNft Velinsky
APIs! 510 -24 -019 n
0
e. &rye WM T
000157
N %,v
t
A
f
DR -89 -013; 15839 Hidden Hill Road
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: HC -RD GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RHC
PARCEL SIZE: 47,154 sq. ft. (net site area excluding the access
corridor)
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 23% (20% at building site)
GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 1,100 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 10 Ft.
Fill: 40 Cu. Yds. Fill Depth: 1.5 Ft.'
MATERIALS & COLORS PROPOSED: Exterior: gray brown siding,
horizontal for walls and vertical for underfloor areas. Gray tiles
for lower part of walls. Roof: gray composition shingles.
PROPOSAL
LOT COVERAGE: 21% (9,920 sq. ft.)
HEIGHT•
25 ft.
SIZE OF 1st Floor:
STRUCTURE: 2nd Floor:
TOTAL:
SETBACKS: Front:
Rear:
Right Side:
Left Side:
1,083 sq. ft.
3,990 sq. ft.
5, 073 sct. ft.
90 ft.
40 ft.
20 ft.
44 ft.
CODE REQUIREMENT/
ALLOWANCE
25% (11,789 sq. ft.)
26 ft.
5,142 sq. ft.
Front:
33
ft.
Rear:
35
ft.
Right Side:
20
ft.
Left Side:
20
ft.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant modified the original plans
submitted to the Planning Commission to address the bulk and
compatibility issues. The new proposal consists of mainly a one
story and a two story portion at the garage area. The second story
floor area is about 27% of the first floor area.
The lot is characterized by fairly level area at the northern
portion of the lot and steep at the southern portion along the
creek.
Bulk and Compatibility
The revised design of the home is modest in height and is below 19
ft. at most portions. The two story area over the garage is 25 ft.
000159
DR -89 -013; 15839 Hidden Hill Road
at the highest point.
The proposed north and south elevations are about 154 ft. long.
However, the home is designed with small quarters connected together
by hallways or narrow spaces, which create wide courtyards between
each segment. The articulation of the elevation in addition to
future vegetation break the elevation into small masses in an
attempt to break the long elevation. Other two story homes of
similar size and height exist in the vicinity. Staff feels that,
with the proposed revisions, the proposed home will be compatible
with adjacent homes.
View and Privacy
The proposed home maintains adequate setbacks and is designed with
minimal number and size of windows towards the property to the south
which is the one which may be impacted the most. Dense vegetation
exists between the property and additional landscaping is proposed.
The existing home to the south is below the ridge of the subject lot
and no distant view is available to that property. The existing
home will not impact any existing view of the adjacent properties.
Preservation of Natural Landscaping
Staff is concerned with the location of portion of the home within
the ravine area and the impact of the garage area and the portions
which overhang the ravine. The applicant has moved the home to the
northern setback line. Removal of the home as presently designed
completely out the ravine is impossible, however, location of the
home within the required side yard will reduce the impact of the
structure on the natural enviionment.
The proposed setback from the southern property line, which is about
the centerline of the creek, varies from 44 ft. to 68 ft. The
relocation of the home at the upper portion of the lot will require
additional grading at the garage area which is already 450 cu. yds.
and 10 ft. deep. The applicant objects to relocation which will
reduce, in his opinion, the usable yard of flat area. The
relocation will also require removal of two ordinance size (20 in.
and 24 in.) cedar and pine trees to the northeast of the structure.
The shape of the lot, the topographic conditions on the site and the
City's policy -_to- preserve existing natural environment create
special circumstances which provide grounds for variance approval.
The removal of trees will allow the home to be shifted toward the
eastern portion of the lot, and moving the garage further out of the
ravine area. The location of the home close to the northern side
property line will still leave a very large distance to the existing
home to the north, and will have no impact on the view or privacy of
the residence. Staff recommends approval of variance from setback.
000160
DR -89 -013; 15839 Hidden Hill Road
Grading
The proposed amount of grading is 1,140 Cu. yds. (1,100 cu. yds. cut
40 cu. yds. fill). The grading is distributed as follows: 450 cu.
yds. at the garage area, 50 cu. yds under the house, 300 cu. yds at
the front yard, and 300 cu. yds for the driveway. The total amount
of grading is significant, however, the grading allows the applicant
to merge the home into the hill and reduce the height of the
underfloor area facing the ravine. Relocation of the home higher
on the lot will require additional grading at the garage area but
may reduce the grading at the front yard.
The amount of grading at the proposed location can be reduced to 687
CU. yds if the home will be raised up by one foot. The height of
the home, measured to the finished grade, and in accordance with the
Code definition, will not change. This possibility is available and
the applicant is willing to revise the plans accordingly, if
required by the Planning Commission. the change, however, will
increase the height of the underfloor area, facing the creek by one
foot. The proposed underfloor area is less than 5 ft. high except
for one small corner of the overhanged portion of the home which is
about 6 ft. high.
Site Slope
The grading plan prepared by a licensed civil engineer shows an
average site slope of 23% (20% at building site). Questions have
been raised indicating that the site is steeper than indicated by
the applicant's consultant, and that the contour lines on the
grading plans are inaccurate. Staff requested another engineering
firm to verify the slope of the site. The firm did not survey the
lot but checked the site and concurred with the information
submitted by the applicant. The City Geologist in his report
indicated that the maximum slope on the lot is 20 which is about
40 %. Since a large portion of the lot is level, the average of 23%
is logical. Staff is satisfied with the information regarding the
topography and feels that the information must be held reliable
unless proved differently by the neighbor.
Other Neighbors Concerns
The neighbors _to south of the applicant's property claim that a
water pipeline, for their benefit, exists on the applicant's
property. Up to date the neighbors did not submit any proof for the
location of the line or whether or not the line was legally
installed. Without this information the City will not be able to
require the applicant to dedicate an easement. In that case the
matter will have to be settled between the neighbors and the
applicant.
The neighbor south to the access corridor, Dr. Sogg, is concerned
about the location of the driveway within the access corridor which
000161
DR -89 -013; 15839 Hidden Hill Road
will be close to his structures and will require removal of a
retaining wall within the corridor. The applicant proposes the
driveway through an access easement which exists for his benefit on
the property to the north. The applicant proposes to using the
existing driveway, and to leave the corridor of his property at the
natural state. Dr. Sogg was uanble to attend the last Public Hearing
and study session as well as the site visits. Dr. Sogg requests
continuance of the application since he will not be able to attend
the 8/9/89 public hearing. Staff presented the plans to Dr. Sogg
and answered his questions.
The tenants who live on the property to the south expressed their
concerns regarding the dust during construction. While dust at the
construction is unavoidable, certain techniques such as watering
the site, can be used to mitigate the impact. Staff recommends that
the appropriate conditions incorporated in the,resolution.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends continuance of the application to
allow the applicant time to relocate the home and apply for a
variance approval from side setback requirement.
000162
r
FqOftTsvia Adar
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE; 6 -28 -89
APPLICATION NO. & LOCATIM DR- 8 9 - 013 , 15 8 3 9 Hidden Hill Road DOL APPRV.
APPLICANVOWNER: Velinsky
APN:510 -24 -019 Q
N
\ _ �— S ITt c , rY L40% T
000163
s
ev
p
File No. DR -89 -013
EXECUTIVE 8UNNARY
CASE HISTORY:
Application filed: 3 -8 -89
Application complete: 5 -11 -89
Notice published: 6 -14 -89
Mailing completed: 6 -15 -89
Posting completed: 6 -8 -89
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant requests design review approval for a new 4848 sq.
ft. two story single family dwelling in the R -1- 40,000 zoning
district. Design review is required per section 15- 45.060(a)(1) of
the City Code.
PROJECT DISCUSSION:
The proposed placement of the home close to a creek bank, in
addition to massive appearance of the elevations will have adverse
visual impact on the immediate surrounding homes. The design of the
home has strong geometrical lines which do not blend with the
natural environment and topography. Due to the visible location of
the lot and the placement of the home at the top of a ridge, the
visual impact on surrounding area will be significant.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Continue the application to the 8/9/89 Planning Commission meeting
to allow the applicant time to revise the plans and incorporate the
Planning Commission's direction and address the bulk and
compatibility issues. A study session is also recommmended to
discuss preliminary revised plans.
ATTACHHMM :
1. Staff Analysis
2. Letter from San Jose Water Company
3. Letters to the applicant, dated 5 -31 -89
4. Plans, Exhibit A
000164
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: ING: R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD
PARCEL SIZE: 47,154 sq. ft. (net site area excluding access
corridor)
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 23%
GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 280 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 6 Ft.
Fill: 280 Cu. Yds. Fill Depth: 8 Ft.
MATERIALS & COLORS PROPOSED: Exterior: Horizontal sidings, gray -
brown color and gray tiles. Roof: Composition shingles
PROPOSAL CODE REQUIREMENT/
ALLOWANCE
LOT COVERAGE: 20% (9,430 sq. ft.) 254 (11,789 sq. ft.)
HEIGHT:
SIZE OF
STRUCTURE:
SETBACKS:
Lower Floor:
Main Floor:
Upper Floor:
TOTAL:
26 ft.
3,058
sq.
ft.
762
sq.
ft.
1,028
sq.
ft.
4,848
sq.
ft.
Front:
98
ft.
Rear:
86
ft.
Right Side:
42
ft.
Left Side:
47
ft.
PR_ OPTION:
26 ft.
5,142 sq. ft.
Front: 32 ft.
Rear: 50 ft.
Right Side: 21 ft.
Left Side: 21 ft.
The Proposed -hom is located on a flag lot off Hidden Hill Rd. The
lot was recently annexed to the City on 4/4/89. The lot is
characterized by a level area at the top of the site and moderate to
steep slopes at the northern and southern edges of the lot. The home
is proposed to be located partially on the slope close to a creek
bank, which exists alonq the southern property line, and partially
on the flat area at the top of the lot. The lot is bare at the
building site and has dense vegetation at the creek area.
000165
The proposed home is located on a visible infill flag lot and the
design of the home should be sensitive to the existing environment
and homes. The net site area of the lot is large, 47,154 sq. ft.,
and complies with the 40,000 sq. ft. standard for the district. A
sensitive design will not create overcrowded or excessively high
density in the area. The access corridor is close to an existing
home, to the right side of the road (northwest). Vegetation along
the corridor should be considered to screen the home and minimize
privacy interference.
BULK AND COMPATABILITY:
The proposed home is designed with strong geometrical shapes and
lines and does not integrate with the soft ridgelines of the hills
and the surrounding homes having sloped roofs. The articulation of
the elevations and the variety of heights help break the mass of the
home, but the general appearance of the home is massive, especially
since the structure is located on a ridge. An alternative with
smaller masses, reduction in the size of blank walls, addition of
openings on large walls and softening of roof lines by using sloping
roofs are some of the techniques which may be used to reduce the
perception of bulk. Specific techniques are listed as
recommendations further in this report.
PUBLIC INTERACTION:
The applicant is aware of staff's concerns and has made an effort
to revise the plans and address the issues by moving the home
uphill, further from the creek bank, relocation of the driveway and
by softening the rooflines. However, the revision of the plans was
not significant enough and the issues of bulk and compatibility were
not addressed. The applicant wishes to retain the design of the home
as
much as possible. In order to address staff concerns and to
incorporate the Planning Commission input and directions at the same
time, the applicant preferred to revise the plans if required after
the public hearing.
The neighbors to the south and south east, have concerns regarding
the location, height, size and bulk of the home. They are concerned
with the iapact of the proposed home on their properties.
The neighbors also raised an issue of the accuracy of the
topographic and grading maps which were submitted by the applicant.
Staff requested an engineering firm to review the site and compare
the plans to the site conditions. The engineer, from Lea
Engineering, visited the site and confirmed that the plans appear
consistent with the field conditions, but did not prepare an
engineering survey of the site.
000166
A concern was raised from an adjoining property owner regading a
water pipe line that was reported to exist on the applicants
property and requested that a utitlity easement be dedicated for his
benefit. San Jose Water Company reviewed the application at staff's
request, but was not able to verify the location of the pipe line.
The company clarified that the pipe line is a private line an would
not necessarily show on the company's records.
The City Attorney reports that in order for the Planning Commission
to make the dedication a condition, the neighbor should provide the
City with evidence for the location of the line and that the line
was lawfully installed. With -such evidence the City will be able to
require the applicant dedication of an easement for the benefit of
the neighbor. Otherwise the issue is a civil matter and should be
settled among the two neighbors.
Another concern was raised regarding the calculation method of the
square footage and the impervious coverage on the lot which is a
flag lot. In accordance with the zoning code definitions, the
calculation must exclude the access corridor from the site area.
The net site area, excluding the corridor is used for the purpose of
floor area and site coverage calculations. The access corridor on
the subject lot is 8010 sq. ft., and the net site is 47,154 sq. ft.
The floor area and the site coverage on the lot complies with the
city's standards.
Exemption from Building Site Approval:
The subject lot was annexed to the City, however, the surrounding
roads which lead to the lot are within Santa Clara county. The City,
the Fire Department and S.C.V.W.D. do not require any off street
improvements, and the applicantion for exemption from building site
approval was issued. However, any street improvement required by
Santa Clara County must be completed prior to issuance of any
permits. The applicant should submit his plans to the County for
review. A clearance letter from the County should be submitted to
the City prior to design review approval.
RECOMMMDATION:
Continue the application to the 8/9/89 Planning Commission meeting
to allow the applicant time to revise the plans and address the bulk
and compatability issues.
Staff recomands the following techniques may be used to address
the issues.
1. Placement of the home on the level area of the lot, out of the
creek bank.
2. Relocation of the garage and the driveway in a direct straight
line from the access corridor, in order to shorten the driveway
and avoid grading by the creek banks.
00016'7
3. Consider a one story home or reduction in size of the two story
portion of the home, and /or emphasize horizontal lines which
will provide the home with low profile appearance.
4. Use sloping or hip roofs to blend with the natural environment,
the ridgelines of the hills and the surrounding homes. Avoid
long single ridgelines of roofs.
5. Add openings and /or balconies on large blank walls to reduce the
mass of the home. The size of blank walls should be minimized.
111 .:
O� O
k! asa ,,cam 137 t 7 FRUITVALE . -\VENL:E , SARATOGA. C, -\LIFORNI, -\ 9070
lY' (408) 867-3438
May 31, 1989
Mr. Ira Vslinsky
P.O. Box 93
Elgranada, G. 94018
Re: DR -89 -013; 15839 Hidden Hill Road
Dear Mr. velinsky:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anoerson
Marma Clevenger
0awd Moyle)
Donato Peterson
Francis Stutzman
The revised plans for your home were reviewed
proposed new location of the home is a significantt our staff. Thy
moves the home out Of the creek bank area improvement whic2
impact on the adjacent properties. 8awver,aanduer reduces dominant visual
visible location ra the lot, the home should be designed sensitively
in order ad integrate the structure with the natural environment anc
with the adjacent homers.
The proposed design, with strong geometrical shapes and lines,does
not fit in with the soft hills ridgelines and the surrounding
sloping roofs. Staff is aware of your effort
environmental issue; however, to address the
will not be ces the home still appears massive and
The mass Of the structure should be broken iinntotsmallerpmmasses.siThe
rooflines must be softened, wing more slopinq
cubical shapes which are foreign at this l instead of
specific c l loocatiotio n.
Enclosed are copies Of sections Of the Residential Design Handbook.
The highlighted techniques should be used to minimize the perception
of bulk integrate the structures with the natural environment,
and the misting homes.
Staff is unable to make the required desi
regarding bulk and compatibility and will not be�ablee to e support approval of the project.
Since a major revision.to your plans may be necessary,
to schedule the project for a public hear have You may wish
commission open the discussion on the project. d have the planning
required alter the hearing, can bep rim Mh revisions, if
directions of the Planning Commission. prepared with the input and
000169
You also have the option to revise the plans
followinq staff rOco�mendations and the desirior d public hearin
forth in the Residential Desiqn Handbook quieslinss a i s
raised by the project. , and address the ssue e
Please notify the planning staff how you wish to
project. Staff will make all efforts to hel proceed with th
of the options chosen by you. P and quid• you with an
Sincerely,
<�;�- AOL,-
Tsvia Adar
Assistant Planner
TA /dsc
000170
RESOLUTION NO.DR -89 -013
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
VELINSKY, 15839 HIDDEN HILL ROAD
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has
received an application for design review approval of
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full
opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, and;
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required
to support said application, and the following findings have been
determined:
-The height, elevation and placement of the project on the site
does not unreasonably interfere with views of the surrounding
residences in that the home is located at the required setback
from the northerly property line to maximize setback to homes
below the building site on the south and will minimize the
impact of the view of the home near the westerly property line.
-The project does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of
the surrounding residences in that location of the proposed home
is located to minimize privacy effects to the homes on the
south, the west, north and east property lines.
-The natural landscape is being
removal, soil removal, and grade
will be preserved, and grading
building site requires less exca,
other locations which locates the
and on the hill top.
preserved by minimizing tree
changes in that existing trees
will be minimized in that the
Jation in to the hillside than
building out of the creek area
-The project will minimize the perception of excessive bulk in
relation to the immediate neighborhood in that a predominately
one story design is proposed and natural earth tone colors will
be used.
-The project is compatible in terms of bulk and height with
those homes within the immediate area and in the same zoning
district in that the neighborhood is a mixture of newer and old
homes ranging from approximately 1200 sq. ft. to homes over 6000
sq. ft. and that the proposed home will be within this range and
within the City's allowable square footage.
DR -89 -013, 15839 Hidden Hill Road
-The project will not interfere with the light, air, and solar
access of adjacent properties in that to the extent possible the
setback from the homes to the south below the building site has
been maximized at approximately 44 feet.
-The plan does incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion
control standards in that less than 10 feet of cut into the
natural topography is proposed.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan,
architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in
connection with this matter, the application of Ira and Mayumi
Velinsky for design review approval be and the same is hereby
granted subject to the following conditions:
1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on
Exhibit "A ", incorporated by reference.
2. Prior to submittal for building permit or grading permit, a
zone clearance shall be obtained from the Planning Department.
3. Height of structure shall not exceed 25 feet.
4. Total gross floor area for all structures on site shall not
exceed 5,073 sq. ft.
5. The maximum height of an exposed underfloor area shall not
exceed 5 ft.
6. No retaining wall shall have an exposed height that exceeds 5
ft.
7. No structure shall be permitted
written permission from the easement
8. No ordinance size tree shall be
obtaining a Tree Removal Permit.
9. Slopes shall be graded-to a maximum
10. All exposed slopes shall be contour
in any easement, unless
holder is granted.
removed without first
2:1 slope.
traded.
DR -89 -013, 15839 Hidden Hill Road
11. Exterior colors shall be medium to dark earthtone as shown on
Exhibit "A" and subject to staff review and approval prior to
issuance of a zone clearance.
12. Landscaping for screening along the southerly elevation shall
be installed prior to final occupancy, or the applicant may
submit a bond to ensure installation of landscaping when
drought conditions no longer exist.
13.. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall submit
the following for Planning Director review and approval:
A. Landscape plans for the entire site indicating the use of
natural, drought tolerant species to blend the home with the
natural environment.
14. The applicant shall provide a letter from the geotechnical
consultant stating that the location of the home is
consistent with the recommendations of the original study.
15. The applicants shall use the pier- and -grade beam foundation
alternative recommended by the applicant's geotechnical
consultant. The consultant shall review the new development
plans and approve all geotechnical aspects of the plans (i.e.,
site prparation and grading, site drainage and improvements,
and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls) to
ensure that his recomendations have been properly
incorporated.
The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the
geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City
Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of building
permits.
16. The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed),
and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project
construction. The inspections shall include, but not
necessarily limited to: site preparation and grading, site
surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations
for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of
concrete and steel.
The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions
of the project shall be described by the geotechnical
consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for
review prior to final project approval.
DR -89 -013, 15839 Hidden Hill Road
17. Applicant shall submit a geotechnical investigation -and report
by licensed professional to include details on:
a.) Soils
b.) Foundation
18. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing the following shall
be submitted to the Building Division prior to issuance of
a zone clearance:
a.) Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross -
sections, existing and proposed elevations,
earthwork quantities)
b.) Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall,
location, etc.)
C.) Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or
R.C.E. for walls 4 feet or higher.
d.) Erosion control measures
e.) Standard information to include titleblock, plot
plan using record data, location map, north arrow,
sheet no's. owner's name, etc.
19. Applicant shall submit plans to City Horticultural
Consultant for approval prior to issuance of a building
permit. All requirements of the horticultural consultant
shall be met.
20. Any portion of a structure located under the dripline of a
tree shall have pier and grade beam foundation with the beam
poured at original grade. Soil in the area beneath the tree
canopy shall be covered with 8" of chips during construction
to prevent compaction of soil by equipment and the tree trunks
wrapped with 3 layers of snow fencing to 8' above ground to
prevent damage by equipment.
21. Prior to issuance of any permit, 6' chain link or welded wire
mesh protective fencing shall be placed around the trees
under the dripline and the building staked so that the
planning staff may check the impacts on the trees.
22. All requirements of the Santa Clara Valley Water District for
flood control shall be incorporated into the project and
completed prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by
the Building Division.
DR -89 -013, 15839 Hidden Hill Road
23. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code
Class A or B prepared or built -up roofing. Re- roofing, less
than 10 %, shall be exempt. (Ref. Uniform Fire Code Appendix
E, City of Saratoga Code 16- 20:210).
24. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and
maintained in accordance with the provisions of Article 16-
60 City of Saratoga.
25. Approved NFPA 13.D Automatic sprinklers shall be installed
throughout the structure and garage.
26. All fire hydrants shall be located within five hundred feet
from the residence and deliver no less than 1,000 gallons per
minute of water for a sustained period of two hours [City of
Saratoga Code 14- 30:040 (G)].
27. Driveways: All driveways have a 14 ft. minimum width plus one
ft. shoulders.
a. Slopes from 0% to 11% shall use a double seal coat of O &
S or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to
the proposed dwelling.
b. Slopes from lit to 15% shall be surfaced using 2 -1/2" of
A.C. or better on 6" aggregate base from a public street
to proposed dwelling..
c. Slopes from 15% to 17% shall be surfaced using a 411 PCC
concrete .rough surfaced on 4" aggregate base from a public
street to proposed dwelling.
d. Curves: Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius of 32
ft.
e. Turnouts: Construct a passing turnout 10 ft. wide and 40
ft. long as required by the Fire District. Details shall
be shown on building plans.
28. Turn- arounds: Construct a turn- around at the proposed
dwelling site having a 32' inside radius. Other approved types
must meet the requirements of the Fire District. Details
shall be shown on the building plans.
29. Parking: Provide a parking area for two emergency vehicles at
the proposed dwelling site or as required by the Fire
District. Details shall be shown on the building plans.
DR -89 -013, 15839 Hidden Hill Road
Section 2. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these
conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said
resolution shall be void.
Section 3. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or
approval will expire.
Section 4. All applicable requirements of the State, County,
City and other Governmental entities must be met.
Section 5. The applicant shall affix a copy of this
resolution to each set of construction plans which will be submitted
to the Building Division when applying for a building permit.
Section 6. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of
Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall
become effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
State of California, this 23rd day of August 1989
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Siegfried, Harris, Tucker, Burger, Kolstad, Tappan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Moran
Chairp rson, Planning Commission
ATTEST*
gecrethry, Pldnning Commission
The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted.
ao
of Applicant Date
City Council and Planning Commission meeting minutes
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 7
NOVEMBER 16, 1988
NEW BUSINESS Continued
F. Tax Continuation Resolution required by AB 1600
Item Continued to the December 7, 1988, Meeting of the City Council.
G. Discussion of Toxics Policy Council
The City Manager reviewed discussions surrounding a proposal to create a Toxics Policy Council
and recommended that the proposal dated September 28. 1988, not be endorsed as presented.
There were no resources or funding attached to the proposal.
Councilmember Peterson advised the Council to accept the recommendation of the City Manager:
however, he wished to see further discussions on this issue. Mayor Anderson concurred.
CLEVENGER/MOYLES MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT TOXICS POLICY COUNCIL NOT
BE PLACED UNDER IGC AEGIS. Passed 5 -0.
H. Request for waiver of annexation of 1.26 acres of vacant hillside property in order to con-
struct one home in Santa Clara County at 15839 Hidden Hill Rd., RHS Zone (Residential.
Hillside). APN 510 -24-19 (Applicant, Velinsky) (A 88.001)
i
Planning Director Emshe presented the Memorandum dated November 16.198& I r 1
Mayor Anderson recognized the following speaker.
Mr. Velinsky, Applicant. commented as follows:
Questioned services that would be provided for his tax dollar that were not already provided
Questioned the purpose of the construction tax; all properties surrounding this undeveloped
parcel had already been developed i
Noted that the only access /egress to his property was through Cotmty roads
Noted the mintmar grading on -site that was being proposed
Councilmember Stutzman noted the small size of the proposed house; in addition, there were no
trees scheduled to be removed.
Councilmember Peterson stated that the important issue was that the City have a policy on annexa-
tion that was consistent and weU defined.
Councilmember Clevenger commented that Saratoga and Monte Sereno would be meeting to deter-
mine spheres of influence, urban services boundaries and annexation policies. She did not wish to
see a similar controversy develop as bad recently occurred on a L.otteeLa. property. She concurred
with Councilmember Peterson that the City should have a policy of annexation. The City would be
presenting an annexation policy to LAFCO in the near future; it would not be advisable to grant the
request under ooaaiderstion if the City wished to be considered favorably before LAFCO.
Cbuncdmembex Moyks questioned the statement in the Memorandum stating that the Council had
irdwaied it was murested in annexing all properties within the urban service boundary. The last an s—
t= waiver requesthad been denied per the neighbors request. If annexed, the parcel would
beoomes the only �eopaty on the street annexed to the City; then would be no impact on the urban
services peovtded
and the site was not on a ridgeline. He wroukl grant the waiver requested;
howem. he favored the adoption of an annexation policy.
Councilmember Stutzmaa saw no point annexing this solitary paroel until a policy was developed.
Mayor Anderson cited exampks of unannexed homes buih to unacceptable standards; she felt
strongly that this parcel should be annexed to the City in order to exercise design review controls.
Councilmember Clevenger understood that the County allowed grading during the rainy season.
Mr. %t inky provided information on County requirements for gradt'rx he added that he was an
architect and he wished to design the house in a way that would satisfy City requirements. He was
reluctant to pay City taxes and noted that the surrounding area was developed within the County.
Councilmember Peterson questioned the purpose of granting a waiver of annexation in this case; he
was not persuaded that there were no good reasons not to control this property which was contig-
uous to City limits. The City should be aggressive in the expansion of the sphere of influence.
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 16, 1988
Page 8
NEW BUSINESS Continued
PETERSON /CLEVENGER MOVED TO DENY A WAIVER OF ANNEXATION AND
INSTRUCT THE APPLICANT TO APPLY FOR ANNEXATION TO THE CITY. Passed 3 -2,
Councilmembers Moyles and Stutzman dissenting.
9. CITY COUNCEL ITEMS:
A. Discussion of Agenda for Joint Meeting with Parks and Recreation Commission November
22, 1988.
Councilmembers communicated to the City Manager any items they wished added to the agenda.
B. Reports from Individual Councilmembers.
- Couneilmember Clevenger reported on her recent visit to Japan.
She reported on the West Valley Sanitation District.
Councilmember Moyles asked that a Resolution be prepared honoring Mr. Robert Clancey,
Saratoga Community Access TV Foundation, upon his resignation from the Board.
ADJOU NM ENT:
The Meeting of the City Council was adjourned at 10:15 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Carol A. Probst- Caughey
FLAN NM 1999
COMMISSION MEIF T NG
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Page 10
Commissioner Tappan stated he had to reserve judgement on this Application pending a site visit.
Commissions Hams agreed; it appeared that the Desigtt Review Handbook Guidelines were not
being adhered to which she had concerns about. In addition. she questioned the appropriateness of
the design proposed for the site in question; the tall, start walls were noted.
Commissioner Kolstad agreed with Staff Recommendation.
Commissions Tucker agreed with the above comments.
Chairperson Sieg[ried felt the design proposed was inappropriate for the lot in question and agreed
that it violated the standards set down in the Design Review Handbook.
The Applicant was agreeable to attending a Study Session.
HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED TO CONTINUE DR- 89-013 TO AUGUST 9, 1989, WITH A
STUDY SESSION BEING HELD JULY 18, 1989. Passed 5-0.
V -89 -011 Nothhaft, 14563 Fruitvale Ave., request for variance approval to reduce tde.
minimum required setback for recreational courts from 15 feet to 10 't in
the R- 1- 40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Plannin irector Ems6e had nothing to add to the Repo/disvict nning Commissi - — ~ - - --
The Public ' was opened at 11:20 P.M. There wers.
HARRIS/KOLSTAD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLG AT :20 P.M. Passed 5 -0.
HARRIS/KOLSTA9• MOVED TO APPROVE V- 89-E ODEL RESOLUTION.
Passed 5 -0.
18. TR -89 -079 Hih(stad, 19770 Lenart Lane, an e conditions of approval of a
tree removal permit in the R- 1- 1istrict per Chapter 15 of the
City OQde. The condition being aires the installation of one (1)
replaces eat tree.
- Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the nning Commission dated June 28, 1989;
he noted a modification to the Conditions, req taWtion of only one tree, not two trees.
The Public Hearing was opened at 11:23 P.M.
Ms. Haystad, Applicant, stated that the t was to reduce the amount of water required and to
reduce the yard maintenance.
Mr. Haystsd, Applicant, stated he submitted 1»s comments in writing.
HARRIS/PUCKER MOVED CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:24 P.M. Passed 5 -0.
Cotnmissk ma Harris noted Applicant had a fully lai�scaped yard; in addition, the placement of
trees near the front wa would block off other trees. ,
HA>RRIS/IZ cm 1 s&ED TO GRANT THE APPEAL OF TR- 89 -079. Passed 5 -0.
19. D7 Lohr, 14671 Sobey Oaks Ct., request foes design review approval to con -
struct a two -story, 6,180+ /- sq ft. residenc*jn the R- 140,000 zone district
per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Planning
The Pub
There V
Emshe presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated June 28, 1989.
Hearing was opened at 11:26 P.M.
no speakers, nor was the Applicant present.
MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:26 P.M. Passed 5 -0.
riA IWFUCIER MOVED TO CONTINUE DR -89 -032 TO AUGUST 23, 1989, WITH A
STUDY SESSION BEING HELD AUGUST 1, 1989. Passed 5 -0.
A.
0
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
ing Director Emslie noted that the final three Conditions in the Model Resehtiion should be
ren 19, 20, and 21 respectively. Ia addition, a Condition sh9uld-1 added that the
ant In mauve of executing a deferred im Ap
which would become nn void if the p r t agreement for Worder way
abandonment of the road occurred.
ADDING CON MOVED T R -89 -031 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION
ADDING N COND THE APPLI GIVEN THE ALTERNATIVE OF
EXECUTING luEl THE
AGREEME
OAD �ME NULL AND VOID IF THE PROCEEDINGS FOR EN WAY WHICH
�. Passed 5 -0. OF
16. DR -89 -013 Velinsky, 15839 Hidden _
construct a new 4,848 Hill Rd., request for design review approval to
40 str ct a district sq• two -story single family home in the R -1-
g per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Planning D' - --- -_
g erector Emslie presented the Memorandum, dated June ---------------
Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit. 1989.
The Public Hearing was Previously opened.
Mr. Veliasky, Applicant, presented a scale model of the site and reviewed the plans; consideration
perimeter of the house to prev
had been given to the to Prev ent t the neighbors; extensive landscaping would be added along the
privacy impacts. He urged that the design be approved.
Mr. Richard Saag, 11262 Hidden View Rd., Sara
pristine nature and the toga, noted the attraction of the area was its
o wtldlife; the undeveloped hilltop, now the Applicant's site, was the crown-
in questioned whether the scale model accurately portrayed the h o
objected to the blue roof tiles he thought would be used. In topography Y f the site and
Of concern due to erosion and drains addition, the proposed cut and fill was
Of Co dson who objected n the drainage problems. He presented a letter ffrroom Robert and Fran
adverse impacts this development would create.
Ms- Rob�n' 16303 Ravine Rd., Saratoga, felt the
powered the site; in addition, atwo -sto structure house was excessively large and
lot and would obatnx:t two-story tructure would be inappropriate on this very visible
this area were rustic in c� and impact on the adjacent resident's privacy. Finally, the homes in
character, not modern in design.
Mr. Robeson strongly objected to the Velinsky project and recommended denial of the Application;
his major objectiooe were as follows:
bulky be design � bulky, inconsistent with the rural neighborhood and unattractive; the strange,
u shapes the bad no place in the gently rolling hillside
Qu accuracy of the computer map information; he noted the
Pratt was situated on a ridge --the hi t int in Sara steepness of the slopes
visible from the scenic highway as well as from many other ho0mas southeast area, and would be
Design did not conform with the Design Review Handbook Guidelines adopted by the City
W Wads Alexander presented a letter con
to Commksion�'�ppan�s question, she stated containing coin objections da a the Project: in response
sq. R-, which would be similar in sire to the exis accommodate a house of about 2,000
crag homes which were built in the 1960's.
Mr. Arthur Skimmings cited his letter
fraudulent 10 use the scale model as previously sent to the Planning Commission. He felt it was
Pt1ed; the site was extremely steep.
Mr. NeJmxk 15521 Hdden Hill Rd., Saratoga, reviewed the history of the area and noted existin
homes wbwh were large and expensive. He asked that this Item be favorably considered. g both Mr. Vehiiaky stated that blue roof tiles would not be used; the average slope on site was 2246 with
a
presented slope being the steepest point. He reviewed the architectural mix of area homes; the design
presented was as attempt to be compatible with the existing mix of styles.
TUCKER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:14 P.M. Passed 5 -0.
Commissioner Tucker agreed with neighbors that there was a very steep drop on the property;
there were two existing trees. She felt the driveway should be moved forward (north) on the site.
0001'79
City of Saratoga
Planning Commission Report
Date : Tuesday, July 18, 1989 - 7:30pm
Place: Community Center Arts & Crafts Room, 19665
Allendale Avenue
Type Committee -of- the -Whole
E. DR -89 -013 - VELINSKY,: 15839 HIDDEN HILL ROAD REVIEW OF REVISED
FOWA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
The applicant presented revised plans which showed a one story
elevation except for the garage area. The plans showed a
revised building foot print which extended into the creek and
was longer than the initial submittal.
Neighboring residents were present to discuss their concerns.
While neighbors indicated that the lot was substandard if the
current slope density ordinance were taken into account, the
Commission responded saying that this is a legally created,
buildable lot.
Discussion then turned to the revised plans. Neighbors stated
their concern that the creek slopes were not accurately
indicated on the site plan. Also concern was raised about the
length of the revised elevation which increased the perception
of mass and bulk.
The Committee -of- the -Whole felt that the site was very unique
and sensitive, and therefore a site visit should be arranged.
Saturday, July 22 at 8:30am was selected as the time and date
for the site visit.
Respectfully S itted,
step n lie
Planni Director
3
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 12
AUGUST 9, 1989
P LIC HEARINGS Continued
Ms. Fa Ili stated she was surprised at the Planning Director's recommendation to Co inue the
Item; Sta originally recommended the Two Cul -de -Sac Alternative.
BURGER RIS MOVED TO CONTINUE SD -88 -008 TO AUGUST 23, 19 . Passed 6 -0.
Break 11:00 - 11:($ P.M.
12. DR -89 -047 ninsula Recreation, 21990 Prospect R/reodel for design review and
UP -89 -007 use ermit approval to construct atwo -sq. ft. golf pro shop and
a two tory, 2,952 sq. ft. cart barn and the existing 20,277 sq.
ft. two- ory Saratoga Country ClubhoNHR zone district per
Chapter 1 of the City Code.
Planner Graff presented the Report td, he Planning Comm ion, dated August 9, 1989.
The Public Hearing was opened at 11:13
Mr. Roger Griffin, Architect, made himself ava' a e for questions. In response to Commissioner
Tucker's question, he confirmed that /utparking employees would not be increased.
HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CPUB C HEARING AT 11:14 P.M. Passed 6 -0.
Commissioner Tucker had concern overs ' 1 on the narrow roads leading to the
parking area; such could create a hazrgency.
Commissioner Harris agreed t concern expressed was valid; filowever, her personal experience
was that special eveXwere eduled at different time s than the me ber events.
Mr. Griffin respondxpansion taking place was in the private mbership portion of the
club house; the maie, where special events took place, was minor element in the
proposed expansion
The Club Manag6r stated that special events would hold 240 individuals as oppos to the current
220 individu , parking would be increased by 65 spaces.
BURGE /TUCKER MOVED TO APPROVE DR -89 -047 PER THE MODEL
Passed -0.
B GER/TUCKER MOVED TO APPROVE UP -89 -007 PER THE MODEL
13. DR -89 -013 Velinsky, 15839 Hidden Hill Rd., request for design review approval to
construct a new 5,073 sq. ft. two -story single family home in the R -1-
40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from
June 28, 1989.
Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated August 9, 1989.
The Public Hearing was opened at 11:26 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 13
AUGUST 9, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Mr. Velinsky, Applicant, presented and reviewed a packet of material containing the history of his
Application and his objections to Staff Recommendation to alter the siting of the house again;
renderings of the proposed house were shown to the Commission.
Mr. Richard Burkhart, Friend of the Applicant, reviewed the manner in which the City of Sunny-
vale would consider this Application; he favored the proposal as presented by the Applicant.
Mr. Velinsky read into the record the letter of Mr. Bill Heiss, Consulting Civil Engineer, favoring
the proposal as presented by the Applicant.
Mr. Robson, Ravine Rd., Saratoga, reminded the Commission that this was an infill, flag lot, sur-
rounded by smaller homes; in addition, this would be a very large house on a small lot. With
respect to compatibility and the perception of bulk, he cited the dimensions of the proposed struc-
ture and called attention to its length and the location at the top of the hill. He read into the record
the square footages of surrounding homes, which ranged from 600 sq. ft. to 4,000 sq. ft. in size.
Mr. Henry Haglin, 15835 Hidden Hill Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows:
- This was the last of seventeen large houses planned for this subdivision; he objected to deni-
grating this proposal simply because it was located near the smaller homes
- With respect to the charge that this home would impact the environment of the ravine, the ravine
consisted of one or two old houses with tar paper roofs, a collection of old cars and weeds
- Any impact on the environment of the ravine would be an improvement
- With respect to Staff Recommendation to shift the house 10 ft. to the north, he was very con-
cerned about the removal of two trees; these trees really belonged to the subdivision and could
be seen from miles around
- Furthermore, the grading required should not be increased
- This was an excellent floor plan, was not intrusive to the area and was compatible with the other
sixteen homes in this subdivision; he asked that this Application be approved as presented
Mr. Sam Chen stated that he was a friend and co- worker of the Applicant; the proposed design
would enhance the neighborhood and increase the value of adjacent homes. This was Mr.
Velinsky's dream house; any further delay would result in financial costs to the Applicant.
BURGERMARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:56 P.M. Passed 6 -0.
Commissioner Burger stated that after listening to Mr. Velinsky's comments, she was concerned
that if the house were shifted as Staff recommended, it would begin to intrude into the line of sight
of residents to the west; secondly, any shifting of the house moved it toward the ridgeline making
it more visible.
Commissioner Tappan noted that the Applicant had already agreed to shift the house about 4 ft.
Commissioner Tucker was concerned regarding the bulk and impact this house would have.in
comparison to some of the other homes in the area.
Commissioner Burger responded that there were very small and also some very large homes in the
area; the house proposed was sensitively designed for the lot. Commissioner Tappan agreed.
Commissioner Harris was concerned regarding the impacts to the Hwang property if the house
was shifted 10 ft. as recommended by Staff; such would give the appearance of being crowded.
J
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AUGUST 9, 1989 Page 14
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Chairperson Siegfried initially felt that the house could be shifted; now, he was not convinced that
a 10 ft. shifting of the house would not impact other homes in the area.
BURGER/TAPPAN MOVED APPROVAL OF DR -89 -013, DESIGNATING THAT THE HOME
BE SITED ON THE NORTH SETBACK LINE Passed 5 -1, Commissioner Tucker dissenting.
14. DR -89 -024 Chen, 12601 Star Ridge Ct., request for a two -story addition to an existing
V -89 -026 two -story home with a total floor area of 5,707 sq. ft. in the NHR zoning
district per Chapter 15 of the city Code. A variance is also requested from
Ordinance 15- 14.050 (e) to allow the addition of the home to be constructed
on a slope of 36% in lieu of 30% maximum allowed.
Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. --
The Public Hearing was opened at 12:05 A.M.
Mr. Ray Murdock, Representing the Applicant, made himself available for questions.
BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 12:06 A.M. Passed 6 -0.
HARRISBURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF DR -89 -024 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION.
Passed 6 -0.
HARRISBURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF V-89-026 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION.
Passed 6 -0.
15. AR -89 -019 Sawyer, 15430 Bohlman Road, appeal of an administrative review appli-
cation that would allow the construction of an amateur radio antenna, in the
----- -HC -RD zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
----- - - - - -- Report _
----------------------------------------------
Planner Graff presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated August 9, 1989; he noted a
correction to Staff Repo projected DescriFtion and stated that the lowered height of the tower would
be 34 ft., not 23 ft. as stated.
The Public Hearing was opened at 12:09 A.M.
Mr. Sawyer, Applicant, reviewed the Appeal and presented a packet of information on recent court
cases on the rights of amateur radio operators. The record failed to show that the erection of the
antenna would endanger the health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood or residents.
Chairperson Siegfried asked Mr. Sawyer to consider what alternatives were available.
Mr. Sawyer provided information on the necessary tower height, building requirements for such;
he stated that he used his amateur radio four to six hours per day, on an intermittent basis.
Mr. Alan B. Grebene, 15409 Belnap Dr., Saratoga, commented that the antenna proposed had the
aesthetics of a oil rig; he contended there was no way to solve transmission problems by building a
65 ft. tower in front of his home. He had moved to the hillsides for the serenity and the views; the
Applicant's proposal was completely unreasonable.
Correspondence
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 7?
William Cot, n 330 Village Lane r�� ��11AA."a
Los Gatos, Californ: 5030 J
and Associates (408) 354 -5542
April 7, 1989
S1059
�&RcRlIWb
ANRl�19
TO: Tsvia Adar, Planning Department P44%1'
CTTY OF SARATOGA l�/
'7
13777 Fruitvale Avenue oepr
Saratoga, California 95070
SUBJECT: Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Review
RE: Lands of Velinsky
15839 Hidden Hill Road
At your request, we have completed a preliminary geologic and geotechnical review
of the proposed development using:
Letter Geologic and Soil Foundation Study for Proposed Residence on
Hidden Hill Road (report) prepared by JCP Engineers and Geologists, Inc.,
dated April 14,1988; and
• Plans, Elevations, Details and Sections (14 sheets; 20- , 10 -, and 4- scale)
prepared by William D. Young Builder, Inc., dated August, 1988.
In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office
files.
DISCUSSION
Our review of the referenced documents indicates that the applicant is
proposing to construct a two -story, single - family residence on the central portion of a
vacant lot. Access to Hidden Hill Road will be via a 500 -foot -long driveway.
Grading for the driveway and residence will result in a cut building pad and a
relatively small (up to about 5 feet high) fill slope. A protective drainage Swale
constructed around the residence will divert runoff to an ephemeral creek along the
southern property boundary.
SITE CONDITIONS
The subject property is characterized by a gentle east -west trending ridge crest
and steep (i.e., up to 20 degree inclination) south - facing hillside topography. The
property is bounded on the south by an eastward flowing ephemeral creek. Drainage
is characterized by sheetflow toward the creek.
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES • FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
Tsvia Adar
April 7, 1989
Page 2
The site is underlain, at depth, by sedimentary bedrock materials of the Santa
Clara Formation (semi- consolidated conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, and
claystone). The bedrock materials are overlain by loose to dense older stream
alluvium and alluvial fan deposits. Surficial materials (soil and colluvium) consist
of potentially expansive sandy clay and clayey sand.
According to the City's geologic map (i.e., Geologic Map of the Lower Saratoga
Hillside Area), a large, ancient landslide (Ols) is present north of the subject property.
The Ground Movement Potential Map of the Lower Saratoga Hillside Area indicates
that the subject property is classified as a 'Ps" zone. The "Ps" zone includes slopes
underlain by weak surficial and bedrock materials that are susceptible to shallow (less
than 10 feet in depth) landsliding. A trace of the potentially active Berrocal fault is
located about 800 feet southwest of the property.
Building on the site is constrained by expansive surficial materials, potential
shallow landsliding and erosion, and the site's seismic setting. However, appropriate
geotechnical design criteria and proper construction practices could mitigate the site's
constraints. It appears that the applicant's geotechnical consultant has adequately
investigated the site conditions. However, the site plan illustrated in the referenced
geotechnical report is different from that shown on the more recent (August, 1988)
plans. The referenced plans indicate that the discharge location for the protective
swale would be less than 30 feet from the front of an existing residence. The outfall
should be more suitably located to prevent any possible adverse off -site impacts. In
addition, the consultant has recommended two alternative foundation designs.
Because of the presence of steep slopes and the potential for shallow landsliding, the
pier- and -grade beam foundation alternative appears to be appropriate for this site.
Consequently, we recommend approval of the subject application with the following
conditions:
L Geotechnical Foundation Clarification and Plan Review - We
recommend approval of the application with the pier- and -grade beam
foundation alternative recommended by the applicant's geotechnical
consultant. The consultant should review the new development plans
and approve all geotechnical aspects of the plans (i.e., site preparation
and grading, site drainage and improvements, and design parameters for
foundations and retaining walls) to ensure that his recommendations
have been properly incorporated.
The results of the plan review should be summarized by the
geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for
review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
William Cotton and Associates
Tsvia Adar
April 7, 1989
Page 3
2. Geotechnical Field Inspection -'The geotechnical consultant should
inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the
project construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily
limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface
drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining
walls prior to the placement of concrete and steel.
The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project
should be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and
submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final project approval.
Respectfully submitted,
WRC: WC:mjs
WILLI COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
7 a, t72
William R. Cotton
City Geotechnical Consultant
CEG 882
William Cotton and Associates
JENNINGS • McDERMOTT - HEISS, INC.
JMH SUITE zoo 296.4511
925 REGENT STREET —SAN JOSE, CA. 0LIO
Civil Engineering Land plmnning Land Surveying
August 9, 1989
Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Our Job #2963
Honorable Commissioners:
This evening you will be considering the Velinsky design review application
(DR 89 -013). Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend the meeting since I have
an presentation elsewhere. I'm sure this will shorten the meeting at least 30
minutes since I won't be there with my view graphs.
I do have some concern regarding the staff recommendation for the project.
It seems to me that the location designed and previously agreed upon for the
site is preferable to that now being recommended by the staff. Shifting the
house 10' North seems to provide no material benefit to the ecology of the area.
The Swale in question is not a particularly dramatic feature and shifting 10'
would seem to offer little in the form of additional open space. The area
occupied by the Southerly portion of the house.is generally a sloping area and
does not have riparian character typical of a creek side setting.
Shifting the home,further North would require more grading or raising the
house additionally to make up for the rise in the contours. It also results in
the removal of two ordinance size trees which are the only major trees on the
property. Finally, it would seem difficult in my view for the Commission to
make the required findings for a variance to encroach into the setback as is
suggested.
For these reasons. I recommend approval to the project at the location
proposed.
Very truly yours,
*� r
W1 sm Heiss
cc: Ira Velinsky
CASE HISTORY
1988 1989
MONTH 9 3 4 6 7 8
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VELINSKY 9/9 3/8 6/28 7/18 7/22 8/9
Annexation Design approval Public Hearing Study Session Site Visit Public Hearing
application application presentation presentation markings presentation
submitted filed New exterior
moved
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION
PLANNING COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION
NEIGHBOR
REQUESTS
ENGINEERING
3/31 Modify geometric Move house 8/3 8/4
Letter staff design/Move house 3 -5 feet No further Staff
comments recommend- Reversal
ations
Continuance Continuance No further
study site visit recommendations
session
Complaints Complaints Complaints Complaints
4/10
Letter received
City geotechnical consultant, William Cotton Associates
states: "Appropriate design for this site"
May 31, 1989 MILESTONE
LETTER DATED MAY 31, 1989 STATES:
"The proposed new location of the home is a significant improvement which moves the
home out of the creek bank area and reduces the visual impact on the adjacent
properties."
"The new design does not fit in with the soft hill ridge lines" Please modify this
aspect."
Tsvia Adar
Saratoga Planning Deparment
July 18, 1989 NnESTONE
STUDY SESSION JULY 18, 1989
Introduced and discussed a total relocation of the home, a totally redesigned exterior
appropriate for the site, committed to adhering to the standards set in the design
review handbook guidelines.
Planning Commissioners commented favorably to the exterior design change and
appropriateness. Recommended a site visit.
July 22, 1989 MILESTONE
SITE VISIT JULY 22, 1989
Planning Commissioners, department staff members, neighbors toured site. Markings
indicated property and home outlines, poles indicated maximum heights.
Planning commissioners comments ranged from, " A beautiful, appropriate design" to
"Do you think the house could be moved a couple (2 to 3) more feet."
Planning department staff recommended moving the house forward the last 3 to 5 feet
to touch the zoned setback standard.
Velinsky agreed.
August 4, 1989 MILESTONE
LAST MINUTE REVERSAL
The planning departmnet, contradicting prior recommendations, indicated 3 to 5 feet is
now not enough. The home must be moved 10 feet, including obtaining a variance to
do so, and delay the project.
This irrational suggestion does not meet the original goals of preserving the natural
environment.
7 POINTS AGAINST ANOTHER MOVE
1. Moving the home lacks significant change to the ravine area
2. View from the south is the same or the house appears taller and bulkier
3. Impacts land -- Increased grading by substantial quantity
4. Impacts Natural Landscape -- Removal of 24 inch diameter, very tall, beautiful Pine
and Cedar trees
5. Impacts immediate surrounding neighbors. Home will now be visible from the
West, East, and the North side. will be able to look into the neighbors bedrooms.
6. Impacts long distance visibility - -the home will appear more visible and taller from
the canyon residents
7. NO flexibility in developing the north side area (the only usable area) for
recreational purposes, ie., patio, yard, pool.
July 19, 1.089
Planning Cor`m'ission, .pity of Saratoga
City Hall
Fruitdale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Honorable Commission Members:
As one of the property owners most affected by the Velinsky
building proposal, I hereby respectfully make the following
requests:
I. That the public hearing of the Commission be
delayed until September. (I will be out of town
in August as will Doctor Sogg.)
2. That no further consideration be Riven to this
proposal until there is a City - appointed engi-
neering firm survey to ascertain the true slope
of the property.
As I have stated in oral presentations, I have grave concerns
about the location, size and design of the proposed structure
on a non - conforming but legal flag lot. I am also concerned
that the Commission consider the rights of the neighbors as
well as those of the developer. When a city begins intruding
upon hillside properties, there must be special consideration
given to appropriateness, to open space and wildlife needs,
and especially to neighborhood parity. A 5,000 square foot
home is not appropriate in a neighborhood with 29000 square
foa*-ranch -style abodes. A ridgeline is no place to imrose a
superstructure.
Thanks again for your consideration; again, Task that neigh-
borhood concerns be treated equall with developer concerns.
c ese--
WA : a c 4, an a an e�
000177
RICHARD L SOGG, M.D.
A Professional Corporation
OPHTHALMOLOGY
NEURO- OPHTHALMOLOGY
281 EAST HAMILTON AVE.
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
3 August 1989
Saratoga Planning Commission
Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear People:
PHONE: 14081 378.1833
I:.Gy
re: Velinsky DR 89 -013
As I will be out of town during the forthcoming meeting
of the Planning Commission when it discusses the matter
of the Velinsky property, which directly adjoins my
Property, I request that you continue this until September
Thank you very much.
Sincerely yours,
Richard L. Sogg, M.D.
0001'78
C,
Planning Commission, City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Re: DR -89- 013 - Velinsky
15839 Hidden Hill Foad
Dear Commissioners:
June 27, 1989
As the property owner most affected by the Velinsky proposal,
I wish to voice my strong objects to: its design, bulk, height,
size and placement on the land.
The design of this house and the imposition it makes- -not only
on my property but on other neighbors - -is overbearing to the
point of hostility. I find that a proposal to build huge walls
in tie creekside ravine would create the effect of a 40 -foot
wall on the north side of my property. This wall would replace
a natural riparian habitat for deer and wildlife.
The lot in question is not a viable building site by today's
standards. It is awkward in shape, slope, size and placement.
It is a flag lot with all the worst features of such a lot. It
has no allowance for water drainage.
Historically, this lot has been used as a real estate invest-
ment. It is a lot that has been escalated in price on each
resale with a profit motive. It could very well be that this
awkward lot was meant only for buying and selling- -not for build-
ing.
I very strongly urge denial of this project and insist that any
structure built on that parcel conform with all of the current
rules and regulations of the City of Saratoga.
,,,'Sincer ly y u -s , "
WA : ac �� Wanda A e rer '� - -- -.
, e /
C� S �Q Yom, ��- 9sd 30
Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Commissioners:
June 27, 1989
SUBJECT: DR -89- 013 - Velinsky
15839 Hidden mill Road
I am writing to you regarding the request for approval to con-
struct a 2 -story home at the above site. We were distressed
to learn that our neighbors may have to undergo the agonies
of construction of an over -sized house on a difficult lot, in-
trusion of privacy, destruction of riparian lands, obstruction
of view, removal of wildlife trails - -all in disregard of the
rural neighborhood. For example, the adjacent over -sized Hwang
house now imposes on our privacy and our freedom of access to
our property. We are having to construct a $7,000 gate to
protect our entryway. We no longer have privacy in our pool
area and our yard and we are constantly reminded of the envi-
ronmental loss by the over - powering structure above us. We
are dismayed that the same builder is now planning to repeat
this scenario on the adjoining lot.
We urge you to deny this application.
Res tfully yours,
��
ac Robert Laure son, M.D.
Fran Lauredson, M.D.
RECEIVED
JUN 2 3 1989
PLANNING DEPT
Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
June 27, 1989
Dear Commissioners: RE: DR -89- 013 - Velinsky
15839 Hidden Hill Road
The Coalition for Hillside Protection is most concerned
by the proposed building by Velinsky /Young. We wish to voice
our objection to the project and to urge denial for the follow-
ing reasons:
1. This proposed structure is on a ridgeline which is
the highest point in the Southeast Saratoga area.
It will be visible from all the surrounding areas
and from the scenic highway.
2. The structure is grossly incompatible in bulk and
design. It is extremely large, tall, and awkward in
appearance. It is located on an infill flag lot
surrounded mainly by small one -story ranchstyle
homes. It is not appropriate in a rural community.
3. The extremely long cul -de -sac (approximately 1,100
feet) has no secondary access.
4. The plan is obtrusive. It destroys views and pri-
vacy of the adjacent homes.
5. It would impose an overbearing structure, which is
out of scale, in a neighborhood which makes every
effort to keep the setting natural and in keeping
with hillside contours.
We are also concerned that the same builder, who has left
many unresolved issues of compliance on the adjoining Hwang
property, is planning to continue to spread this type of pro-
blem to the adjoining Velinsky lot! We would like to see the
unresolved compliance issues on the Hwang property resolved
before consideration is given to the Velinsky project. We
Saratoga Planning Comm'n -2- June 27, 1989
urge denial of the Velinsky request on the basis of compati-
bility, bulk, design and intrusion on the landscape.
Sincerel you
&�
C ION FOR HILLSIDE PROTECTIOIN
Arthur Slemmons, Spokesperson
Address:
19-755 Redberry Drive
Los Gatos 95030
July l0, 1.099
Planning Commissions ,city of Saratoga
City Hall
Fruitdale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Honorable Commission (':embers:
As one of the property owners most affected by the Velinsky
building proposal, I hereby respectfully make the follo?�rinc,
requests:
1. That the public hearing of the Commission be
delayed until September. (I will be out of town
in August as will Doctor Sogg.)
2. That no further consideration be given to this
proposal until there is a City - appointed engi-
neering firm survey to ascertain the true slope
of the property.
As I have stated in oral presentations, I have grave concerns
about the location, size and design of the nronosed structure
on a non - conforming but legal flag lot. I am also concerned
that the Commission consider the rights of the neighbors as
well as those of the developer. When a city begins intruding-
upon hillside properties, there must be special consideration
given to appropriateness, to open space and wildlife needs,
and especially to neighborhood parity. A 5,000 souare foot
home is not appropriate in a neighborhood with 2,000 souare
foot ranch -style abodes. A ridgeline is no place to imrose a
superstructure.
Thanks again for your consideration; again, I ask that neigh-
borhood concerns be treated equall with developer concerns.
c e r-e-1 y --
WA:ac tiJan a ande� L �,
AM San Jose
Vfttfw
P.Y
374 VAM Santa Clara St.
P.O. Boot 229
San Jose, CA 95198
408 279 -7808
March 23, 1989
City of Saratoga
Planning Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Attention: Tsvia Adar
Reference: Tract 3977, Lot 10
Hidden Hill Road
Gentlemen:
RECEIVED
MAR 2 -1. 1s ,93
PLANNING DEPT.
This letter is being written at the request of Ira Velinsky.
Our records indicate that there are no water facilities of
San Jose hater Company across the referenced property.
1
Very
tr)dly ours,
it
W YN S. WARREN
New eon Supervisor
WSW: bn
0001'76
. - JCP
GFAIAGIS75•ENGINfiERS
10650 Bubb Road - Cupertino, CA 95014 • (408) 446 -4427
FAX (408) 446 -0821
September 14, 1989
Project No. JCP -2325
Mr, Ira Velinsky
P. O. Box 93
El Granada, CA 94018
Re: Geotechnical Reconnaissance of Subject
Property and Adjacent Swale, Hidden
Hills Road, Santa Clara County,
California
APN: 510 -24 -019
Dear Mr. Velinsky:
In accordance with your verbal request of September 13, 1989, we visited the subject
property and performed a geotechnical reconnaissance. The purpose of our visit was to
evaluate the existing conditions of the subject property relative to the conditions
observed during our report of April 14, 1988 and to evaluate the condition of the existing
swale along the south property line. In addition, you asked us to evaluate any effect that
the proposed development might have on the drainage swage.
Over 50 percent of the subject property is located along the top and upper slopes of a
ridge that trends southwest /northeast. The south side of the property slopes downhill
towards the south and southeast at an overall inclination of approximately 3:1
(horizontal to vertical). Refer to our report of April 14, 1988 for a detailed discussion of
the geology of the site and the soils encountered in the exploratory borings.
A swale exists adjacent to and immediately south of the south property line. To clarify,
this area is immediately north and adjacent to an existing residence located on the
adjacent property immediately south of the south property line. This swale is very gentle
in this area, vegetated grasses and plants, and it does not have a "mineral" bottom. In
addition, several areas of dumped fill have been placed in the swale during develop-
ment of the existing structure and parking areas for the property immediately south of the
subject property. As the swale trends east of the filled parking area, it steepens and gets
deeper. It was noted that the bottom of the swale was vegetated with periwinkle, poison
oak, and other vegetation such that a "mineral" bottom was not observed.
It is our opinion, when the proposed home is completed and the drainage recommenda-
tions contained in our April 14, 1988 report are implemented, that less surface water will
drain into the swale area south of the subject property than does now. Therefore, it is
our opinion that the proposed development will have no negative impact on the swale
and will only have a positive impact, in that less water will drain in that direction. In
addition, it is our opinion that the stability of the hillside on the south portions of the
subject property is good and that development of the subject property will not have a
destabilizing effect or a negative effect on other portions of the subject property or
adjacent properties.
LIMITATIONS
Our services consist of professional opinions, conclusions and recommendations made
in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and
practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties either expressed or implied.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please call us.
Very truly yours,
JCP- ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS, INC.
James C. Prendergast
Geotechnical Engineer #GE696
expires 3131/91
Engineering Geologist 955
JCP /rb
Copies: Addressee (4)
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: 11/l/89
OM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Report on revised plans for DR -89 -013;
Applicant: Ira Velinsky; Appellant: James Jefferson;
Location: 15839 Hidden Hill Road.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECOMMENDED MOTION
Staff finds the revised plans to be consistent with previous Council
direction and recommends that the Council grant the design review
approval subject to the Commission's granting setback variances.
n17' 'D11T'PTA7
The Planning Commission reviewed two revised
subsequent to Council's hearing on September 20,
set of revised plans reviewed at the Commission's
study session were inconsistent with Council
subsequently revised. The next version showed a
the 660 ft. elevation and was one story.
plans prepared
1989. The first
October 3, 1989
direction and
foot print above
The Planning Commission reviewed the final revisions at their
October 25, 1989 meeting when a public hearing was held. The report
of the Commission is in the form of a transcript attached to this
report.
REVISED PROJECT
The applicant has submitted plans to conform with City Council's
direction for relocation and building height. First, the revised
plans show the residence closer to the north and east property lines
to utilize the natural level area above the 660 ft. elevation. As a
result, the structure now encroaches into the required setbacks for
each of these property lines. The building square footage is below
the maximum allowable and is slightly decreased from the plans
approved by the Planning Commission. Secondly, the structure is
entirely one story because the garage is now located adjacent to the
living areas. The result of moving the garage has increased the
impervious coverage due to the increased building foot print and the
driveway turn around area. The impervious coverage is also greater
due to the applicant's addition of a pool adjacent to the north
property line.
1
S
Lot coverage/
Impervious
coverage
Height
Size of
PROJECT SUMMARY
P.C. Approved Revised Plans Code Reqmt.
Plans Allowance
21%
(9,920 sq. ft.)
25 ft.
23.3% 25%
(11,013 sq. ft.) (11,789 sq. ft.)
23 ft.
26 ft.
Structure
5,073
sq. ft.
4,959
sq. ft.
5,142 sq. ft.
Setbacks Front:
8
ft.
35
ft.
35 ft.
Rear:
40
ft.
110
ft.
35 ft.
Right Side:
20
ft.
18
ft.
20 ft.
Left Side:
44
ft.
118
ft.
20 ft.
ANALYSIS
In staff's previous report to the Council it was indicated that the
structure's position in the ravine contributed greatly to the
incompatibility of the structure with its surroundings. This
evaluation was based on several features: 1) Because the structure
was cantilevered over the ravine, the 11 ft. underfloor height
increased the perceived height when viewed from the south. 2) The
ravine location would result in grading and disruption to the
natural vegetation within the riparian corridor which the City's
design guidelines attempt to avoid. 3) The site provided a natural
building area that would mitigate the impacts to the adjacent
neighborhood that was not utilized.
The location of the home higher on the site resulted in greater
visibility of the home from the valley floor. Staff feels that the
visual impact of the more prominant location will be addressed by
the low profile one story design and the natural earthtone materials
used for the building exterior.
The revised plan, in staff's analysis achieves the objectives
setforth in its initial review. The underfloor area is eliminated
so that structure is reduced in height from views from the south.
The one story elevations reduce the significance of structure from
distant views from the valley floor. Lastly, the grading required
for the site has been reduced by half, and has been virtually
eliminated in the ravine. Staff's only concern is that the driveway
turn around which requires a 3 1/2 ft. retaining wall will extend
2
over the 660 ft. elevation. Staff understands that the turn around
has been reduced to the minimum radius required for fire protection
purposes.
The remaining issue is the size of the structure and its
compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. As the Council is
aware, the City's design review ordinances require that a proposed
infill structure be compatible with the surroundings in terms of
building size, mass and bulk. Staff finds that the total square
footage of the proposed structure is compatible in size with the
neighborhood.
When Saratoga measures square footage, all enclosed space including
garages, and accessory structures are calculated in total building
square footage. Staff has compiled the actual square footages of
homes within the Hidden Hill Tract which the Velinsky property is a
part of. The survey was based on square footage figures provided by
the Santa Clara County Assessor's Office and takesinto account all
the square footage counted by Saratoga standards.
The attached table and location map show the specific square
footage for the properties considered to be the surrounding
neighborhood. Staff has concluded after a review of this
information that the Velinsky home is comparable to the square
footages of the neighborhood and no reduction is therefore required.
In conclusion, staff will point out that the revised plan represents
a compromise of the variety of interests and concerns raised during
the lengthly review process. The location of the one story home
which is of comparable size to other homes in the area represents a
significant advancement in achieving the City's design review
objectives.
SUMMARY OF SQUARE FOOTAGE
(from Assessor's tax roll)
Assessor's Main Garages & Accessory Total
Parcel No. Residence Sq. ft. structures sq.ft.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Hidden Hill
Tract
510 -24 -10
3,154
N/A
3,154
510 -24 -11
2,844
1,215
4,059
510 -24 -12
4,046
756
4,802
510 -24 -13
3,602
998
4,600
510 -24 -14
3,736
768
4,504
510 -24 -15
3,204
720
3,924
510 -24 -16
4,482
477
4,959
510 -24 -17
3,256
850
4,106
510 -24 -18
2,591
1,100
3,691
510 -24 -20
3,386
4,752
8,138
510 -24 -21
2,991
700
3,691
510 -24 -22
3,175
432
3,607
510 -24 -23
3,653
1,060
4,713
510 -24 -24
3,488
800
4,288
510 -24 -25
2,808
720
3,528
510 -24 -26
4,185
768
4,953
AVERAGE SQ.FT.
Owners Adjacent to
Project
4,423
510 -24 -006
5,600
1,008
6,608
510 -29 -032
1,694
2,404
4,098
510 -29 -062
3,796
1,020
4,816
510 -24 -018
2,591
1,100
3,691
510 -24 -020
3,386
3,652
7,038
AVERAGE SQ. FT.
4
5,250
...... I m*uczbgK — SANTA CLARA ccuwry, CALIFORNIA
\ OCT.,,
O N
560 -42
Y: 75 2 Z 38
0, OSAC. AUZ. 12 sEz fl'L c9M
aNTY u S c
S. C.v.W.D
4i 32 PCL. 1 :S.C.VW.D'
401 A
PCL I
71
1141 AVE
3 15,
—36 917-
L3
10
qrl 1,�l —
3
35 5 500 --as
it
7 It
14
4% sto
Ic
;H I L Q
3t '7
9107 5706
56/j",
C,
U4C
19
22
'Y
2
if
V1
ODA Ac
x 20
i-65
As ... _3 2.
15 t, 44
"61
SCALE I,= ISO
kh-
OT9W Qq §&MZ19QXV7&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council DATE:11 /1/89
FROM: Planning Commission
SUBJECT: Report of the Planning Commission concerning Velinsky, 15839
Hidden Hill Road. A transcript of the Planning Commission
Meeting of 10/25/89 where plans prepared pursuant to Council
direction were reviewed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Director Emslie updated the Planning Commission on the status of the
project and summarized.the Council's instructions for consideration
in reviewing the revised plans as follows; 1) the building be
located above the 660 ft. elevation, 2) the plans should be one
story, 3) the drainage should be directed to Hidden Hill and not
into the ravine. The specific Council Resolution was included in the
Commission's staff report. He stated that the Planning Commission
would be making a recommendation to the City Council, who in turn
will vote on the appeal.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:53 p.m.
Ira Velinsky, Applicant, stated that after speaking with Mayor
Clevenger, he went to his neighbors on the north and the east, Mr.
Haggland and Mr. Hwang to discuss how to locate the home in that
corner in a way agreeable to them. Mr. Velinsky then had his
architect draw up a new design. He also stated that letters had
been submitted by both Mr. Hwang and Mr. Haggland (see attached).
Mr. Curt Anderson, Applicant's Architect, summarized his impression
of the Council's concerns; 1) The drainage problem; this has been
designed and is indicated on the plans prepared by JMH Engineering.
The plans show the drainage going completely to Hidden Hill Rd.; 2)
The house should be one story; they have redesigned the home to be
one story; 3) Relocate the house above the 660 ft. elevation; they
have substantially relocated the house but they are now in a
situation where it requires a variance for setbacks.
He also stated that the design of the house has been simplified so
it will make it seem much less massive and impacting on the
neighborhood. As part of the application, they would also like to
get the pool approved as part of the variance. He summarized to say
that they feel they have satisfied the direction of the Council and
are looking for the Commission's recommendation for Council approval
of the revised plans.
1
Wanda Alexander, 15879 Ravine Rd., Los Gatos, stated that she wanted
to discuss the geology of the area. She presented overhead
projections that depicted where the Berrocal fault is generally
located in the area and where landslide areas also were located.
She commended Mr. Velinsky for his efforts but felt that the facts
were contradicting the spirit of the the City Council's direction to
reduce the mass and bulk of the residence. She stated that the
limits of size, bulk and compatibility, and disruption of the ravine
were still not addressed in the new plan. She felt that the
Velinsky home should be more compatible with other homes in the area
in terms of size and bulk. She was also concerned that the road
still intrudes into the ravine and with the unstable soil, it will
be an endangerment to all the residents. Commissioner Siegfried
clarified that Mr. Velinsky is required to do very site specific
geotechnical surveys. She had one last question regarding the
calculation of the footprint of the house. She didn't understand
how it could be calculated accurately because they still don't have
an accurate survey of the slope of the property.
Richard Sogg, 19262 Hidden Hill Rd., Los Gatos, stated that he had
four concerns; 1) earthquake dangers. He felt that there should be
a moratorium on building until the seismic safety standards are
evaluated. He feels that the priority should be the restoration of
the homes on the hill and not the building of any new home; 2)
he wanted the drainage pattern to be addressed; 3) he had concerns
regarding the integrity of his historical house and grounds; 4) he
would like to be reassured that there be no driveway or right -of -way
constructed along the flag portion of the Velinsky lot.
William Robson, 15891 Ravine Rd., Los Gatos, stated that he is still
concerned about bulk and compatibility on an infill situation. He
pointed out that a comparison of the original plans rejected by the
Commission and the present proposal reveals that the visible
elevations are 55% larger. He also wanted the Commission to
consider the comments made by the majority of the Council when they
asked that the house be made smaller and less bulky. He does not
believe that the bulk can be mitigated by landscaping which is
specifically prohibited by the City's Design Handbook.
Chairperson Siegfried asked the Applicant to summarize the drainage
plan. The Applicant stated that according to his engineer, Bill
Heiss, they would have to trench down the existing driveway to get
to the water supply. He stated that as long as they have to trench
to get water and sewer, they can use the same trench to provide
drain facilties to bring the rainwater from the gutters and driveway
into the storm sewers on Hidden Hill. He stated that no water from
the house or driveway will go down into the ravine.
Commissioner Moran asked the Applicant if he had talked to the
neighbors who sent the letters about the pool. The Applicant stated
that the neighbors had seen the plans presented tonight.
Chairperson Siegfried recommended that the neighbors concerned about
drainage meet with Planning staff to review the plans.
F
MORAN /TAPPAN CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. Passed 5 -0.
Commissioner Moran asked staff if it was their view that the
findings for the variances could be made? Planning Director Emslie
answered affirmatively.
Commissioner Burger extended her apologies to the Velinskys for the
ordeal they have had to go through over the past months. She felt
that the City of Saratoga should be ashamed of itself for putting
the Velinskys through this ordeal. She stated that she believes
that the City Council's so- called improvements result in a project
that is inconsistent with long- standing City policy in four (4)
specific areas: 1) The movement of a proposed home to a ridgeline,
which increases its visibility from the valley floor; 2) The
creation of two (2) variances, a frontyard setback and a sideyard
setback; 3) The requirement of the removal of ordinance size trees,
and 4) The increase, once again, of the impervious coverage. She
feels that the Planning Commission's approval of plans consistent
with the Council's directions would be nothing less than dereliction
of duty. It amounts to a total disregard of sound land -use planning
in favor of an ill- considered political solution. The Commission
has always scrupulously removed itself from politics and has always
maintained its integrity. She stated that Mr. Velinsky's original
project was carefully scrutinized before the Commission approved it
originally and the current changes are not in the best interests of
anyone in this community. She also stated that it was morally
unacceptable for her to personally recommend approval of these
revised plans. She stated that she would not be voting to recommend
approval of the revisions.
Commissioner Tappan also extended his apologies to the Velinskys.
He stated that in looking back on all of the meetings and all of the
input from the neighbors, that quite frankly the neighbors want
nothing built on that lot. He stated that the Council was specific
as to the three (3) areas of concern they had when they sent the
project back to the Commission and that the Velinskys have bent over
backwards to answer each of these issues, and now the neighbors
have come up with new issues. He stated that he would recommend
approval of the revised plans as submitted and that he felt all
Council's concerns were addressed.
Commissioner Tucker agreed that we have very tough geologic
standards here in Saratoga and that it would not be a concern of
hers. She stated that this has been a very difficult project for
all concerned because of the piece of property. She feels that it
does meet the size requirements, but that the proposed home has
always appeared larger due to the topography of the property. She
stated she has no problem with the project, as revised per Council
direction.
Commissioner Moran thanked the neighbors for continuing to show up
and expressing their concerns. She stated that she does not think
that the plans have been improved because we now have two (2)
variances and the home is jammed into one corner. She felt that the
house as they saw it at the study session on 10/3/89 was something
3
she was hoping the Council would reconsider. She feels the house
has been moved up higher on the ridgeline where it will have a much
bigger impact on the whole community.
Chairperson Siegfried asked for the Commission's input if the
Council will approve the project and if it comes back to the
Commission for consideration of the variance. Commissioner Moran
said she would have a hard time with the findings for the variance.
Commissioner Burger stated she would not make the findings on the
variance issue. Commissioner Tappan said he would be able to make
the variance findings, although he would lean toward the plan that
the Commission approved. Commissioner Tucker stated that she would
have no comment since she did not see the plans that went to the
study session.
Chairperson Siegfried stated he was not at the study session but he
feels that this is a reasonable solution and that it meets the
requirements of the Council. It moves the home dramatically away
from the ravine. He stated he appreciates the concerns of the
neighbors as well. He is prepared to recommend approval to the City
Council and that he could make the variance findings. He asked the
City Attorney if there were some appropriate method of handling the
variance other than bringing it back to the Commission? City
Attorney Toppel stated that they are trying to work out the
procedure for the variance to be heard and the findings to be made
by the Council when the matter goes back up before them on 11/1/89.
He thinks the spirit and intent of the law in terms of hearing and
discussion on a variance has been satisfied. Chairperson Siegfried
emphasized that if the Council is going to make the decision on the
location, the Council should make the decision on the variance. He
believes it puts the Commission in a very difficult position to do
anything otherwise. City Attorney Toppel stated that he could not
guarantee that the variance would not come back to the Commission.
Chairperson Siegfried summarized by stating that what they have is a
split recommendation. Two out of five Commissioners approve of the
revised although it is not the best solution; one Commissioner
speaking very clearly against the current plan and that the original
proposal should be approved; and one Commissioner likes the study
session plans. He stated that the one point that the Commission is
united on is that if the Council is going to decide where the home
is, they should make the variance findings.
by Chairman Siegfried 10/27/89
Ridhard Sidgfried
Chair, Planning ,Cl
is
4
To THE MAYOR and SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
City Offices
13777 Fruitvale
Saratoga CA 95070
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
PHONE: (408) 378 -1833
My name is Richard Sogg. I live at 19262 Hidden
Hill Road, Los Gatos, immediately adjacent to
2 borders of the Velinsky property, the 131 foot
east border, and the 450 foot southerly border
of the flagpole portion of his lot.
I am to make a major presentation at the meeting
of the American Academy of Ophthalmology in New
Orleans at 1:00 P.M. on 1 November 1989. This
is a committment which goes back 1 year.
For the above - stated reason, I respectfully wish
you to continue to another date, the consideration
of the Velinsky matter, which, I think has been
scheduled on 1 November 1989. My return flight
from New Orleans arrives (if it is on time) back
in San Jose at 8:00 P.M. that evening, but I
don't see how I could reliably make your meeting
until very late.
Thank you once again for all your consideration.
Sincerely you s
`C/7 �. Lu
Richard L. Sogg, M.D.
RICHARD L. SOGG, M.D.
r
A Professional Corporation
1
OPHTHALMOLOGY
NEURO- OPHTHALMOLOGY
281 EAST HAMILTON AVE.
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
10/27/89
To THE MAYOR and SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
City Offices
13777 Fruitvale
Saratoga CA 95070
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
PHONE: (408) 378 -1833
My name is Richard Sogg. I live at 19262 Hidden
Hill Road, Los Gatos, immediately adjacent to
2 borders of the Velinsky property, the 131 foot
east border, and the 450 foot southerly border
of the flagpole portion of his lot.
I am to make a major presentation at the meeting
of the American Academy of Ophthalmology in New
Orleans at 1:00 P.M. on 1 November 1989. This
is a committment which goes back 1 year.
For the above - stated reason, I respectfully wish
you to continue to another date, the consideration
of the Velinsky matter, which, I think has been
scheduled on 1 November 1989. My return flight
from New Orleans arrives (if it is on time) back
in San Jose at 8:00 P.M. that evening, but I
don't see how I could reliably make your meeting
until very late.
Thank you once again for all your consideration.
Sincerely you s
`C/7 �. Lu
Richard L. Sogg, M.D.
t
RESOLUTION NO.: 2598
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCEL OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA REVERSING A DECISION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
WHEREAS, IRA VELINSKY and
applied to the City of Saratoga for design
family residence upon the site located at
being identified as DR -89 -013, and
MAYUMI VELINSKY, the applicants, have
review approval to construct a new single
15839 Hidden Hill Road, such application
WHEREAS, on June 28, 1989, and August 9, 1989, the Planning Commission
of the City of Saratoga conducted a public hearing on said application, and following
the conclusion thereof, the Planning Commission approved the application; and
WHEREAS, James Jefferson has appealed the decision of the Planning
Commission to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on September 20, 1989, the City Council conducted a de novo
public hearing on the appeal, at which time any person interested in the matter was
given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the staff reports,
minutes of proceedings conducted by the Planning Commission relating to said
application, and the written and oral evidence presented to the City Council in support
of and in opposition to the appeal,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby
resolve as follows:
1. The appeal from the Planning Commission was upheld and the
decision of the Planning Commission was reversed and remanded to
the Planning Commission for further action, as set forth below, Peterson
and Nbyles dissenting.
2. The City Council agreed with the recommendation of staff that the
proposed residence should be moved away from the ravine and
modified to reduce the perceived bulk. The Council found and
determined that the home would have a major visibility impact upon
the adjacent Alexander property and was excessively bulky by reason
of the linear length and design of the structure. In addition, a
relocation of the home also would reduce impact upon the natural
topography. A reduction in the mass and bulk of the structure will
serve to mitigate its visibility from the valley floor.
3. The application was referred back to the Planning Commission, to
consider the following modifications:
(a) Relocation of the structure away from the ravine, to
within the area of the 660' contour line.
-1-
r
(b) Modification of the design to single storyX4 other appropriate
change, to reduce the mass and bulk of the structure.
(c) Modification of the drainage plans to direct the water run -off
from the building onto Hidden Hill Road instead of the swale
through the Alexander property.
The Planning Commission shall submit a written report for review by
the City Council at its meeting on November 1, 1989.
4. If relocation of the home creates a need for a variance from a
setback requirement, no application fee shall be charged if the
applicant applies for such variance.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 4th day of October,
1989, by the following vote:
AYES: C:ouncibneinbers Anderson, Moyles, Peterson, Stutzmen and Mayor Clevenger.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mayor
ATTEST:
Cl`
City Clerk
-2-
October 22, 1989
To: Members of the Saratoga City Council
and the Saratoga Planning Commission
Dear Sirs:
We have reviewed the most recent house and site
design of Mr. Velinsky's proposed home adjacent to
our property on Hidden Hill Road.
We are fully aware that the new plan encroaches into
the setback area next to our adjoining property line.
We understand that the home will be approximately eight
feet (8') from our property line at its nearest point.
Since our home is located a substantial distance
from this property line, we da not feel that Mr. Velinsky's
design will have an impact on our view or privacy.
We also understand that any drainage from this
property is to be directed down Hidden Hill Road. We
would like to have assurances that such drainage will
be directed in such a manner that it will not damage
our property or driveway.
We.are pleased with the design of the latest plan
and feel that it is fully compatible with the other homes
in our subdividion. We are dismayed, however, that the
only way these plans can be approved i.s by creating a
generous-'half-acre of greenbelt for the neighbors on
the south while shoving it up virtually to;tle property
lines of the neighbors on the norti: and ..east sides.
Hardly an impartial decision.
Yours truly, //
He ry and Betty Jane Haggland
15835 Hidden Hill Road,
Los Gatos, Calisornia 95030
UC �j
1, - -
24 October 1989
City Council Members
Planning Commissioners,
I have been following the Velinsky's application to you for site and
design approval. While my wife and I feel that many of their earlier
applications were quite sensitively designed and appropriate, we are in
the position now where the directions being given to the Velinsky's is
forcing them to encroach into the twenty foot setback on our adjoining
properties.
I have discussed this with Mr. Velinsky and he has presented a
proposed solution which I have reviewed.
His new plan, encroaching into the setback, is a very sensitive solution
to our problem. While encroaching into the setback area, angling the
living room area away from our bedroom area, is a considerate
resolution. I believe this plan is one which we can all be very
comfortable with. I encourage you to find these site plans and home
design acceptable.
Regards,
Jeorge Lang
19288 Bainter Avenue
Los Gatos, CA
G
IMPACTS
Proposed Project
The Proposed Project would not result in a significant
impact to existing park facilities since there is not a
residential component in the proposal.
Alternative to the Proposed Project
The Recreation, Parks and Community Services Department
estimates the demand for parks by using the Horizon 2000
factor of 2.6 persons per multi - family dwelling unit. The
estimated number of residents is then compared to the 3.5
acres per 1,000 population standard to determine the demand
for park acreage a given project creates.(")
The Parks Department's criteria for access include an
evaluation for ease of access, as well as actual distance.
The recreation and park facilities within 3/4 mile of the
project site are easily accessible. The site is in a
neighborhood considered to have sufficient parks.'")
The Alternative would result in an incremental increase.
This would not result in a potentially significant impact.
MITIGATION
Proposed Project
NO MITIGATION IS NECESSARY.
Alternative to the Proposed Project
The Parkland and Dedication Ordinance requires that an in-
lieu fee be paid per multi- family unit to offset open space
that cannot be provided with the development.
NO MITIGATION IS NECESSARY.
SJC841 /311.50
3 -43
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
EXISTING SETTING
At the present time, the only use near the project site that
involves large amounts of hazardous materials is a gasoline
service station located adjacent to the northerly end of the
site.
IMPACTS
Proposed Project and the Alternative to the Proposed Project
The proposed General Plan amendment and the Alternative
would designate a large area for administrative offices,
research and development laboratories and associated pilot
plants in the project area. Storage, use, and disposal of
small amounts of hazardous materials could be associated
with some land uses allowed by this designation. The
Proposed Project and the Alternative would designate
1 million square feet and 600,000 square feet for
Administrative Office /Research and Development use,
respectively.
The types of uses that would be permitted include general
business and professional offices; computer and programming
services; and research and engineering laboratories,
including related pilot plants. Such uses might involve
storage, use, and disposal of small amounts of assorted
toxic, volatile, corrosive, radioactive, or infectious
substances. Specific chemicals could include acetone;
isopropanol; xylene; methyl ethyl ketone; 1,1,1,
trichloroethylene; sulfuric, hydrofluoric, and hydrochloric
acids; boron trifluoride; phosphine; arsine, etc. The uses
envisioned by the developer for the project are computer and
programming- related development industries. These
businesses would be expected to store, use, and dispose of
small amounts of toxic and flammable substances such as
solvents, acids, and oil and gasoline products.
Impacts from these hazardous materials could result in
contamination of the air, ground surface, surface water, or
3 -44
SJC &41 /311.50
groundwater; fire; explosion; or direct bodily injury as a
result of:
o Aboveground spills occurring during delivery and
use
o Leaks in process piping
o Leaks in underground storage tanks
o Leaks in underground fuel tanks of the adjacent '
service station
o Mixing of two or more relative innocuous
substances, which chemically combine to form a
more hazardous substance
o Direct personal contact
Uses that might be impacted by the presence of these
hazardous materials include occupants of:
o The proposed AO /RD facilities
o Adjacent retail establishments
o The proposed residential development (the
Alternative)
o Existing residential areas to the south
The Horizon 2000 General Plan's definition of these AO /RD
uses requires all operations to be conducted within
buildings, migration of contamination from the building
where it might occur would be minimized, although accidents
could occur during delivery, or in outside storage. The
facility where the spill or leak occurs would be at greatest
risk; however, those uses would occupy the site only during
business hours. Retail businesses adjacent to the proposed
AO /RD uses would also be inhabited only during business
hours.
3 -45
SJCR41/311.50
The residential development proposed in the Alternative.
would be a close receptor of hazardous materials impacts.
The proposed density of 25 to 40 units per acre, the nature
of residential construction, proximity to the AO /RD area,
use of outdoor areas, and continuous occupancy would tend to
make this proposed land use more vulnerable to possible
impacts than the other non - residential uses in the area.
The existing residential area to the south would be
protected by the retail uses, existing office uses, and the
intervening landscaped berm.
With the development of the Proposed Project and the
Alternative to the Project, the proposed amendment would
result in a potentially significant impact relative to
hazardous materials.
MITIGATION
Proposed Project and the Alternative to the Proposed Project
The goals and policies of the Horizon 2000 General Plan
Hazardous Materials policy 1 are to protect City residents
from the risks inherent in the transport, distribution, use
and storage of hazardous materials, recognizing that the use
of these materials is integral to many aspects of society.
In addition, the policies state that the City should support
State and Federal legislation which strengthen safety
requirements for the transportation of hazardous materials.
Additionally, the City of San Jose has adopted a Hazardous
Materials Ordinance that regulates the storage,
transportation, distribution, and use of hazardous
materials. This is the implementation of Policy 1 of the
Hazardous Materials policy. The City Fire Department
enforces the ordinance, as well as the fire code. The
ordinance establishes procedures and controls of
unauthorized discharges of hazardous materials. The City's
fire code provides storage standards for flammable and
volatile substances. It also requires sprinkler systems and
alarm systems in certain cases to warn of hazardous
conditions and to contain them. The City Building Code
provides standards for building construction that will
3 -46
SJCR41I311.50
minimize damage from fire. In reviewing proposed
development applications, the City Planning Department
considers hazardous conditions that could occur as a result
of the proposed use. Conditions to minimize or contain such
hazards are made part of the permit.
In the event of a spill or contamination at the site, the
site would have to be cleaned up in conformance with the
City and State standards.
The federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
requires industries licensed for storage, use, and disposal
of hazardous materials to prepare emergency action plans to
be followed in the case of an accidental release of
hazardous substances.
WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HORIZON 2000 GENERAL PLAN
POLICIES AS WELL AS THE CITY'S HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ORDINANCE
AND RCRA REQUIREMENTS, IMPACTS FROM HAZARDOUS MATERIALS WILL _
BE REDUCED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL.
ENERGY
EXISTING SETTING
Future development on the site will be required to comply
with California Administrative Code, Title 24, Energy
Conservation Standards for new construction. New
residential structures must comply with these State
standards unless 100 percent of the required energy needs
are supplied by non - depletable energy sources.
The City's Horizon 2000 General Plan goal for energy is to
"foster development which, by its location and design,
reduces the need for non - renewable energy resources."
Energy policies applicable to the proposed project include
promoting development in areas served by public transit and
other existing services and encouraging location of higher
residential densities in areas served by transportation
routes and close to employment centers. As an in -fill
location, the project is consistent with energy policies and
goals of San Jose's General Plan.
3 -47
SJCR41 /311.50
IMPACTS
Proposed Project and the Alternative to the Proposed Project
Construction of the proposed residential units and other
structures will result in the short -term consumption of non-
renewable energy, primarily vehicle fuel. Project occupancy
will require an ongoing commitment of electricity and
natural gas for appliance use, lighting, heating, and
cooling. The project will be required to comply with
Title 24, State guidelines regarding energy conservation,
thereby minimizing overall energy consumption. In addition,
General Plan Energy Policy 1 recommends promoting the
location of higher residential densities in areas served by
public transit and close to major employment centers. The
proposed project conforms to this policy.
The Proposed Project would not result in significant
impacts.
MITIGATION
Proposed Project and the Alternative to the Proposed Project
As mentioned above, State Title 24 requirements will serve
to reduce the potential energy consumption.of the project.
In addition, policies of the Horizon 2000 General Plan state
that the energy efficiency of new development should be
considered when development review decisions are made.
Specific techniques presented in the General Plan (Energy
Policy 4) include provisions for solar access, siting
structures to maximize natural heating and cooling, and the
use of landscaping to aid passive cooling, protection from
prevailing winds, and allowing solar access.
NO MITIGATION IS REQUIRED.
3 -48
SJCR41 /311.50
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. /70c)
MEETING DATE: 9/20/89
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planning
AGENDA ITEM _7��
CITY MGR. APPROVA
SUBJECT: Review of Draft EIR prepared for the E1 Paseo de Saratoga
General Plan Amendment
--------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council discuss
concerns
compiled
addition,
attend the
emphasize
raised in this report as well as other Council issues to be
in a letter responding to the adequacy of the DEIR. In
the City Council may wish to designate a representative to
October 11th San Jose Planning Commission meeting to verbally
Saratoga's concerns.
Report Summary: Recently staff received copies of a Draft EIR from the
City of San Jose prepared for major changes to the E1 Paseo Shopping
Center. The project involves amending the San Jose General Plan to
allow reconstruction of the center into a research and development
complex and multi - family residential housing. Staff and the Planning
Commission will complete our review at the September 19th study session.
On a preliminary basis, both staff and the Planning Commission conclude
that this project will have far reaching impact on Saratoga; therefore,
concerns regarding this initial document should be transmitted to the
City of San Jose for response. Staff's concerns are primarily in the
area of traffic and Route 85, air quality, aesthetics and hazardous
materials.
Fiscal Impacts: None
Attachments:
Motion and Vote
1. Memo from Planning Director dated 9/20/89
2. Administrative Summary of DEIR
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ' ( J
MEETING DATE: 9/20/89
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planning
7
AGENDA ITEM J
CITY MGR. APPROVA�� _itt& /,rt —
SUBJECT: Review of Draft EIR prepared for the E1 Paseo de Saratoga
General Plan Amendment
Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council discuss
concerns
compiled
addition,
attend the
emphasize
raised in this report as well as other Council issues to be
in a letter responding to the adequacy of the DEIR. In
the City Council may wish to designate a representative to
October 11th San Jose Planning Commission meeting to verbally
Saratoga's concerns.
Report Summary: Recently staff received copies of a Draft EIR from the
City of San Jose prepared for major changes to the E1 Paseo Shopping
Center. The project involves amending the San Jose General Plan to
allow reconstruction of the center into a research and development
complex and multi- family residential housing. Staff and the Planning
Commission will complete our review at the September 19th study session.
On a preliminary basis, both staff and the Planning Commission conclude
that this project will have far reaching impact on Saratoga; therefore,
concerns regarding this initial document should be transmitted to the
City of San Jose for response. Staff's concerns are primarily in the
area of traffic and Route 85, air quality, aesthetics and hazardous
materials.
Fiscal Impacts: None
Attachments:
Motion and Vote
1. Memo from Planning Director dated 9/20/89
2. Administrative Summary of DEIR
1 'S
(0�uw Qq 0&TaZ1XQ)(5&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council DATE: 9/20/89
FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Review of Draft EIR prepared for the El Paseo de Saratoga
General Plan Amendment
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OVERVIEW
The City of San Jose is circulating a draft EIR for a proposed
General Plan amendment to convert the El Paseo shopping center
to a research and development park and multi- family residential
development. The City of Saratoga has the opportunity to provide
comments during the 45 day review period.
The deadline for response is September 27, 1989, so the Planning
Commission has also begun its review of this document. The DEIR was
distributed to the Planning Commission on September 9th, and will be
formally discussed at the Committee -of- the -Whole meeting on
September 19th. In addition to written comments, oral testimony
will be accepted on October 11, 1989.
PROPOSED PROJECT
The Draft EIR reviews the proposed project, one million square feet
of administrative office /research and development on the 20 acre
site. Additionally, the EIR reviews a project alternative which
involves construction of 600,000 sq. ft. of research and development
on 15 acres and 200 multi - family units on 5 acres. The project
involves razing the site except for the market, theater, one
restaurant and the banks.
The purpose of the General Plan amendment, according to the DEIR, is
to provide a major employment base in the largely residential west
San Jose area. The purpose of the project stated in the DEIR is to
include the high density residential development to address the
housing /jobs imbalance in an attempt to reduce traffic congestion.
However, staff questions this goal when the project has the
potential to dramatically increase traffic for Saratoga especially
after Route 85 is constructed.
TCCTTFR
Staff's review of the DEIR indicates several areas of concern
1
ogu,f 02 0&MZUQ)(5Z
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -:3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council DATE: 9/20/89
FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Review of Draft EIR prepared for the El Paseo de Saratoga
General Plan Amendment
-------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
OVERVIEW
The City of San Jose is circulating a draft EIR for a proposed
General Plan amendment to convert the E1 Paseo shopping center
to a research and development park and multi - family residential
development. The City of Saratoga has the opportunity to provide
comments during the 45 day review period.
The deadline for response is September 27, 1989, so the Planning
Commission has also begun its review of this document. The DEIR was
distributed to the Planning Commission on September 9th, and will be
formally discussed at the Committee -of- the -Whole meeting on
September 19th. In addition to written comments, oral testimony
will be accepted on October 11, 1989.
PROPOSED PROJECT
The Draft EIR reviews the proposed project, one million square feet
of administrative office /research and development on the 20 acre
site. Additionally, the EIR reviews a project alternative which
involves construction of 600,000 sq. ft. of research and development
on 15 acres and 200 multi - family units on 5 acres. The project
involves razing the site except for the market, theater, one
restaurant and the banks.
The purpose of the General Plan amendment, according to the DEIR, is
to provide a major employment base in the largely residential west
San Jose area. The purpose of the project stated in the DEIR is to
include the high density residential development to address the
housing /jobs imbalance in an attempt to reduce traffic congestion.
However, staff questions this goal when the project has the
potential to dramatically increase traffic for Saratoga especially
after Route 85 is constructed.
ISSUES
Staff's review of the DEIR indicates several areas of concern
1
including traffic and Route 85, air quality, aesthetics, and
hazardous materials. Staff has copied excerpts from the DEIR
related to these issues. Specific concerns are as follows:
Traffic and Route 85: The Saratoga Avenue interchange will be a
major route taken by employees of the office park. Since the
existing use is retail, vehicle trips per day are spread throughout
the day. When an office use is proposed most traffic occurs at peak
a.m. and p.m. hours. While the DEIR concludes that traffic impacts
will not be significant, staff is concerned that the proposal will
not only increase traffic at peak hours but will also increase
traffic volumes compared to the current use.
The DEIR concludes that traffic will not be significant by using a
computer model to project future traffic. The computer model was
developed by San Jose for use in preparing traffic and circulation
policies of its General Plan.
As the Council is aware, Saratoga has completed several traffic and
intersection studies recently. In addition Caltrans and the Traffic
Authority have traffic data relative to the Route 85 interchange.
Staff feels that the EIR will be inadequate unless these studies
are referenced in any conclusion reached by the DEIR.
Air Quality: With the recent completion of the Paul Masson EIR,
projected air quality calculations are available. The air quality
data indicates that after the construction of Route 85, there will
be higher levels of air pollution at the intersection of Saratoga
Avenue and Cox Avenue.
Because the DEIR does not refer to specific locations where
projected air quality impacts were measured, staff is unable to
discern this proposal's effect on Saratoga air quality. Moreover,
the DEIR concludes that the project will not increase air pollutants
to levels considered to be significant, a conclusion seemingly in
conflict with the analysis completed in the Masson EIR.
Aesthetics: The proposal will result in multi -story office and
residential structures which will greatly impact the northeastern
entrance to the City. Staff is concerned that the DEIR does not
mention the site's proximity to Saratoga nor does it mention
techniques to be used to lessen its impact on the surrounding
residential neighborhoods.
Hazardous Materials: The proposed research park will use hazardous
materials which could result in contamination of the air, ground,
surface water and groundwater. While the DEIR discusses the
possibility of on -site contamination or fire, staff feels a
discussion of transportation routes is appropriate, since Route 85
will not be available to transport hazardous materials. Staff's
general concern is that alternative routes through or adjacent to
Saratoga will be used to transport hazardous material to and from
the site.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council discuss
this report as well as other Council issues to
letter responding to the adequacy of the DEIR.
Council may wish to designate a representative
11th San Jose Planning Commission meeting to
Saratoga's concerns.
Step en Ems!'
Planning Di ector
SE /KH4
3
concerns raised in
be compiled into a
In addition, the
to attend the October
verbally emphasize
CITY OF SAN JOSE, CAUFORNIA
OEPAIRTMENT OF CITY PLANNING
1301 NORTI -I FIRST STREET
SAN JOSE. CA 95110-179'3
DATE: August 14, 1989
REFERENCE: File No. GP 89 -01 -002
The enclosed Draft Environmental Impact Report will have a public
hearing before the Planning Commission to determine the environmental
significance of the project described below. Any. comments or suggestions
you can make to assist us in adequately addressing all anticipated
environmental effects of this project will be greatly appreciated.
If you wish to have your comments or suggestions regarding this
Environmental Impact Report considered by the Planning Commission,
please have them on file in the City Planning Department by Se tember 27 19
IF YOUR COMMENTS ARE MADE THROUGH A STATE OR REGIONAL CLEARI
SEND A COPY TO THE CITY TO INSURE PROMPT CONSIDERATION.
NATURE OF PROJECT The oroject consists of a General Plan Amendment request to
chanqe the Land Use /Transportation Diagram from Regional Commercial to Administrative
Office /Research and Development on 20 acres located on the southeast corner of Saratoga
Avenue and Campbell Avenue.
CONTACT PERSON Irum Shiekh
TENTATIVE HEARING DATE October 11, 1989
GARY J. SCHOENNAUER
Director of Planning
ty
Mail Comments To:
City Planning Department
801 N. First Street
City Hall Annex, Room 400
San Jose, CA. 95110
Attn: (See above Contact Person)
2102L
REV. 7/87
CITY OF SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING
601 NORTH FIRST STREET
SAN JOSE. CA 85110-1795
Tentative Hearing Date:
October 11, 1989
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SUMMARY
File No. GP go_ni_on?
Project Description and Location.
Draft Environmental Impact Report for a General Plan Amendment request to
change the Land Use/Transportation Diagram from Regional Commercial to
Administrative Office /Research and Development on 20 acres located on the
southeast corner of Saratoga Avenue and Campbell Avenue.
Environmental Impact. The following are the principal environmental impacts
iscussea in the attached Environmental Impact Report:
o Land Use
o Geology, Soils and Seismic Hazards
o Biota
o Flood Hazards and Drainage
o Archaeology and Historical Resources
o Aesthetic
o Traffic
o Noise
o Air Quality
o Municipal Services
o Hazardous Materials
o Energy
r �
REV. 8/86
W
CONTENTS
Paste
Summary
S -1
1
Project Description
1 -1
2
Local Plans and Policies
2 -1
3
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
3 -1
Regional and Local Setting
3 -1
Land Use
3 -2
Geology, Soils, and Seismic Hazards
3 -6
Biota
3 -8
Flood Hazards and Drainage
3 -9
Archaeology and Historic Resources
3 -10
Aesthetics
3 -11
Traffic
3 -12
Noise
3 -29
Air Quality
3 -33
Municipal Services
3 -37
Hazardous Materials
3 -44
Energy
3 -47
4
Alternatives
4 -1
5
Cumulative Impacts
5 -1
6
Any Significant Environmental Effects Which
6 -1
Cannot be Avoided if the Project is Implemented
7
Growth Inducing Impacts
7 -1
8
The Relationship Between Local Short -Term Uses
8 -1
of the Environment and the Maintenance and
Enhancement of Long -Term Productivity
9
Any Significant Irreversible Environmental
9 -1
Changes Which Would be Involved in the
Proposed Action, Should it be Implemented
SJCR41 /311.50
SFO27825.AA
ii
CONTENTS (continued)
Page
Appendix
A.
Authors and
Consultants
Appendix
B.
Persons and
Organizations Consulted
Appendix
C.
Sources and
References
Appendix
D.
Traffic Report
Appendix
E.
Noise Report
City Council Districts - Traffic Study Area
Appendix
F.
Air Quality
Report
Appendix
G.
Archaeology
Report
TABLES
3 -1 Summary of Road Segment Analysis 3 -19
3 -2 Existing Site and Project Auto Emissions 3 -35
FIGURES
1 -1
Regional Map
1 -2
1 -2
Vicinity Map
1 -3
1 -3
Existing Land Uses
1 -4
1 -4
Proposed Land Use Designation (Proposed Project)
1 -6
1 -5
Proposed Land Use Designation (Alternative to the
1 -7
Project)
3 -1
City Council Districts - Traffic Study Area
3 -14
3 -2
Proposed Project - Traffic Impacts
3 -22
3 -3
Alternative to the Proposed Project - Traffic
Impacts
3 -25
3 -4
Cumulative Traffic Impacts
3 -27
SJCR41 /311.50
SFO27825.AA
H
SUMMARY
The proposed project is a General Plan amendment to change
the Land Use /Transportation Diagram of the Horizon 2000
General Plan designation from Regional Commercial to
Administrative Office /Research & Development on 20 acres of
the 32 -acre E1 Paseo de Saratoga Shopping Center site,
located on the southeast corner of Saratoga Avenue and
Campbell Avenue. The developer has proposed a Proposed
Project and an Alternative.to the Proposed Project for the
site, which are evaluated in equal detail. For purposes of
this EIR analysis, the Proposed Project assumes construction
of 1 million square feet of Administrative Office /Research &
Development on approximately 20 acres. The analysis of the
Alternative to the Proposed Project (the Alternative)
assumes construction of 600,000 square feet of
Administrative Office /Research & Development on
approximately 15 acres, and 200 dwelling units on the
remaining approximately 5 acres.
Uses to be removed from the site would consist of most of
the retail shops that make up the E1 Paseo de Saratoga
Shopping Center. Existing uses to remain on the site would
include some retail shops, a theater, two financial
institutions, a market, and a restaurant. Other uses around
the amendment site include Regional, General, and
Neighborhood /community Commercial to the south, north, and
northwest, Public /Quasi - Public to the northeast, and Multi -
Family Residential to the south and southeast.
The project is proposed by the McCandless Development
Corporation. The developer's objective in proposing this
project is to provide a major employment center in West
San Jose, thereby easing the city -wide jobs /housing
imbalance. The multi - family housing component of the
Alternative proposal would address the jobs /housing
imbalance.
This EIR discusses the potential environmental effects
associated with residential and industrial development of
the site, as well as measures that would mitigate the
effects. The impacts of the Proposed Project and the
S -1
SJCR41 /311.50
Alternative are qualitatively compared to the potential
impacts associated at the site under the existing Regional
Commercial designation. Therefore, as in all General Plan
amendments, the impacts are compared to the Horizon 2000
base case and not as if the site was vacant. The EIR
discusses the general effects of these types of development
as they relate to traffic, established General Plan
policies, surrounding land uses, public services, noise, air
quality, hazardous materials, geology, flooding, and
cultural resources. Further discretionary approvals that
would be required for development include a planned
development rezoning, tentative map, and a Planned
Development (PD) permit.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH CAN
BE REDUCED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
Impacts
LAND USE
Proposed Project and the
Alternative
The proposed office and research
and development uses have the
potential to be incompatible with
surrounding land uses.
GEOLOGY. SOILS, SEISMIC HAZARDS
Proposed Project and the
Alternative
The Proposed Project and the
Alternative would be subject to
ground shaking in the event of an
earthquake.
SJCR41 /311.50
Mitigation
Implementation of General Plan
policies (Urban Design policies 1,
2, 6, 7, 8, 11, 15, and 18).
Balanced Community (policy 1) and
the Industrial and Residential
Guidelines will apply strong
architectural and site design
controls on the project and
mitigate its potential impacts.
POTENTIAL LAND USE IMPACTS CAN BE
REDUCED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
LEVEL.
Horizon 2000 General Plan policies
require geotechnical studies to be
prepared for development proposals
(Soils and Geotechnical policies 1
and 6). This will ensure that
site specific structural
requirements necessary to reduce
those hazards are included in
building designs. Conformance
with applicable building codes and
General Plan policies will
mitigate the project's
geotechnical impacts (Earthquake
policies 1 and 5).
S -2
Impacts
BIOTA
Proposed Project and the
Alternative
The project site is primarily
covered by structures and
pavement. No rare or endangered
plant or animal species are known
to exist on the site. Onsite
vegetation, including several
ordinance -size trees, would be
removed.
ARCHAEOLOGY
Proposed Project and The
Alternative
A slight potential ex
buried early historic
prehistoric resources
located on the site.
Mitigation
GEOTECHNICAL IMPACTS WILL BE
MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT LEVEL.
Loss of vegetation would be
mitigated by adherence to the
Urban Design policies of the
General Plan (policies 8 and 15)
and the Archaeological and
Cultural Resources policy
(policy 10) to protect any
Heritage trees.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO
BIOTA CAN BE REDUCED TO A LESS
THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL WITH
IMPLEMENTATION OF GENERAL PLAN
POLICIES.
In the event that native American
ists for burials are encountered during
or construction, General Plan
to be policies require that activity
cease, and an archaeologist be
consulted to determine appropriate
mitigation (policy 9).
AESTHETICS
Proposed Project and the
Alternative
Redevelopment of the site could
alter the existing visual
character by introducing larger
buildings and more intense
development patterns.
SJCR41 /311.50
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT
ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACTS CAN BE
REDUCED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
LEVEL WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES.
The Industrial and Residential
Design Guidelines and the General
Plan Urban Design policies (1, 2,
6, 7, 8, 9, 11,15, and 18) would
mitigate the visual impacts of the
project.
POTENTIAL AESTHETIC IMPACTS CAN
BEf REDUCED TO A LESS THAN
SI NIFICANT LEVEL.
S -3
Impacts
NOISE
Proposed Project and the
Alternative
Under the Proposed Project and the
Alternative, potentially
significant noise impacts could
occur to the proposed residential
development and to the adjacent
residential subdivision along
Elmwood Drive from mechanical
equipment on roofs of buildings.
During periods of construction,
temporary noise increases could
impact the adjacent residential
uses.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Proposed Project and the
Alternative
Storage, use, and disposal of
small amounts of hazardous
materials could be associated with
some land uses allowed by this
designation and could result in a
potentially significant impact if
there were a leak or spill.
Mitigation
Implementation of General Plan
Noise policies (l, 2, and 11) will
ensure that noise impacts are
mitigated to a less than
significant level.
Implementation of General Plan
Noise policy 8 will ensure that
construction noise impacts are
reduced to a less than significant
level.
POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTS CAN BE
REDUCED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
LEVEL WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES.
The General Plan policies
regarding the use, storage,
transport, and disposal of
hazardous materials would mitigate
the potential hazardous impacts of
the proposed project (Hazardous
Materials policy 1).
POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
IMPACTS CAN BE REDUCED TO A LESS
THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL.
IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
Imvacts
FLOOD HAZARDS
Proposed Project and the
Alternative
According to FEMA, the site is not
subject to the 100 -year flood.
The site is level and does not
appear to have any drainage
constraints.
SJCR41 /311.50
Mitigation
NO MITIGATION NECESSARY.
S -4
Impacts
TRAFFIC
Proposed Project and the
Alternative
Under the Proposed Project and the
Alternative, traffic volumes and
level of service in the study area
(Districts 1, 6, and 9) are not
significantly impacted. Near -term
impacts would be potentially
significant.
Mitigation
In the long -term, traffic impacts
are not significant.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN
SERVICES AND FACILITIES POLICIES 2
AND 5, AND TRANSPORTATION
POLICIES 3, 7, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26
WILL MITIGATE POTENTIAL NEAR TERM
IMPACTS AT THE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
STAGE.
AIR QUALITY
Proposed Project and the NO MITIGATION NECESSARY.
Alternative
Air quality impacts from the
Proposed Project and the
Alternative are not significant.
MUNICIPAL SERVICES
Proposed Project and the
Alternative
Police and Fire Protection.
Development of the Proposed
Project and the Alternative would
result in an incremental increase
in police and fire protection
demand. The impact would not be
significant.
Sanitary and Storm Sewer. The
Proposed Project and the
Alternative would not create a
significant impact to the existing
sanitary and storm sewer systems.
Water. The Proposed Project and
the Alternative would not have a
significant impact on the existing
water resources. Existing on -site
water lines may have to be
relocated depending upon new
building orientation.
S -5
SJCR41 /311.50
NO MITIGATION NECESSARY.
NO MITIGATION NECESSARY.
NO MITIGATION NECESSARY.
Impacts Mitigation
Schools. The Proposed Project and
Alternative will not produce
significant impact.
Parks. Under the Proposed
Project, there is no park impact.
The Alternative would result in an
incremental increase. This would
not produce a significant impact.
ENERGY
Proposed Project and the
Alternative
Construction of the proposed
project will result in the short -
term consumption of non - renewable
energy, primarily vehicle fuel.
Project occupancy will require an
ongoing commitment of electricity
and natural gas.
SJCR41 /311.50
Levying impact fees on residential
developments to fund schools, will
provide the necessary school
facilities and mitigate potential
impacts to a less than significant
level.
NO MITIGATION NECESSARY.
The Parkland Dedication Ordinance
allows payment of in -lieu fees or
dedication of land to mitigate the
need for parks and open space.
NO MITIGATION NECESSARY.
NO MITIGATION NECESSARY.
S -6
Section 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The developer has proposed a Proposed Project and an
Alternative (the Alternative) to the Proposed Project as a
part of this General Plan amendment. The Proposed Project
is a request to change the Land Use /Transportation Diagram
from Regional Commercial to Administrative Office /Research
and Development on 20 acres of the 32 -acre E1 Paseo
de Saratoga Shopping Center site. The Alternative to the
Project is a request to change the Land Use /Transportation
Diagram from Regional Commercial to Administrative
Office /Research and Development on 15 acres of the E1 Paseo
site and Very High Density Residential (25 -40 DU /AC) on
5 acres of the site.
A. PROPOSED PROJECT
The Proposed Project consists of an amendment to the City of
San Jose's General Plan Land Use /Transportation Diagram for
a 20 -acre portion of the E1 Paseo Shopping Center located on
the southeast corner of Saratoga Avenue and Campbell Avenue.
The amendment site is shown on Figures 1 -1 and 1 -2. The
proposed amendment would change the land use designation of
this site from Regional Commercial to Administrative Office/
Research and Development (AO /RD).
Existing uses on the amendment site include retail shops,
restaurants, offices, and financial institutions as shown in
Figure 1 -3. No change in the existing Regional Commercial
designation is proposed for the remaining 12 acres of the
E1 Paseo Shopping Center site.
The proposed amendment would allow removal of the existing
uses and redevelopment of the site with administrative
office and research and development uses. Development of a
specific project would require rezoning and other approvals
that would determine the exact physical characteristics of
the development. For purposes of this General Plan
amendment analysis, it was assumed that the 20 -acre
amendment site would develop with approximately 1 million
square feet of administrative office and research and
1 -1
SJCfl41 /311.50
1.6
I.1
0 2.2
`a'°r I 2 +tr
S
r
to -A lara j ' a."'° 9 ,Y 1.4 s �: •a 4 .4 .4 .6.
8
G2
a
° Agnew
rya•+
1.3
�d•
.7 ,�.7?
7 '4� 1 2
.eJ ' • 1 ' 1.4 l.1 G21
'8 4 1.6
�
ou raver d urg0- •
>
!� t�• 1`5 `s .4
7
7 ruu
+°
�4 cf 1 w
cou4ar 2
1�1 I.rwrw
L03
r,
.r, �,r �.,
6
2.1
g �r o�
,7
♦pM
8
I t
t! /
iArwas Q 81.8
.,I. .
rte•
° �a a
1.5 c•u4ws�
3
an+`
��
,
r�sw+ '
1
1
40 -, -•
I
IdrM %
Alrst44
raw ►u .2
w
E
wa 4 1.7
;. �' -
1.6
_
1.2 5
as sr .
e[[0
►,
1 1.3
4
1SAw 1.9 t 1
a
��yal4
.7
AQWWS
1.6
4
G4
►
5
y \,wASreArAt
.3
3 r,
2
4 Vs
s
s
5 .vr.
9y
1.6
I.1
0 2.2
`a'°r I 2 +tr
S
r
to -A lara j ' a."'° 9 ,Y 1.4 s �: •a 4 .4 .4 .6.
8
G2
a
° Agnew
rya•+
1.3
�d•
.7 ,�.7?
7 '4� 1 2
.eJ ' • 1 ' 1.4 l.1 G21
'8 4 1.6
�
4% w ,r.r, l .2
"OY
>
!� t�• 1`5 `s .4
7
7 ruu
+°
�4 cf 1 w
cou4ar 2
1�1 I.rwrw
r,wwarrs •
a jai
1 .8 u
+ 7�t
p $ `
6
2.1
g �r o�
3`
2 -
♦pM
8
I t
a
9
a
e
2
.,I. .
9
.6
1
1.5
`fir
an+`
'•01.2 31v
.7 ' 1.2
r�sw+ '
RR3
7 4r
1
5 ; ZO l.le4
f
i >:
1.2
>? c
1.2 ,S' � 0
1.7
G6
wa 4 1.7
101 1.3
1.6
6 8
1.2 5
as sr .
e[[0
►,
1 1.3
4
1SAw 1.9 t 1
a
��yal4
.7
8
1.7
►
5
y \,wASreArAt
.3
3 r,
4 Vs
s
s
5 .vr.
:26
n es
r
W PEAL
.6
• uwrM►
nsa. , A
.7 , 1.2
•� a
.9
5
.7 8 ►
♦ ti\ �o Qr
�wr� ar .2 G 10 w
1.2.5 aMewei
6
4 IiiJ
Los
NO SCALE • •Gatos =
El Paseo de Saratoga
General Plan Amendment 1989
Sounq: AM maps
E VRML 1.6
1. a
SAM i p,
i D � 1 ''Alrwrw
Mra 1.5 7 ' 1{ 1 5JlweNr,rw Dww 1.7 - 1.5 j l[aaaA
I
EL ow wu ��• ,e 1.8����or 8
3.3 • +� Art
am 1
•
FIGURE 1 -1
REGIONAL MAP
_� ^JIFl/I.11l l
I.1
.9
I.5
S
r
to -A lara j ' a."'° 9 ,Y 1.4 s �: •a 4 .4 .4 .6.
g
1.2
.7 ,�.7?
7 '4� 1 2
.eJ ' • 1 ' 1.4 l.1 G21
'8 4 1.6
.5
f
s.w .we sr.re .4
~ ~
_
nnrestEAO 1.8
l�'
a
• 4 +ueo• I
' 1.5 8
8
cup -no
3`
2 -
1.3 s
= u
3
E 9 n ,.
� *r s �
0 'BSan Jose
ro .
i�a�� 4 ♦ � wu
I.1 + ..osr . AQw
i8.ai�
n m ;
,
1 4• 8
5
W. I sue CAtaos
,
7 8 1.5 8
4 +►' a �'+ j 4
a 1.8
CRM
3
art
3 .S
i >:
.3
1.2 ,S' � 0
5
t5
wa 4 1.7
►re.
a Y
1.4
d
1.6
200 I.5 r
i
r
1.9
1.7 u co •
1.4
��yal4
i♦
i 1.S
G8 1.5� ++ .4
rwarweTl.9
w Avg
A
I
Ara
1.4 nwera„s J. 'c+
1.8 \ 1.6
1.8
2
4a 3
: .6Pj11��
. -�..
.8
f\I
w are t w
n
w
1.2
a� .4
1.5
1.5 1.1 AX9.
j0
1 „[.
•r,,,.
9
i
G4
17 2 1.2 '
s .71 .4
,+L Aa colors
ssa a
ew,rA,ewwr
AR 4 4► •'
wean=
p'
4 7 1 yri0•t•�
8
• 1 S B
1.6
' 1-
war •
1.8 .7 ; I
7
AaAwr
2.5
.4
1.8
rcai4oe
etc+ At
9 Cr... ,1 Y
•R 1.4
1.4
C2 lar
�wr� ar .2 G 10 w
1.2.5 aMewei
6
4 IiiJ
Los
NO SCALE • •Gatos =
El Paseo de Saratoga
General Plan Amendment 1989
Sounq: AM maps
E VRML 1.6
1. a
SAM i p,
i D � 1 ''Alrwrw
Mra 1.5 7 ' 1{ 1 5JlweNr,rw Dww 1.7 - 1.5 j l[aaaA
I
EL ow wu ��• ,e 1.8����or 8
3.3 • +� Art
am 1
•
FIGURE 1 -1
REGIONAL MAP
_� ^JIFl/I.11l l
R ". tell >) sa.w
w.
..
e� •_ -� NCI! a.e. A .a. tt... • -� � —
LINI _ a a � � `Yr oY _— _ - Utt M• ar� J
77 _ a ...w a e — - _r.
- o •rte /� _
w. y
a x va
wlaYa LL i� .� /S � + �•!
a as
e a ar , : � y
■q 51 t� a -fir ' G rLi
_ �p tp.. � a ■0. � i o � al 5 �I � f� i .I � t ""1' r
t
:I p : ■
!,�— �' °,moo•, � � .a s .._ " ' �i 11 ' � ° ��
� / d7 � � � . l• ] � � i i I � . �.i� � .NY
' = p /�;� � , B �� � �"�4� . � • o�a�_a•z+e<.ac, . a'a c �a alst t� � ..,.�� ,�,.,� i�w 7ilj"tH
ul
T M
cc
SITE
t I��
rl ...�.�, �r4 t AP a 1 a iQ
our : 'jw.. a $ia`' ♦ A! wr i r 'I -r
film r Q L
S a
f VV HAMILTON AVE
PROSPECT RD: - I M 1—
.� la -!!
a
waY�1 �� .a 1a fr / / ♦� � � � t .I
-_ `` I / �•ii a �a i 1 y''� ` *�.W CAM_ PBELL AVE, .. I d ,G ,� , 3i
�_ ^� Al `� 7�'� ° ,'•` t L.►CL
i .�.�.^c+u � �•i•,� r �� f. •:.� n _r nMe .o . C � . • i ;�J•t181 .�.. .d , c.tnr
a :r� ZilMa�";lR�
atl
a rr.r.r.. .. il• ?.=". aMw/ i N s,rl alt 114 al Lrse
YV
NO SCALE
El Paseo de Saratoga
General Plan Amendrrent•1989
Soures:AAA maps
FIGURE 1 -2
VICINITY MAP
—�— /'mm um
'O 27825.AA
COMMERCIAL "
a
QUITO ROAD''t..
BANK+
SINGLE
FAMILY a
RESIDENCES ► >; MARKET
R E TA I L�
SINGLE
FAMIY
RESIDENCES
THEATER` RESTAURANT
OFFICE
S I N G L
FAMILY .',,..
RESIDENCES -
`t MULTI — FAMILY
MULTI RESIDENCES
FAMILY
RESIDENCES .
8FO 27825.AA
'- COMMERCIAL
9
GAS,.'•
STATION
j
fi
J
WESTGATE
MALL
ill SITE
4
NO SCALE
FIGURE 1 -3
EXISTING SITE AND'
ADJACENT LAND USES
/%sm Lm f
development uses. The approximate Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
for this development assumption would be 1.15. It is
assumed that none of the structures would exceed the 45 -foot
height limit. Development of this type would likely be
three stories. It is assumed that some or all of the
required parking for the AO /RD uses would be provided in a
parking structure located adjacent to the amendment site on
the portion of the E1 Paseo Shopping Center site to remain
Regional Commercial.
Specific plans have not yet been developed for the project.
However, the applicant intends to increase the size of the
existing theater and market and construct a parking garage
on the portion of the site that is designated Regional
Commercial, which is not part of this General Plan
Amendment. Figure 1 -4 shows the site and land use proposed.
B. ALTERNATIVE TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The Alternative to the Project is not included in the
General Plan amendment proposal, but is analyzed as an
alternative land use for the site in conformance with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). This alternative is analyzed at the same level of
detail as the Proposed Project and in a parallel format to
facilitate comparison.
See Section 5 for a discussion of the "No Project ", "Other
Location ", and other "Land Use" alternatives.
This Alternative to the Project assumes that approximately
15 acres of the 20 -acre General Plan amendment site will
develop with 600,000 square feet of uses permitted under the
AO /RD designation. It also assumes that approximately
5 acres of the E1 Paseo Shopping Center site would develop
with 200 residential units, under the designation of Very
High Density Residential (25 to 40 DU /AC). Figure 1 -5 shows
the site and land use assumptions of the Alternative to the
Project. The Alternative would result in FAR of .92 for the
AO /RD development and a residential density of 40 dwelling
units per acre. Administrative Offices /Research and
Development with FAR of .92 would likely result in three -
story buildings with surface parking. Residential
1 -5
SJCR41 /311.50
%� �'i
`-
development at 40 units to the acre would consist of three -
story walk -up units over depressed parking.
C. OBJECTIVE OF THE PROJECT
The amendment is proposed for several purposes. The project
is located in West San Jose (City Council District 1), which
is largely residential and has no major employment centers.
The proposed amendment and Alternative would allow AO /RD
uses in a part of the City in which the Horizon 2000 Plan
does not now allow such uses. By locating 'a major
employment center in West San Jose, shorter travel distances
between home and work would be encouraged, easing the
citywide and regional jobs /housing imbalance. Additionally,
multi - family housing would be provided, while allowing the
continuation of some of the existing retail uses of the site
(theater, market, restaurant, etc.).
D. USES OF THE EIR
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be used to
provide the environmental review for the proposed General
Plan Amendment. It is the intent of this EIR to provide the
City of San Jose and the general public with relevant
environmental information to use in considering the approval
or denial of the proposed General Plan amendment request.
Subsequent environmental review will be required for
rezoning and other required approvals. This Environmental
Impact Report will be instrumental in identifying the issues
and scope for this subsequent environmental review.
1 -8
SJCB41/311.50
Section 2
LOCAL PLANS AND POLICIES
HORIZON 2000 GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
Following is a discussion of the General Plan policies
pertaining to the Proposed Project and the Alternative to
the Proposed Project. This discussion determines
conformance with relevant policies and also identifies the
policies that would be implemented at the development stage
to mitigate the project's impacts.
URBAN CONSERVATION
The following policy will serve to mitigate the potential
impacts of the Proposed Project and the Alternative:
2. The City should encourage new development which
enhances the desirable qualities of the community and
existing neighborhoods.
NEIGHBORHOOD IDENTITY
The sense of neighborhood identity in San Jose will be
enhanced, and the land use change under both the Proposed
Project and the Alternative will be mitigated by the
following policy:
3. Public and private development should be designed to
improve the character of existing neighborhoods.
Factors that cause instability or create urban barriers
should be discouraged or removed.
BALANCED COMUNITY
In providing a mix of land uses, including employment
generating uses in a predominately residential area, the
Proposed Project and the Alternative are consistent with the
following policies:
1. The City should foster development patterns which will
achieve a whole and complete community in San Jose,
2 -1
SJCR41 /311.50
particularly with respect to a balance between jobs and
economic development on the one hand, and housing
resources and a resident work force on the other.
2. Varied residential densities, housing types and styles
should be equitably and appropriately distributed
throughout the community and integrated with
transportation systems.
3. Encouragement should be given to achieving a social,
economic and housing mix in all neighborhoods.
Consistency
The Proposed Project and the Alternative are consistent with
the Balanced Community policies because the project offers
jobs in an area of San Jose that is mostly residential and
provides multi - family housing (in the Alternative) which
achieve a social, economic, and housing mix.
RESIDENTIAL LAND USE
A variety of residential use proposed for the site in the
Alternative is consistent with the following policies:
1. Residential development at urban densities should be
located only where services and facilities can be
provided.
3. Higher residential densities should be distributed
throughout the community. Locations near commercial
and financial centers, employment centers, the light
rail transit stations and along bus transit.routes are
preferable for higher density housing.
The following policies will help to ensure that the
potential impacts of the alternative land use changes are
mitigated:
11. Residential developments should be designed to include
adequate open spaces in either private yards or common
areas to partially provide for residents' open space
and recreation needs.
2 -2
SJCE41 /311.50
15. Residential development should be designed with limited
access to arterial streets as follows:
o No direct frontage or access on six-lane arterials
or within 350 feet of the intersection of two
arterials.
o Direct frontage or access elsewhere on four -lane
arterials should be strongly discouraged.
The use of frontage roads, corner lots, open -end cul-
de -sacs or other street design solutions for access is
encouraged.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
In creating employment in San Jose, and particularly in an
area of the city that is jobs- deficient, the Proposed _
Project and the Alternative are consistent with the
following policy:
1• The City should overcome the present imbalance between
housing and employment by seeking to obtain and
maintain a balance between jobs and workers residing in
San Jose.
Consistency
The Proposed Project and the Alternative are consistent with
the Economic Development policy by providing housing and
jobs within San Jose.
URBAN SERVICE AREA
Since the project site is located within the Urban Service
Area, the Proposed Project and the Alternative are
consistent with the following policy:
1• The General Plan designates an Urban Service Area where
services and facilities provided by the City and other
public agencies are generally available, and where
2 -3
SJC&41/311.50
urban development requiring such services should be
located.
Consistency
The Proposed Project and the Alternative are consistent with
the Urban Service Area policy by being within the Urban
Service Area and having the ability to provide the needed
services to the site.
URBAN DESIGN
Implementation of the following policies during the
development review process would mitigate potential impacts
associated with the development of both the Proposed Project
and the Alternative:
1. The City should continue to apply strong architecture
and site design controls on all types of development
for the protection and development of neighborhood
character, and for the proper transition between areas
with different types of land uses.
2. Zoning regulation should
that private development
open space and provision
maintenance.
require, wherever appropriate,
include adequate landscaped
for ongoing landscape
6. Proposed structures adjacent to existing residential
areas should be architecturally designed and sited to
protect the privacy of existing residences.
7. The City should require the undergrounding of
distribution utility lines serving new development
sites as well as proposed redevelopment sites. The
City should also encourage programs for undergrounding
existing overhead distribution lines. Overhead lines
providing electrical power to light rail transit
vehicles and high tension electrical transmission lines
are exempt from this policy.
2 -4
SJCR41 /311.50
8. Design solutions should be considered in the
development review process which address security,
aesthetics, and public safety.
10. High -rise residential development, other than senior
citizens housing and high density housing in North
San Jose, should be permitted only in the Downtown Core
Area and the Downtown Frame Area. Where appropriate,
high -rise development for senior citizens housing may
be permitted in areas outside the Downtown. In North
San Jose, high density housing should not exceed
60 feet in height. Otherwise, residential development
outside the Downtown Frame should not exceed 45 feet in
height.
11.
High -rise development for office and other non-
residential development should not exceed 45 feet in
height except for those
Plan.
areas listed in the General
18. To the extent feasible, sound attenuation for
development along city streets should be accomplished
through the use of landscaping, setback and building
design rather than the use of sound attenuation walls.
Where sound attenuation walls are deemed necessary,
landscaping and an aesthetically pleasing design shall
be used to minimize visual impact.
HOUSING
By including a large -scale multi - family residential
component, the Alternative is consistent with the following
policy:
1. The City encourages a variety and mix in housing types
to provide adequate choices for housing to persons of
all income levels in San Jose. Where appropriate,
implementation of this policy in large -scale
development projects should be considered.
2 -5
SJCH41 /311.50
Consistency
The Alternative is consistent with the Housing policy by
providing multi - family residential units in a predominantly
single - family residential neighborhood.
SERVICES AND FACILITIES
Listed below are the critical infrastructure systems'
policies with which the Proposed Project and the Alternative
are consistent and the other service and facilities policies
that will mitigate the potential impacts of the project.
Sanitary sewer and water line improvements needed to serve
the site under both the Proposed Project and the Alternative
would be the responsibility of the project developer, in
conformance with the following policy:
2. Capital and facility needs generated by new development
should be financed by new development. The existing
community should not be burdened by increased taxes or
by lowered service levels to accommodate the needs
created by new growth. The City Council may provide a
system whereby funds for capital and facility needs may
be advanced and later repaid by the affected property
owners.
Construction of City- identified road improvements, if
required, by the developer, will make both the Proposed
Project and the Alternative consistent with the following
policy:
5. The minimum overall performance of City streets during
peak travel periods should be level of service D.
o Development proposals should be reviewed for their
measurable impacts on the level of service and
should be required to provide appropriate
mitigation measures if they have the potential to
reduce the level of service to E or worse.
o. To strengthen the neighborhood preservation
strategy and objectives of the Plan, the City
2 -6
SJCR41 1311.50
Council may adopt a Council Policy which
establishes alternate mitigation measures for
projects whose required traffic mitigation would
result in a substantial adverse impact on an
affected neighborhood.
(This policy is not entirely quoted here, as it
does not entirely apply to this project. See
page 55 of the Horizon 2000 General Plan for the
other portions of policy 5.)
With the mitigation of sanitary sewer line improvements to
be provided by the developer, both the Proposed Project and
the Alternative would comply with the level of service
listed below:
6. The minimum performance standard for sanitary sewer
lines should be level of service D, defined as
restricted sewage flow during peak flow conditions.
Development which will have the potential to reduce the
downstream level of service to worse than D, or
development which would be served by downstream lines
already operating at a level of service worse than D,
should be required to provide mitigation measures to
improve the level of service to D or better. In
recognition of the substantial non -sewer benefits of
infill development, small infill projects may be
exempted from sewer mitigation requirements.
The following policies mitigate the potential impacts of
both the Proposed Project and the Alternative:
7. The City should monitor and regulate growth so that the
cumulative sewage treatment demand of all development
can be accommodated by San Jose's share of the
treatment capacity of the San Jose /Santa Clara Water
Pollution Control Plant.
18. The City should cooperate with school districts in
identifying and evaluating the impacts of population
and demographic changes which may affect the need for
new schools, may lead to school closures, may require
the re- opening of closed schools or may lead to the
2 -7
SJCR41 /311.50
decision that existing school sites should be preserved
for meeting future needs.
19. In reviewing development proposals, the City should
consider the availability of police and fire
protection, parks and recreation, and library services
to the Proposed Project, as well as the potential
impacts of the project on existing service levels.
TRANSPORTATION
The following policies will mitigate impacts associated with
the Proposed Project and the Alternative:
3. Public street right -of -way dedication and improvements
should be required as development occurs. Ultimate
thoroughfare right -of -way should be no less than the
dimensions as shown on the Land Use /Transportation
Diagram except when a lesser right -of -way will avoid
significant social, neighborhood, or environmental
impacts and perform the same traffic movement function.
7. The traffic impacts on regional transportation
facilities should be taken into consideration when
reviewing major General Plan Land Use Diagram
amendments.
19. The City should continue its participation in
interjurisdictional approaches, such as the Golden
Triangle Task Force, to develop and implement
appropriate techniques to improve the regional
transportation system.
23. Adequate off - street parking should be required in
conjunction with all future developments. The adequacy
and appropriateness of parking requirements in the
zoning code should be periodically reevaluated.
24. Public parking facilities should be located and
designed in order to maximize the number of'land use
activities which can utilize the facility and to
maximize utilization which can occur throughout the
2 -8
SJCR41 1311.50
24 hour day. Joint use parking facilities should also
be encouraged in private developments.
25. Reserved parking for the handicapped should be
allocated at all public off - street parking sites.
26. Multiple occupancy vehicles should be afforded such
incentives as preferred parking space location and
reduced parking fees.
HISTORIC, ARCHAEOLOGICAL, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
The following policies serve as mitigation measures for the
Proposed Project and the Alternative, should any unexpected
archaeological resources be discovered on the site:
8. For proposed development sites which have been
identified as archaeologically sensitive, the City
should require investigation during the planning
process in order to determine whether valuable
archaeological remains may be affected by the project
and should also require that appropriate mitigation
measures be incorporated into the project design.
9. Recognizing that Native American burials may be
encountered at unexpected locations, the City should
impose a requirement on all development permits and -
tentative subdivision maps that upon discovery of such
burials during construction, development activity will
cease until professional archaeological examination and
reburial in an appropriate manner is accomplished.
PARKS-AND RECREATION
The proximity of the residential area proposed for the
Alternative to Baker Park, Hathaway Park, and Saratoga Creek
Park meets the criterion of being within reasonable walking
distance, as discussed in the following policy:
1• The City should consider as an objective the provision
of a neighborhood or district park within reasonable
walking distance for each resident. That portion of a
city -wide or regional park which provides recreational
2 -9
SJCR41 1311.50
accessibility for nearby residents in the same manner
as a neighborhood park should be considered as meeting
this objective.
The review process described in the policy below would
mitigate the potential impacts of the Alternative by
promoting development of recreational resources on the
project site:
3. Through the development review process, private open
space and recreation facilities should be fostered in
high density residential developments in order to meet
a portion of the open space and recreation needs that
will be generated by that development.
WATER RESOURCES
Since the site is within a developed area of the city, both
the Proposed Project and the Alternative are consistent with
the following policy:
4. The City should not permit urban development to occur
in areas not served by a sanitary sewer system.
Consistency
The Proposed Project and the Alternative are consistent with
the Water Resources policy because the area is already
served by a sanitary sewer system.
AIR QUALITY
The following policy mitigates the incremental increase in
air pollutants resulting from the Proposed Project and the
Alternative:
1. The City should take into consideration the cumulative
air quality impacts from proposed developments and
should establish and enforce appropriate land use and
regulations to reduce air pollution.
2 -10
SJCR41 /311.50
ENERGY
Because the Proposed Project and the Alternative are located
in an area served by public transit, and the Alternative
proposes residential and industrial uses to reduce commuting
in a predominantly single - family residential neighborhood,
this amendment is consistent with the following policies:
1. The City should promote development in areas served by
public transit and other existing services. Higher
residential densities should be encouraged to locate in
areas served by primary public transit routes and close
to major employment centers.
2. Land use decisions should consider the proximity of
industrial and commercial uses to major residential
areas in order to reduce the energy used for commuting.
The following policy would mitigate the impacts of the
Proposed Project and the Alternative:
4. The energy efficiency of proposed new development
should be considered when land use and development
review decisions are made. The City's design
techniques include provisions for solar access, for
siting structures to maximize natural heating and
cooling, and for landscaping to aid passive cooling
protection from prevailing winds and maximum year -round
solar access.
SOILS AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The following policies mitigate the potential seismic
hazards of the Proposed Project and the Alternative:
1. The City should require soils and geologic review of
development proposals to assess such hazards as
potential seismic hazards, surface ruptures,
liquefaction, landsliding, mudsliding, erosion, and
sedimentation in order to determine if these hazards
can be adequately mitigated.
2 -11
SJCR41/311.50
6. Development in areas subject to soils and geologic
hazards should incorporate adequate mitigation
measures.
EARTHQUAKES
The following policy would mitigate the seismic hazards for
the Proposed Project and the Alternative:
1. The City should require that all new buildings be
designed and constructed to resist stresses produced by
earthquakes.
NOISE
The City's General Plan Noise policies protect the Proposed
Project and the Alternative users and the surrounding area
from excessive noise levels. The following policies would
mitigate the potential impacts of the Proposed Project and
the Alternative to the Proposed Project:
1. The City's acceptable noise level objectives are 55 Ldn
as the long -range exterior noise quality level, 60 Ldn
as the short -range exterior noise quality level, 45 Ldn
as the interior noise quality level, and 76 Ldn as the
maximum exterior noise level necessary to avoid
significant adverse health effects. These objectives
are established for the City, recognizing that the
attainment of exterior noise quality levels in the
environs of the San Jose International Airport and in
the Downtown Core Area will probably not be achieved in
the timeframe of this Plan. To achieve the noise
objectives, the City should require appropriate site
and building design, building construction and noise
attenuation techniques in new residential development.
8. The City should discourage the use of outdoor
appliances, air conditioners, and other consumer
products which generate noise levels in excess of the
City's exterior noise level standards.
9. Construction operations should use available noise
suppression devices and techniques.
2 -12
SJC841 /311.50
11. When located adjacent to existing or planned noise
sensitive residential and public /quasi - public land
uses, non - residential land uses should mitigate noise
generation to meet the 55 Ldn standard at the property
line.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Hazardous materials goals and policies protect City
residents from the risks inherent in the transport,
distribution, use and storage of hazardous materials,
recognizing that the use of these materials is integral to
many aspects of society.
The following policy will mitigate the potential impacts of
the Proposed Project and the Alternative:
1. The City should require proper storage and disposal of
hazardous materials to prevent leakage, potential
explosions, fires, or the escape of harmful gases, and
to prevent individually innocuous materials from
combining to form hazardous substances, especially at
the time of disposal.
INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
Recognizing that the design of the community affects the
quality of life, the character of neighborhoods, and the
overall livability of the city, the City of San Jose has
established the Industrial Design Review Guidelines and the
Residential Guidelines. The intent of the Guidelines is to
avoid the creation of nuisance and hazards, such as noise
and traffic, for adjacent properties.
Compatibility of industrial uses with residential uses is
met by:
o Setbacks
o Height limitations
o Placement of less intense uses near residential
o Compatible design with residential
2 -13
SJCB41/311.50
o Restricting height of landscaping to maintain
light access into residential backyards
The potential impacts of the Proposed Project and the
Alternative would be mitigated by policies in the Industrial
and Residential Guidelines.
BAY AREA AIR QUALITY PLAN
The project is within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The BAAQMD, with the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), developed an
Air Quality Plan that is part of the State Implementation
Plan for California. The Plan describes the Bay Area's air
quality problems and a series of air pollution emission
reduction programs including: stationary source control
measures, motor vehicle inspection and maintenance, and
transportation control measures. The potential air quality
impacts of the Proposed Project and the Alternative would be
mitigated by the Plan's policies.
2 -14
SJC &411311.50
Section 3
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION
REGIONAL AND LOCAL SETTING
The project site is located in the City of San Jose which is
near the southern end of the San Francisco Bay in Santa
Clara County. San Jose is bounded by the Diablo Mountain
Range to the east, the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west, and
the San Francisco Bay to the north.
The project site is the E1 Paseo de Saratoga Shopping Center
located on the western edge of San Jose at the southeast
intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Campbell Avenue. The
approximate 20 -acre site is bounded by Saratoga Avenue and
Quito Road on the west; Campbell Avenue on the east; and a
landscaped berm to the south that separates the project from
the residences on Elmwood Drive (Figure 1 -2). Westgate
Shopping Center is located north of the site across Campbell
Avenue.
The site is designated Regional Commercial in the Horizon
2000 General Plan and is zoned C -3. The site is located
within a large commercial node that occupies the entire
Saratoga Avenue - Campbell Avenue intersection. Adjacent and
to the south of the site is a neighborhood of primarily
single - family residential subdivisions developed at
densities of approximately 8 dwelling units per acre. There
are three small apartment blocks, designated Very High
Density Residential (25 to 40 DU /AC), on Campbell Avenue and
Northlawn Drive northeast of the site.
Baker Park and Baker Elementary School are located in the
vicinity of the site. Castro Middle School is located east
of the site across Campbell Avenue.
Access to the site is provided by Quito Road, Saratoga Road,
and Campbell Avenue.
This amendment proposal addresses approximately 20 acres of
the 32 -acre E1 Paseo de Saratoga Shopping Center site and is
referred to in this EIR as the amendment site. The
3 -1
SJCR411311.50
remaining 12 acres will stay Regional Commercial and will be
redeveloped along with the 20 acres of the site.
EXISTING LAND USES, GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The existing land uses on the approximate 20 -acre amendment
site are commercial. A restaurant (8,000 gross square
feet), a financial institution (5,800 gross square feet), an
office block (30,000 gross square feet), and retail space
(approximately 80,000 gross square feet) are located within
the 20 -acre site. Within the remaining shopping center,
there are numerous retail stores, a Lucky's Grocery Store,
and a movie theater (Figure 1 -3). These latter uses are not
part of this General Plan amendment.
A 15 -foot high landscaped berm separates the shopping center
from the residential neighborhood to the south of the site.
The berm completely screens the residences from the shopping
center and restricts pedestrian movement between the two
uses.
Land uses around the site include regional, general, and
neighborhood /community commercial, residential, public open
space, and public /quasi - public.
The adjacent commercial uses occur to the north and west of
the site at the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Campbell
Avenue. These uses include the Westgate Mall and a variety
of office buildings and miscellaneous commercial uses.
Public uses in the vicinity of the site include Castro
Middle School, Baker Elementary School and Baker Park. The
school sites are designated Public /Quasi - Public and the Park
is designated Public Open Space.
IMPACTS
Impacts of the Proposed Project and the Alternative are
compared to the Horizon 2000 General Plan and not to the
existing uses on the site. Therefore, this EIR analysis
evaluates the amendment and the Alternative to what would be
3 -2
SJCR41 /311.50
expected on the site in the year 2000 under a Regional
Commercial designation.
Proposed Project
The proposed amendment to the Land Use and Transportation
Diagram for the redevelopment of E1 Paseo Shopping Center
would change approximately 20 acres presently designated as
Regional Commercial to allow 1 million square feet of AO/RD-
The zoning classification of the redesignated area will have
to be changed from C -3 to a Planned Development Zoning.
Land Use Compatibility. This amendment is proposing to
intensify the land use by assuming to construct large
buildings as well as increasing the number of employees.
Although a similar intensification could also occur under
the existing General Plan designation, such intensification
could result in potential land use incompatibility. The
amendment would also incrementally increase traffic, noise, _
and visual impacts which are analyzed in separate sections
in this document. Following is a discussion of the
intensification of the land use under the Proposed Project
and the Alternative to the Proposed Project.
Intensification of the Site. Redevelopment of the site
according to the proposed amendment would result in an
intensification of use on the property in terms of traffic,
population, and developed area. Traffic impacts, although
not considered significant, would have a slightly negative
impact over the existing traffic condition. The total
increase in number of employees (over Horizon 2000 buildout)
on the site would be 2,700, which contributes to the
intensification of the site.
The intensification of the developed area on the site under
the Proposed Project can also be measured using the floor
area ratio (FAR). The floor area ratio is defined as the
relationship between the gross area of permitted floor space
in a building and the area of the lot on which the building
is situated. It is calculated by dividing the total gross
square feet in the building by the total gross square feet
of the lot. FAR applies to non - residential development.
The current FAR of E1 Paseo de Saratoga Shopping Center is
3 -3
SJCR41 /311.50
approximately 0.58. The City of San Jose does not set a
maximum FAR for the Regional Commercial designation and,
therefore, it is conceivable that the FAR under the current
designation could be greater than 0.58, if approved. The
FAR of the Proposed Project is 1.15. By comparison, the FAR
of recently constructed AO /RD projects in San Jose have been
approximately 0.60.
Conformance to the General Plan Policies. The project area
is within the City of San Jose and, as discussed in the
Municipal Services section, no expansion of utilities to the
site would be required. The Proposed Project is compatible
with the Industrial and Economic policies by offering jobs
in a residential area. The site is bordered by General
Commercial to the northwest, Neighborhood /Community
Commercial to the west, and Medium (8 DU /AC) and Very High
Density (25 to 40 DU /AC) Residential to the northeast and
south. In concept, the proposed AO /RD designation would be
in conformance with the surrounding uses.
The Alternative to the Proposed Project
The Alternative would change 15 acres presently designated
as Regional Commercial to allow 600,000 square feet of
AO /RD. The other 5 acres would be designated as Very High
Density Residential (25 -40 DU /AC) to allow approximately
200 dwelling units.
Land Use Compatibility. The Alternative is compatible to
the surrounding area in that it provides residential
development in an area that is largely residential. Under
the existing General Plan, the site could become
incompatible from a land use standpoint if developed at a
maximum. The development of 600,000 square feet of AO /RD on
15 acres could also result in potential land use
incompatibility. Following is a discussion of the
intensification of the site and conformance to the General
Plan policies.
Intensification of the Site. Redevelopment of the site
under the Alternative could result in intensification of the
site similar to the potential buildout of the Regional
Commercial designation. The FAR of the Alternative would be
3 -4
SJCB41 /311.50
about 0.92. The FAR under the Proposed Project would be
1.15.
The development of the multi - family residential component of
the project in a predominantly single - family residential
neighborhood would conform with the General Plan Residential
policy. The residential use will contribute to the
intensity of the site, however, the incorporation of open
space, setbacks, and placement of structures will mitigate
any significant impacts associated with the residential and,
industrial interface at the project level.
Conformance to the General Plan Policies. The Alternative
would be consistent with a number of the General Plan's
policies. The proposed project would be consistent with
policies stating that varied residential types and densities
be distributed throughout the community, and that higher
residential densities be located near commercial, financial,
and employment centers. The General Plan also states that
the City should promote development patterns that achieve a
balance between jobs and economic development, and housing
resources and a resident work force.
In conclusion, under the Proposed Project and the r
Alternative, redevelopment of the site could alter the
visual character and land use of the site by introducing
large buildings and potentially intense development
patterns. This would create incompatible land use and
intensification of the land use which would result in
potentially significant impacts.
MITIGATION
Proposed Project
The City's development review approval process will serve to
implement policies of the General Plan relating to Urban
Conservation (policy 2), Neighborhood Identity (policy 3),
Urban Design (policies 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 18), and
Balanced Community (policy 1). During the development
approval process, the City will review proposals to ensure
that new development enhances or improves the quality of
existing neighborhoods.
3 -5
SJCR41 /311.50
During the development review process, the proposed
project's potential land use impacts will be reduced to a
less than significant level with implementation of General
Plan policies stated above.
The site's AO /RD designation has the potential to impact
adjacent residential areas more than commercial areas.
However, the residential areas will be protected from the
project's impacts by implementation of the Urban Design
policies of the General Plan as discussed in Chapter 3.
THE MORE INTENSIVE AO /RD USE WOULD BE MADE COMPATIBLE WITH
THE ADJACENT, LESS INTENSIVE RESIDENTIAL USE BY IMPLEMENTING
THE INDUSTRIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES AND THE URBAN DESIGN
POLICIES. POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WOULD BE REDUCED TO
A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL.
The Alternative to the Proposed Project
Mitigation of the Alternative is the same as the Proposed
Project with the addition of the policies addressing Housing
(policy 1), Balanced Community (policy 3), and Residential
Land Use (policies 1, 3, 11, and 15) and implementation of
the Residential Design Guidelines.
THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF AO /RD AND RESIDENTIAL USE WOULD BE
MADE COMPATIBLE WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE POLICIES
STATED ABOVE. POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WOULD BE
REDUCED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL.
GEOLOGY, SOILS. AND SEISMIC HAZARDS
EXISTING SETTING
Geology and Soils
The site is situated on the alluvial plain of the Santa
Clara Valley. The valley is adjacent to the Diablo Range
foothills on the east and lies south of the flat marshlands
of the San Francisco Bay. The project area lies
approximately 1/2 mile southeast of the Saratoga Creek.
3 -6
SJCR41 /311.50
Topographically, the E1 Paseo de Saratoga study area is
relatively flat, with an elevation of 240 to 260 feet above
sea level.("
Seismic Hazards
The San Francisco Bay Area has a high level of seismic
activity. There are three major active faults in the region
that are most significantly associated with this phenomenon:
the San Andreas fault, located about 5 1/2 miles southwest
of the E1 Paseo de Saratoga project area; the Hayward fault,
about 12 1/2 miles to the northeast of the project area; and
the Calaveras fault, about 15 miles from the site, also to
the northeast."
The greatest potential for surface rupture is along these
three faults, none of which passes through the project area.
The E1 Paseo de Saratoga area is not located within the
City's Geologic Hazard Zone. (31 Available data from the San
Jose City Public Works Department indicate that there are no
notable potential geologic hazards concerning ground
rupture, slope stability, or erosion in the project area.
As is common on alluvial soils, there is a random
distribution of weak, expansive soils in the project area.
During severe earthquakes, soils of this type are subject to
liquefaction, a potentially disastrous condition in which
the ground temporarily loses its strength. Based on a
preliminary geology and soils study done by the City in the
area, the site is located in a zone with moderately high
potential for liquefaction, and moderately low and low
potential for vertical and horizontal ground failure,
respectively. (41
IMPACTS
Proposed Project and the Alternative to the Proposed Project
Due to its location in a seismically active region, severe
shaking and other seismic hazards can be expected to affect
development resulting from this proposed amendment. The
liquefaction potential of the site is classified as
moderately high. The geologic hazards associated with the
3 -7
SJCR411311.50
Proposed Project constitute a potentially significant
impact.
MITIGATION
Proposed Project and the Alternative to the Proposed Project
Geologic hazards associated with residential and industrial
development of this site would be mitigated through
implementation of the following General Plan policies:
Soils and Geologic Conditions (policies 1 and 6) and
Earthquakes (policies 1 and 5).
WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE POLICIES ADDRESSING SOILS,
GEOLOGIC, AND EARTHQUAKE CONDITIONS DURING THE DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW PROCESS, POTENTIAL IMPACTS WOULD BE REDUCED TO A LESS
THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL.
BIOTA
EXISTING SETTING
The project site is primarily covered by structures and
pavement. The vegetation that exists onsite is concentrated
in designated areas throughout the parking lot and the
shopping complex. Formally planted areas generally contain
trees and shrubs, and /or annuals. The most common trees
found onsite are Coast Live Oak ( uercus agrifolia) and
Western Sycamore (Platanus racemosa).
A 10- to 15 -foot high vegetated berm separates the shopping
complex from an adjacent residential neighborhood. This
berm is planted with shrubs (privet, oleander, ivy,
pyracantha, manzanita, bottlebrush) and trees. Bird habitat
is likely to be provided by the berm for the following
species that have adapted to urban areas: House finches,
Brewer's blackbirds, Mourning doves, Starlings and Robins.
No rare or endangered plant or animal species are known to
exist on the site.
Kf:3
SJCR41/311.50
IMPACTS
Proposed Project and the Alternative to the Proposed Project
Future development of the site has the potential to impact
the existing trees and vegetation including several
ordinance -size trees. This would result in potentially
significant impacts.
MITIGATION
Proposed Project and the Alternative to the Proposed Project
At the time a specific development is proposed for the site,
a tree survey will be required to determine project impacts.
Replacement landscaping will be required to mitigate the
loss of trees to be removed. Implementation at the
development review stage of Historic, Archaeological and
Cultural Resources (policy 10, specifying that Heritage
Trees are to be protected) would mitigate impacts relative
to the potential Heritage Tree to a non - significant level.
Implementation of Urban Design (policy 8) would ensure
adequate street trees offer aesthetic relief.
WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ABOVE REFERENCED GENERAL PLAN
POLICIES, POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WOULD BE REDUCED TO
A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL.
FLOOD HAZARDS AND DRAINAGE
EXISTING SETTING
The closest waterway, the Saratoga Creek, is approximately
1/2 mile from the E1 Paseo de Saratoga study area. The site
is not subject to the 100 -year flood, according to FEMA
documentation. The project area is essentially level and
does not appear to have any drainage constraints.
�Mj
SJCR41/311.50
IMPACTS
Proposed Project and the Alternative to the Proposed Project
No significant flooding or drainage impacts are anticipated
as a result of this general plan amendment.
MITIGATION
Proposed Project and the Alternative to the Proposed Project
NO MITIGATION IS NECESSARY FOR THIS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT.
ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
EXISTING SETTING
The site was the subject of a literature search, as
described in the archaeological consultant's report,
Appendix G. The site is presently occupied by buildings,
paving, or landscaped areas. The archival research did not
reveal the presence of any known or inspected prehistoric
deposits within the general area. No excavations took place
at this time.
The site is considered to have only a slight potential for
containing early historic or prehistoric resources. The
site is not near any features, such as Saratoga Creek, which
would indicate a higher sensitivity.
IMPACTS
Proposed Project and the Alternative to the Proposed Project
If any cultural resources are present, they would be located
underground and could be disturbed or destroyed by project
excavation. Because the site is an existing developed site,
if there are cultural resources onsite, they may have
already been disturbed.
The proposed amendment would result in potentially
significant impacts if there are resources onsite.
3 -10
SJCR41/311.50
MITIGATION
Proposed Project and the Alternative to the Proposed Project
Potential impacts would be mitigated by the General Plan
Aesthetic, Cultural and Recreation Resource policy (9) which
requires that activities be halted until a professional
archaeologist is consulted, and mitigation measures
developed, if cultural resources are encountered during
project development.
WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF AESTHETIC, CULTURAL AND RECREATION
RESOURCE POLICIES, POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WOULD BE
REDUCED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL.
AESTHETICS
EXISTING SETTING
The project site is currently occupied by the E1 Paseo de
Saratoga Shopping Center. The shopping center is primarily
single story and constructed in a contemporary Mission style
that utilizes stucco, heavy timbers, and tile roofs.
Several two story buildings are found near the middle of the
shopping center. The character of the site and adjacent
land uses is that of a fully built -out urban area. The
recently renovated Westgate Shopping Center is located north
of the site across Campbell Avenue. Retail and office uses
are located west of the site. A single - family residential
area is located to the south and separated from the E1 Paseo
de Saratoga shopping center by 10 -to 15 -foot high landscaped
berm. Vegetation on the berm consists of mature shrubs and
trees.
No unique visual resources exist on the site, nor is the
site located within a sensitive viewshed.
3 -11
SJCR41 /311.50
IMPACTS
Proposed Project and the Alternative to the Proposed Project
Redevelopment of the site in conformance with the proposed
land use designation could alter the existing visual
character of the site by introducing larger buildings and
more intense development patterns than currently exist on
the site. This intensification of the land would result in
potentially significant impacts.
MITIGATION
Proposed Project and the Alternative to the Proposed Project
The City's Industrial and Residential Design Guidelines, as
well as the Zoning Ordinance and the Urban Design Policies
(policies 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 15 and 18) of the Horizon
2000 General Plan, will ensure that new development and
adjacent existing uses are compatible. Features such as
density, setbacks, orientation, landscaping and overall
aesthetics will be reviewed as part of the development
approval.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN URBAN DESIGN POLICIES
WILL REDUCE POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT AESTHETIC IMPACTS TO A
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL.
TRAFFIC
This section summarizes the far -term traffic analysis of the
proposed General Plan Amendment for the E1 Paseo de Saratoga
site. The complete analysis is included as Appendix D.
SETTING
Existing Conditions
The 20 -acre Amendment site is currently occupied by the
E1 Paseo de Saratoga Shopping Center, located at the
southeast corner of the Saratoga Avenue /Campbell Avenue
intersection. Figure 1 -2 shows the site location and
3 -12
SJCR41 /311.50
surrounding roadway system. The study area for the traffic
analysis includes the City Council district containing the
project site, District 1, and two adjoining districts,
Districts 6 and 9, shown in Figure 3 -1. The study area is
roughly bounded by Steven's Creek Boulevard on the north,
Almaden Expressway on the east, and the City limits on the
south and west.
Existing Road System
Regional access to the site is provided by Interstate 280
(I -280) via interchanges at Lawrence Expressway and Saratoga
Avenue. Construction of State Route 85 (SR -85) and its
interchange at Saratoga Avenue is expected to be completed
in late 1992. This new facility is expected to attract some
of the traffic that currently uses I -280, and will
noticeably reduce traffic volumes on Lawrence Expressway and
Saratoga Avenue north of the site.
On freeway and expressway facilities near the project site,
peak direction traffic flows are currently at or near
capacity in the evening peak period. On I -280, Lawrence
Expressway and San Tomas Expressway, the peak commute
direction is southbound. A preliminary analysis of SR -85
indicates that its new capacity will significantly relieve
congestion that currently occurs on the existing freeway and
expressways. -
Local access to the site is provided by Hamilton Avenue.
Campbell Avenue, Prospect Road, Saratoga Avenue, and Quito
Road. These local roadways connect the site with the
surrounding neighborhoods, and provide connections to
regional facilities.
3 -13
SJCR41/311.50
San Jose City Council Districts
4�
4-`
5'
,
r
' � 8
1
9-
10,
*",n
NO SCALE FIGURE 3 -1
STUDY AREA
DISTRICTS 1,6,9
sFO 27981.AA.CC
Existing peak direction traffic flows are near the limit of
acceptable operations (LOS D) at five intersections on
Saratoga Avenue (see Table D -1 in Appendix D). The
intersecting streets are: Campbell Avenue, Payne Avenue,
Doyle Road, Williams Road, and Moorpark Avenue. Southbound
traffic in the evening peak period traveling from I -280 to
neighborhoods near the project site.is the major source of
existing traffic volumes. Two intersections are currently
at or near capacity: Hamilton /San Tomas (LOS E) and
Bucknall /Quito (LOS F). Other intersections near the site
operate at LOS D or better (see Appendix D for detailed
analysis).
Adopted General Plan Conditions for Year 2000
The existing E1 Paseo regional shopping center occupies a
site with a total area of 32 acres. The center includes
retail stores, a movie theatre, a grocery store, an office
block, banks, and restaurants. The 20 -acre portion of the
site that is under study in this report contains some of the
retail space, the office block, a bank, and a restaurant
(see Figure 1 -3). The 1988 Adopted General Plan would
retain the existing land use, and is referred to as the Base
Case.
IMPACTS
Far -Term Traffic Analysis Methodology
This section compares the expected year 2000 traffic
conditions for the Adopted General Plan use (base case) with
the two alternative land use proposals. The comparison is
based solely on output from the City of San Jose traffic
model. As such, it is not intended to be a detailed
forecast of future conditions. Instead, it is intended to
provide an analysis of the possible redevelopment scenarios
relative to the Adopted General Plan conditions.
The City of San Jose traffic model is a computerized
"gravity" model, operated with the TRANPLAN software system
(see Appendix D for further explanation of TRANPLAN). Using
travel survey data and statistical methods, the model
3 -15
SJCR41 /311.50
translates population and employment data into vehicle
traffic volumes. By varying the land use inputs for the
E1 Paseo site, the model is able to estimate the traffic
impacts of the two land use proposals.
The purpose of this section is to explain and summarize the
traffic model output. Since the City's TRANPLAN computer
model simulates traffic flows in the evening peak hour, all
analyses presented pertain to the evening peak.
The traffic forecast model predicts PM peak hour traffic
volumes and Average Travel Speeds on each segment of the
modeled roadway system. Since the model also has the length
of each of these segments, it can report Vehicle Miles
Traveled and Vehicle Hours Traveled. By calculating the
ratio of the forecast traffic volume to the capacity of each
segment, the model can report average levels of service.
Finally, the levels of service are used to develop the
Transportation System Performance Values. The findings are
summarized as a Traffic Impact Summary. The following five
criteria form the basis of the analysis reported herein:
o Average Travel Speeds
o Vehicle Miles Traveled
o Vehicle Hours Traveled
o Transportation System Performance Values
o Traffic Impact Summary
The traffic model separates roadways into nine facility
types. For the purpose of this report, these facility types
have been aggregated into three categories. The first
category includes all freeways and freeway ramps; the second
category includes expressways; and the third category
includes highways, arterials, collectors, and local streets.
Base Case
The base of comparison for the alternatives' analysis is the
1988 Adopted General Plan of the City of San Jose. This
report assumes that the E1 Paseo center would be at its
current size in year 2000, as a basis of comparison of the
alternatives. The 1988 General Plan also indicates expected
future land use for all other parcels within City limits.
3 -16
SJC841 1311.50
The land use was used to estimate traffic generation
characteristics, and to simulate peak hour traffic volumes.
Land use forecasts from the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC) are used for areas outside the City. The
two sources provide information regarding land use and
planned transportation facilities that serve as the basis
for calculating pertinent items for the City of San Jose
traffic model:
1. Expected year 2000 traffic volumes, within and
outside of the City limits.
2. The future road system assumptions near the
project site.
For the E1 Paseo site, an important future road network
assumption is construction of State Route 85 with an
interchange at Saratoga Avenue. The proposed interchange is
located about 1 1/4 miles southwest of the E1 Paseo site.
When compared to the 2 1/4 miles distance to the I -280/
Saratoga Avenue interchange, it is expected that a
considerable amount of the freeway -bound traffic from the
project vicinity would use SR -85 instead of I -280.
Each road included in the traffic model was assigned a
capacity, or maximum theoretical traffic volume, based on
the number of traffic lanes and the relative amount of
traffic on cross streets. When the expected future volumes
are less than 90 percent of that capacity, expected traffic
operations are not significantly congested. When the
expected volume exceeds 90 percent of the capacity of a
given road segment, congestion would be expected.
Traffic volumes on roadways near the site are generally
within 90 percent of the capacities, indicating that the
future road system can accommodate expected growth. On
nearby freeways and expressways, southbound volumes are near
90 percent of capacity on virtually all facilities in the
evening peak hour. Completion of SR -85 is expected to
relieve the traffic demand on I -280, allowing better
operations than currently exist.
3 -17
SJC &41 /311.50
Proposed Amendment
The proposed Amendment assumes replacement of a large
portion of the existing shopping center with 1 million
square feet of Administrative Office /Research and
Development (AO /RD) uses. The total number of employees at
the site would increase by approximately 2,700 employees
under the proposed Amendment. (See Table D -3 in Appendix D
for employment and population assumptions.) The number of
vehicle trips generated at the site would increase by
approximately 770 trips in the evening peak period in year
2000.
The City's computer model was used to simulate traffic
conditions near the project vicinity, and to forecast
significant changes in traffic volumes or in overall level
of service.
Description of Traffic Impact Summary Categories. In
theory, a proposed major amendment to the San Jose General
Plan would either cause traffic congestion to become better
or worse in comparison to the base case represented by the
existing General Plan. In reality, proposed amendments tend
to negatively impact some areas of the roadway network and
also positively benefit other segments of the same network.
Furthermore, the base case, as represented by the existing
General Plan, has numerous street segments with capacity
deficiencies. Therefore, the long -range traffic impacts of
a proposed General Plan amendment in comparison to the
existing San Jose General Plan can be organized into five
basic categories of impact: 1) major beneficial impact,
2) minor decrease in congestion, 3) no traffic impact,
4) minor increase in congestion, and 5) major negative
impact.
The traffic impact summary table (Table 3 -1) presents a
listing of the street segments which fall into categories 1,
2, 4, and 5. All other street segments are not considered
to be impacted by the proposed General Plan amendment to a
significant degree. The technical definitions used to
prepare the traffic impact summary table are as follows.
3 -18
SJCR41/311.50
Table 3 -1
TRAFFIC IMPACT SUMMARY
PM PEAK HOUR
otes:
(1) Dir = Direction: NB a Northbound, SB = Southbound, EB = Eastbound, WB = Westbound
(2) Condition:
Major Negative Impact -
Bass Case demand < 902 of capacity and Amendment demand > or i 902 of capacity.
Minor Increase in Congestion -
Base Case and Amendment demand >902 of capacity and Base Case < Amendment demand.
+ + : Major Beneficial Impact -
Amendment demand < 902 of capacity and Base Case demand > or - 902 of capacity.
+ : Minor Decrease in Congestion -
Base Case and Amendment demand >90% of capacity and Amendment < Base Case demand.
(3) DW = Driveway
SJCR44/608.50
-
Condition (2) -- - - - - --
Facility
Proposed
Alternative
Street Name
---- ---- - - - ---
Type
Segment
Dir(1)
Amendm't
Amendment Cumulative
State Route 85
- -- - - - --
Fwy
- ------ --- - --
Union to Camden
-- - - --
SB
--- - ----
+
-- ------- -- ---- ---- --
_ +
At Bascom ramps
SB
- + +
I -280 to Almaden
SB
+
State Route 87
Fwy
I -280 to Almaden
SB
-
+
Interstate 280
Fwy
Lincoln to Bird
SB
+
+ +
Bird to Guadalupe
SB
+
Almaden Expwy
Expwy
At SR -85 ramps
SB
At SR -85 ramps
NB
+ +
+ +
85 SB ramps to Blossom Hill
SB
+
+
Lincoln to Koch
SB
+
- +
Koch to Foxworthy
SB
+
- -
Foxworthy to Capitol
SB
Lawrence Expwy
Expwy
Cox to McCoy
SB
+
+
San Tomas Expwy
Expwy
Steven's Creek to I -280
SB
-
- -
I -280 to Williams
SB
-
At I -880 SB ramps
SB
-
Bascom Avenue
Street
Between I -880 ramps
SB
- -
Naglee to Stevens Creek
SB
+
+ _
Between I -280 ramps
SB
+ +
+ + + +
Curtner Avenue
Street
At Guadalupe SB ramps
EB
-
-
Stone to Vista Park
WB
-
Meridian Avenue
Street
At Southwest Expressway
SB
- -
Willow to Minnesota
SB
- -
Park Avenue
Street
I -880 to Hedding
SB
+
+
Quito Road
Street
Cox to McCoy
SB
+
Saratoga Avenue
Street
Site DW to Campbell Ave
SB
-
+ +
Moorpark to I -280 ramps
SB
+
+
Between I -280 ramps
SB
-
+
Site DW to Lawrence
SB
- + +
Stevens Creek B1
Street
At I -880 SB ramps
EB
-
- -
Winchester Blvd
Street
I -280 NB ramps to Olsten
SB
- -
otes:
(1) Dir = Direction: NB a Northbound, SB = Southbound, EB = Eastbound, WB = Westbound
(2) Condition:
Major Negative Impact -
Bass Case demand < 902 of capacity and Amendment demand > or i 902 of capacity.
Minor Increase in Congestion -
Base Case and Amendment demand >902 of capacity and Base Case < Amendment demand.
+ + : Major Beneficial Impact -
Amendment demand < 902 of capacity and Base Case demand > or - 902 of capacity.
+ : Minor Decrease in Congestion -
Base Case and Amendment demand >90% of capacity and Amendment < Base Case demand.
(3) DW = Driveway
SJCR44/608.50
1) Major Beneficial Impact. This category includes street
segments operating at worse than level of service D
under the base case and which were projected to operate
at level of service D or better with the proposed
amendment. This means that this particular street
segment was a notable problem in the base case and the
problem was eliminated by the traffic effects of the
proposed amendment.
2) Minor Decrease in Traffic Congestion. This category
includes street segments which were a problem in the
base case (e.g., operating at worse than level of
service D) and with the proposed amendment; although
with a lower volume of traffic on the problem segment
under the GPA conditions.
3) No Traffic Impact. This category includes the vast
majority of street segments which are projected to be
operating at level of service C or better under both
the base case and with the proposed amendment. These
street segments are not displayed in the traffic impact
summary table (Table 3 -1).
4) Minor Increase in Traffic Congestion. This category
includes street segments which were a problem in the
base case (e.g., operating at worse than level of
service D) and were projected to have additional
traffic as a result of the proposed amendment.
5) Major Negative Impact. This category includes street
segments which were operating at level of service D or
better under the base case and which were projected to
operate at worse than level of service D as a result of
the proposed amendment.
Average Travel Speeds, Vehicle Miles Traveled, Vehicle Hours
Traveled. The traffic model generates a map of expected
traffic volumes and travel speeds as part of its output.
Maps were generated for the Base Case and for the proposed
Amendment and the Alternative Amendment. Traffic volumes
shown on the maps for the Proposed Amendment and the
3 -20
SJCR41 1311.50
Alternative Amendment were compared to the Base Case
volumes.
Estimated traffic volumes on all roadways near the site are
similar. Average Travel Speeds are also similar. Council
District 1, which contains the E1 Paseo site, shows a minor
decrease in Average Travel Speeds on freeways and local
streets, and a minor increase on expressways. The combined
effect is an overall decrease of 0.1 mph. Vehicle Miles and
Vehicle Hours Traveled show a minor increase in District 1
and within San Jose's Sphere of Influence, caused by the
increased number of commuters (see Tables D -10, D -11, and
D -12 in Appendix D).
Transportation System Performance Values. Another
evaluation criteria used for the analysis is the
Transportation System Performance Values, which indicate
changes in the overall level of service (LOS) within the
study area (see Figure 3 -2). The Values are reported by
facility type and by Council District.
Within Council District 1, the Proposed Amendment would not
impact freeways, and would not significantly impact
expressways or local streets. In Council District 6,
located east of the site, the Proposed Amendment shows a
slight positive impact on local street operations. The
employment opportunities at the site may reduce the number
of commuters passing through District 6 enroute to
employment opportunities to the east. In District 9, the
Proposed Amendment would have ,a minor negative impact on
freeways, and a slight positive impact on expressways.
Overall, the computer model determined that the Proposed
Amendment would have a slight negative impact within the
study area. The Transportation System Performance Values
for the Proposed Amendment are illustrated in Figure 3 -2.
(See Table D -14 in Appendix D for detailed LOS impacts.)
Traffic Impact Summary. The changes in average levels of
service are summarized in Table 3 -1. Major beneficial
impacts are shown on segments of Almaden Expressway near
proposed Route 85 and Bascom Avenue at I -280. Major
negative impacts are shown on a separate section of Bascom
Avenue at I -880. Minor changes are shown in several
3 -21
SJCR411311.50
EL PASEO AMENDMENT
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE VALUES
PM PEAK HOUR
3
2.5
2
1.5
❑ FWYS
1
0.5 ® EXPWYS
0 ;:.:::::::.: .: <... >:; ❑ STREETS
-0.5 TOTAL
-1
-2
-2.5
DISTRICT 1 DISTRICT 6 DISTRICT 9 TOTAL 169
FIGURE 3 -2
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE VALUES FOR
THE PROPOSED AME MENT
Source: CH2M HILL
SFO 27E25.AA
locations, and the negative and positive shifts are roughly
in balance.
Conclusion. The Proposed Amendment would not result in a
potentially significant traffic impact.
Alternative to the Proposed Amendment
The Alternative to the Proposed Amendment (the Alternative)
assumes replacement of a large portion of the existing
shopping center with 600,000 square feet of Administrative
Office /Research and Development (AO /RD) uses and 200 multi-
family housing units. The Alternative would increase site
employment by approximately 1,400 jobs, and add about
200 residences.
Average Travel Speeds, Vehicle Miles Traveled, Vehicle Hours
Traveled. The traffic volumes developed for the Alternative
are also similar to Base Case volumes. Average Travel
Speeds within San Jose's Sphere of Influence are the same as
the Base Case. Speeds on each facility type do not change
more than 0.1 mph. Vehicle Miles and Vehicle Hours Traveled
show a slight increase over the Base Case, although the
increase is less than the Proposed Amendment.
Transportation System Performance Values. In the
Alternative, freeways in District 9 and expressways in
District 1 would experience a slight decline in the LOS
compared to the Base Case. Expressways in District 9 and
local streets in District 6 show a slight improvement in
LOS. The remaining roadways in the three districts show no
significant change in LOS from the Base Case. Figure 3 -3
illustrates the changes in Performance Values.
Traffic Impact Summary. Table 3 -1 shows changes in traffic
conditions for the Alternative. Similar to the Proposed
Amendment, the positive and negative changes are balanced.
Conclusion. The Alternative Amendment would not result in
potentially significant traffic impacts.
3 -23
SJCR41 /311.50
Comparison of the Proposed Amendment to the Alternative
In general, the traffic impacts of the Proposed Amendment
and the Alternative are similar. The Proposed Amendment
would replace retail land use with AO /RD uses. The
Alternative would replace the Retail use with a lesser
amount of AO /RD and with new housing.
When compared to the Proposed Amendment, the housing
component of the Alternative would have a minor negative
impact on southbound flows on regional facilities such as
State Route 85 and Almaden Expressway (see Table 3 -1). The
housing component of the Alternative adds commute period
traffic flows that would magnify existing peak direction
flows to residential areas near the project.
This pattern is also evident when comparing Figures 3 -2 and
3 -3. In the total section of each figure, it can be seen
that the Proposed Amendment would benefit overall expressway
operations (indicated by the positive significance value),
whereas the Alternative would have a minor negative impact.
The minor negative impact on freeways would be similar for
both the Proposed Amendment and the Alternative. Minor
benefits to local streets are also similar, with slightly
greater benefits accrued by the Alternative. Overall, the
Proposed Amendment and the Alternative yield a minor
negative impact on the road system of similar magnitudes.
Cumulative Impacts
The following proposed General Plan Amendments were selected
by the City for incorporation into the cumulative impact
analysis:
o Various projects in the Evergreen area
o Piercy Road Amendment proposed by Citation
o General Plan Amendment proposed by Leslie Salt
o Pleasant Hills Golf Course Amendment proposed by
Dividend Development
3 -24
SJCB41/311.50
EL PASEO - ALTERNATIVE AMENDMENT
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE VALUE
PM PEAK HOUR
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
_2
-2.5
DISTRICT 1 DISTRICT 6 DISTRICT 9 TOTAL 169
Source: CH2M HILL
27825.AA
❑ FREEWAYS
® EXPRESSWAYS
J STREETS
N TOTAL
FIGURE 3 -3
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE VALUES FOR
THE ALTERNATIVE AMENDMENT
o E1 Paseo Proposed Project
o J. Lohr Amendment proposed by J. Lohr Properties,
Inc.
The cumulative impacts of each General Plan Amendment
currently under consideration would add approximately 1,700
jobs and 5,600 households to the City. Traffic conditions
with the above - stated proposed General Plan amendments
incorporated are discussed below.
Average Travel Speeds, Vehicle Miles Traveled, Vehicle Hours
Traveled. Cumulative traffic volumes on freeways,
expressways, and local streets within the study area are
also similar to Base Case volumes. The Proposed Amendment
studied in this report is the only General Plan Amendment
under consideration in Council District 1. Therefore, the
cumulative scenario traffic conditions within the study area
are strongly influenced by the Proposed Amendment.
Average Travel Speeds in Districts 1 and 6 would decrease
about 0.1 mph from the Base Case. Overall speeds in
San Jose's Sphere of Influence show a minor improvement.
Vehicle Miles and Vehicle Hours Traveled both show a minor
increase, indicating that the net effect of the cumulative
Amendments will be to increase the number of residents or
employees in the City of San Jose.
Transportation System Performance Values. Approval of the
General Plan amendments listed above would result in a
cumulative traffic condition that would create a significant
impact on LOS in the study area. Overall LOS would decrease
by about one percent in Council Districts 1 and 6, and by
about four percent in District 9. The most noticeable
negative impacts would occur on freeways in District 9 and
expressways in District 1. See Figure 3 -4 for illustration
of changes in Performance Values.
Traffic Impact Summary. Virtually all of the changes in
traffic conditions that would occur with the Proposed
Amendment also occur in the Cumulative scenario. Major
beneficial impacts also occur on proposed Route 85 at Bascom
3 -26
SJCR41 1311.50
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-3
EL PASEO - CUMULATIVE
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE VALUE
PM PEAK HOUR
DISTRICT 1 DISTRICT 6 DISTRICT 9 TOTAL 169
❑ FREEWAYS
® EXPRESSWAYS
STREETS
N TOTAL
FIGURE 3 -4
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE VALUES FOR
CUMULATION CONDITIONS
Source: CH2M HILL CKMHIU
Avenue, and on Saratoga Avenue near the E1 Paseo site.
Major negative impacts also occur on San Tomas Expressway
near I -280, on Meridian Avenue near Southwest Expressway and
Willow Street, and on Winchester Boulevard near I -280.
Conclusion. Approval of the six General Plan Amendments
considered herein would result in potentially significant
traffic impacts.
GENERAL PLAN MITIGATION
Proposed Amendment and the Alternative Amendment
No significant far -term impacts were identified when
comparing the Proposed Amendment and the Alternative
Amendment to the Base Case conditions. If specific
development plans are submitted for the E1 Paseo site,
application of the following General Plan policies will
ensure that no unmitigated impacts will occur in the
near -term:
• Services and Facilities Policy 2: Capital and
facility needs generated by new development should
be financed by new development. The existing
community should not be burdened by increased
taxes or by lowered service levels to accommodate
the needs created by new growth. The City Council
may provide a system whereby funds for capital and
facility needs may be advanced and paid back later
by affected property owners.
• Level of Service Policy 5: The minimum overall
performance of City streets during peak travel
periods should be level of service D. Development
proposals should be reviewed for their measurable
impacts on the level of service and should be
required to provide appropriate mitigation
measures if they have the potential to reduce the
level of service to E or worse.
• Transportation; Thoroughfares Policies 3 and 7:
Public street right -of -way dedication and
improvements should be required as development
3 -28
SJCR41 /311.50
occurs. Ultimate thoroughfare right -of -way should
be no less than the dimensions as shown on the
Land Use /Transportation Diagram except when a
lesser right -of -way will avoid significant social,
neighborhood, or environmental impacts and perform
the same traffic movement function.
NOISE
EXISTING SETTING
The noise environment at the project site results from
vehicular traffic on the street network, primarily from the
roads that front the site. These frontage roads are
Campbell Avenue, Saratoga Avenue, and Quito Road. A single -
family residential neighborhood is located along the
southern boundary of the site. The neighborhood is
separated from the site by a landscaped earth berm that acts ._
as a buffer. In contrast to the noise environment at the
site itself, the Elmwood Drive residential area is quiet and
characterized as an area of fairly steady low level noise
resulting from distant traffic, punctuated by the noise of
infrequent automobiles traveling on Elmwood Drive.
The City's Noise Element has a special provision for
commercial uses that are adjacent to residential uses which
states that, residential and public /quasi - public land uses
(such as schools, libraries, and hospitals) are particularly
sensitive to noise. Commercial, industrial, and other
non - residential uses located adjacent to such existing or
planned noise sensitive uses should mitigate noise
generation to meet the 55 Ldn noise level at the property
line. This standard will increase the compatibility between
residential and non - residential land uses and will further
the long -term outdoor noise goal of 55 Ldn.
In addition to the City guidelines, the State of California,
in Title 24, Part 2 of the California Administrative Code
also mandates that the indoor noise level in new multi-
family housing shall be no greater than an Ldn of 45 dB.
3 -29
SJC841 /311.50
In order to quantify the noise environment of the project
site, noise levels were monitored and a noise analysis
prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin. Noise levels were
measured over a continuous 24 -hour period on June 22 and 23,
19,89. At the measurement location, 80 feet from the
centerline of Campbell Avenue, the existing 24 -hour
day /night average sound level (Ldn) is 70 dB. Day /Night
Sound Level (Ldn) is a descriptor established by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the 24 -hour
average A- weighted noise level. Sound levels during the
hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. are penalized 10 dB to
account for the increased sensitivity of people during the
nighttime hours.
A short -term measurement was conducted in the Elmwood Drive
neighborhood at the end of Colusa Way, adjacent to the
landscape berm /buffer zone between the neighborhood and the
shopping center. The measurement was conducted between 5:10
and 5:25 p.m. on June 22, 1989. The average sound level
(Leq) during the afternoon measurement was 53 dBA.
Incidental traffic in the shopping center parking lot was
audible although not a significant contributor to the noise
environment.
The juxtaposition of residential and shopping center uses
works well because of the low intensity use of the rear of
the shopping center (e.g., the rear of buildings and a
limited driveway /parking area) and the absence of large
pieces of noise producing mechanical equipment located on
top of structures.
IMPACTS
Proposed Project and the Alternative to the Proposed Project
Potential noise impacts from the Proposed Project and the
Alternative under consideration fall into the following
categories:
(1) the compatibility of the noise environment around
the site with the proposed uses; and
3 -30
SJC &41 1311.50
(2) The potential impacts on the adjoining
neighborhood which could result from development
under each of the different scenarios-.
Land Use Compatibility
As discussed below, no significant adverse noise impacts are
anticipated to affect the proposed project. The Proposed
Project includes AO /RD on the site adjoining Campbell Avenue
and portions of Saratoga Road with regional commercial
located in the southwestern portions of the site. The Ldn
on the site is about 70 dB along Campbell Avenue and would
be similar along Saratoga Avenue at a setback of about
80 feet from the roadway centerline. Given this dB, under
the City's guidelines, the site would be compatible for
development of AO /RD. However, noise studies are likely to
be required at the project design stage to determine how the
indoor noise environment would be reduced to an Ldn of 45 dB
or less, and to determine how site planning can be used to
shield outdoor activity areas.
The Alternative is the same as the Proposed Project, with
the addition of residential development in the southeastern
portion of the site along Campbell Avenue. As noted above,
the measured Ldn along Campbell Avenue was 70 dB at a
setback of 80 feet from the centerline of the roadway. This
portion of the site would be developable for housing with
respect to the City's guidelines. In a noise environment
between 60 and 70 Ldn, the same provisions must be met as
for the commercial portions of the site. That is, onsite
outdoor activity areas must be limited to acoustically
protected areas. Furthermore, the Ldn indoors must be
reduced to 45 dB or less.
Offsite Noise
Modifying the development of the site with more industrial,
AO /RD, and /or multi -story residential development has the
potential to increase noise levels in the Elmwood Drive area
temporarily during construction and over the long term. The
main source of long -term potential impacts could result from
mechanical equipment, such as large cooling towers or
chillers, that may be placed on the roofs of buildings.
3 -31
SJC841/311.50
Traffic distribution data was not available which would
enable a specific determination of increased noise levels
along each of the streets in the area. However, a review of
the modeled data for the project which allows a comparison
of the variable future traffic conditions, indicates that
traffic volumes in the area would not be significantly
different under either the Proposed Project or the
Alternative. Coupled with the fact that existing traffic
noise levels along Campbell Avenue are already high, the
proposed project is unlikely to significantly change the
noise environment in the area.
The proposed General Plan amendment and Alternative would
produce a potentially significant impact.
MITIGATION
Proposed Project and the Alternative to the Proposed Project
In order to reduce the potential impact on future
development of the site from surrounding noise levels and
achieve the noise objectives of the City's General Plan
Noise (policies 1, 8, 11), the City should require
appropriate site and building design, as well as building
construction and noise attenuation techniques in all new
residential development.
Mechanical equipment noise should be limited to 45 dBA
during the daytime and 40 dBA at night as measured in the
backyard of any of the homes which are adjacent to the
landscape berm /buffer zone along Elmwood Drive. These
performance standards should be confirmed through additional
background noise measurements when a specific development is
proposed.
Noise during periods of construction should be suppressed so
as not to significantly impact the residential neighborhood
to the south (Noise policy 9).
WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN NOISE POLICIES,
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WILL BE REDUCED TO A LESS
THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL.
3 -32
SJCR41 /311.50
AIR QUALITY
SETTING
The Clean Air Act of 1970 established air quality standards
for several pollutants. These standards are divided into
primary standards, designed to protect the public health,
and secondary standards, intended to protect the public
welfare from effects such as visibility reduction, soiling,
nuisance and other forms of damage. In addition, the State
of California has adopted its own standards.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
operates a monitoring station in downtown San Jose on Fourth
Street. (Refer to Table 1 in Appendix F for air quality
data on criteria pollutants from the San Jose site for 1985
to 1987.) Data from this station show that the major air
quality problems in the project area are ozone, a regional
pollutant, and carbon monoxide, a local pollutant. In
addition to violations of the 8 -hour carbon monoxide
standard, violations of the 1 -hour state standard have been
recorded in San Jose. San Jose is the only monitoring site
in the Bay Area to have recorded violations of the state
one -hour standard.
In addition to the regular air quality monitoring program,
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District conducted a
special carbon monoxide monitoring program in San Jose and
Santa Clara in the winter of 1983 -1984. Eighteen monitors
were located over the study area, and mobile sampling from
autos was conducted. The results indicate that a "cloud" of
carbon monoxide existed near ground level over a large
portion of Central San Jose -Santa Clara, with levels
approaching or exceeding the ambient air quality standards
over 'a large portion of San Jose and Santa Clara on stable
winter nights. The project site is within an area where the
8 -hour concentration of carbon monoxide is 9.3 PPM (parts
per million) compared to the state and federal ambient air
quality standard of 9.0 PPM.
3 -33
SJCR411311'.50
Regional Air Quality Planning
The San Francisco Bay Area has been designated as a region
where three national ambient air quality standards are being
exceeded. Under the 1977 Clean Air Act, the Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG) was empowered to prepare a non -
attainment plan for ozone, carbon monoxide and total
suspended particulates. The entire Bay Area is considered a
non - attainment area for ozone; only Santa Clara County is a
non - attainment area for total suspended particulates, while
urbanized areas within the Bay Area are considered non -
attainment for carbon monoxide.
IMPACTS
Proposed Project and the Alternative to the Proposed Project
Construction Impacts. Construction air quality impacts
would be due to dust generated by equipment and vehicles.
Fugitive dust is emitted both during construction activity
and as a result of wind erosion over exposed earth surfaces.
Demolition of existing buildings, clearing, and earthmoving
activities comprise the major source of construction dust
emissions, but traffic and general disturbance of the soil
also generate significant dust emissions. Dust generation
is depending on soil type and soil moisture. The effects of
construction activities would be increased dustfall and
locally elevated levels of total suspended particulates.
Dustfall would be a nuisance at neighboring properties where
it would soil exposed surfaces, requiring more frequent
washing during the construction period.
Permanent Impacts. The Proposed Project and the Alternative
are likely to be a minor direct source of pollutants. The
major onsite sources of pollutants would be space and water
heating and the use of paints and solvents.
The largest permanent impact of the Proposed Project and the
Alternative would be indirect. The Proposed Project and the
Alternative would attract and generate new automobile
traffic, resulting in emissions affecting both local and
regional air quality.
3 -34
SJCR41I311.50
To evaluate the emissions associated with the project, the
URBEMIS -2 computer program, developed by the California Air
Resources Board, was applied to the Proposed Project and the
Alternative. Daily emissions due to auto travel are shown
in Table 3 -2 for the existing uses on the site and both the
Proposed Project and the Alternative for carbon monoxide,
hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen. The percentage change
relative to the existing site is shown for each.
Table 3 -2
EXISTING SITE AND PROJECT AUTO EMISSIONS,
IN POUNDS PER DAY
Carbon Oxides of
Existing Uses Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrogen
Existing Uses
2,378.4
264.5
330.5
Proposed Proj.
2,597.8 ( +9X)
283.2 ( +7X)
346.9 ( +5X)
Alternative
2,145.7 ( -10X)
234.5 ( -11X)
286.5 ( -13X)
Guidelines for the evaluation of project impacts issued by
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District consider
emission increases of carbon monoxide to be significant if
they exceed 550 pounds per day and emissions of ozone
precursors (hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen) to be
significant if they exceed 150 pounds per day. Based upon
theses criteria, the effects of the Proposed Project and the
Alternative would be less than significant. The Alternative
would actually result in reduced emissions, and would have a
beneficial effect on air quality.
While project regional emissions would not have a measurable
effect on ozone concentrations, the growth in emissions
associated with the Proposed Project and cumulative growth
would contribute to the continuing ozone problem in the
South Bay. Because ozone is a photochemical pollutant that
is formed over a period of hours, the effect of project
emissions on ozone levels would be felt south and east of
the project site.
3 -35
SJCx41 /311.50
The Bay Area did not meet the
standards by the end of 1987
Act. The growth in emissions
Project and cumulative growth
partially offset to attain and
future. Additional controls c
sources on a regional basis ma
additional emissions resulting
cumulative development in the
national ambient air quality
s specified in the Clean Air
generated by the Proposed
in the area would have to be
maintain the standards in the
a stationary, mobile and area
y be required to offset the
from the project and
area.
The Proposed Project would not result in a potentially
significant impact.
MITIGATION
Proposed Project and the Alternative to the Proposed Project
Air quality impacts from the Proposed Project and the
Alternative are not significant. Implementation of General
Plan Air Quality policies will further mitigate the non-
significant impact.
As required by the General Plan, City review of future
development proposals should take into consideration
cumulative air quality impacts and establish appropriate
land use regulations to reduce air pollution. This would be
implemented during the Development Review process by
conforming with Air Quality policy 1.
Regional air pollution impacts can be further mitigated by
Policies of the General Plan regarding future transportation
improvements to reduce congestion, and by reducing the
number and length of vehicle trips via increased carpooling,
improved public transportation, and improvement of the
Jobs/housing imbalance within San Jose (Transportation
Policies 19 and 26; Energy policies 1 and 2).
NO MITIGATION IS REQUIRED.
3 -36
SJCR41 /311.50
MUNICIPAL SERVICES
EXISTING SETTING
Police Protection. The San Jose Police Department provides
police protection services to the project site. The site is
located in District N, Beat 5.(5)
IMPACTS
Proposed Project and the Alternative to the Proposed Project
Development of the Proposed Project and the Alternative
would result in an incremental increase in police protection
demand which would not constitute a significant impact.
The Proposed Project and the Alternative are consistent with
the Services and Facilities policies (policies 2 and 19)
with regard to police protection.
MITIGATION
Proposed Project and the Alternative to the Proposed Project
NO MITIGATION IS REQUIRED.
EXISTING SETTING
Fire Protection. The San Jose Fire Department provides fire
protection to the site. First response would be provided by
Station No. 14, a ten - person engine and truck company,
located at 1201 San Tomas Aquino Road. Response to the site
from this station would be 2.5 minutes. Second response
would be provided by Station No. 15, located at 1248 Blaney
Avenue. This station is a four - person engine company with a
response time of 4.7 minutes. (6)
3 -37
SJCR41 /311.50
IMPACTS
Proposed Project and the Alternative to the Proposed Project
For fire protection, the City's General Plan goal is a 4.0
minute response time. The project is expected to receive
primary response to a fire call in 2.5 minutes and secondary
response in 4.7 minutes. A 7.0 minute response time is
acceptable for a second response. Approval of the Proposed
Project and the Alternative is not anticipated to cause a
significant impact to the provision of adequate fire
protection services, nor is it expected to impact existing
response times. The changes in land use designation from
retail /commercial to allow additional office space and or
residential use will probably offset each other in terms of
the-type of fire response required. Apartments are
considered more like commercial use for fire response than
are single - family homes. The area currently supports all
three types of uses and fire protection is adequately -.
handled by the existing station assignments,""
The Proposed Project and the Alternative would not result in
potentially significant impacts on fire protection services.
MITIGATION
Proposed Project and the Alternative to the Proposed Project
NO MITIGATION IS REQUIRED.
EXISTING SETTING
Sanitary Sewer. A 12 -inch sewer main exists in Saratoga
Avenue along the project site's northwestern edge. This
main increases in size to a 27 -inch line at the intersection
of Saratoga Avenue and Blackford Avenue approximately 1 -1/2
miles north.47)
3 -38
SJCB411311.50
IMPACTS
Proposed Project and the Alternative to the Proposed Project
The existing 12 -inch main on Saratoga Avenue has adequate
capacity to handle effluent that would result from any of
the alternatives under consideration and transport it to the
main on blackford Avenue. No significant impact to sanitary
sewers will occur.(')
The Horizon 2000 General Plan recommends a performance
standard for sanitary sewer lines of level of service D,
defined as restricted sewage flow during peak flow
conditions. The Proposed Project and the Alternative do not
have the potential to reduce the level of service to worse
than D in either the 12 -inch Saratoga Avenue main or in the
27 -inch Blackford Avenue main. The Proposed Project and the
Alternative are consistent with the Services and Facilities
policies (policies 6 and 7) for sanitary sewer level of
service.
The proposed amendment would not have a significant impact
relative to sanitary sewer services.
MITIGATION
Proposed Project and the Alternative to the Proposed Project
NO MITIGATION IS REQUIRED.
EXISTING SETTING
Storm Sewer. A 15 -inch storm sewer pipe is located in
Campbell Avenue along the site's northeastern edge.
Saratoga Avenue, to the northwest, has a 30 -inch pipe in it.
Additionally, there is a 33 -inch storm sewer pipe in
Atherton Avenue just north of the site. Twelve and 15 -inch
storm pipes currently exist on the project site-(8)
3 -39
SJCR41/311.50
IMPACTS
Proposed Project and the Alternative to the Proposed Project
Adequate storm sewer capacity is available to accept
drainage from the project site and in terms of runoff
potential the existing and proposed project are not vastly
different from each other. -The Proposed Project and the
Alternative are consistent with the Services and Facilities
policies (policy 19) for storm sewer levels of service.
As such, no significant impact to the storm sewer system is
expected.'$)
MITIGATION
Proposed Project and the Alternative to the Proposed Project
NO MITIGATION IS REQUIRED.
EXISTING SETTING
Water. Water service for consumptive and fire flow purposes
is available to the project site from the following San Jose
Water Company water mains: a 10 -inch pipe in Saratoga
Avenue and a 16 -inch pipe in Hamilton Avenue.(')
IMPACTS
Proposed Project and the Alternative to the Proposed Project
The primary potential impact to water service is whether or
not adequate capacity is available to supply fire flow
requirements. The existing large mains in Campbell and
Saratoga Avenues have adequate capacity to provide fire
flows to future development. No significant impact on fire
flow capacity will result. Dependent upon the orientation
of new structures, existing onsite water lines may need re-
routing.(10) The Proposed Project and the Alternative are
consistent with the Services and Facilities policies
(policies 2 and 19) on level of service for water service
and financed improvements by developers.
3 -40
SJCR41 /311.50
The proposed amendment would not result in significant
impacts relative to water services.
MITIGATION
Proposed Project and the Alternative to the Proposed Project
NO MITIGATION IS NECESSARY.
EXISTING SETTING
Schools. The project site is located in the Moreland School
District and the Campbell Union High School District.
Moreland School District has Baker Elementary School and
Castro Middle School in the project vicinity.
Using the City of San Jose's standard for number of persons
per household (2.6), one could estimate that the number of
school age children could be approximately one -third of the
household which assumes 1.8 to 2 adults and 0.8 to
0.6 children. Using these assumptions, approximately 61 to
46 school age children (primary and secondary),
respectively, could be expected with 200 dwelling units.
IMPACTS
Proposed Project and the Alternative to the Proposed Project
The Proposed Project and the Alternative will not adversely
impact the area high schools. The development of
200 dwelling units would not significantly impact Baker
Elementary, if 26 to 30 primary students were enrolled.
Castro Middle School is unlikely to be adversely impacted. "'
The Proposed Project and the Alternative would not result in
a potentially significant impact to the nearby schools.
3 -41
SJCR41/311.50
MITIGATION
Proposed Project and the Alternative to the Proposed Project
NO MITIGATION IS REQUIRED.
EXISTING SETTING
Parks. The Horizon 2000 General Plan level of service goal
for parks and recreation is 3.5 acres of neighborhood -
serving recreational lands per 1,000 population. This goal
is based on a combined acreage of a minimum of 1.5 acres of
city -owned park lands, and up to two acres of publicly -owned
and accessible school play fields within a reasonable
walking distance (approximately 3/4 mile). These level of
service goals are incorporated into the San Jose Department
of Recreation, Parks and Community Services planning
policies . (")
The City's Recreation, Parks and Community Services
Department evaluates park and recreation needs by City
Council district. The proposed project is located in
District 1. Within this district, existing combined park
and school ground acreage is at 82 percent of the City's
level of service goal. Based on population projections for
the district, an additional 25 acres of local park area is
needed to meet the City's goal within District 1 for the
year 2000. (13)
In addition to the evaluation of park needs o
level, neighborhood areas within each distric
for park sufficiency on the basis of access.
fields are available for the project at Castr
School, across Campbell Avenue from the site,
Elementary School, located approximately 1/4
of the project site. Hathaway Park, Saratoga
E1 Quito Park in the City of Saratoga are all
mile of the project site.
3 -42
SJCR41/311.50
n a district
t are evaluated
School play
o Middle
and at Baker
mile southeast
Creek Park, and
within 3/4