Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-18-1989 COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORTSSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. v2 3 MEETING DATE: 10/18/89 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planning -4�/ 4 -3 C AGENDA ITEM �v CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Appeal of SD -88 -008; San Marcos Heights, a 34 -lot subdivision Applicant: Rogers & Brook; Owners: Odd Fellows Home of California Location: South of the Odd Fellows Home between Crisp Ave. & Gypsy Hill Road --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal. Report Summary: The Planning Commission considered the proposed project over a period of 9 months and approved a 34 -lot subdivision which can have up to 3.cul -de -sacs providing vehicular access. The decision was based on numerous public hearings where a variety of comments, thoughts and concerns were expressed. Although the Planning Commission decision was not unanimous, the majority of the Commission felt that the approved plan achieved the least amount of impact integrated this infill development with its surroundings, and complies with General Plan policies. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: Motion and Vote 1. Memorandum from Planning Director 2. San Marcos Heights Fact Sheet /Area Maps 3. Minutes 4. Planning Commission Resolution SD -88 -008 5. Pertinent staff reports 6. EIR analysis of alternatives 7. General Plan and Council Correspondence 8. Correspondence Planning Commission decision upheld 4 -1 with modifications (Moyles opposed). 0919W oa 0&MZIXQ)0& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: 10/18/89 FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director SUBJECT: Appeal of SD -88 -008; A 34 -lot subdivision Applicant: Rogers & Brooks; Owners: Odd Fellows Home of Cal. Location: South of the Odd Fellows Home between Crisp Ave. & Gypsy Hill Road ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- riV PYV l n The Planning Commission approved a 34 lot subdivision in the R -1- 40,000 zone district. This decision was appealed by a resident at 14851 Sobey Road on the basis that reduced density alternatives were not given sufficient study. Project Description The site proposed for development is 50.66 acres and is surrounded by existing neighborhoods. Three neighborhoods are specifically impacted by the proposed development. Crisp Avenue, Gypsy Hill and the Odd Fellows community. By segregating access into three distinct corridors, the approved map limits traffic to each of the surrounding neighborhoods. The project is divided into three phases: Phase 1 is an extension of Crisp Avenue which serves 7 lots. Phase 2 is an extension of Gypsy Hill Road which serves 18 lots. Phase 3 is the construction of access from Fruitvale through the Odd Fellows campus which serves 9 lots. All cul -de -sacs are interconnected by emergency access so no through access is permitted, nor required for safety purposes. All new roads constructed to serve the development conform to the 26 foot wide hillside standards. The extension of Crisp and Gypsy Hill will be public since the existing streets are public. The Odd Fellows access would be private since the street will be newly constructed from Fruitvale and not an extension of an existing public street. The development is subject to the slope density formula of the City. The calculations performed for this property yield a maximum of 37 lots. Therefore, the applicants are proposing 3 fewer lots than the City's density regulations would allow. The lot sizes range from 40,0000 sq. ft. minimum to 2 to 3 acre parcels. An open space easement has been proposed over the riparian corridor and oakwood land that traverses the property. The open space easement would remain under private ownership. However, the easement would restrict any structures from being built including fencing, decks and patios. The open space easement comprises approximately 10 acres. Within the open space easement is a trail which the Planning Commission has required to be dedicated for public use. In addition, public trails were also required along the new streets and will provide pedestrian connection to all three cul- de -sacs. Backaround The project approval before the Council is the product of nearly 9 months of public hearings, study sessions and site visits. It will be nearly impossible for staff to provide an indepth description of all the events comprising the Commission decision. Therefore, staff will precipitate the most significant and contentious issues for Council's consideration. Environmental Impact An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project. Primarily, comments and concerns received during the public review period and at Commission hearings involved concern for increased traffic and safety in the neighborhoods surrounding this project. Because the application requested through access connecting Gypsy Hill Road to Crisp, initial concern stemmed from a possibility this route would be used by West Valley College students attempting to avoid congestion on Quito Road or on Saratoga /Los Gatos Road. The Planning Commission requested the EIR consultant, Earthmetrics, Inc., to prepare additional analysis to evaluate variations of access alternatives discussed in the DEIR. These variations of alternatives included a 3 cul -de -sac design with access from Crisp, Gypsy Hill and Odd Fellows, through access alternatives with and without security gates, two cul -de -sac design from Gypsy Hill and Crisp and through access from Odd Fellows to Gypsy Hill. Staff has attached the analysis of alternatives from the EIR for more detailed Council review. After reviewing the detailed analysis of access alternatives, as well as the expanded traffic data prepared in response to public and Commission comments, the Planning Commission certified the EIR. In reaching this decision, the Planning Commission found that the EIR contained the information necessary for the Commission to act on the proposal. Traffic and Circulation As the Council is no doubt aware, traffic concerns dominated the Planning Commission's consideration of this project. Staff believes that it was the lateness of the hour which made the Planning Commission take fleeting interest in a suggestion to use subterranean access to the site. The positions taken by the surrounding neighborhoods were clear and distinct Crisp Avenue relied upon the City Council's statement and reaffirmed in 1988 that no more than seven additional homes would be served by an extension of Crisp. The Odd Fellow's position was that access to any number of homes was detrimental to the quality of life to its senior population. The Sobey /Gypsy Hill area felt that access to their neighborhood should be limited and even not considered because of the narrow and winding nature of Sobey Road. Also, this group stressed the need for all impacted neighborhoods to share equally in the traffic impact. Given these positions and the EIR studies, the Planning Commission set out to find the perfect solution that would satisfy all concerns, a task next to impossible. The Planning Commission considered staff input which favored a two cul -de -sac scheme. Because from a planning and traffic engineering standpoint the increased traffic resulting from two cul -de -sacs from Crisp and Gypsy Hill, was not a significant impact. The Planning Commission was sharply divided on the question of access. Essentially, the issues of the Commission role as land use advisors to the City Council and the City's prior commitment to its constituents formed the basis of the Planning Commission debate. The Commissioners who felt their role was to recommend sound land use actions felt that a two cul -de -sac approach was best with no access from the Odd Fellows. Because 3 cul -de -sacs were not warranted from a traffic standpoint, the Commissioners felt it to be unacceptable to construct Odd Fellows access. These Commissioners noted that not only would the Odd Fellows access be exceedingly long but that the construction may require significant alteration to Sobey Creek which runs through the Odd Fellows campus. For these reasons, a minority of the Planning Commission concluded that the proper land use decision did not include Odd Fellows access. The majority of the Planning Commission felt that the City's commitment to Crisp was essential to the consideration of the proposal. The Planning Commission majority concluded that controversy over the Odd Fellows access could and rightfully should be resolved by the Odd Fellows themselves. The tentative subdivision map will be recorded in three phases. Phase I and II being the extensions of Crisp and Gypsy Hill. Phase III, the Odd Fellows extension, will never be recorded unless the Odd Fellows approve access. The Planning Commission approval tentative map in a sense becomes a two cul -de -sac approach if no access through the Odd Fellows is approved. Open Space The approved tentative map reserves approximately ten acres of scenic woodlands and riparian corridor in private scenic easement. This means that the future property owners would retain the underlying ownership but would be restricted from erecting structures or altering the natural state of the easement. The public's right to have access to this scenic easement is by means of a publicly dedicated trail that runs through the easement. The question that was presented to the Parks and Recreation and Planning Commissions was whether the scenic easement should remain in private ownership and be restricted or should the easement be offered to the public. The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed this question and reported its findings to the Planning Commission. The dedication of the easement to the City did not affect the density proposed by the developer. Since the easement area was also very steep, the average slope calculation would be lower resulting in the same number of lots proposed. By dedicating the easement to the City, the minimum lot size of one acre would not be affected. Because the dedication did not affect the proposal and its compliance with the Code, the developer did not object on these grounds. Although other concerns, namely liability and possibility of intensive public use, were raised as concerns by the developer. The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the pros and cons of accepting the easement. If the land remained a private easement, and the public would have a trail through it, then the Parks and Recreation Commission concluded this to be more desirable than accepting a dedication. Further, the Parks and Recreation Commission noted that park dedication in -lieu fees would be required if the land remained private which would not be so if the land were dedicated. Dedicating the land would satisfy the developer's obligation for park dedication. The land dedication is an issue of great significance. This proposal represents perhaps one of the last opportunities to acquire a willing dedication of scenic land easily accessible to the public. The open spaces proposed by this property by means of an easement will be severely restricted so the land will remain in its natural state. However, the opportunity to acquire land of this value must be considered. Density and Lot Layout The subject of this appeal is the density approved for this project. The appellants contend that the Planning Commission did not evaluate project alternatives which reduced the number of lots proposed. While it is correct that the Planning Commission did not consider reduction in density, the Planning Commission felt that a reduced density project was not warranted. Many factors led the Commission to conclude that the size and number of lots were compatible for this area. First, the project was consistent with the General Plan and zoning Ordinance. As mentioned above, the minimum lot size required for the zone provided in the development is 40,000 square feet. The slope density calculations for this property yield 37 lots and 34 are proposed. Loss of open space is compensated for by the use of restrictive easements, Lastly, the Planning Commission found that the proposed development was equal to or less than the densities of the surrounding neighborhoods. The distribution of lots between the three cul -de -sacs was an issue the Planning Commission did pursue at great length. The Planning Commission objective was to equalize the traffic impact without adversely compromising the subdivision. The Planning Commission investigated staff suggestions to reduce the number of lots accessing onto Gypsy Hill and Sobey Roads, in order to affect a more even lot distribution with the Odd Fellow's cul -de -sac. The problem the Planning found with including more lots on the Odd Fellows cul- de -sac was that the topography of the site required extensive grading and retaining walls, as well as resulted in roads possibly steeper than the City's Engineering standards. These conditions were unacceptable to the Commission who concluded that the lot distribution as approved was the most equitable given the site constraints. Trails The Planning Commission required a trail system which provided interconnecting public access to the open space network but also facilitated pedestrian and bicycle travel on the streets within the development. A system of pedestrian trails will be constructed adjacent to future streets and within the emergency connections between cul -de -sacs. As discussed with regard to open space, the trails network proved to be one means of unifying the development with the surrounding community. Because through access was an unacceptable alternative, the Planning Commission was concerned about fragmenting the new development. Further, the Planning Commission was concerned that the lots which were accessed by Gypsy Hill would be within the Saratoga School District which would require future residents to travel through the Campbell District to return to Saratoga Schools. The trail system was one means of allowing bicycle and pedestrian access through the subdivision making access from the Gypsy Hill extension somewhat more accessible to schools in the district. Design Controls While great deal of attention was paid to the access concerns, the Planning Commission approval included the ground work for future residential construction in keeping with the City's design objectives. The City Council will find in the Planning Commission conditions of approval that many prominent sites are restricted to one -story design, appurtenant structures such as tennis courts are prohibited from lots with sloping rear yards and requirements of the City Horticulturist are are incorporated. These actions taken at this initial phase communicates the City's specific design objectives early, making the implementation of these objectives infinitely more simple. Conclusion The access question proves to be most problematic, but the Planning Commission was able to find a solution. The three cul -de -sac alternative in effect allows the Odd Fellows to decide if access is appropriate through their facility, a solution which a majority of the Commission felt was the most equitable for all the neighborhoods. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council move to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. � iu�/f��c1�lz- Steph n Em � ie Planning irector SE /dsc FACT SHEETS AND AREA MAPS San Marcos Heights Fact Sheet Phase I Phase II Phase III (Crisp Av) (Gypsy Hill Rd) (San Marcos Rd) No. of lots w /in subdivision 7 18 9 No. of existing lots gaining access 9 14 1 ( -200 bed senior facility) Total: 16 32 10 (to Granite Wy) (to Chester Av) (to Fruitvale Av) Length of cul -de -sac w /in subdivision -600 ft. -1740 ft. -730 ft. Length of entire cul -de -sac to nearest cross st. -1300 ft. 3340 ft. 3530 ft. (to Granite Wy) (to Chester Av) (to Fruitvale Av) Smallest lot - .92 acres Largest lot - -2.3 acres (These are rough estimates since the latest proposal does not include each parcel's area) Potential Traffic Impacts Summary Traffic Increases: Crisp Av Gypsy Hill Rd San Marcos Rd Existing daily two -way trips 430 200 350 Increased trips per the following options: Crisp Av Gypsy Hill Rd San Marcos Rd @ 7 lots @ 28 lots @ 0 lots Alternative B: 2 cul -de -sacs 70 224 0 (16% increase) (110% increase) (no increase) Crisp Av Gypsy Hill Rd San Marcos Rd @ 7 lots @ 18 lots @ 9 lots Alternative D: 3 cul -de -sacs 70 197 184 (16% increase) (98% increase) (24% increase) Subdivision Restrictions for Individual Lots 1. Stepped floor plans on all lots with 10% slope, or greater. 2. The following sites shall not have homes which exceed 20 ft. in height: 2, 3, 5, 33 3. The following sites shall be considered for single story homes by the Planning Commission: 1, 23, 24, 25 4. The follwing sites shall not have homes which exceed an elevation height of 450 ft. above sea level: 6, 7, 8, 9 5. Homes on lots 31 and 32 shall not have elevations which exceed 18 ft. in height above the road. 6. No recreational courts are permitted on the following lots: 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 28, 29 Olt w =� i ur _ 'a, � q (+ � h 4 � � I • s rf►14t a gip^ ■ [LAW ! w v ;`.4, �,�► a� /C J 4 t � , � r �'� c" �c trr u n� A ` �� � a r 6 � � , rh q +.� '�. d� o` J 4� ^`��•t. i unu' 7� i m.on r* �tltltl{ � �ttt 000 rr w a o r 4 F P '.;4�ri: ♦n.r o o � S C`rfnt{�c ■i n [ c � ��! •� �aS • .rr.o °1� 11 a E 5�E I R q t`r 7 a,r cr wr • 1 " ■ ra • 1, !', P a� ° c ■ Dort a.r:� ulmo • S r'j;, M O, ' � yr ,C n r O �, >t A >; r ��,;, �m ,�frrrr. , n L R "` wou, ,� Wt� r _f + UM cftj am - a' WM�IYttrfr 1. t u •^ 4 �r � ® �q/y''< \'fie � rnw. 5j P I PROJECT : - - -- SITE i "s •��, ■ ., ,., � � � � A' i0 wfa � -- - I •� " w aa ■ s ^ °' �,.o�o q �i � m � • �. g � 1 ; f: c ytru , Cry � „y od ' ■ tr CouArray o- rr r% .moo r LI" CLL/ i j ° � � " �, •[+art ■ ° � a° �_ _ u � on w o/ r I 'Laa ac ., c,�•w.rU > •� r � 6 � �� ° t u � Y ^ f ; 'r• � I .tom, � `'�:.' � �``■■ +_ ,. G � a � I • �Or 1E O '`i C r �� e � � 2 � • i vi ! � r c I .. �T w . r, � � t t rwf`r° ter � ,iii •,b�'� c .� 1• � �' vr�ar, � ° AV off � •.O � ♦ c ; ..: v qtr � 4 . 1 sy i gip, � , �,1� .. � i•. _ rit i maru �.� r �1j i I •mow � � ✓. � _ . '°° � � FIGURE 1 -2 LOCAL SETTING OF THE earth metrics SCALE PROJECT SITE 1" - 2400' 1 -3 I6 FIGURE 3.1 -3 PROJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING earth metrics NO CSCALE LAND USES -\ m V• O N � Rp 1111' !!11 I i 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 SEPTEMBER 13, 4989 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Commissioner Tappan found the design pleasing and did not appear to be at great variance with the neighborhood. He suggested a Continuance to allow him an opportunity to make a site visit. Commissioner Kolstad felt the design was somewhat out of the ordinary; however, if it were not for the opinions pro and con, he would vote in favor of the Application. The photographs pre- sented showed that plenty of vegetation existed; impacts to privacy may be anticipated rather than a reality. A site visit as suggested by Commissioner Tappan, would be appropriate. Commissioner Harris concurred and asked that a report on the Oak trees be provided; if necessary, additional landscaping screening could be required. The neighbor's concerns were valid. Commissioner Burger agreed a site visit should be made by members of the Commission. Chairperson Siegfried was not concerned about the addition of a second story element per se; how- ever, cutting into the roof of a Tudor style home, to meet the 26 ft. height limitation, would not be compatible with the neighborhood. He preferred a 23 -24 ft.high roof with a natural slope. He had no objection to a Continuance of this Application for a two -week period of time. Commissioner Harris suggested the Application be Continued to a Study Session as usually done; the Applicant would then have an opportunity to present design alternatives. Homes by the rail- road tracks appeared to have been chopped off, similar to the proposal for this home. Commissioners Kolstad and Burger did not have concerns about the second story elevation. Chairperson Siegfried agreed the home was well designed; the question was whether this two story home, with a steep roof pitch, and a cut of up to four or five feet was compatible with the neigh- borhood. He agreed that the trees on -site required extensive trimming in order to save them. Mr. Cunningham cited the report entitled An Analysis of the Expected Affects by the Pronnced re Lane. Saratoga, by Barrie D. Coate; the Applicant was agreeable to the Continuance suggested. e Chairperson Siegfried commented that he did not hear that the majority of the Commission wished to see a redesign of the project; Commissioners simply wished to make a site visit. TUCKER/BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE DR -89 -076 TO SEPTEMBER 27, 1989. Passed 7 -0. PUBLIC H .ARING,E: 13. SD -88-" Rogers and Brooks, Gypsy Hill /Crisp Avenue, request for approval of a 34 -lot subdivision varying in area from 0.92 acres to 1.89 acres in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. The property is located at the Odd Fellows property between Gypsy Hill sub- division and Crisp Avenue. A Final Environmental Impact Report was - - - - -- prepared for the project. Continued from August 23, 1989. - - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to.the Planning Commission, dated September 13th. PLANNING COLYMSSION MEETING Page 6 SEPTEMBER 13, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Planning Director reviewed the technical corrections to the Model Resolution. The City Attorney confirmed that procedurally there was no requirement to reopen the Public Hear- ing unless there was new information introduced into the record; the Planning Commission had taken extensive public testimony on this matter. Commissioner Harris noted that at the previous Public Hearing the Commission voted to consider a Three Cul -de -Sac Alternative, leaving the configuration to be decided; at the Study Session, the Commission had been informed that there were no options. This could effect the vote of those who favored an Alternative where the configuration was still open for discussion. Chairperson Siegfried stated that the Public Hearing would be reopened for the issue brought up at the Study Session, namely, the geological problems of access through the Odd Fellows property. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:32 P.M. Ms. Virginia Fanelli, Representing the Applicants, Rogers and Brooks, commented as follows: Stated that at the last Public Hearing, the Commission voted in favor of looking at alternatives; specifically, was there a way to extend the cul -de -sac from the Odd Fellows property to include homes that were scheduled to be accessed by Gypsy Hill Rd. or was there the possibility of another road configuration than that suggested by Mr. Lohr Their Engineer made the calculations and found that as proposed the emergency access would be 15 ft. wide,120 ft. in length and 14 ft. at its maximum depth of fill; it would require 2600 cu. yds of fill. The grade would be approximately 8% and would satisfy the needs of the Central Fire Protection District, to allow emergency vehicles access by way of the connection to the cul- de -sac and provide for the necessary pedestrian and bicycle paths - . The extension around the curve to ensure safety would be a 37 ft. wide standard road, 200 ft. in length with a maximum depth of fill of 24 ft.; the fill would be 3200 cu. yds. The grade would be 9 %. Applicants had concerns for safety resulting from the S configuration As far as the Y configuration suggested, the road would have to rise at approximately a 26% grade, which was not allowed under the City Code Ms. Fanelli concluded that Applicants had no objections to the amendmended Model Resolution. Ms. Peggy Cocker, Attorney for the Odd Fellows, asked whether the Commission would consider the Two Cul-de -Sac Alternative; Chairperson Siegfried responded that the Commission was free to consider all the Alternatives. BURGER/MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:35 P.M. Passed 7 -0. Commissioner Moran noted her consideration of this Application; she was familiar with the subject property, the Crisp Ave. neighborhood and had reviewed Sobey Rd. and Gypsy Hill Rd. areas. Tapes of the Public Hearings and the Commission's discussions had been listened to; she had read the Minutes and all documents prepared by Staff, documents submitted to the Planning Commis- sion by interested parties, the Environmental Impact Report, (EIR), the General Plan as it related to this site and the Charter of the Planning Commission. She had met with the Odd Fellows, their Executive Administrator, one of the Applicants, Mr. Rogers and their Representative, Ms. Fanelli. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7 SEPTEMBER 13, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Moran continued her comments, stating that this was a beautiful parcel and one of the last remaining large sites in the City; she felt a responsibility to do her best to ensure that any development was sensitive to the site as well as the long term interests of the community. There were access problems to the site and there would continue to be problems in this area even after a decision on access was reached. She was aware of the issues surrounding safety, access to the Saratoga schools, the commitment made by the City to the Crisp Ave. residents, to the Odd Fellows plans and of the beauty of the area. Commissioner Moran supported the Staff Recommendation for the Three Cul -de -Sac Alternative, i.e., seven lots off of Crisp Ave., eighteen lots off of Gypsy Hill Rd., and nine lots accessing by way of the Odd Fellows property. Chairperson Siegfried noted for the record that a petition had been received; Planning Director Emslie noted that 370 responses supporting a Two Cul -de -Sac Alternative were received. There was no Motion to reconsider a Two Cul -de -Sac Alternative with seventeen (17) lots accessing from Crisp Ave. and seventeen (17) lots accessing off of Gypsy Hill Rd. BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO APPROVE A TWO CUL -DE -SAC ALTERNATIVE WITH ELEVEN (11) LOTS FROM CRISP AVE. AND TWENTY THREE (23) LOTS ACCESSING OFF GYPSY HILL RD. Commissioner Kolstad stated that sometimes it appeared to be a question of who's right rather than what was right; with respect to the former, he had heard comments that the Odd Fellows should have a part to play, that Crisp Ave. residents had been promised something, as well as questions whether this promise was procedurally proper. If the personalities involved were not so strong, a planner looking at the area in its undeveloped state, would prohibit access through the Odd Fellows property, increase the number of lots accessing off Crisp Ave. Eleven lots accessing off Crisp Ave. was not a significant increase over the limit of seven they claimed they were promised. Furthermore, he felt he had to do what was right; there should be no access through the Odd Fellows property, with a few more homes accessing from Crisp Ave. In good conscience he could not vote for who was right, rather then for what was right. Commissioner Burger wished to reiterated what she had said all along, namely, that the Charter of the Planning Commission called for its members to make studied, land use decisions; her motion in favor of the 'Rvo Cul-de -Sac Alternative was based on that. In her mind, the proper land use decision was the Two Cul-de -Sac Alternative, with no access through the Odd Fellows; it was poor land use planning to install a public road through a private institution. Commissioner Moran stated that her support of a Three Cul -de -Sac Alternative was not her first choice, but the Commission had to move forward to consider the best possible solution when a perfect one was not available. Her preferred option was the Two Cul -de -Sac Alternative with an even distribution of lots accessing Crisp Ave. and Gypsy Hill Rd.; however, this was not a popular option. In addition, she would like to see an Alternative where there were fewer homes off Gypsy Hill Rd. and more lots accessing off Crisp Ave. in order to protect the Riparian Corridor and.provide a good access to the Saratoga schools. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8 SEPTEMBER 13, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Moran continued her comments, stating that having only seven lots accessing Crisp Ave. was a departure from what she considered a good land use decision; having eleven lots accessing off Crisp Ave. was movement in the right direction. Her view was that the commitment made to the Crisp Ave. residents was inconsequential. Commissioner Tucker stated that she did not bring up consideration of equal distribution since the Motion had failed 2 -4 at the previous Public Hearing; however, this was her preferred Alternative and the best land use decision. It was not good land use to put a road through the Odd Fellows property; Santa Clara University had a road through their campus which was later closed off because it was not a good land use. Commissioner Kolstad added that equal distribution of the access was his original preference. Chairperson Siegfried stated that he would accept a Motion to reconsider a Two Cul -de -Sac Alter- native with seventeen lots from Crisp Ave. and seventeen lots accessing off of Gypsy Hill Rd. Commissioner Burger withdrew her Motion for a Two Cul -de -Sac Alternative with eleven (11) lots from Crisp. Ave. and twenty three (23) lots accessing off Gypsy Hill Rd. TUCKER/BURGER MOVED TO RECONSIDER A TWO CUL -DE -SAC ALTERNATIVE WITH SEVENTEEN (17) LOTS ACCESSING FROM CRISP AVE. AND SEVENTEEN (17) LOTS ACCESSING OFF OF GYPSY HILL RD. Failed 3 -4, Chairperson Siegfried, Commissioners Burger, Harris, Tappan dissenting. Commissioner Burger wished to clarify her dissenting vote; she seconded the Motion to allow the Commission to move forward on this Application. She never envisioned seventeen lots taking access from Crisp Ave. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED APPROVAL OF A TWO CUL -DE -SAC ALTERNATIVE WITH ELEVEN (11) LOTS FROM CRISP AVE. AND TWENTY THREE (23) LOTS ACCESSING OFF GYPSY HILL RD. Failed 3 -4, Chairperson Siegfried, Commissioners Harris, Tappan, Moran dissenting. Chairperson Siegfried noted that when the Commission voted on the Three Cul -de -Sac Alternative, the subdivision would be approved in three parts; if access were not granted by the Odd Follows, or if there were technical reasons why access could not be taken, those homes that were scheduled to take access through the Odd Fellows property, could not be built. It was this simple and an issue that the Odd Fellows would have to decide. Commissioner Tappan agreed that the Odd Fellows was the proper decision making body as to whether they wished to allow access through their property. TAPPAN /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE A THREE CUL -DE -SAC ALTERNATIVE WITH A LI IIT OF SEVEN (7) LOTS FROM CRISP AVE., NINE (9) LOTS FROM THE ODD FELLOWS PROPERTY, AND EIGHTEEN (18) LOTS OFF GYPSY HILL RD. Passed 4 -3, Commissioners Burger, Harris and Tucker dissenting. Commissioner Kolstad stated he was confused on the Motion and wished to change his vote. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 9 SEPTEMBER 13; 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Moran asked if it was the lot distribution that Commissioner Harris objected to. Commissioner Harris responded that she felt the only alternative was to have fewer houses. She did not approve of having eighteen lots taking access from Gypsy Hill Rd., and had taken this position from the very beginning. She had asked for a reduction in density but such was not favored by other members of the Commission. The City Attorney stated that before the Vote were taken, he wished to clarify their legal position with respect to the Odd Fellows; insofar as the City was concerned the access was available. The Odd Fellows, as the property owner, could provide the access if they so desired; the decision rested with them. They could voluntarily act to reduce the size of the subdivision, eliminating those lots that would be taking access through their property. Chairperson Siegfried commented that he felt the Alternative under consideration represented a reasonable distribution of traffic; he was unfavorable to forcing traffic onto Crisp Ave., Sobey Rd. and Gypsy Hill Rd. This Alternative gave the Odd Fellows a choice; if they did not wish a through access on their property, there would only be eighteen homes accessing Gypsy Hill Rd. and seven accessing Crisp Ave. From a planning standpoint this was a reasonable distribution of traffic. Commissioner Moran asked whether the Commission had considered an equal distribution of traffic on Crisp Ave. and Gypsy Hill Rd., eliminating the nine homes with access through the Odd Fellows property. The Chair directed that the roll be called again on the above Motion to approve a Three Cul -de -Sac Alternative with a limit of seven (7) lots from Crisp Ave., nine (9) lots from the Odd Fellows Property and eighteen (18) lots off Gypsy Hill Rd. Failed 3 -4, Commissioners Burger, Harris, Tucker and Kolstad dissenting Commissioner Burger questioned the legal outcome if the Commission could not reach a decision. The City Attorney summarized that what the Commission would be saying in such a case was that the property was unsuitable for development with respect to the distribution of traffic and means of access; the Application would then be denied by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Burger suggested someone in favor of a Three Cul -de -Sac Alternative come up with a Motion amenable to a majority of Commissioners; she could not imagine the Commission deny- ing this Application for development. Commissioner Kolstad stated he would make such a Motion even though he did not feel that this Alternative was the best by any means; the following Alternative was merely acceptable. KOLSTAD /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO RECONSIDER A THREE CUL -DE -SAC ALTERNATIVE WITH NINE (9) LOTS ACCESSING FROM THE ODD FELLOWS PROPERTY, SEVEN (7) LOTS FROM CRISP AVE. AND EIGHTEEN (18) LOTS FROM GYPSY HILL RD. Commissioner Tappan stated he could not believe that after all this time, after discussions on all the alternatives, that the decision had come to this. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 13;1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Page 10 Commissioner Burger agreed it was an unfortunate situation; however, the reason was that the Commission had tried so hard to come to some conclusion that made sense for the City of Saratoga. Passed 4 -3, Commissioners Burger, Harris and Tucker dissenting. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE SD -88 -008 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 5 -2, Commissioners Harris, Tucker dissenting. Break: 9:15 - 9:20 P.M. 14. UP -547.1 Brookside Swim Club - 19127 Cox Avenue, Planning Commission review of a sound study that the Brookside Club was directed to prepare as a condition of approval; of an Action Plan Agreement between the City and the club. The site is located in the R- 1- 10,000 zone district. Continued from May 10, 1989. -------------------------------- --------------------------------------- lanning Director Emslie stated-that- -a Report Re: Noise Assessm-en ---- t Study of the Brookside -- Swim and Racquet Cinh S ra a, Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc., dated September 7, 1989, had been received last Friday; in addition, the neighbors had submitted a video tape. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:20 P.M. Mr. Bob Salutric, 12635 Saratoga Creek Dr., Saratoga, asked that the Commission view the tape submitted, at their convenience; he cited the on -going noise violations. Ms. Susan Windus, 12681 Saratoga Creek Dr., Saratoga, called attention to the documentation submitted to the Planning Department listing times and occurrences of noise violations. Ms. Dee Askew,12651 Saratoga Creek Dr., Saratoga, appreciated Brookside's initial attempts to lower the noise level; however, noise abatement and privacy screening were required. She con- tended that the date the noise study was conducted, the swim teams had a meet in Palo Alto. MORAN/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:25 P.M. Passed 7 -0. Planning Director Emslie confirmed that a prohibition of use of the Sport Court had been imposed until the Noise Study was completed, per Commissioner Burger's question. Community Services Officers had been asked to enforce this prohibition upon complaints being received by the City. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CONTINUE UP -574.1 TO OCTOBER 11, 1989, WITH A STUDY SESSION BEING HELD SEPTEMBER 19TH. Passed 7 -0. 15. DR -89 -055 Cashin, 12029 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, request for design review ap- proval for exterior remodel of the Blue Hills Shopping Center at the cornr of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Prospect Road, in the C -N zoning district pursuant to Chapter 16 of the City Code. A sign program approval is also ----------- - - - - -- requested for a freestanding sign and individual signs. ----------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- CITY OF SARATOGA COMMITTEE -OF- THE -WHOLE REPORT Date: Tuesday, September 5, 1989 - 7:30 p.m. Place: Community Center Arts and Crafts Room, 19665 Allendale Av. Type: Committee -of- the -Whole I. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION A. DR -89 -022, JEPSON - 21090 CHIQUITA WAY The Planning Director and Associate Planner reviewed the minor modification to the approved plans for the residential addition. The applicants propose to extend an approved retaining wall to allow a greater driveway turnaround. Staff indicated that the modification would improve the drainage pattern and would blend with the natural vegetation. The Committee reviewed the modified retaining wall and expressed no concerns. The Committee concurred with staff's recommendation that the change was minor and could be approved administratively. B. DR -87 -121, CHEN - 14760 MASSON COURT The Planning Director and Associate Planner reviewed modification to extend the approved driveway into a driveway. Due to the fact that the change would not grading significantly or required any additional tree the Planning Commission.found the request to be minor be considered as an administrative modification. C. SAN MARCOS HEIGHT SUBDIVISION the minor circular increase removal, which can The Planning Director reviewed the previous Planning Commission meeting where a majority of the Commission voted to allow no more than seven lots from Crisp and a maximum of three cul -de- sacs. The Planning Commission was undecided with respect to the number of lots accessed by the Odd Fellows cul -de -sac and the Gypsy Hill cul -de -sac which was the purpose of this study session. The applicants spoke and indicated that the alternative with nine lots from Oddfellows and 18 from Gypsy Hill was the only alternative they would consider. The applicants then explained the grading, retaining walls and maximum slopes required to access more than nine lots from the Odd Fellows cul -de -sac. The audience and Planning Commission expressed concerns and questions regarding the exact location of Odd Fellows access, the status of the two cul -de -sac alternative voted on at the 1 00 175 8/23/8.9 meeting, and the Odd Fellows site features which constrain access alternatives. The Committee -of -Whole discussed the grading and slope concerns related to the an extension of the Odd Fellows access road which was a concern to several Committee members. The Committee indicated that the Commission should be ready to take action on the proposal at the 9/13/89 meeting. The Committee - of- the -Whole requested that the Planning staff review the procedures to benefit the public's understaning of the process. D. INTERPRETATION OF ENCLOSED SPACES FOR CALCULATING FLOOR AREA The' Planning Director discussed the concerns raised regarding the Planning Commission interpretation of enclosed floor area which is any area enclosed on three sides and covered by a roof. Virginia Fanelli presented a series of photographs depicting examples of architecture features such as porches and courtyards which would be enclosed and counted as floor area. The Committee -of- the -Whole concluded that the present interpretation prevented architectural details which benefit the exterior aesthetics. The Committee -of- the -Whole concluded that these areas should continue to count as floor area but a finding should be considered to enable the Planning Commission to make exceptions when it may benefit the architecture. E. DR -88 -095, SD -88 -019, HUR - 20052 SUNSET AVENUE The Planning Director explained the revisions proposed by the applicant as well as the bridge and concern raised by neighbors regarding the proposed plans. The Planning Commission did express overall concern regarding the proposed building and its location on the site. It was concluded that several factors should be incorporated into revised plans: 1. The house should be reduced in perceived mass and bulk. 2. The house should be located on a lower portion of the site to reduce the visual impact of the structure on the neighboring residences. 3. Alternative designs and styles should be explored to reduce the perception of bulk. 4. The applicants should consider both the bridge from Sunset Drive and the easement as access points appropriate for this development. The ultimate selection of an appropriate access will depend on the final design and location of the home. II. ADJOURNMENT 2 00 176 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 23, 1989 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Chairperson Siegfried responded that he did not understand the speaker's comments regarding privacy impacts to her home, given the fact that hers was significantly above the proposed house. Mr. Butler, Applicant, estimated the speaker's home to be about 70 ft. above the subject property; regardless of what was built, the adjacent property owners would be able to see over the new structure and would not have their view impacted. The Magneson's were a sufficient distance that they would not be able to see into the windows of the new structure; they had not been allowed to install windows on the south elevation because of the minimum setback from Montalvo Rd. Commissioner Tappan felt that the Magneson's should have an opportunity to view the plans. Commissioner Tucker was amenable Ms. Magneson's request for a site visit to her property. Chairperson Siegfried noted the very substantial difference in elevation between the two properties; he did not understand Ms. Magneson's concerns. TUCKER/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:54 P.M. Passed 6 -0. Consensus reached that the Applicant and Ms. Magneson be given an opportunity to review the plans; Item to be returned later in the Hearing. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9. SD -88 -008 Rogers & Brooks, Gypsy Hill /Crisp Ave., request for approval of a 34 -lot subdivision varying in area from 0.92 acres to 1.89 acres in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. The property is located at the Odd Fellows property southerly to the senior care facility, between Gypsy Hill subdivision and Crisp Ave. A Final Envi- ronmental Impact Report was prepared for this project. The Public ------ - - - - -- Hearing was closed on August 9, 1989. Planning Director Emslie presented the Memorandum, dated August-18,-1989 - The City Attorney did not feel it necessary to reopen the Public Hearing given the extensive testi- mony already taken on this Application; the Continuance was to allow Staff to address the technical issues that had arisen. A review of the original Environmental Impact Report (EIR) showed that it clearly provided for access through the Odd Fellows property as one of the alternatives, despite arguments that the project had been changed and new alternatives were being considered. If anything, traffic impacts were mitigated by changing the configuration from a through street to a cul-de -sac. In his opinion, there was consideration of an access through the Odd Fellows property from the beginning, additional detail was provided to elaborate on that alternative and circulation of the Environmental Impact Report was done; a further recirculation of the EIR was not required. In response to Commissioner Harris' question regarding the Applicant's statement that all the streets in Phase. III should be constructed to a private street standard, the City Attorney responded that the question of public vs. private streets could be addressed by the Commission; the City would seek an offer of dedication on all streets. It was accepted that any extension or Gypsy Hill Rd. would be a public street since the existing street was public. of Crisp Ave. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 23, 1989 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The City Attorney continued his comments, stating that it was less clear whether the City would accept a dedication from the Odd Fellows, due to concerns about street maintenance, control of traffic and the limited number of lots that would access this alternative. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE PC -89 -003 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLAN- NING COMMISSION CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SAN MARCOS HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION ODD FELLOWS PROPERTY BY CRISP AVE., AND GYPSY HILL RD. Passed 6 -0. In considering the following Motion, Commissioner Burger stated that she had always spoken in favor of the Two Cul -de -Sac Alternative, but never envisioned seventeen lots off of Crisp Ave. TUCKER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE A TWO CUL -DE -SAC ALTERNATIVE WITH SEVENTEEN (17) LOTS FROM CRISP AVE. AND SEVENTEEN (17) LOTS ACCESSING OFF OF GYPSY HILL RD. Failed 2 -4, Chairperson Siegfried, Commissioners Burger, Harris, and Tappan dissenting. Per request of the Commission, Mr. Bob Swanson estimated that there were seven to ei ht lots currently taking access from Crisp Ave. g BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE A TWO CUL -DE -SAC ALTERNATIVE WITH ELEVEN (11) LOTS FROM CRISP AVE. AND TWENTY-THREE OFF GYPSY HILL RD. Failed 3 -3, Chairperson Siegfried, Comissioners LOTS Hams and Tappan dissenting. Commissioner Kolstad commented that he was willing to vote in favor of the Three Cul -de -Sac Alternative per the Applicant's request, although he did not see that this was the best alternative. Commissioner Harris stated that although she was a proponent of the Three Cul -de -Sac Alternative, she was not favorable to the configuration suggested in the following Motion; she favored Mr. Lohr's proposal submitted at the August 9th Meeting, which eliminated the need for the road to cross the riparian corridor. She asked that the configuration for a Three Cul -de -Sac Alternative be left open for discussion. Chairperson Siegfried agreed that he also favored the Three Cul -de -Sac Alternative with a limit of seven lots accessing off of Crisp Ave.; he was firm on the limitation of seven lots off of Crisp Ave. TAPPAN /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE A THREE CUL -DE -SAC ALTERNATIVE WITH A LIMIT OF SEVEN (7) LOTS FROM CRISP AVE., NINE (9) LOTS FROM THE ODD FELLOWS PROPERTY, AND EIGHTEEN (18) LOTS OFF GYPSY HILL RD. Failed 3 -3, Commissioners Burger, Harris and Tucker dissenting. HARRIS/TAPPAN MOVED TO APPROVE A THREE CUL -DE -SAC ALTERNATIVE WITH THE CONFIGURATION BEING DETERMINED AT A LATER DATE. Passed 4 -2, Com- missioners Burger and Tucker dissenting. Commissioner Tappan stated he was very firm about a limit of seven lots access off of Crisp Ave. AUG PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 PUBLIC - ARINGS Continued HARRIS/TAPPAIV MOVED TO AMEN AVE. TO SE � MOTION TO LIMIT SEVEN (7) LOTS. Passed 4 -2, Commissioners Burger an ACCESS OFF CRISP THE Per invitation of the Plannin Director, the g d Tucker dissenting. Public Hearing to be held September 13, 1989,.with a Commission provided direction to Staff. 10. DR -89 -041 Study Session being held September 5th. SD- 89.006 Dividend Development, 13150 Saratoga final development plan, vesting tentatie ubdivisionsma r consideration of a use housing project consisting of 75 townhomes and a senior ity. The senior* housin p to create a mixed- use facility would consist of 23 patio homes con dominium units _ , a 32 bed Pe�onal care facility and a 45 bed facility. This site is zoned multi le use Environmental Impact P planned development skilled nursing Hearing Report has been certified for this d g was closed district. An ------- - - - - -- on August 9, 1989. project. The P -------- - - - - -- - _______ Public The City Attorney ------- - - ---- certain period of tirrmeaif�theretwas no onstruction ------------------------------------------------------ there as some concern regarding the of the City. He suggested a on Phase II, there would be as orfe tube i after a commenced within five 5 Condition be added to state that "If extension caused b ()years, or such extension as ranted construction of Phase II was not event the money v, y circumstances beyond the reasonable control of h A y would be distributed to the City and deposited in the General Planning Comm, such n Planning Director Emslie no that a Revised Applicant, in such an al Fund. ation, incorporating amendments suggested Resolution DR -89 -041 was presented for consider- 'on, o ' mineral Condir��„s R, add to end of paragraph, " ssioner Kolstad, as follows; us of er than some fo �'u t nsider- for a .,o of senior J,,,....._ _ �rnlore_ it i� s! a roiP�� _ l Department E1•, add to end of pa N., add Condition to read b 1 d ate is s and rf^# ,I- ic -= nl a U The Public Hearin w �c at ve Ian g � reopened at 8:25 EM, Mr. Dick Oliver, Dividend Development, responding to Commissioner Tucker's in u' Consultants and reported on the status of the Market Study. Mr. Andy Beverett, Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating tee continued to support y pport the project; the Amended g Council, stated that the Strategic Commit - Col E T Conditions did not affect this endorsement. be a mistake. arco, Camino Barco, Saratoga, stated that approval of the project as presented would Mr. Bud Card, 2011 16 Chateau Dr., Saratoga, review ed the wait periods and membership facilities available the area; he concluded that a need fees for for continuing care units existed. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 9, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Page 7 BURGER/TAPPAN MOVED APPROVAL OF DR -89 -041 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Failed 3 -3, Commissioner Harris, Tucker and Kolstad dissenting. BURGER/TAPPAN MOVED APPROVAL OF SD -89 -006 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Failed 3 -3, Commissioner Harris, Tucker and Kolstad dissenting. The Chair outlined the options available to the Applicant. Break: 8:50 - 9:12 P.M. 11. SD -88 -008 Rogers & Brooks, Gypsy Hill /Crisp Ave., request for approval of a 34 -lot subdivision varying in area from 0.92 acres to 1.89 acres in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. The property is located at the Odd Fellows property southerly to the senior care facility, between Gypsy Hill subdivision and Crisp Ave. A Final Envi- ronmental Impact Report was prepared for this project. Continued from June 28, 1989. -------------- - - - - -- P----------------------------- Planning Director Emslie resented the Report to the Planning Commission, dated August 4, 1989; --------------- -- the draft Conditions of Approval were reviewed. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:18 P.M. Ms. Virginia Fanelli, Representing the Applicants Rogers and Brooks, commented as follows: - Reviewed the Application and its current status - Cited the two tentative maps currently under consideration and called attention to the handout en- titled P o ose_ d Chsanges to Conditions for SD-88-008 which also contained maps of the Two and Three Cul-de -Sac Alternatives Discussed Lot 34 which had been redrawn to place the building site toward the street frontage; such eliminated the long driveway, removed. the building site from proximity to the cemetery and preserved the Riparian Corridor in its natural state Proposed Changes to Conditions for SD-88-008 (Three Cul -de -Sac Map) 4. Lot 1 was eliminated; due to a limited building site, a two -story house would be appropriate; Lots 23, 24, 25 and 26 were eliminated from the Condition since these lots did not impair the view shed of others; in addition, it would be more appropriate to determine the height of the one story homes at the time of Design Review rather than at this time 5. Rather than limiting the second story area of the home on Lot 4, Applicants felt the entire structure should be designed to reflect concern for the large Oak Tree on -site 6. Suggested changing the limitation from a street height of 12 ft. to a street height limitation of one -story; if left as presently stated, the house could be no taller than 14 ft., including its foundation, as it faced the street 9. Add the phrase, "An open space easement, as shown on the tentative map, and at the rear of lots 10 through 14, as 12er attached an shall be..." 14. "No fence, structure or grading (except what is nece fo sary r the approved cul- de- sac l..." 17. Applicants believed that Lots 10-14 and Lots 2'' 3 -27 and Lot 30 could support some type of recreational court; it was unnecessary to further restrict lots which already devoted a large portion of their land to the open space easement; a lot -by -lot decision would be preferable PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8 AUGUST 9, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Fanelli, Representing the Applicants Rogers and Brooks, continued her comments on the Pronos, ed Changes to Conditions for -88 -008 (Three Cul -de -Sac Map) as follows: 20. Applicants suggested the trail along the street right -of -way be improved per City standards, but asked that the trail along the Riparian Corridor not be considered an improved trail; how- ever, the area should be cleared of all brush, dead trees and other fire hazard materials 46. (A) Applicants tried to reflect the City Engineer's belief that the existing portion of the access road may not need to have any substantial improvements (E) Applicants again suggested that access through the Odd Fellows' site should be private and conform to the existing private road standards, to reduce impacts on the Odd Fellows 48. Condition eliminated due to redesign of Lot 34 58. Requested clarification of this Condition with the City Engineer prior to the next hearing Ms. Fanelli stated that the Applicants felt that the Two Cul-de -Sac Map represented the best circu- lation design; such continued the existing residential streets into an area of light traffic use. In 1982, the Odd Fellows were told they could no longer plan to use a portion of their property be- cause the majority of those living in the area felt that a residential neighborhood development was preferable to the Home; neighbors believed this land was the proper extension of the residential area. Applicants believed that this extension of the residential neighborhood should be reflected in the traffic circulation design and requested approval of the Two Cul -de -Sac design. Nowack & Associates Representative reviewed the original with the current design configuration. Mr. J. Lohr, Developer of the Gypsy Hill Subdivision, favored the three cul-de -sac alternative with an equal traffic burden on each of them; he did not see any means for taking access off the Gypsy Hill Rd.cul -de -sac, across the riparian corridor and around to the Odd Fellows property. He asked that this issue be studied and agreed to prepare a drawing of the alternative he proposed. Ms. Peggy Cocker, Attorney for the Odd Fellows, commented as follows: - Stated that the most difficult part of her job was explaining to the Odd Fellows why the City was considering putting a road through their property - A three cul-de -sac alternative did not make good planning sense and resulted in a road three - quarters mile long, through a private senior care facility (Fellowship Plaza) with 400 residents - Questioned why the existing public streets of Gypsy Hill Rd. and Crisp Ave. could not accommodate these additional nine homes; the traffic impact on these streets would be minimal compared to the numerous adverse impacts to the Odd Fellows Home - In her opinion, the Crisp Ave. Minute Resolution of the City Council, 1977, was only a general expression of intent; there were no public hearings, studies conducted, traffic analysis or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) completed - Reportedly, there was no input from the City's Planning or Public Works Department regarding the practicality and feasibility of such a limitation on a public street - In her opinion, this Minute Resolution should have no control over the planning decision Testimony had been given at previous hearings that the Odd Fellows were benefiting from the development without sharing the burdens; she disagreed with this assertion - Only those who were able to bear the burden should be asked to carry it; this would be an excessive burden that the Odd Fellows could not bear - Odd Fellows had demonstrated their willingness to accept burdens; when Fellowship Plaza was build, the Odd Fellows were involved in the dedication and improvement of Chester Ave. - -in fact, they were responsible for extending Chester Ave. one - thousand feet to the northwest PLANNING COMNUSSION MEETING AUGUST 9, 1989 Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Cocker, Attorney for the Odd Fellows, continued her comments as follows: It was of interest to note that while the Odd Fellows had the burden of improving Chester Ave., they did not have the benefit of access; in fact, they were precluded from taking any access from it and had to continue to use their private driveway • Stated for the record that the Odd Fellows Grand Lodge was a fraternal, unincorporated Associ- ation; this was the entity that owned the property proposed to be developed as the San Marcos Heights Subdivision The Odd Fellows Home was a distinct, separate entity, a non - profit corporation, which owned the road on which it was proposed that access would be taken - The Odd Fellows were not simply an institution, but rather, hundreds of senior citizens who were Saratoga citizens; the Odd Fellows were neighbors too - Reiterated the extreme traffic safety hazard to the elderly residents who walked the area; a public road would destroy a secure and safe environment for those who needed it most - In addition, a public road had the potential of destroying the Odd Fellows' renovation plans which were crucial in providing senior care The Odd Fellows would seek all means, including legal remedies, to preclude this public road; they asked that the Two Cul-de -Sac Alternative be adopted Mr. Harry Lalor, Civil Engineer, Ruth and Going, Inc., presented a view graph showing their preferred cul-de -sac scheme which extended the terminated road shown on the Tentative Map, and brought it out to Fruitvale Ave. The connection with Fruitvale Ave was such that it was im- mediately adjacent to San Marcos Dr.; as a public street it would be a substandard location in relationship to other accesses. The development of a public street through the Odd Fellows property required existing improvements and utilities for the Home to be undergrounded and /or removed and relocated; in addition, there would be a severe reduction of the riparian corridor along their eastern boundary line. Preliminary improvement costs were estimated at 1.2 million dollars. He reviewed the Subdivision Map Act and submitted that there should be a correlation between the extent of the improvements required for the development and the rationale that accompanied such. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identified that the increased traffic in th e Two Cul-de -Sac Alternative was within the levels of acceptable service. Mr. Larry Wilkensen, Executive Director of the Odd Fellows, reviewed the level of care provided by the residential care facility, the level of danger posed by a public street through the Odd Fellows property, the rationale for the location and the design of the new facility proposed and the estimated cost differential between various building designs. Ms. Sue Creigton, Director of Nursing at Fellowship Plaza, stated that the private drive was the only flat area available; she reviewed the importance of ambulation to the health of residents. Mr. Michael Farrell, 14451 Sobey Rd., Saratoga, stated he could appreciate the Odd Fel lows concerns for safety; however, those who lived on Sobey Rd. also had concerns, especially for the young children as well as residents. Sobey Rd. residents were asked to share burdens without any benefits being derived; he urged that the Three Cul-de -Sac Alternative be adopted. Mr. Herb Radding, 14050 Chester Ave., Saratoga, stated that Emerald Hills residents felt that seven homes should access off of Gypsy Hill Rd., seven homes access off of Crisp Ave., with the remainder of the homes taking access through the Odd Fellows property. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 10 AUGUST 9, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Wanda Allinger stated she was interested in this issue due to the fact that her parents were members of the Odd Fellows; she wished to see their work come to fruition. A petition was presented; in the opinion of many Saratogans, Crisp Ave. was the logical access to the property and should be the only access if the terrain permitted it. She contended that the Commission's conscience would not allow them to vote against the Odd Fellows' request and the pressure of a very few neighbors would not permit them to vote for the Odd Fellows. She was very concerned regarding the residents of Chester Ave.; Crisp Ave. with its 60 ft. wide street should take the brunt of the traffic. Mr. Bob Swanson, 19305 Crisp Ave., Saratoga, commented as follows: - Mr. Ellman, Attorney at Ellman, Burke & Cassidy, spoke at the previous Hearing on problems with the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), especially traffic inadequacies and distribution - Presented Mr. Harry Ellman's letter Re: Anolication No. SD -88 -008 GY9§, Hill/ Cris p Ave, - He could argue that the conclusions reached in the EIR on traffic were erroneous because the sample data collected was not represented of the traffic flow; examples were cited - With respect to safety, others had adequately addressed this issue - The Commission had heard arguments why anything other than a Three Cul-de -Sac Alternative was inconsistent with the General Plan, City policy and was grossly unfair to everyone except the seller of the land; furthermore, the Odd Fellows positioned their arguments so that it ap- peared that those who disagreed with them, opposed senior citizens; this was not the case - Residents were concerned about the quality of their neighborhood and had been assured by the City Council that they could depend on the Council to protect the resident's quality of life - The Crisp Ave. Minute Order was made to appear as some sort of back room deal Ms. Margarite Fisher, Fellowship Plaza, thought that the sale and development of the land should not be contrary to the health and welfare of Plaza residents; she felt that much bad faith existed. The solution for residents who did not want traffic impacts from the development was to raise the money to buy the land in question. The cul-de -sacs were themselves a compromise to those who did not want through traffic; she favored the original through access alternative. Mr. Jerry Huston, 14082 Chester Ave., Saratoga, cited his application two years ago which contained a circle driveway; this was denied due to the existing traffic on Chester Ave. He favored the Three Cul-de -Sac Alternative and advised the Odd Fellows that development entailed both pluses and minuses. His concerns centered around the safety of his two children. Mr. H. Victor Yang cited the comments of Odd Fellows' Attorney regarding the Crisp Ave. Minute Order and asked how citizens could have any faith in local government or expect fairness; he urged that the commitments made be honored. Residents asked that the Odd Fellows share the traffic. Ms. Jim Johnson, 14966 Sobey Rd., Saratoga, felt that additional traffic should not be placed on Sobey Rd. due to potential hazards; he could understand the Odd Fellows' reluctance to have a through access on their property. He suggested the property in question not be developed since the facilities were not there to support such; this would be best for the whole community. Mr. Ralph Borelli, Pinnacle Ct., Saratoga, 19301 Pinnacle Ct., Saratoga, stated that the Two Cul- de-Sac Alternative should be adopted; if the Odd Fellows did not wish any impacts, the project density would have to be reduced. The market had improved during the past two years. Ms. Fanelli briefly responded to testimony taken; she requested a vote on the maps presented. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 9, 1989- PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Page 11 BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:38 P.M. Passed 6 -0. Commissioner Burger reviewed the various proposals presented and agreed this was a less than perfect situation with a less than perfect solution; she noted that the Planning Commission was charged with land use decisions. Several of the proposals required a public right -of -way through a private institution; this was not the best land use decision. She favored the Two Cul -de -Sac Alter- native with the traffic distribution proposed on the grounds that this was the most appropriate decision; any other decision should be made by the City Council. It was not necessary to scale the project down. Commissioner Tappan favored the Three Cul -de -Sac Alternative; he had considered this Alternative with the Odd Fellows' Attorney and Civil Engineer and had no objection to having the road cross the swale in order to obtain the third access. Commissioner Kolstad favored the Two Cul -de -Sac Alternative with the distribution as presented. Crisp Ave. and Sobey Rd. could handle the increased traffic despite the residents' objections to such; the Environmental Impact Report indicated that this increase would not change the character of the neighborhood. He felt that the Three Cul -de -Sac Alternative would denigrate the Odd Fellows' property and would not be viewed in the future as showing much vision. Commissioner Harris favored the Three Cul -de -Sac Alternative as Staff proposed since the riparian corridor would not have to be crossed; the Applicant's proposal for the Two Cul -de -Sac Alternative was so similar to Staffs that a compromise could be worked out. A road could be located on the Odd Fellows property on the same side as the Riparian Corridor; however, she was reluctant to see the destruction of trees with this Alternative. The road could be sufficiently segre- gated to ensure that Odd Fellows residents felt safe. She was concerned that Crisp Ave. as presently configured, was unsafe due to a rise in the road; Gypsy Hill Rd., in the Two Cul -de -Sac Alternative was excessively long, narrow and circuitous. Commissioner Tucker favored the Two Cul -de -Sac Alternative; she felt the Odd Fellows were providing a legitimate community need and recognized that they were concerned for the safety of residents. She cited traffic hazards at the intersection of San Marcos Rd. /Odd Fellows driveway; the existing problems on Crisp Ave. could be mitigated with a stop sign. While she was sensitive to the Council's action in the Crisp Ave. Minute Order; if they so directed, she would accept the Three Cul-de -Sac Alternative. Chairperson Siegfried favored the Three Cul -de -Sac Alternative; he believed there was a strong commitment made to the residents of Crisp Ave. and he would honor this commitment of seven homes off of Crisp Ave. He felt the Commission was being swayed by the past HUD develop- ment which could not be separated now; in fact, a public road could be built. Also, he was swayed by the fact that it was the Odd Fellows who were selling the property; they would have to make the decision whether they would accept the burden of the traffic. Planning Director Emslie recommended that no action be taken to certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in the light of the split vote; he wished to ensure that the EIR as drafted, fully addressed the Two Cul-de -Sac Alternative. He reviewed the areas of consideration. Commissioner Kolstad stated he could vote in favor of the Three Cul -de -Sac Alternative if such would help; while he favored the Two Cul -de -Sac Alternative, the overall project was good. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 12 AUGUST 9, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Fanelli stated she was surprised at the Planning Director's recommendation to Continue the Item; Staff originally recommended the Two Cut -de -Sac Alternative. BURGER /HARRIS MOVED TO CONTINUE SD -88 -008 TO AUGUST 23, 1989. Passed 6 -0. Break 11:00 - 11:08 P.M. 12. DR -89 -047 Peninsula Recreation, 21990 Prospect Rd., request for design review and UP -89 -007 use permit approval to construct a two -story 4,177 sq. ft. golf pro shop and a two -story, 2,952 sq. ft. cart barn and to remodel the existing 20,277 sq. ft. two -story Saratoga Country Clubhouse in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Graff presented the Report to the Planning Commission, dated August 9, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 11:13 P.M. Mr. Roger Griffin, Architect, made himself available for questions. In response to Commissioner Tucker's question, he confirmed that the number of employees would not be increased. HARRISBURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:14 P.M. Passed 6 -0. Commissioner Tucker had concerns about parking overspill on the narrow roads leading to the parking area; such could create a hazard if an emergency. Commissioner Harris agreed the concern expressed was valid; however, her personal experience was that special events were scheduled at different times than the member events. Mr. Griffin responded that the expansion taking place was in the private membership portion of the club house; the main club house, where special events took place, was a minor element in the proposed expansion. The Club Manager stated that special events would hold 240 individuals as opposed to the current 220 individuals; parking would be increased by 65 spaces. BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO APPROVE DR -89 -047 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 6 -0. BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO APPROVE UP -89 -007 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 6 -0. 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. Committee = of- the -Whole minutes 7/18/89 After extensive discussion the Planning Commission concluded the following: * The embankment at Surrey Road was to be reduced without removing significant number of trees. * Regarding paving near large trees, the Planning Commission requested the City Horticulturalist's recommendation. If trees are healthy and will be damaged by the proposed pavement then the widening should occur on the opposite side of Pierce Road to better conform to the topography and to preserve trees. * Regarding raising the grade, The Planning Commission felt this was acceptable provided the City Engineer had no topographic or technical concerns. C. SD -88 -008 ROGERS & BROOKS, SAN MARCOS HEIGHTS, REVIEW OF REVISED CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVES AND DESIGN GUIDELINES. The Planning Director presented the project history and explained the graphics and maps on display. He also presented a staff prepared alternative which includes 7 lots off of Crisp, and 10 lots off of Gypsy Hill Road and the remaining lots from the Odd Fellows site. The audience then expressed concerns and questions regarding safety for seniors living at the Oddfellows site, reduction of density and reaction to the staff alternatives. The developers representative indicated that this was the first time they had seen staff's proposal and were unable to react. However they were concerned about the sharp corner and grading which may result from staff's access alternative. The Committee -of- the -Whole discussed the various access alternatives including 2 vs. 3 cul -de -sacs and staff's proposal to serve more lots from the Oddfellows site. While a majority of the committee favored a 3 cul -de -sac design, there was question regarding staff's proposal. Some Committee members favored staff proposal; while others felt it would impact the site. It was suggested that a compromise of staff plan be explored. D. DR -89 -040, V -89 -012 - VAN DEN BERG 14291 PAUL AVENUE. REVIEW OF REVISED PLANS FOR AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. Committee -of- the -Whole Minutes Oq PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 28, 1989 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued 7. DR -89 -001 Henderson, 19880 Lark Way, request for design review approval to con- struct a 21636 sq. ft. first and second story addition to an existing one -story home for a total of 5,652 sq. ft. in the R- 1- 40,000 zoning district per ------------ - - - - -- Chapter 15 of the City Code. --------------- -------- ---- --- ---------- ------ -- ------------ --- ---- 8. LL- 89-001 Dividend Development - Corp., - - - Saratoga proval of a lot line adjustment e nt consolidat ng li -- - - ve parcels into - three for a t 25 +/- acre parcel located in the MU -PD zone district. Public Hearing closed June 14, 1989. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9• DR -89 -030 Lohr, 14825 Gypsy Hi11 Rd., request for design review approval to con- struct a two -story , 5, 172 sq. ft. single - family dwelling in the R -1- 40,000 - - -- -zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. --- - - - - -- -- - 10. DR -89 -020 Heath, 18681 Kosich Dr., request for design review approval to construct a 1,212 sq. ft. first and second story addition to an existing one -story home ----------- - - - - -- -for a total floor area of 3,370 sq. ft. per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 11. DR -89 -019 Woolworth Construction, 14836 Three Oaks Ct., request for design - review ------------------------- V -89 -010 approval to construct a single story, 6,730 sq. ft. single family residence in the R- 1- 40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Variance approval is also requested to exceed the allowable square footage for this ----------- - - - - -- -site by approximately 700 sq. ft. Continued to June 28,1989. -------------------- - - - - -- -- Commissioner Tucker requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 11. HARRIS/KOLSTAD MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 AND 10. Passed 5 -0. 11. DR -89 -019 Woolworth Construction, 14836 Three Oaks Ct., request for design review V-89-010 approval to construct a single story, 6,730 sq. ft. single family residence in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Variance approval is also requested to exceed the allowable square footage for this ----------- - - - - -- site by approximately 700 sq. ft. Continued to June 28,1989. Commissioner Tucker site she had concerns about the Variance, having not been present at the Study Session on this Item; Chairperson Siegfried reviewed discussions held at the Study Session. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:40 P.M. Mr. Gilbert Garcia, Designer, presented a rendering; the Landscape Architect was also available. Commissioner Tucker stated she would not be voting in favor of this Item, since she was not able to make the Finding that granting a variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege. HARRIS/KOLSTAD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:43 EM. Passed 5 -0. KOLSTAD/HARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE V-89-010 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 4 -1, Commissioner Tucker dissenting. KOLSTAD/HARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE DR -89 -019 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 4 -1, Commissioner Tucker dissenting. PUBLIC HF kRINGS: 12. SD- 88-008 Rogers & Brooks, Gypsy Hill/Crisp Ave., request for approval of a 35 -lot subdivision varying in area from 0.92 acres to 1.89 in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. The property is located at the Odd Fellows property southerly to the senior care facility, be- tween Gypsy Hill subdivision and Crisp Ave. A Final Environmental ------------------Impact Report was prepared for this project. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission, dated June 28, 1989, and reviewed Staff Report and noted that additional correspondence introduced beeo reced Exhibits showing the Applicant's proposal PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 28, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The Public Hearing was opened at 7:58 P.M. Page 3 Ms. Virginia Fanelli, Representing the Applicants, Rogers and Brooks, commented as follows: Reviewed the project background to explain their proposal (through access from Crisp Ave. to Gypsy Hill Rd.); consideration was given to geological, arbor, and archaeological concerns - This proposal was submitted based on their study and on planning concepts, not political issues - Their proposal was modified since public testimony had made it clear that a through access from Crisp Ave. to Gypsy Hill Rd. was unacceptable to the Planning Commission and to neighbors Modification of the perceived impacts was to install gates at both ends of the through roads; they understood this modification was also unacceptable, although they viewed it as a viable option Alternatives showing two and three cul-de -sac options, requested by the Planning Commission had been prepared for review; alternatives were discussed Applicants agreed with Staffs Recommendation for a two cul-de -sac alternative A second issue they wished to be considered by the Commission was Staff Recommendation for a reduction in the number of lots, eliminating Lots 1 and 35; the developer presented a 35 lot subdivision which was less than the allowed density The 35 lot subdivision was presented after careful study and with the assurance that every lot had a buildable home site without the need for setback variances - The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) showed no necessity for such a reduction on the basis of environmental concerns - Finally, the open space issue was of concern; the Tentative Map showed more than 20% of the acreage in private open space easements; such would protect the riparian creek area and the natural habitat and wildlife Consideration of public open space was inappropriate for the following reasons: -- This area had never been public land nor had the contiguous areas surrounding Crisp Ave. and/or Gypsy Bill Rd. had public open space — Many areas where trails and/or open space easements were allowed along property lines in remote areas, residents experienced vandalism and danger to themselves and their property; petitions were received that the City abandon these easements — Crisp Ave. residents had more than their share of problems from public use of open lands, property as public lands would only continue the existing problems i.e., Community Gardens and picnics at the Odd Fellows property; use of the subject Applicants requested direction on the additional studies recommended by Staff Chairperson Siegfried questioned the elimination of the Chester Ave. Altemative;.Planning Director Emslie responded that Chester Ave. was eliminated from consideration due to the Creek which intersected the area and, secondly, there was no distinct access in terms of trip calculations, since Chester accessed Sobey Rd. and would have a residual effect on it. Mr. Norm Matteoni, Attorney for the Odd Fellows, reviewed his letter of June 21, 1989, Re: Mares iot,ta ��'bdiyision• Plennin e IIenda of LWM2&IM Mr. Jeff Schwartz, 19281 San Marcos Rd., Saratoga, cited the following concerns: Integrity between the City and residents regarding agreements made; if commitments to Crisp Ave. residents were not kept, the integrity of the City would be in question . Representation: the Planning Commission represented the residents among all the professionals and consultants hired by the Applicant and the Odd Fellows Hypocrisy and cynicism of the Odd Fellows: Cited the recent hearing on the Odd Fellows request for a conditional use permit to allow use of their picnic grounds, wherein it was suggested it would be unpatriotic to prohibit the scheduled events; now the City was being told that havin access through the Odd Fellows property would endanger the lives and tranquility of their own residents Land deeded to Fellowship Plaza contained 70+ resident cars which accessed the property — Reviewed the history of Applications made by the Odd Fellows pro pert , y and contended that assertions were made that further development on -site was not envisioned; now a major expansion was requested which the Odd Fellows described as "no expansion of facilities" — Contended the Odd Fellows had adopted a strategy of providing the Commission and the community with completely contradictory information; he objected to such practices Equity: Institutions did not have different rights than other property owners — If the Odd Fellows wished to develop their property, they should share in the burden created by such development; to suggest that the surrounding area accept the whole burden while they could not handle parking and traffic, was not equitable PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 28, 1989 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Schwartz continued his comments as follows: - Requested consideration of the following three requests: Not to approve any subdivision plan until a Master Plan had been submitted and approved and not allow the lack of a Master Plan as the reason for prohibiting access to the property Stop consideration of any Alternative which exceeded seven homes off Crisp Ave. Stop consideration on any option which did not include participation of the Odd Fellows in Providing access and sharing the traffic impacts Mr. Bob Swanson, 19305 Crisp Ave., Saratoga, commented as follows: Stated hew ; ;isappointed by the lack of what he considered fair representation on the part of Staff towai.."c neighbors, relative to the many concerns brought up over the past few months - Public Notice now listed the Rogers & Brooks Application as "Gypsy Hill/Crisp Ave." instead of the former "San Marcos Rd." pro ject; furthermore, he did not agree with Staff Conclusions Residential neighborhoods were every bit as representative of the community as any institution; residents continued to come to the hearings to argue against solutions which were not acceptable - Objected to the sale of land for development without the seller bearing the burdens created --even if the seller was an institution involved in senior care - Project as presented was unacceptable to the surrounding residents; property owners on Crisp Ave. based the purchase of homes and, their lives, on the City's commitment - Contended the Planning Commission and Staff should be guided by the General Plan and City pfolicy; he questioned how the best use of land could be inconsistent with the General Plan - Urged the Planning Commission to require the Applicant and Property Owner present a p lan consistent with the General Plan Guidelines and one that would be fair to adjacent residents Ms. Pauline Seales, 14141 Sobey Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: Suggested the only alternative was to significantly reduce the number of lots proposed Presented a map showing access from Sobey Rd. and Crisp Ave. with 14 lots having access through the Odd Fellows property (Lots 1 and 35 eliminated as recommended by Staff) Suggested that Lots 18 through 25 not include the riparian corridor; an open space easement would protect the corridor as well as the wildlife in the area Mr. Howard Elman, Attorney for the Crisp Ave. residents, commented as follows: Emphasized that Crisp Ave. residents were not litigious; however, they felt they had to make a statement, putting every argument forward so as to exhaust every administrative remedy, as required by law Understood the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) had not yet been certified; noted that the "omClCalifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) required the Certified EIR to be placed before the ic and the decision makers during the decision making process �d that Staff cited transportation statistics from the uncertified EIR as a justification for the w�n �Y� recommendation before the Planning Commission; information previously presented that the transportation data to be fatally flawed; in fact, it was acknowledged on the record portation issue had to be restudied - If the EIR had been re- circulated, there would have been a number of additional comments; failure to re- circulate the EIR was also an issue Contended that the exercise of considering this Item would be completely futile if it turned out the Commission had acted inappropriately; their efforts would be in vain Added that the Commission would have to make Findings that the proposed subdivision was in compliance with the General Plan; Crisp Ave. residents contended that it was not - Reiterated that the Crisp Ave. residents were telling the City how they felt and that their position was to protect their rights, if this Application were to go forward as presented - Recommended that the appropriate manner to deal with this subdivision was to attempt to amend the General Plan since there was no way the Application could be approved without such - If the Application were approved with seven lots off Crisp Ave., and with an adequate EIR con- taining the appropriate Findings, there might not be a legal remedy - Offered to provide the above information in writing %. Joanne Bassett, 19401 Crisp Ave., Saratoga, stated her late husband and she researched this issue in 1974 and had been reassured that Crisp Ave. would never be a through street. Written statements made by the then City Manager and former Mayor were cited; she was horrified that the City would even consider a through street on Crisp Ave. W Wanda Allinger, Fellowship Plaza, read into the record a Petition signed by 124 residents. Mr. Daniel would only increase the that isting hazards. In addition, � area was a t Tel street .Crisp was not Tel patrolled. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 28, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Page 5 Mr. Rebecca Jennings, Odd Fellows Home, presented a Petition signed by 131 residents opposing the turning of this private driveway into a public street. Ms. Devorak Lackner, 14851 Sobey Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: =discrepancies the Alternative proposed by Ms. Seales Noted discrepancies in the traffic estimates for Sobey Rd. between the Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) for the project under consideration and the Gypsy Hill Rd. project Cited the EIR which stated that when traffic volumes on residential streets reached 2,000 vehicles per day, a loss in residential character was noticed, pedestrian freedom was lost, roads became impassible and traffic levels and dirt became objectionable Urged consideration of the above issues Ms. Marydee Urbano, Fellowship Plaza, noted that the Odd Fellows were a wonderful organiza- tion; she did not wish to see the property sold. Mr- George Kordestani, 10300 Crisp Ave. objected to any additional traffic on Crisp Ave. Ms. Carolyn Armstrong, Sobey Rd., felt strongly the Odd Fellows should bear as much of the traffic burden as possible; she cited the traffic impacts and the resulting hazards for the children. Mr. Ron Marcusio, 14330 Chester Ave., Saratoga, questioned the effectiveness of gating roads; the developer should be required to provide access for the proposed 35 home development. Mr. Art Mendell, Sobey Rd., Saratoga, cited his previous testimony favoring the three cul-de -sac Alternative; he noted that the Gypsy Hill development had four -car garages which indicated a significant increase in the number of vehicles in the area. Mr. George Ratting, Chester Ave., Saratoga, felt the developer had to bear the responsibility for the problems created; he cited the existing traffic hazards on Chester Ave. Ms. Diana Parham, Saratoga Residents Association, noted that whenever there was a reward, there is was rk; it was interesting the Odd Fellows believed they could get the reward without any risk. Land was one of the most valuable assets for anyone in the community. Mr. Chuck Hecker read into the record a letter of Mr. Don Jones requesting a proper distribution of the traffic impacts. He reviewed the history of Crisp Ave. Ms. Margante Filler, Fellowship Plaza, reiterated her objections to the loss of 55 acres of open space and the 87 year old barn. She favored the two cul-de -sac Alternative, a buffer zone between the Odd Fellows home and the project, and the proposal presented by Ms. Seales. She wished to see the rural character preserved with only 11 -15 houses permitted on -site. Ms. Marydee Urbano suggested the Planning Commission not allow any access, in effect prevent- ing the Odd Fellows from developing the site. Commissioner 'Iitcker noted for the record a phone call from Mr. PJ. Moore favoring the three cul-de -sac Alternative; in addition, he had concerns about erosion along the creek bed. Planning Director Emslie suggested the Planning Commission provide direction for the Applicant. The Public Heating remained open. Commissioner Harris commented as follows: - Suggested consideration of a reduction in the project density from the 35 lot subdivision pro- - Rosed; traffic problems would significantly be reduced if the density were lowered Favored the Alternative presented by Ms. Scales which would preserve the riparian corridor and agreed with Mr. Swanson that all access could be through the Odd Fellows property combining the above suggestions would give the project a very different look - While the Crisp Ave. residents had the foresight to obtain written statements regarding limiting the access off of Crisp Ave., the Sobey Rd. residents deserved no less consideration - It would be inequitable for Sobey Hills Rd. to bear traffic burdens contained in the Alternatives Disagfeed the Proposed Odd Fellows cul-de -sac would be too long; the length of the Sobey Hills Rd. cul-de -sac already exceeded the proposal - The developer's proposal, Alternative 4, showed ten lots accessing off the Odd Fellows road; a major concern with this Alternative was that no emergency access existed - Concluded that other configurations had to be considered I��21989O&affSSION FETING PUBLIC B P� RINGS Continued Commissioner Kolstad Did not necessarily see ented as follows: _ houses would be loco need for the elimination of Wished to see a la o °'site and whether the Lo More than e plan for the street trees Y would impact ts 1 and 35; he wished to he recd seven additional homes a the ri See ho, ' Noted gnu that r riparian corridor esidents w• access Crisp Ave. that residents that additional t off, a limitation on the Would not Asked thatthe Cite Makin hmc would char number of hem spa r Plannin ; 8 much more of t 8e the character of CCessing the road Favor Y At he traffic impacts than w SobeY Rd'; how Alternative 3, withy Comment on the procedur ould actually ver, he Comm. Alternatives 2 and I es for certifying an EIR Y oCCUr 'ssioner Tucker sta being the second and third choices riding concejn �,� safety. st she had not decided on respective surrounding the 1977 s t An emergency a preferred to the Cris a�ess would have to Alternative; however, Commissioner Ta P Ave. residents and favor be provided She had her eve 9uestions regain pan p1eviously favored the three 'Sealer questioi g all of the Alternatives. � cul -de_ Proposal. Y Commissioner Harris be further ex !or He asked that the cul-de-sac aternative; the content of Mr. Mans b i'f letter. ed and stated eduction however, he now ha, The City e City and s ted he had a number P"ect density suggestec Y Attorney res Attorney was asked questions s round q was sent by the �°nded that with respect to address this • rroundin� / lots would access ity uncil conf, to `Mlle° issue. Ordinance or �,e en �ff plaa Ave.; thiss�ac iOn°was statemen mmuntcations from the such ma as not taken that not more than City, a letter Plan or -y n t be a legally erfjendment. However, the at a Public h seven additional a Crisp in the amble promise • sense uncil took action dg and was not an Policy teme Ave., residets would lotions, If the Commthat it was not codified ode a promise; t, such could be changed bt' in his °Pinion, have 1e Were to allow 1i the General With respect Y the Council. gal recoujSe additional lots to pee to the Environmental As�vith an project w nmental Y other Of do' were taken or the Impact Review CCmg such. Once the protect approved before thhe�)' the critical factor w te jta rtify the E]R; such action had been establish EIR were certified; ed; the City action on a certainty to what the had not alread ee the first action of the Commission had no project would namely been taken IauSe mmission woulndt1On be, n With respect Y aCCe� as well as then ere was ots. erable un- changed, although alternatives recirCUlation of the E here was con was the purpose of the review re sR, the b review Process. regarding the access were under of the Project had not s�auPerson S. Consideration; such consideration Bfned stated he opposed be divided nth no more tha houses through access and troubled (�, in -Some fashion between "sea off Cris ated roads; he favored a three cul -de- 'mpact what coup that P sure was �beY Rd. and the Ave. p Fellows for the remaining dispersed anion °therwise be a viable ro exerted over the Property, He houses to no need to B three separate accesses Project; he felt the traffic Plan for greatly to eliminate the pro with �c impact, the site which Ms. Fanelli � Lots 1 and rojec� density; howevthe he h o ye emergency re �p� Ceap�epea may w Y Cha guested direction the ReCpmmendation war eon oothrough aooe�ss o that there ere warns om�° the ferred Alternative. photo anelh stated that q with provision being made for only consensus reached g� Applicants would emergency access. as well asps eho onr the t renderin Prepare a map showing IRIS type of stuc anshowing the Proposed8 style, an udm8 Pad for each lot, 1989 CKER MOVED T materials to be style, an at pda� landscape plan ' WITH A STUDY SESSION B LATIN SD 89.025 the Study Session. Break 9:40 - 9:52 P.1►L BEING HELD )1,18, 1 cgg SD Study TO AUGUST 9, Passed 5 -0. Chairperson Siege star he would take testimo ny from one speaker on Item 16. Planning -Commission was satisfied with the revised plans and directed staff to reschedule the item for a public hearing at the next available meeting. E. SD -88 -008 _ Rogers & Brook _ San Marcos Heights Subdivision. The Planning Commission reviewed circulation alternatives for the proposed subdivision. One alternative involved a through - access concept, which would connect Crisp Avenue and Gypsy Hill Road, as shown on the applicant's Tentative Subdivision Map. This alternative was opposed by property owners in the Crisp Avenue area and Sobey Road area. Other alternatives involved either two or three cul -de -sacs. The three cul -de -sac alternative provided for access through the Odd Fellows property. This alternative was opposed by residents of the Odd Fellows property. The pros and cons of the two cul -de -sac alternatives were discussed. It was agreed that the impacts of each alternative would depend upon the number of lots that would be accessed from each of the cul -de -sacs. The Planning Commission also discussed the issues of access to the various school districts and the concepts of open space and trail systems being used to the link the various neighborhoods. The Planning Commission reached a consensus that through access, with or without gates, would be impactful. Staff suggested that perhaps another study session would help define the issues related to the cul -de -sac alternatives. The Planning Commission concluded that a study session on June 6th would be held to discuss the details of the cul -de -sac alternatives. E. Proposed ordinance adding a new Article 15 -22 to the zoning regulations to establish the CS: Community Services Overlay District. The Planning Commission discussed the draft ordinance that was prepared by the City Attorney. Several citizens asked whether the proposed ordinance would apply city wide or just on the Odd Fellows property. Staff replied that the ordinance was general and could be applied to any area in the City. However, the ordinance was conceived to deal with the use of the Odd Fellows property and that staff did not anticipate that the ordinance would be applied to any other area in the city at this time. Staff further indicated that the ordinance could be made specific with the Odd Fellows conditions. The Planning Commission had difficulty assessing the ordinance because they had only a vague idea of the future plans that the Odd Fellows have for their property. The Planning Commission felt that a presentation by the Odd Fellows regarding their proposed master plan would be helpful in assessing the effect of the proposed ordinance. This item was continued to the meeting of June 6 to allow the Odd Fellows to prepare a presentation. 2 000191 LANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 10, 1989 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued 6. DR -89 -036 Klein, 20461 Williams Ave., request for design review and use permit a - UP- 89-006 proval to allow the construction of a 1, 179 s addition to a 1,400 sq. q• ft., one and two -story q ft. single family residence within the R -1- 10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The use permit would allow - -- -a detached garage within the rear yard setback. ------ - - - - -- - 7. DR -88 -021 Zimmerman, 14190 Palomino Way, -- - -esig "revie---appr -val t - construct a 6,025 sq. ft., two -story ingle family dwelling z e district per Chapter 15 of the City Code, g NHR zone --------------------- - - - - -- pool, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8• SM -89 -005 Sheng, 14900 Vintner Court, request for site modification approval to con- struct review and app approval required by the p rrnasnsubdivrision conditions - - - -- approval_ of 9. DR -89 -037 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lindberg, 20680 Leonard Rd., request for design review approval to con- struct a new 5,993 sq. ft. two -story single family dwelling in the R -1- 40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. --------------------------- - - - - -- Chairperson Siegfried noted Item 1 was withdrawn and Items 2, 3, and 4 were bein ----------------- KOLSTAD/TAppAN MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR I I g Continued. 9• Passed 4 -0. EMS 5, 6, 7, 8 AND JALIC A.DI : Rogers and Brooks; G YPsY Hill /Crisp Ave., public hearing to consider cer- tification of an Environmental Impact Report and a proposed 35 -lot sub - division at the Odd Fellows property behind the care facility per Chapter 14 of the City Code. The subject property involves 55.66 acres within the R- subdivision 1- 40,000 zoning district, which is proposed for single family residential -- - - - -- - - -- --- _ - Continued from April 26, 1989. - Planning Director Emslie presented the Memorandum Re: San Marcos Heights EIR. Ad1j� t res dents regarding helu use Odd Feplows property received: picnic Report Re; Comments to Draft Final Environmental Impact Report for Marcos Heights Residential Subdivision, dated February 1989, from Mr. Harry Lalor, Ruth and Going, c Inc. The Public Hearing was o opened at 7:44 P.M. Mr. Gary Dehgie, Senior Vice President, Earth Metrics, presented the ' Process by which the document was prepared. v v c dated May 1989; he reviewed the Mr. John Wilson, Project Traffic Engineer, �thevarious ed the RevicPd Traffic °nal discussed the traffic circulation patterns for Alternatives identified Eared for the v and tthe Virginia Fanelli, Representing the Applicants, Rogers and Brooks, presented excerpts from 1 Envi nmental t,,., ". and commented as follows: - Traffic at Cris p Ave V ' Traffic at '' east of Fruitvale Ave. was estimated at 920, not 862 as shown in the EIR Tabl Odd Fellows, east of Fruitvale Ave. was estimated at 792, not 734 as shown in the EIR 9 'm five 1995 Tr�fv Traffic Volume at Cris e., VolnmPc Odd Fellows, east of Fruitvale Ave of iAlternativ projected was to projected to be 1i026S 1 as not own shown in the EIR; this was a significant difference in cumulative traffic volumes Odd Fellows, east of Fruitvale Ave. with Alternative D, was projected to be 914, not 816 as shown in the EIR and Proi 1't � A � v Fruitvale Ave /Crisp Ave "Existing plus Project" Level of Service went from an "A" to a "C" based on a 214% increase in traffic Fruitvale Ave Fellows Entrance, cited "Existing plus Alternative C" and contended that the Level of Service would go from an "A" to a "C" based on a 226% increase in traffic volume PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 MAY 10, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Fanelli, Representing Rogers and Brooks, continued her comments on the EIR as follows: Table 3.2,19—Cumulative A.M. Peak Hour Levels of Service 1995 Fruitvale Ave. /Crisp Ave. "1995 plus Project" showed the Level of Service at "C" due to the 240 % increase in traffic Fruitvale Ave. /Odd Fellows Entrance was shown at Level of Service "A "; Applicants contended that the Level of Service should be shown as "C ", based on Alternative C which would cause a 357% increase in traffic at this intersection Fruitvale Ave. /Odd Fellows Entrance, Alternative D would cause a 261% increase in traffic Asked that her comments be attached to the Final EIR 2.2 Alternatives Evaluated, sixth paragraph to read in part, "...It would also iNGFeese decrease the average daily traffic on Sobey Road compared to that of the proposed project." 3.2 Traffic: Chester Avenue- Applicants wished it to be indicated that in the General Plan, Chester Ave. was called out as a collector street. Ms. Peggy Cocker, Attorney for the Odd Fellows, stated they were pleased to see the recognition in the EIR, that the development had a potential to adversely impact the Odd Fellows' property by adoption of either Alternative C or D., i.e., allowing through access of the property. While the EIR noted other impacts if a through access were allowed, namely, visual impacts in terms of light and glare, and noise impacts, the Odd Fellows felt the EIR had not adequately addressed other impacts. One of the primary impacts would be the safety hazard to the elderly residents, and secondly, there would be geologic impacts such as slope instability, grading and fill if access were taken through the unique terrain of the property. Finally, the riparian corridor on site had not been adequately addressed with respect to the impact an access route would have on the property. She introduced ,ic following speaker who had been retained by the Odd Fellows and asked that his comments and report be made an addendum to the Final EIR; she concluded that the Odd Fellows had prepared a letter on the use of the property for picnics, which would be made available. Mr. Harry Lalor, Ruth and Going, Inc., presented the Report Re: Comments to Draft Final Envi- ronmental Impact Report for San Marcos Heights Residential Subdivision dated February 1989 Ms. Marguerite Fischer, Fellowship Plaza, stated that a through access would be a disaster and un- fair to the residents; she noted the generosity of the Odd Fellows in sharing their property with various community groups. Furthermore, a through access would harm the wildlife in the area. Mr. Bob Swanson, 19305 Crisp Ave., Saratoga, commented as follows: - Alternative E, gating a through street was considered very unattractive by residents of the area; in addition, a gate would not mitigate the impacts - If a gate was considered a mitigation, he suggested it be installed on the Odd Fellows property - Odd Fellows wished to sell their property for development without accepting an access on -site; residents of Sobey Rd., Crisp Ave. and Gypsy Hill Rd.did not wish the resulting impacts - It was outrageous the Odd Fellows took a position that they wished to sell their property while being immune from accepting any of the problems that would be created - Alternative D, (three cul-de -sacs, extension of Crisp Ave., Gyspy Hill Rd. and from the Odd Fellows facility) seemed the fairest alternative - The City Council stated on two occasions that a through street in the existing residential areas would be inconsistent with the General Plan Mr. Brian Haughton, Attorney for Mr. Swanson, commented as follows: Validity of the EIR: contended that substantial changes had been made in the Draft EIR California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) required that when substantial revisions were made, the EIR had to be recirculated for comment - It was his understanding that the document was not recirculated and as such, was invalid - Substantial revisions occurred in the three alternatives presented in the Ruth and Going Report, and reformulation of the Draft EIR, for example, in the Traffic Analysis section; the revised document had not been made available for public comment - Agreed that statements had been made by the City Council in 1977 and 1988, interpreting the General Plan, that Crisp Ave. would not be made into a through street - In addition, the Odd Fellows consultant had cited concern that the steep slopes would be impacted by grading and the riparian corridor on -site negatively affected by a through street Ms. Pauline Sealer, 14141 Sobey Rd., Saratoga, noted the EIR estimated that impacts on the wild- life would be moderate. Areas counted as open space areas had fencing, walls, formal gardens or tennis courts; such was not open space insofar as animals were concerned. Cited the Department of Fish and Game's recommendation; she felt that the mitigations suggested were inadequate. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 MAY 10, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Chris Franklin, 14961 Haun Ct., Saratoga, realized that there were safety concerns in putting a through road on the Odd Fellows property; however, as a parent, he had concerns regarding the safety of the children in residential areas. Secondly, he questioned the number of projected trips per day, and reiterated his concern for safety and quality of life in the area. Mr. H. Victor Yang, 19461 Crisp Ave., Saratoga, felt Alternative D. (three cul -de -sacs) was the only acceptable alternative; such would provide equal distribution of traffic and noise impacts. Installation of a gate would not solve the problem and raised the question of enforcement. Mr. Art Mandell, 14950 Sobey Rd., Saratoga, was concerned about any alternative that opened a residential street to through access; such would be an invitation to crime. He concurred with Mr. Swanson's remark that those who were benefiting from the sale ought to bear some of the impacts. He favored Alternative D. Ms. Marydee Urbano, 14520 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, noted that the Odd Fellows was obliged to sell some property to maintain the existing facilities which served the elderly; she did not under- stand why neighbors felt the Odd Fellows had to accept noise and traffic impacts resulting from the development of part of the site. The Odd Fellows were not making a profit from the sale. The City Attorney, responding to Chairperson Siegfried's inquiry, noted that instead of having the comments attached to the original Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as usually done, the Con- sultant incorporated public comments into the document; such was now being characterized as a new document, rather than an aid to reviewing the report. His concern with such an argument was the implication that responding to public comment, unless such comments were trivial, any re- sponse would require a new EIR and recirculation. Further review of the issue could be done. KOLSTAD/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERING THE ADEQUACY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) AND CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION ON THE SUBDMSION TO THE NEXT MEETING OF MAY 24, 1989. Passed 4 -0. Break: 8:40 - 8:55 P.M. 11. UP -574.1 ' Brookside Swim Club, 19127 Cox Ave., review of an action plan prepared at the direction of the Planning Commission to address compatibility con- cerns between the club and its surrounding neighbors in the R- 1- 10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from March 22, 1989. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=-------------------- Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission, dated May 10, 1989. Letters from the following individuals were received: Brookside Club of Saratoga Re: Action Plan, dated May 10, 1989 Mr. Randy Schneider, President, Saratoga Woods Community Association, Re: May 10th Review of Brookside Club Neighborhood Committee Members, dated May 10, 1989 The Public Hearing was opened at 9:05 P.M. Mr. Bob Bennett, Brookside Swim Club, stated they were in agreement with the Staff Report; he deferred to other speakers. Ms. Dee Askew, Neighborhood Committee Member, reviewed their letter of May 10, 1989. Mr. Bob Salutric, 12635 Saratoga Creek Dr., Saratoga, contended that no real compromise was being offered by the Brookside Club in the Action Order submitted; several items listed were already required by the Use Permit. Furthermore, some items, such as their offer to halt "sleep ovens" for the swim team did not address the noise impact, which was the neighbors concern. In addition, there were no enforcement measures (financial penalties) listed in the Action Order. In summary, Brookside Club would be allowed an extended time for swim meets and use of the - Sport Court six hours per day, while the benefits to the neighbors included the Club's use of an electronic starting device for swim meets and removal of trash bags from the Creek area. Residents lost the use of their back yards every day of the week from 10:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M.; such was not a fair compromise. While the original application dealt with an extended starting time for swim meets, now the emphasis had shifted to the Sport Court - -so much so, that the Club was willing to withdraw their original request, if there were any amendments to the Action Plan. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: April 26, 1989 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Present: Chairperson Siegfried, Commissioners Burger, Harris, Guch, Tucker, Kolstad; Commissioner Tappan absent. Approval o_ f M_ Minutes: Meeting of April 12, 1989 HARRIS /GUCH MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 12, 1989, AS PRE- SENTED. Passed 6-0. presented Technical Corrections to the Agenda: Planning Director Emslie noted in Item 2, DR -89 -008, a change to Condition 6 of the Resolution, which addressed improvements to the existing structure. Item 9, DR -89 -001, SD -89 -003, the correct address was 14491 Springer Ave. not 14346. ORAL COMMUNICATIONSe Mr. Brian Kelly, noted the considerations of the City Council and the Planning Commission on the proposed moratorium on Flag Lots in R -1 Zoning Districts and requested information on such; the City Attorney and Chairperson Siegfried provided the information available. REPORT OF CLERK ON POSTING OF A ENDA• Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this Meeting was properly posted on April 21, 1989. PUBLIC HEARINGS CON NT CALENDAR* 1. DR- 88-109 Hamilton, 20211 LaPaloma, request for design review approval to construct at two -story, 2,982 sq. ft. single family home on a non - conforming lot in the R-1-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Application withdrawn. 2. DR- 89-008 — Hayes, 21130 Ambric Knolls Rd., request for design review approval to construct a 2,714 sq. ft. one and two -story addition to an existing home for a total floor area of 4,078 sq. ft. in the R-1-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Public Hearing closed April 12, 1989. --- — ------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. SD -88-M Ropers 8t Brook, Gypsy Hill/Crisp Ave., public hearing to consider certifi- cation of an Environmental Impact Report and proposed 35 -lot subdivision at the Odd Fellows property behind the care facility per Chapter 14 of the City Code. The subject property involves 55.66 acres within the R -1- 40,000 zoning district, which is proposed for single family residential sub- division. Continued to May 10, 1989. --------------------------------- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- — ----------Pp--------------- 4. DR -89 -011 J. Lohr, 14564 Chester Ave., request for design review approval to con- struct a two - story, 5,992 sq. ft. single- family dwelling in the R -1- 40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. DR- 89-009 Shahabi, 14307 Old Wood Rd., request for design review approval to con- struct a new 5,191 sq. ft. two -story single family residence in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. SM- 89-004 Phillips, 14152 Dorene CL, request for site modification approval to con- struct a pool and deck at Lot 4 of the Teerlink subdivision in the NHR zoning district per the subdivision conditions of approval. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 MARCH 22, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued 6. DR -88 -108 Sun, 12502 Parker Ranch Rd., request for design review approval for a new 4,410 sq. ft. two-story single family home in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 7. DR -88 -101 Gallo, 20077 Mendelsohn La., request for design review approval of a new 4,500 sq. ft. two-story single family home in the R -1- 20,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. ----- - - - - -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 8. DR- 88-096 Casabonne, 14435 Big Basin Way, request for design review approval for a 816 sq. ft. addition to an existing retail store located in the central commer- cial zone per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 9. DR -89 -005 — Picetti, 21793 Congress Springs Ln., request for design review approval to construct a new 4,737 sq. ft. two-story single family home in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 10. DR -88 -095 — Hur, 20052 Sunset Ave., request for design review and building site ap- SD-88-019 proval to construct a two-story, 6182 sq. ft single family home in the HC- RD zone district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. Continued to April 12, 1989, per request of the Applicant. Continued to April 12, 1989, per request of the Applicant. Chairperson Guch noted that Items 1, 2, and 10 were being continued -------------------- HARRISfMCKER MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 3 - 9. Passed 6-0. PUBLIC H .ARINGS- 1.Y S188 =f1( 19gers & Brooks, Gypsy Hill/Crisp Ave., public hearing to consider c6iificatign of an Environmental Impact Report and a proposed 35-lot sub- division at the Odd Fellows property behind the care facility per Chapter 14 of the City Code. The subject property involves 55.66 acres within the R- 1- 40,000 zoning district, which is proposed for single family residential subdivision. Continued from February 22, 1989. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Planning Director Emslie presented the Memorandum dated March 22,1989. Mr. Gary Deghie, Senior Vice President, Earth Metrics, commented as follows: - Introduced Mr. John Wilson, Wilson Engineering, Project Traffic Consultant - Noted previous comments made by the public and the Commission - Recommendations responding to these concerns raised by the public and the Commission at the February 22nd Meeting, had been suggested to Staff and were based, in part, on new data - Presented their strategy for completing the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as follows: - Recommended increasing the number of alternatives for evaluation in the EIR to include the ad- dition of a three cul-de -sac alternative (Crisp Ave., Odd Fellows property and Gypsy Hill Rd.) - Second alternative was identical to the proposed project with the addition of security gates at the entrance to the site at Crisp Ave. and at Gypsy Hill Rd as suggested at the previous hearing - Recommended that the Traffic Analysis be applied to all five of the traffic circulation patterns in a way that insured consideration a worst case scenario in relationship to West Valley College, namely, during the A.M. Peak Hour and the Mid -day Peak Hour, the P.M. Peak Hour was the least congested period of day - Requested confirmation that the City wished this considerable amount of data on traffic impacts - Finally, they wished to respond to the concerns of the Commission that the entire Odd Fellows property be Master Planned, including development proposals for the remainder of the property - Since the February 22nd Meeting, Earth Metrics received a map indicating a development pro- posal for a 90 -unit retirement facility and a 120 -bed skilled can facility - The existence of the map legitimized the Odd Fellows intentions, such that inclusion of the development proposal was necessary in the EIR according to CEQA guidelines - In discussions, Staff indicated that they considered the proposal for a residential care facility to be separate and subject to its own EIR; in addition, they acknowledged the EIR on the resi- dential project provided clearance for this project only - However, the new care facilities would be considered in the cumulative analysis of a Final EIR - In addition to a Final EIR Addendum, Earth Metrics recommended that a revised Draft EIR be prepared, incorporating all requests and recommendations made - Noted the considerable amount of new information available at this time which should be incorporated in the EIR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 FEBRUARY 22, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Chairperson Guch reiterated her question about the difference in impacts between the alternatives. Mr. Wilson responded that the impacts between the cul -de -sac and the gated road would be essentially the same; any difference would be dependent upon where the alternative was located and how many lots would access Crisp or Gypsy Hill Rd. for access. Impacts would be restricted to traffic generated by the projects themselves. Chairperson Guch questioned whether a through street was more impactful than a cul -de -sac or gated road. W. Wilson stated that the traffic volumes were estimated to be considerably higher on Crisp Ave. if the road became a through street. In response to Commissioner Harris' question, W. Wilson stated that the Report had not pro- vided the number of increased trips per day through the Odd Fellows property; the estimate was an increase of 220 trips per day; if all the homes gained access by this route, the estimate would be upwards of 400 trips per day. He confirmed that the traffic counts taken on August 11, 1989, had not been included in the Report. Commissioner Harris noted that West Valley College was not in session when the traffic count was made; she asked that an analysis of traffic circulation patterns used by College students be provid- ed; neighbors were concerned about the use of their neighborhood as a short cut to the College. Mr. Wilson noted that it was very difficult to quantify such a situation and determine a specific number of trips that might be created; they estimated that there would not be very many given the length of time required to follow a route through the project site and over to the College. Commissioner Harris asked that potential traffic circulation patterns by West Valley students if Crisp Ave. were a through street be considered and a review of attendance records to determine the origin and direction of the current traffic. W. Wilson stated he would report back on this issue. Commissioner Harris noted that individuals, including herself, took a circuitous traffic route if one could avoid gridlock traffic on the arterial streets. She requested any information available. Mr. Hogan stated that the traffic and noise were the most serious impacts; per request of the Commission, he completed his review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Chairperson Guch noted that specific mitigation for reduction of noise impacts from traffic coming property had not been suggested. Mr. Hogan responded that under this alternative, the sound level would not reach 60 dBAs and as such, the impact would not be considered significant under the City's General Plan. However, if such a mitigation were desired, an appropriate grade design to minimize the noise upgrade (toward the new project) could be considered; the other potential mitigation measure which was not being recommended since it was not needed, would be to retrofit the major residential structure as the Odd Fellows; older buildings such as this had a great deal of acoustical leakage. Chairperson Guch asked that the various mitigations to the traffic circulation pattern alternatives be addressed in the Report. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:45 P.M. W. Victor Hue S. Yang, 19461 Crisp Ave., Saratoga, cited the existing traffic hazards in the area and objected to the extension of Crisp Ave.; examples of recent accidents were noted. W. Bob Swanson, 19305 Crisp Ave., Saratoga, cited his letter Re: the Draft EIR and presented a letter of a forma City Manager and an agreement signed by Councilmember Peterson as Mayor. Mr. Don Jones, 19369 Crisp Ave., Saratoga, cited the above letters which stated that Crisp Ave. would not become a through street; he asked that this commitment be observed Mr. Ralph Burwell, 19309 Pinnacle CL, Saratoga, commented as follows: Reviewed the EIR and stated he did not understand allowing development without a Master Plan Recognized that the City contracted for the EIR but questioned who was paying for the Report The Planning Director and City Attorney reviewed the standard practice of the City in this matter. W. Dick Merwin, 14466 Sobey Rd., Saratoga, noted the excessive traffic speed on Sobey Rd; he felt the EIR failed to address the existing traffic impacts on this street. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 FEBRUARY 22, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Pauline Seales, 14141 Sobey Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: - Cited the potential traffic impacts for Sobey Rd. from the proposal under consideration - In addition, there was another development under way which would access by Sobey Rd. - Was horrified by the suggestion in the Draft Environmental Impact Report that the wildlife was taken cane of by the so called scenic easement - Some of the lots shown were three - fourths covered by the scenic easement and one lot was bisected by it; where were the houses to be sited on these lots - Predicted the easement would be destroyed within five years, the wildlife would disappear and the Oak trees disturbed Ms. Margarite Fisher, 14520 Fruitvale Rd., B.11, Saratoga, read her letter into the record. Mr. Devorak Lackner, 14851 Sobey Rd., Saratoga, reviewed her letter of February 21, 1989. Mr. Charles K. Heker, 19339 Crisp Ave., Saratoga, commented as follows: - Favored retaining the existing cul-de -sac on Crisp Ave. - Traffic impacts would have to be measured when school was in session - Noted that the noise from the proposed development would bother the neighborhood Ms. Katherine S. Shonlas, 14928 Haun Ct., Saratoga, supported her neighbors on Crisp Ave. Mr. R. Kemp Carter, 19306 Pinnacle CL, Saratoga, commented as follows: - Configuration of the intersection at Crisp Avenue and Granite was unsafe; cited traffic hazards - Proposed developments in the area appeared piecemeal; a Master Plan for the area was required - Was concerned with the erosion and drainage due to the topography of the site - Noted that a cemetery on -site was not addressed and questioned the access of such Mr. Joe Semke, 19332 Crisp Ave., Saratoga, felt the Draft EIR was incomplete as follows: - Traffic circulation patterns proposed for Crisp Ave. was absurd - Crisp Ave. was incapable of handling any more traffic; in addition, hazards existed on this street - Asked that a balance between the request of the Odd Fellows and the neighbors be achieved Mr. Michael Farrow, 14451 Sobey Rd., Saratoga, cited the accidents on Sobey Rd; any increase in traffic would be detrimental. The impact of Roux 85 was not addressed in the Report. Mr. Rex Hoover, 14475 Sobey Rd., Saratoga, cited concern over current traffic hazards; while not opposed to development of this six, he was concerned about making Crisp Ave. a through street. Mr. Pat Moran, 14133 Sobey Rd., Saratoga, cited damage to his property from traffic accidents; he echoed concerns of Commissioner Harris. In addition, he was concerned about erosion on -site. Ms. Penny Macuga, 14894 Granite Way, Saratoga, noted (crisp Ave and Granite Way was a blind intersection; asked that the rural ambiance of Saratoga be maintained by not creating a thorough- fare. Finally, she cited the proximity of the homes on Crisp Ave. to the street; such would create acoustical leakage. Ms. Dee Heines, 14803 Granite Way, Saratoga, presented a letter on traffic impacts and hazards Mr. Peggy Cocker, Attorney on behalf of the Odd Fellows, - Odd Fellows had already submitted their formal response to the Draft EIR - Noted that the major issue was traffic - Odd Fellows wished to reconfirm that access through their site was unacceptable; they were as concerned as the neighbors regarding traffic impacts and respected the concerns raised - Noted that the Odd Fellows was not a standard, single -family residential subdivision - There were approximately 300 senior citizens with an average age of 80 on -site and there was serious concern regarding the safety and well being of these residents - The Odd Fellows were in the process of preparing a Master Plan to refurbish and modernize the existing facility - Commented that the Draft EIR noted the existence of 16 55- gallon drums of unknown material; Odd Fellows had retained the services of a hazardous waste consultant and environmental geo- technical consultant and they had commence an analysis of the materials - This material would be disposed of in accordance with local, state and federal regulations - Concluded that the Odd Fellows had to sell the property for the the continued operation of their senior care facility; furthermore, the issue of financial benefit was not a proper land use issue PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6 FEBRUARY 22, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Robert Barton, Odd Fellows Development Consultant, commented as follows: - Reviewed the history of the site and current status of the property and adjacent area - Reviewed the proposed Master Plan for the site including access to the property - Applicants had attempted to find access through the site; questioned whether they would be required to install a through street which would divide the functions of the campus - The western boundary of the site had very difficult terrain - Access from the west would destroy the riparian corridor; in addition, Earth Metrics had indicated that such would create additional noise impacts from cars accelerating up the hill Use of Chester Ave. did not seem acceptable - Applicants agreed with the conclusions of the Draft EIR Mr. Jerry Lohr, J. Lohr Properties, commented as follows: Future residents of Sobey Rd. and Gypsy Hill Rd. were not present since they had not taken title to the property; he expected they would be equally opposed to a through street on Crisp Ave - Submitted the Odd Fellows previous plans showing the access to the site - Stated that the seven properties on Crisp Ave. was not properly addressed in the Draft EIR - Felt it made no sense to access the Odd Fellows property via of Gypsy Hill Rd. as children would be attending Saratoga Schools - There were access options not discussed Chairperson Guch asked Earth Metrics to consider a three cul-de -sac option when assessing traffic impacts in the Draft EIR; namely, from the Odd Fellows, Crisp Ave. and Gypsy Hill Rd. Commissioner Burger stated her greatest concern was traffic as noted in the testimony heard; she wished to see the various options for traffic circulation fully studied by the Traffic Engineer. Commissioner Tucker was concerned about traffic impacts and erosion of the Creek; she asked that the traffic be measured during peak hours for West Valley College. Commissioner Tappan concurred and favored consideration of a three cul-de -sac option. Commission Kolstad did not have any comment to make to Earth Metrics at this time; he explained to the residents of the area that the neighborhood streets may be able to handle the traffic load. Commissioner Harris reiterated her request for the raw data on the traffic counts Mr. Hogan reiterated statements in the Draft EIR as follows: - Noted that the impacts on the Odd Fellows and the adjacent area were very similar in nature - Earth Metrics concluded that a gate must be provided to mitigate traffic and noise impacts - Felt that the three cul-de -sac option was imaginative and deserved consideration - Concluded that Earth Metrics would respond in detail to the comments made Ms. Virginia Fanelli, Representing Rogers and Brooks, Property Owners, thanked residents for their comments; one alternative they were considering was a gate at both ends of the proposed road, one at Crisp Ave. and one where Gypsy Hill Rd. was intersected. This proposal would allow access only for the residents and eliminate through traffic. The Public Hearing remained open. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO CONTINUE SD- 88-003 TO MARCH 22, 1989. Passed 6 -0. Break 10:00 - 10:17 P.M. 14. UP -89 -002 Christiano, 21120 Wardell Rd., request for design review and variance V-89-004 approval to add an additional 1,595 sq ft. to an existing two -story 3,512 sq. ft. single family dwelling in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. A proposed pool is also part of the application. The home is on the Heritage Resource Preview List. The variance request is to exceed the maximum allowable building height by 3 ft. 6 in. for an ultimate height of 29 ft. 6 in. with will not be higher than the existing two -story structure. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission, February 22, 1989; a Condition 13 was added to the Model Resolution requiring that the property be surveyed. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:25 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION �ESoG a rio�/ 5U- fig- Oc�B RESOLUTION NO. SD -88 -008 RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF SAN MARCOS HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION AT ODD FELLOWS PROPERTY CRISP AVENUE AND GYPSY HILL 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 34 lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD -88 -008 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 9/13/89 being hereby made for further particulars, and WHEREAS, this body has heretofor received and considered the EIR 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 13th day of September, 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: 1. Pay storm drainage fee in effect at the time of obtaining final approval or receive credit for off -site improvements approved by the City Engineer. 2. Submit tract map to City for checking and recordation (pay required checking and recordation fees). 3. Street dedication on all streets to be 50 ft. 4. Access easement through Odd Fellows must extend all the way to Fruitvale Ave. 5. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easements, .as required. 7 San Marcos Heights, ( sp Avenue /Gypsy Hill Road 6. Odd Fellows access road along their northerly border shall be windened where necessary to provide a consistent width for the entire length between Fruitvale Avenue and the intersection with the connection street to Phase III. The entire access road to be overlayed with asphalt as directed by the City Engineer. 7. Improve all streets and the street connection between Phase III and the Odd Fellows access road along their northerly border to City standards including the following: A. Designed structural section 13 ft. between centerline and flowline. B. P.C.. concrete curb and gutter (V -24). C. Underground existing overhead utilities.- 8. Construct storm drainage system as shown on the "Master Drainage Plan" and as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff to street, storm sewer or watercourse, including the following: A. Storm sewer trunks with necessary manholes. B. Storm sewer laterals with necessary manholes. C. Storm drain inlets, outlets, channels, etc. 9. Access roads having slopes between 15% and lit shall be surfaced using 4" of P.C. concrete rough surfaced using 4" aggregate base. Slopes in excess of 15% shall not exceed 50 ft. in length. 10. 11. 12. 13. Access roads having slope in excess of 17 -1/2% are not permitted. A. The minimum vertical clearance above road surface shall be 15 ft. B. Bridges and other roadway structures shall be designed to sustain 35,000 lbs. dynamic loading. C. Storm runoff shall be controlled through the use of cul- verts and roadside ditches. Construct standard driveway approaches. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and - access road intersections. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. No direct access allowed on emergency access roads from lots, and no direct access to rear street on double frontage lots. 8 San Marcos Heights, :sp Avenue /Gypsy Hill Road 14. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills. 15. Engineered improvements plans required for: A. Street improvements B. Storm drain construction C. Access road construction 16. Pay plan check and inspection fees as determined from improvement plans. 17. Enter into improvement agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving final approval. 18. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements. 19. Erosion control measures to be constructed along Vasona Creek downstream from development, (in the general area of APN 397 -3- 21) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 20. The final map may be recorded as three phases provided that the first phase will include the cul -de -sac from Crisp Ave. including lots #15 through 20, the second phase shall be the cul -de -sacs from Gypsy Hill Rd. including lots #24 through 33, and the third phase shall be the cul -de -sac from the Odd Fellows facility including lots #6 through #14. The emergency access between the cul -de -sacs from Crisp Ave. and Gypsy Hill Rd. shall be fully constructed at the second phase. The third phase including the final location of an access road through the Odd Fellows facility shall be submitted for the Planning Commission's review and approval prior to recordation. 21. A Streambed Alteration Agreement shall be obtained from the California Dept. of Fish and Game for the proposed roadway construction across the creek. All the conditions of the agreement shall be met. 22. The placement of utility lines shall be within the right -of -way and to minimize the impact on existing vegetation where not possible to locate the lines within the right -of -way, the lines shall be located so as to minimize interference with the route system of major trees. 23. All construction vehicles and equipment shall be muffled per California State Noise Standards for delivery motor vehicles. 24. Construction shall be restricted to Monday through Saturday from 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 25. Water shall be sprayed on site during construction of street and /or structures, to minimize the amount of dust. 26. Soil and materials hauled by trucks shall be wet and /or covered. 9 San Marcos Heights, (-_lsp Avenue /Gypsy Hill Road 27. The contents of existing containers on the site shall be tested by a state certified analytical laboratory and shall be removed from the site in accordance with the expert's recommendations prior to final map approval. 28. Developer shall install fire hydrants that meet the Fire District's specifications. Fire hydrant shall be installed prior to final map approval. 29. All fire hydrants shall be located within five hundred feet from the residences and deliver no less than one thousand gallons per minute of water for a sustained period of two hours. [City of Saratoga Code 14- 30.040(c)]. 30. All driveways shall have .a 14 foot minimum width plus one foot shoulders. 31. Driveways shall have a minimum inside radius of 21 feet. Turn around shall have 33 ft. outside radius. Other types shall meet the Fire District requirements. 32. Security or emergency gates width shall be no less than 15 ft., shall be controlled by a remote digital transmitter and approved by the Fire District. 33. A sanitary sewer connection shall be required in accordance with West Valley Sanitation District standards. Fees and posting of the sanitary sewer improvements bond shall be paid to the District prior to final map approval. 34. Domestic water shall be supplied by San Jose Water Company. 35. All the requirements of SCVWD regarding treatment of wells shall be met prior to final map approval. 36. Hydrologic and hydraulic studies prepared by the applicant, shall be submitted to SCVWD for review and approval prior to final map approval. 37. Evaluation of Feasible Building Sites - Geotechnically feasible building envelopes and driveway access routes shall be indicated on the tentative map with the assistance of the project geotechnical consultant. Potential slope instability associated with existing landslide features shall be considered when locating feasible development areas. The recommended foundation type for each building site shall,be indicated on the tentative map. The consultant should review and approve the geotechnical feasibility of proposed development as indicated on the tentative map. The tentative map and plan review letter prepared by the project geotechnical consultant should be submitted to the City for review by the City Engineer and Geologist prior to approval of the tentative map. 10 San Marcos Heights, c _sp Avenue /Gypsy Hill Road 38. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits on individual lots, the following conditions shall be satisfactorily completed. (a) Supplemental Slope Stability Evaluations - The long -term stability of steep slopes and /or existing landslide features should be evaluated under static and anticipated seismic conditions. appropriate stabilization measures shall be recommended (as necessary) to address any potential adverse impacts existing landslides pose to the proposed development or adjacent properties. Appropriate subsurface investigation shall be conducted (if deemed necessary by the consultant) as a basis for the slope stability evaluation. The results of the stability evaluation should be submitted to the City for review by the City Geologist and Engineer prior to approval of grading or building permits. (b) Supplemental Subsurface Investigation - Geotechnical design criteria for individual lot development shall be based on subsurface investigation in the vicinity of the proposed building site. The project geotechnical consultant shall verify that sufficient lot specific subsurface investigation has been completed as a basis for recommended geotechnical design criteria. A statement to this effect shall be included as part of the geotechnical plan review. (c) Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations and roadways) to ensure that this recommendations have been properly incorporated. The consultant should also verify that sufficient lot specific subsurface investigation has been completed as a basis for recommended geotechnical design criteria. 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 site development or building permits. (d) Geotechnical Field Inspection - The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. 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 11 San Marcos Heights, isp Avenue /Gypsy Hill Road the_ City Engineer for review prior to final project approval. (e) Geologist shall review grading and drainage prior to recordation of the final map to determine which lots need further analysis. 39. Trail easement at the main riparian corridor and along the streets right -of -way shall be defined and shown on the tentative map and be dedicated to the City. The trails shall be improved by the developer per the City's Maintenance Department requirements prior to final map approval or shall be adequately bonded. The purpose of the trail in the open space easement shall be to provide recreation access without detracting from the natural environment. The applicant shall submit a trails improvement plan for Planning Commission review and approval prior to recordation of the final map. 40. Design review approval is required on all the lots prior to issuance of building permits. 41. The homes located at building sites of 10% slope or over, shall be designed with stepped floor plan to follow the natural topography. 42. Location of the new homes shall be at building sites as approved by the Planning Commission. Any modification to the building site shall require site modification approval by the Planning Commission. 43. The homes on lots 2, 3, 5, 33 shall not exceed 20 ft. in height. The homes on lots 1, 23, 24, 25, and 26 are extremely sensitive -due to the proximity to the riparian corridor and a one story home should be considered by the Planning Commission when design review is considered. 44. The second story on lot 4 should be limited in area to no more than 50$ of the first floor and shall be subject to Planning Commission design review approval. The final design shall also consider the proximity of the structure to the oak on the northerly portion of the lot. 45. The height of the homes on lots 31 and 32 shall not exceed 18 feet in height above the elevation of the south cul -de -sac as measured at the mid -point of the frontage of each lot. 46. The maximum height on the homes on lots 6, 7, 8, 9 shall not exceed elevation 450 above sea level. 47. Materials and colors used for the structure shall be of types and tones which integrate with the natural environment and in accordance with the City's Residential Design Guidelines. 48. An open space easement, as shown on the tentative map, and at the rear of lots 10 through 14 as per Exhibit "A" attached shall 12 San Marcos Heights, C _sp Avenue /Gypsy Hill Road be dedicated as a private open space easements and recorded in the County Office of Recordation prior to final map approval. The easements shall be maintained at natural form. No structure, fence or grading shall be allowed within the easements. The easement to the rear of lots 10 through 14 shall be added to the tentative map and recorded on the final map. 49. The rooflines and articulation of the elevations of the homes shall be designed to minimize the bulk of the homes and blend with the natural environment. 50. Graded area shall be landscaped with native vegetation for screening and erosion control measures prior to start of winter seasonal rains. Plan for erosion control and revegetation shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to final map approval. 51. No retaining walls or exposed foundations shall exceed 5 ft. in height. 52. All fences and retaining walls shall conform with the fence regulation for hillside districts in accordance with Ordinance 15- 29.020. 53. No fence, structure or grading except what is necessary for the approved cul -de -sac and is approved by the City Horticulturalist shall be permitted under the drip line of the existing large (about 70" diameter) oak trees on lots 4 and 22. 54. Native trees shall be planted along the street to compliment the existing trees. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to final map. 55. All landscaping shall include native vegetation to reinforce and promote the existing natural character of-the site. 56. No recreational courts shall be allowed on the lots which visually detract from the adjoining open space easement. Specifically, no recreation courts shall be allowed on lots 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 28, 29. 57. Swimming pools shall be allowed subject to the Planning Commission approval. 58. No ordinance size tree shall be removed unless in accordance with City ordinance Article 15 -29, except for trees approved by the Planning Commission for removal at building sites, as shown on the tentative map. All the removed trees shall be replaced by native trees, three (3) trees for each tree removed. 59. The new bridge over the creek shall be located to minimize tree removal and impact on the riparian corridor using methods to avoid operation of heavy equipment at the riparian corridor. The bridge shall be placed during the dry season or adequate techniques shall be used to prevent turbidity in the water 13 San Marcos Heights, C _sp Avenue /Gypsy Hill Road avoid operation of heavy equipment at the riparian corridor. The bridge shall be placed during the dry season or adequate techniques shall be used to prevent turbidity in the water column. 60. All the lots with proposed building sites at an area with existing trees shall require the City's Horticulturist's review and approval prior to design review approval. 61. Pursuant to City Code Section 14- 05.055, upon the city's re the applicant shall, its officers, officialsdefboards, omimissions, employees and volunteers harmless from and against any claim, paction aor Proceeding to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to such approval, which is brought within the time specified in Section 14- 85.060 of this Chapter. If a defense is requested, the City shall give prompt notice to the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the defense thereof. Nothing herein shall prevent from participating in the defense, but in suchevent, the the City shall pay its own attorney's fees and costs. 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 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effectivelten (10) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 13th day of September, 1989 by the following vote: AYES: Siegfried, Burger, Kolstad, Moran, and Tappan NOES: Harris and Tucker ABSENT: None ATTEST: Secr ary, Pla Xing Commission 14 San Marcos Heights, C _sp Avenue /Gypsy Hill Road The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted. Signature of Applicant Date 15 STAFF REPORTS C � fry 09197_� 92 §&Mki�Q)oz 13777 FItUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission DATE: 8/1889 FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director SUBJECT: SD -88 -008; San Marcos Heights Location: South of the Oddfellows Home between Crisp & Gypsy Hill Roads Applicant: Rogers & Brook --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Overview The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the proposed tentative map for a 34 unit development. A motion was made to approve the two cul -de -sac alternative which resulted in a 3 -3 vote. Staff recommended that no action regarding the EIR be taken until the Planning Commission direction regarding which access alternative is appropriate was provided. Findings Since the Public Hearing, staff has investigated the mitigation measures contained in the Environmental Impact Reports relative to the two cul -de -sac alternative. Because certification of an EIR requires the Planning Commission to have considered all information in the document prior to approving the project, staff presents the following findings of the EIR for Planning Commission consideration now that the two cul -de -sac alternatives is a possible result of a Planning Commission action. I. Mitigation measure's recommend that the City should approve an alternative other than the through access. II. The two proposals under consideration by the Planning Commission relate to two alternatives discussed in the EIR. A. Alternative B: Two cul -de -sacs; one from Crisp with 7 lots; and one from Gypsy Hill with 28 lots. B. Alternative D: Three cul -de -sacs; one from Oddfellows with 14 lots; one from Gypsy Hill with 14 lots; one from Crisp with 7 lots. III. Traffic, Land Use, Public Service, Visual, Hydrology, Biology And Noise impacts were identified for each alternative. 1 Alternative B. (Two cul -de -sacs) 1. Traffic increase - Crisp: 70 trips - (14 %) - Sobey: 174 trips - (22 %) 2. Land Use : Consistent with General Plan Area G. 3. Public Service : No additional impacts 4. Visual : No additional impacts 5.' Hydrology : No additional impacts. 6. Biology : Gypsy Hill would extend across Sobey Creek the same as the original project. If additional emergency access is required, then impacts to the riparian corridor will be increased. The Department of Fish and Game comments in the final EIR suggest subdivision alternatives which do not impact Sobey Creek. 7. Noise : Noise would increase by 1 dBA which results in an imperceivable increase on Crisp and by 3 dBa which results in a maximum of 59 dBA in the Gypsy Hill /Sobey neighborhoods. B. Alternative D (Three- cul -de -sacs) f 1. Traffic increase - Crisp: 70 trips - (14 %) - Oddfellows: 141 trips - (40 %) - Sobey: 87 trips - (11 %) 2. Land use Consistent with General Plan policy for Area G. 3. Public Service : All service except fire and police are unaffected. Emergency access roads must interconnect all the cul -de -sacs. 4. Visual The construction of the road through Oddfellows will create additional light and glare from vehicles passing through the site. 5. Hydrology Impacts would remain the same as the proposed access. 6. Biology : Depending on the location of the emergency access between Crisp and Gypsy Hill there may be no need to bridge Sobey Creek. 2 7. Noise: Noise would increase by a maximum of 2 of dBA to 58 dBA in the project vicinity; noise impacts to the northwest and east will not be significant. The two access alternatives were studied by the EIR with specific lot access each cul -de -sac. Any discussion of an access alternative should also address the maximum number of lots which the Commission will find appropriate in each instance. The EIR did not identify significant impacts to traffic and circulation systems when more than the number of lots currently proposed were studied. Procedure At the August 9, 1989 meeting the developer requested the Planning Commission vote on the two cul -de -sac alternative which resulted in a tie. Since the Planning Commission direction regarding which access alternative is necessary in order to certify the EIR and revise the tentative map, the public hearing was closed and re -vote scheduled for August 23, 1989. The applicants are entitled to a decision when a tie vote results. When the applicant so requests a re -vote is allowed under the Planning Commission's adopted procedures. If the re -vote also results in a tie vote the action is considered a denial which is appealable to the City Council. The applicants have indicated that if the requested re -vote also results in a tie then a vote on the three cul -de -sac alternative is requested. The City Attorney has again confirmed that recirculate the EIR since the project itself proposal remains a 34 lot residential circulated to all agencies required by state will be prepared to report verbally to the this issue and can prepare a written opinion Conclusion it is not necessary to has not changed. The subdivision which was law. The City Attorney Planning Commission on if requested. The vote pending before the Commission as to what access alternative to follow is central to the controversy which has followed this proposal since discussions began more than 6 months ago. While the access question is convoluted, the other far reaching issues such as open space preservation, recreation, and neighborhood compatibility must also be addressed. Staff feels that the extensive input and study regarding all issues including access should result in a a comprehensive action on the pary of the Commission. It is very likely that what were decision on the access, the project will be appealed to the City Council. Therefore, the decision which may be reviewed by Council should also address the entire project. 3 Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Move to decide the two cul -de -sac alternative including the number of lots accessed from each cul- de -sac. 2. If this motion fails, or results in a tie, then a second motion to decide the three cul -de -sac alternative also including the number of lots accessed from each cul -de -sac. 3. Move to Certify the EIR if either access alternative is approved. 4. Review draft conditions of approval in the event an access is decided by the Commission. 5. Direct the applicant to revise the tentative map in accordance with the Planning Commission direction regarding the access. Stephen EM61lie Planning Director 4 William Cot and Associates _)n TO: Todd Graff, Assistant Planner CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 330 Village Lane Los Gatos, California 95030 (408) 354 -5542 SUBJECT: Supplementary Geologic and Geotechnical Review RE: San Marcos Heights Subdivision, SD -88 -008 Vicinity of Crisp Avenue and Gypsy Hill Road M� August 9, 1989 S1088A At your request, we have completed a supplemental geologic and geotechnical review of the subject application using: Review of Preliminary Development Plans and Tentative Maps for your Proposed 35 -Lot Subdivision off San Marcos Road (letter /report) prepared by JCP Geologists and Engineers, dated August 3,1989; and Tentative Map - Alternate III and Tentative Map - Alternate IV -A (2 sheets, 60- scale) prepared by Nowack and Associates, dated June, 1989. In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical maps and reports from our office files (i.e., Gypsy Hill Farm, S1195, and San Marcos Heights Subdivision, S1088). DISCUSSION The applicant has proposed two alternative Tentative Maps (Alternates III and IV -A) for subdividing the subject property. Alternate III proposes 35 residential lots and Alternate IV -A proposes 34 residential lots. Both alternatives include plans for construction of primary access roads including extensions of Crisp Avenue, which is located along the southwestern property boundary, and Gypsy Hill Road located along the southeastern property boundary. According to Alternate III: 1) Crisp Avenue would cross the central and northeastern portions of the property, and 2) two cul -de -sacs proposed from Gypsy Hill Road would extend into the northeastern and southeastern corners of the property. According to Alternate IV -A: 1) Crisp Avenue would extend into the central portion of the subdivision, 2) two cul -de -sacs from Gypsy Hill Road would extend into the northeastern and southeastern corners of the property, and 3) a third access road would enter the subdivision from the north and extend into the northwestern portion of the property. ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES • FOUNDATION ENGINEERING Todd Graff August 9, 1989 Page 2 In our previous review report (April 28, 1988), we stated that prior to approval of the Tentative Map the applicant's geotechnical consultant should evaluate feasible building sites _and proposed driveway access routes. We recommended that building envelopes and driveway alignments be shown on the Tentative Map, along with appropriate foundation recommendations for the individual proposed building sites. Following approval of the Tentative Map, we recommended that supplemental slope stability evaluations be completed for proposed lots 18 through 24, 28,-29, and 35. In addition, we recommended that: 1) supplemental subsurface investigations be conducted to provide geotechnical design criteria for individual lot developments, and 2) geotechnical plan reviews and field inspections be conducted for all proposed building sites. The proposed subdivision and residential development is somewhat constrained by potential slope instability on steep hillsides, regions of potentially expansive surficial materials, shallow ground water conditions in topographically low valleys and swales, and the site's seismic setting. In addition, a few incised erosional gullies and unstable artificial slopes require mitigation. The following sections outline our conclusions and recommendations for the two referenced Tentative Map plans. tMt FUM U1,1VOIN—vILM Except for Lots 1 through 7, Alternate III is unchanged from the original San Marcos Heights Subdivision Preliminary Grading Plan submitted to our office in April 1988. Lot lines for proposed Lots 1 through 7 have been altered to accommodate a suitable building envelope for Lot 1. Based on our review of the referenced materials, it appears that the project geotechnical consultant has, in general, provided appropriate building envelops, driveway access routes and foundation design recommendations for approval of the Tentative Map. However, the proposed building envelope for proposed Lot 10 and the lower portions of Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9 are within an area of potentially shallow ground water and may require special mitigation measures. Appropriate geotechnical design and proper construction practices could mitigate the potential site constraints. Consequently, we recommend approval of the Tentative Map. However, prior to approval of the Final Map, we recommend that the following conditions be satisfactorily completed: Supplemental Slope Stability Evaluations - (To be completed for Lots .18 through 24, 28, 29 and 35) The long -term stability of the steep natural and artificial slopes and /or existing landslide features should be evaluated under both static and anticipated seismic conditions. Appropriate stabilization measures should be recommended (as necessary) to address any potential adverse impacts existing landslides pose to the proposed developments William Cotton and Associates Todd Graff August 9, 1989 Page 3 or adjacent properties. Appropriate subsurface investigations should be conducted as deemed necessary to provide a basis for the slope stability evaluations. Appropriate mitigation measures should be shown on the final Grading Plan. 2. Site Drainage Evaluation and Foundation Recommendation - The applicant's geotechnical consultant should evaluate the potential shallow ground water conditions within the proposed building envelope for Lot 10, and along the lower portions of Lots 6 through 9. Mitigation measures should be provided (as necessary) to ensure proper drainage within these areas. In addition, updated foundation recommendations should be provided (as necessary) to reflect the subsurface conditions encountered during the site drainage evaluation. Existing and proposed drainage conditions should be shown on an appropriate Drainage Plan. The results of the stability and drainage evaluations (including Grading and Drainage Plans) should be submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer and Geotechnical Consultant prior to approval of the Final Man. Certain lots may require detailed review by our office prior to issuance of grading or building permits. Lots that will require a detailed geotechnical review will be specified as a condition of Final Map approval (i.e., after review of Grading and Drainage Plans). Tentative Map - Alternate IV -A Our review of Alternate N -A indicates that Lots 17 through 34 are in the same general locations as original Lots 18 through 35 that were depicted on the San Marcos Heights Subdivision Preliminary Grading Plan submitted to our office in April 1988. Lots 1 through 16 have been changed to accommodate a suitable building site for Lot 1 and newly proposed roadway alignments. As a result of the plan changes, one lot has been eliminated from the original (i.e., April 1988) plan. Based on our review of the referenced report, it appears that the project geotechnical consultant has, in general, provided appropriate building envelops, driveway access routes and foundation design recommendations for approval of the Tentative Map. However, building envelopes for Lots 7, 8, and 9; the driveway alignment for Lot 6; and portions of the proposed northwestern roadway are located within an area of potential shallow ground water and may require special mitigation measures. Appropriate geotechnical design and proper construction practices could mitigate the potential site constraints. Consequently we recommend approval of the Tentative Map. However, prior to approval of the Final Map, we recommend that the following conditions be satisfactorily completed: William Cotton and Associates Todd Graff August 9, 1989 Page 4 Supplemental Slope Stability Evaluations - (To be completed for Lots 17 through 23, 27, 28 and 34) The long -term stability of the steep natural and artificial slopes and /or existing landslide features should be evaluated under both static and anticipated seismic conditions. Appropriate stabilization measures should be recommended (as necessary) to address any potential adverse impacts that existing landslides pose to the proposed developments or adjacent properties. Appropriate subsurface investigations should be conducted as deemed necessary to provide a basis for the slope stability evaluations. Appropriate mitigation measures should be shown on the final Grading Plan. 2. Site Drainage Evaluation and Foundation Recommendations - The applicant's geotechnical consultant should evaluate the potential shallow ground water conditions in the vicinity of the proposed building envelopes for Lots 7, 8, and 9; the driveway alignment for Lot 6; and the northern roadway. Mitigation measures should be provided (as necessary) to ensure proper drainage within these areas. In addition, updated foundation recommendations should be provided (as necessary) to reflect the subsurface conditions encountered during the site drainage evaluation. Existing and proposed drainage conditions should be shown on an appropriate Drainage Plan. The results of the stability and drainage evaluations (including Grading and Drainage Plans) should be submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer and Geotechnical Consultant prior to approval of the Final Map. Certain lots may require detailed review by our office prior to issuance of grading or building permits. Lots that will require a detailed geotechnical review will be specified as a condition of Final Map approval (i.e., after review of Grading and Drainage Plans). WRC:BH:mjs Respectfully submitted, WILLIAM COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CITY GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT William R. Cotton Principal Engineering Geologist CEG 882 William Cotton and Associates y REPORT TO THE PLANNING COIIAl1�SS�ON FROW Tsvia Adar DATE: 8/4/89 PLNG, DIR. APPRV. Y/ APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: SD -88 -008; San Marco's Heights, Gypsy Hill & Crisp APPLICANT /OWNER Rogers & Brook APM 397 -12 -017 Q ,�,� 4 ° `.�, y �A An s r� ♦� to f� • ♦ z Via • . , it 2 "Man • �� * S , a 0': cm AVL � • +r r o s USana <tff /1711�1� w ��rr�:i � vrL .. r PROJECT air. -- •• - - -- SITE , t. "'.14 .' 2 14 L MINOR �tv � COtMrlltr Ap w � as Q at ° I CLUB vat N t � l M � � ► E ° r •` o` ; ilk • M �4 4 . - r � File. No. SD -88� -008; San Marcos Heights EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 4/7/88 Application complete: DEIR completed 11/28/88 Notice published: 2/8/89 Mailing completed: 2/9/89 Posting completed: 2/2/89 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests tentative map approval for a 34 -lot subdivision, in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district pursuant to Article 14 of the City Code. The application was continued from 6/26/89 public hearing and was discussed at the 7/18/89 C.O.W. study session. PROJECT DISCUSSION: At the last study session (7/18/89) there was a concensus among the commissioners regarding the preferred traffic circulation for the subdivision. The commissioners felt that a three cul -de -sac alternative is the most appropriate considering all the possible impacts on the adjoining neighborhoods and the natural environment. The applicant was directed to work on further architectural details, to establish guidelines for typical design of the structures. The applicant submitted two tentative maps for the Planning Commission's consideration, three cul -de -sac and two cul -de -sac alternatives. The applicant requests that the Commission vote on both maps. Staff prepared draft conditions for the Planning Commission review. All the required modifications shall be incorporated in the final resolution. The conditions were prepared for three cul de sac alternative, however most of the conditions apply to both alternatives and only few conditions will require some modifications, if the Planning Commission approves the two cul -de- sac alternative. The applicant proposes three development phases for the subdivision, leaving the portion connected to the Odd Fellows facility last, to allow flexibility until the exact alignment of the street through the Odd Fellow is determined. Staff recommends the Planning Commission certify the EIR since the circulation alternative is accepted and is recommended for approval. 1 SD -88 -008; Sarr Marcos Heights STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1. Certify the EIR by adopting the attached resolution. 2. Approve the three cul -de -sac alternative and review the recommended conditions. 3. Direct staff to prepare the revised tentative map and the final resolution for presentation to the Planning Commission for adoption at the next public hearing on 8/23/89. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution for certification of the 3. Draft conditions 4. Staff reports to the Planning Commission and Committee-of-the- Whole dated 6/6/89, 6/28/89, and 7/18/89. 5. Minutes from 6/28/89 Planning Commission meeting. 6. Response to comments to the EIR at the 5/10/89 Planning Commission meeting prepared by Earth Metrics. 7. Plans, Exhibit A TA /dsc 2 SD -88 -008; Sarr- Marcos Heights STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: P -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD PARCEL SIZE: 50.55 acres. Lots vary from approximately 0.92 to 3.72 acres. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 20.9% for the general site (10.4% to 29.2% for the individual lots). PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Planning Commission considered the subdivision in several public hearings and study sessions. The main issue discussed by the Commission was the traffic circulation. Considering all the possible impacts on the surrounding neighborhood and the natural environment, most of the Commission felt that the circulation alternative of three cul -de -sacs distributes the traffic most equally and will have the minimal cumulative impacts compared to other alternatives. However the Commission was still concerned about the number of lots on each cul -de -sac. The three cul -de -sac alternative, as proposed by the applicant, allocates seven (7) lots (including lot #34 by the cemetery) to the cul -de -sac extended from Crisp Ave., nine (9) lots through the Odd Fellows property and the remaining eighteen (18) lots through Gypsy Hill Rd. At the 7/18/89 Committee-of-the-Whole-study session, staff suggested extension of the cul -de -sac off the Odd Fellows property in order to divide the number of lots more equally between the Odd Fellows and Gypsy Hill Rd. However, the steep topography may restrict the construction of a longer cul -de -sac from the Odd Fellows, -and the Planning Commission was not in favor of such an alternative. Staff is still concerned regarding the length of the cul -de -sac off Gypsy Hill Rd. and the number of lots proposed to be accessed from this road. However it appears that only reduction in the total number of lots for the subdivision will allow reduction in the number of lots on Gypsy Hill. The applicant submitted two tentative maps, one of three (3) cul -de- sacs and one of two (2) cul -de -sacs for the Planning Commission's consideration and requests the Planning Commission vote on both maps. Open Space Easements and Trail S stem The Planning Commission discussed the issue of public versus private open space easement. The Planning Commission concurred with the recommendations of the Parks and Recreation Commission to dedicate the, easement as a private easement to be maintained by the private owners. A trail system should be developed along the street and through the riparian corridor. The trail should be improved by the developer. The City Council currently considers the possibility 3 SD -88 -008; Sair Marcos Heights that trails be maintained by the City. The location of the trail within the riparian corridor must be defined and should be incoporated and recorded on the final map. The proposed open space easement along the main riparian corridor is shown on the tentative map. Staff recommends additional open space easement to the rear of lots 10 through 13 and the northeast corner of lot 14 to protect the smaller riparian corridor at the northwest portion of the property. The easement will protect the dense vegetation and ensure the preservation of an existing natural buffer between the subdivision and the Odd Fellows property. Staff recommends that the easement be 80 to 100 feet wide. Design Guidelines and Restrictions Staff recommends that the new homes on any lot in the subdivision shall require design review approval due to the visibility of land and to ensure compatibility with the character of the adjacent neighborhoods. The homes on lots 1,2,3,5,23,24,25,26, and 33 are recommended to be one story and no higher than 201. A second story on lot #4 should be subject to Planning Commission approval. One story or limited area of a second story, to no more than 35% of the first floor area, is recommended. Any design on the lot should not interfere with the root system of the large oak tree which exists on the site. The homes on lot 31 and 32 are recommended to be stepped in floor plan and be no higher than 12' above the elevation of the proposed southern cul -de -sac. The street level is suggested to be measured at the midpoint of the frontage of each lot. The building sites on lots 12 and 13 are recommended to be moved down toward the cul -de -sac in order to minimize the impact on the vegetation within the riparian corridor, at the rear of the lots. The maximum height of the homes on lot 6 through 9 is recommended to be restricted to elevation 450 above sea level. Lot #34 is recommended by staff to be eliminated due to the interference with the riparian corridor, and is recommended to be dedicated as private open space easement. Elimination of the lot will only leave six (6) lots accessed from Crisp Avenue. One out of the 18 lots, accessed from Gypsy Hill Rd., may be oriented and accessed from Crisp Avenue. The turn around area of the northern part of the cul -de -sac off Gypsy Hill Road, is recommended to be moved back outside of the dripline of the 72" oak tree to prevent damage to the root system. 4 SD -88 -008; Sari Marcos Heights Development Phases The applicant proposes three development phases for the subdivision. The first is the portion accessed from Crisp Ave., the second phase is the portion connected to Gypsy Hill Rd. The third and last phase is the portion accessed from the Odd Fellows property. The applicant wishes to phase the development in order to allow time for the Odd Fellows to determine the exact location and outline of road on the Odd Fellows facility.. Should access through Odd Fellows not occur, the developer would be unable to satisfy this access condition and would not record the final phase of development. In order to separate the phases, the applicant may record the final map as three phases in accordance with the proposed phases. The first phase must be the Crisp Ave. portion which serves no more than fifteen lots, including the existing homes on Crisp, and does not require emergency access. The second phase must include the construction of the emergency access between the cul -de -sacs from Crisp Ave. and Gypsy Hill Road. Recommendation 1. Certification of the EIR 2. Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the tentative map of three cul -de -sacs with the recommended revisions. 3. The revised tentative map and resolution shall be submitted for the Planning Commission review and approval at the next public hearing on 8/23/89. F1 Rar-., �Cc rct I�v9Q � Gv/ J I ; �o /- rJ�,CCS7'G I I /f e. /°u rs � ve.r le tvo4l0� � CV4 ..- de r sCf 'I I AC2 e- L' 4 �a/d/�iJss jj� ul c . �'>✓.��'. d't >.1�,�;y. '(�f-s�0 �' �=�,u- <..�v�.�' � OZ, �t I YY„ JJJ I I i / its � I I oguy( Qq O&MZ�VQX5& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Committee-of-the-Whole DATE: 7/18/89 FROM: Tsvia Adar SUBJECT: SD -88 -008 - San Marcos Heights Subdivision -------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - =- The Planning Commission discussed several circulation alternatives for San Marcos Heights subdivision in the public hearings,and study sessions. Although there was no concensus among the Commissions regarding a preferred alternative, it was evident that only a cul- de -sac alternative is acceptable. Following the last public hearing at 6/26/89, the applicant concentrated on two alternative which address the major concerns raised by the Planning Commission and the public. The first is the three cul -de -sac alternative, extended from Crisp Avenue, Gypsy Hill Road and through the Odd Fellows senior care facility. This alternative distributes the proposed 34 lots (instead of 35) between the different neighborhoods and the facility. The applicant proposes 7 lots from Crisp Avenue, 18 from Gypsy Hill Road, and 9 from the Odd Fellows property. This alternative complies with the intention of the City expressed by the City Council, in a letter to the neighbors on Crisp Avenue. The revised alternative proposes an additional emergency access which will connect all the lots and allow access to emergency vehicles from any portion of the subdivision to another. The second alternative proposed by the applicant, for the Commission consideration is a two cul -de -sac alternative.. The distribution of 35 lots, in this alternative, is fairly equal, eighteen (18) of the lots are connected to Crisp Avenue and the remaining seventeen (17) to Gypsy Hill Road and Sobey Road. Staff feels that the revised three most of the Planning Commission and the commitment of the City Council may be a viable solution. Staff s Commission in order to work with t of the subdivision. 1 cul -de -sac alternative addresses public concerns, complies with to Crisp Ave. neighborhood, and eeks direction from the Planning he applicants on further details The applicant reduced the number of lots in the three cul -de -sac alternative to 34. Lot #1 and #34 at both ends of the riparian corridor are retained. Lot #1 was enlarged to increase the building site area. Further reduction in the number of lots should be considered. Elimination of Lot #34 by the cemetery is recommended by staff. The possibility of an equal distribution of lots between the Odd Fellows and Gypsy Hill Road should be considered by increasing the number of lots proposed on the Odd Fellows cul -de -sac to 17, and reduction of lots connected to Gypsy Hill to 9. The number on Crisp Ave. will remain 7. Landscaping The applicant prepared written guidelines regarding protection and preservation of existing vegetation and plantation of future vegetation. The guidelines for landscaping includes types of trees, native to the area which blend with the existing. The guidelines also indicate the appropriate type of vegetation for screening and buffers for privacy protection and preservation of quality views. The report also discusses the type and appropriate location of street trees. The landscaping report, submitted by the applicant, is attached. The recommendations are in accordance with the EIR and should be incorporated as conditions for approval of the subdivision. Architectural and Design Guidelines The applicant submitted a general report indicating conceptual design intentions for the development of the tract. The report summarizes the typical styles,for each section of the development, surrounding the subdivision which the applicants choose to adopt. A plan with approximate loca�ion of building sites was also submitted for Planning Commission review. The report does not present any specific guidelines regarding height, shapes, rooflines, and materials. These guidelines are necessary to ensure integration with the natural environment, compatibility with the adjacent neighborhoods, protection of privacy and views conservation. The Planning Commission may require the applicant to prepare more detailed guidelines for the typical design of one and two story homes in the subdivision. The other option is to incorporate the design requirements as part of the subdivision conditions with or without the architectural analysis by the applicant. The conditions for approval should include restriction on height, number and location of one and two story structures, stepped pad floor plans, square footage restriction, materials and landscaping and streetscape. K Open-Space The EIR identified the riparian corridor which exists on the property, as natural resource which must be preserved. The EIR suggests mitigation measures to be used to prevent any impact or damage to the vegetation and wildlife in the corridor. The applicants propose in all the alternatives, to preserve the corridor by means of a designated private open space easement along the rear yard of the proposed lots. The City Council is in the process of determining direction of the General Plan policy regarding public open spaces in the City. The General Plan current policy is that in areas of large lots the private open spaces are sufficient and eliminate the need for public parks and open spaces. Since the San Marcos Subdivision may be the last of its size in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district, the issue of public versus private open space is of major importance. Staff presented the issue to the Park and Recreation Commission. The Commission felt that the City will not gain, in the case of San Marcos Heights subdivision, much advantages, by the acquisition of the open space. The preservation of the riparian corridor and the use of the easement by the public can be achieved whether the open space is public or in private hands. Trail system may be created in both cases for public use. The size of the lots, in case of a public open space, will be smaller, but will still comply with the City standards. The size of the future homes would not be affected since the steep areas of the lots will not be included and the average slope will be decreased. The lots will abut a dedicated open space which will allow more flexibility in size of homes, through design review procedure, without the necessity of variance approval. The differences, however, between the private and public options are with regard to the responsibility for maintenance of the open space and control on the use of the land. If the land will remain private the City will also be paid a parks dedication fee which is be $5,000 per lot. For 35 lots the total is $175,000. The Parks and Recreation Commission unanimously agreed and recommended to retain the land under private ownership; to create a trail system through the riparian corridor in addition to the proposed trail along the street, and that the trail system should be maintained by the City. Tsvia Adar Assistant Planner 3 Attachments: 1. Letter from the applicant 2. Design criteria for the subdivision 3. Planting concept and preservation of vegetation 4. Plans with two and three cul -de -sac alternatives, and proposed building sites. 4 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Tsvia-Adar ' DATE June 28, 19 8 9 PLNQ DIR. APPRV. APPUCATION NO. & LOCATION: SD -88 -008; Crisp /Sobey /Chester (Odd FelloOs ) APPLICANT /OWNER: Rogers and Brooks APN: Q N File'No. SD -008; Gypsy Hill /Crisp Ave. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: 6/14/89 Mailing completed: 6/15/89 Posting completed: 6/8/89 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests tentative map approval for a 35 -lot subdivision in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district pursuant to Article 14 of the City Code. The EIR for the project was discussed by the Planning Commission on 2/22/88, 3/22/88 and 5/10/89. The public hearing on the EIR was closed at the latest meeting until the completion of review and approval of the tentative map for the subdivision. At the 5/16/89 Committee -of- the -Whole study session, the Commission reviewed the possible circulation alternatives for the subdivision. The application was reviewed again at the 6/6/89 study session concentrating on two circulation concepts of two and three cul -de -sacs. At this meeting of 6/28/89 the applicant is presenting the initial subdivision map with the through traffic from Gypsy Hill Rd. to Crisp Ave. and requests the approval of the tentative map. PROJECT DISCUSSION: The proposed subdivision with the through traffic circulation raises many issues and concerns regarding the impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods. The EIR, which was prepared for the subdivision, also found the proposal as one with. the most significant impacts compared to other alternatives. Another circulation concept should be considered, of no through traffic alternative. The Planning Commission in previous public hearings and study sessions expressed concerns regarding the proposed subdivision and the visual, traffic and noise impacts on the adjacent neighborhoods and the Odd Fellows care facility. The Commissioners were all in favor of a cul -de -sac alternative. A number of the Commissioners were inclined towards a two cul -de -sac alternative, to avoid the impact on the care facility, while the others preferred the three cul -de -sac alternative which equally distributes the number of lots on the adjacent neighborhoods and the senior care facility. SD -88 -008; Gypsy Hill /Crisp Ave. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Continue the application to 8/9/89 to allow the applicant the time to incorporate the Planning Commission directions and work on further details of the subdivision. The Planning Commission may wish to have a study session prior to the public hearing which may be scheduled for 7/18/84. A draft of the subdivision conditions should be prepared for the Planning Commission's review at the next public hearing. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Plans, including alternatives, Exhibit A' TA /dsc SD -008; Gypsy-Hill/Crisp Ave. STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD PARCEL SIZE: 50.66 acres subdivided into 35 lots: 0.92 acre to 3.72 acre. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 10.4% to 29.2% PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to_ subdivide 50.66 acres, at the Odd Fellows care facility, into 35 lots, unequal in size ranging from 0.92 acre to 3.72 acres. The proposed street layout consists of a through traffic road connecting Gypsy Hill Rd. to Crisp Ave. and two short cul -de -sacs off the main road. The EIR which was prepared for the subdivision, analyzed five (5) different circulation alternatives with respect to traffic, air quality, noise, visual, wildlife and vegetation impacts. The proposed through traffic circulation determined in the EIR, as one with the most significant adverse impact on the abutting neighborhoods. The alternatives allowing traffic through the Odd Fellows seniors facility, identified as alternatives which will have the most adverse impact on the facility. The EIR evaluates the circulation concept of two or three cul -de- sacs which prevent through traffic, as alternatives with the least impact on the surrounding neighborhoods and the care facility. While the initial proposal for the subdivision allows through traffic, the other alternatives raise other issues. Table #1 compares the proposed subdivision with the no through traffic concepts including two cul -de -sacs, three cul -de -sacs and gated alternative. Following the Committee -of- the -Whole study sessions discussing the proposed subdivision and the EIR, the applicant was directed by the Planning Commission to - prepare two and three cul -de -sacs alternatives. The applicant prepared four alternatives. The applicant prepared two cul -de -sac alternatives of different distribution of the number of lots, and one alternative of three cul- de -sacs. Table #1 compares the proposed alternatives. TABLE #1 Alternative Proposal of 2 Cul- de-sac 3 Cul-de -sac through traffic Rd Gated alternative Public Emergency access for Fire Dist. - required. Part No emergency access to the Services No issues of the lots will have no direct lots connected to the Odd connection to school Fellows may be hazardous. No connection for part of No issues -district. lots to school district. Traffic Allows through traffic Limited to the number Limited to about 10 -11 Traffic generated by of lots on each cul- de-sac (7 -28 lots) lots on each cul-de -sac 35 lots at the most on each cul-de -sac Land use Compatible Compatible Residential with the care Compatible facility connection - Incompatible - Isolation of lots in direct connection to residential area Noise Increase on both Crisp and Gypsy Increase on Gypsy Hill and Crisp Ave. Increase on Crisp Ave., Increase on Crisp Ave. and Hill Hill and Odd Gypsy Hill Fello Fellows Visual, wildlife vegetation, fiscal SAME FOR ALL ALTERNATIVES Other Issues Long cul -de -sacs -L cul-de -sacs Problems of gates - Double frontage lots operation. ALTERNATIVE I 2 cul -de -sac from Crisp Av. and DESCRIPTION Gypsy Hill Rd. DISTRIBUTION OF I 7 — Crisp Av. LOTS 28 - Gypsy Hill TABLE 32 II Same as I III Same as I IV 3 cul -de -sac from Gypsy Hill Rd., Crisp Av., and the Odd Fellows 11 - Crisp Av. 18 - Crisp Av. 11 -L Crisp Av. 24 - Gypsy Hill Rd. 17 - Gypsy Hill Ad. 14 - Gypsy Hill Fad. 10 - Odd Fellows LENGTH OF CUL -DE -SAC 1150' - Crisp Av. 1600' - Crisp Av. 1750' - Crisp Av. 1700' - Crisp Av. (to first intersec- ' 3960' - Gypsy Hi 1 - _ Gypsy Hill Ad 2800 tion) 3460 Gypsy Hill 2910' - ' - Gypsy Hill Pd. 3700' - Odd Fellows 4 4 4 3 +3 double frontage lots IRREUU AR Aim /OR ( #1, 11, 17 , 35) ( 01, 11, 17, 35) ( #1, 11, 17, 35) RF's`PR OM # LOTS ( #l, 11, 17, 35, 7, 8, 9) N OF IMS DISCONNECTED FTa(7N SCHOOL DISTRICT 28 24 17 14 SD -88 -008; Gypsy Hill Rd. /Crisp Ave. It is evident that each of the possible alternatives raise different issues and concerns. Any decision will be a compromise which may not be the best solution but an alternative with the least impact. The major issues raised by the initial proposal and the alternatives are regarding public services, traffic volumes, noise, compatibility and land uses and impact on the natural environment. Initial Proposal - Through Traffic The proposed subdivision with through traffic circulation allows better public services of the fire and school districts. The boundaries of these districts are exactly at the east boundary line of the subdivision and only through traffic road allows direct connection for all the lots, to the school district.. Emergency access is required for the Fire District vehicles in the cul -de -sacs alternatives to allow emergency access from one cul -de -sac to another. However, the proposed subdivision will have the most significant impact on the adjacent neighborhoods in matters of traffic impacts and impact on the adjacent neighborhood's character. The proposal is inconsistent with the City's General Plan policy to avoid through traffic street on local access streets (page 4 -22, area G, guideline #2). The gated alternative is the same as the initial proposal, with two gates at both ends of the proposed road, (at the end of Gypsy Hill Road and Crisp Ave.) will prevent through traffic but is not a land use solution,and may raise operational problems of the gates. Two and Three Cul -de -sac Alternatives The two and three cul -de -sac alternatives prevent through traffic but raises other issues regarding connection to public services, excessively long cul -de -sacs, and isolation of lots in the three cul -de -sac alternative. Both two and three cul -de -sac alternatives will have long cul -de- sacs ranging between 1,150 to 3,960 ft., which exceeds the recommended maximum length of 500 ft. The most balanced, but still excessive in length, is the alternative of two cul -de -sacs with the equal number of lots on Crisp Ave. and Gypsy Hill Road. The two concepts of two and three cul -de -sacs are very similar in regard to most of the impacts. However, the three cul -de -sac alternative raises additional issues regarding the impact on the senior care facility, compatibility of uses, isolation of small number of lots (about 10) from immediate residential area. The connection to the lots will be through the care facility and a very long cul -de -sac (3,700 ft.). No emergency access is possible, due to the topography, from the lots connected to the Odd Fellows facility to the remaining of the home;and in case that fire spreads it may create a hazardous situation. A pedestrian /equestrian trail SD -88 -008; Gypsy Hill /Crisp Ave. system may be a way to integrate the lots into one neighborhood. The three cul -de -sac alternative will serve about 10 lots out of the ,35 proposed, and the reduction in the traffic impacts on Crisp Ave. and Gypsy Hill will not be significant. The difference in the daily cumulative traffic volumes of a two cul -de -sac and three cul -de -sac alternative on all the intersections, ranges between 0 to 86 vehicles per day (see attached table 3 -2.8 and 3 -2.9 of EIR. Distribution of the ten lots, which are proposed to be connected to the Odd Fellows, between the two other cul -de -sacs, will add five more lots to each cul -de -sac. Five more lots in addition to the eleven or fourteen proposed to be connected to Gypsy Hill Road and Crisp Ave., will have insignificant impact, since the no through traffic concept will still be achieved. Other Issues The proposed lots 1 and 35 on all the alternatives raise issues of adequacy for building sites and impacts on the riparian corridor. A large portion of both sites are within the riparian corridor. The building site on lot 35 is remote from the other lots next to the cemetery and accessed through the road to the cemetery. Lot #1 is bisected by the corridor and the proposed open space easement and the building site is restricted. Elimination of both lots should be considered by the Planning Commission. Preservation of wide open space areas, at both ends of the open space easement, and at natural state may reduce the impact on vegetation and wildlife, allow more freedom in movement of animals and will allow better circulation of a pedestrian and equestrian trail system. An equestrian and pedestrian trail system can be used for better connection between the separated parts of the subdivision and may replace the street system and will integrate the lots accessed from different cul -de- sacs into one neighborhood. The trail system will allow better enjoyment of the open space area. The proposed number of lots complies with the slope density formula (35 lots proposed, 39 allowed). However, further reduction of the proposed number of lots may be considered by the Planning Commission in order to decrease the density in the subdivision and reduce the environmental impact on the adjacent neighborhoods. Architectural Concepts and Compatibility The proposed subdivision is located on a views and is visible from the surrounding and sensitive design is essential at integration with the natural environment harmonious design of the development experience with other subdivisions shows hillside area with scenic neighborhoods. A careful such location to ensure and in order to create a as a whole. The City that the lots are usually developed separately and by private owners and with no clear design guidelines which may result in compatibility problems. i i w r r n ■ r TABLE 3.2 -8. AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES LOCATION EXIST EXIST PROJECT EXIST ALT B CLA -DE -SAC EXIST ALT C EXIST ALT D 3 Cl'A -DE -SACS EXIST ALT E Fruitvale 5,100 5,335 5,138 5,346 5,216 5,225 N /Crisp Fruitvale 5,100 5,297 5,132 5,308 5,195 5,207 S /Crisp Crisp 430 862 50.0 500 500 660 E /Fruitvale Sobey 800 786 974 770 887 886 N /Chester Sobey 800 734 908 728 854 834 S /Chester Odd Fellows 350 350 350 734 491 350 E /Fruitvale N /Crisp — Directly North of Crisp Avenue * DIFFERENCE IN DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BETWEEN OPTIONS B AND D 3.2 -19 78 63 0 87 54 141 TABLE 3.2 -9. CUMULATIVE 1995 TRAFFIC VOLUMES LOCATION 1995(1) 1995 PROJECT 1995 ALT B 2 CLUDE-SAC 1995 ALT C 1995 ALT D CIA DE -sac 1995 ALT E Fruitvale 5,890 6,206 5,928 6,185 6,008 6,015 N /Crisp ( i I Fruitvale 5,859 6,123 5,889 6,102 I 5,952 5,964 S /Crisp Crisp 430 1,063 I 500 500 500 660 E /Fruitvale Sobey 1,068 939 I 1,242 I 957 1,156 1,154 N /Chester Sobey 953 855 1,062 880 1,008 988 S /Chester Odd Fellows 675 675 675 793 816 675 E /Fruitvale 1995(1) — Existing Traffic plus Approved Project Traffic plus Odd Fellows Master Plan plus 2 Percent Per Year Increase in Existing Traffic Volume to 1995 (6 years) *DIFFERENCE IN DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BETWEEN OPTIONS B AND D 3.2 -20 80 63 0 86 54 i 1411 SD -88 -008; Gypsy Hill Rd. /Crisp Ave. Regardless which alternative will be chosen, the applicant should prepare a conceptual design for the homes in the subdivision to provide guidelines for the design of the new homes an be followed in the design review process. The architectural plan should include the following: 1. Building sites showing approximate footprint of the homes on the lots in relation to natural topography, views and impact on other homes. 2. Conceptual design including level or stepped floor plan on different, lots, acceptable types of rooflines, restriction of building heights on sensitive lots, in relation to view angles and natural topography. 3. Landscaping of streets and on the private lots including trees to be preserved, protection of trees, species of trees to be allowed, location, height and materials of fences and retaining walls. Special treatment and care should be given to the large oak trees which exist on the properties and within the right -of- way. 4. Specification of structures, roofs, fences and walls. Open Space Easements and Trails materials including elevations, Large riparian corridors exist on the property including many species of vegetation and wildlife which should be protected. Open space easements should be provided to minimize the impact on the vegetation and animals and retain the riparian corridor in the natural state with minimal interference. Grading on the lots must be done with minimal interference with the riparian corridors and all the mitigation measures proposed in the EIR must be followed. An equestrian /pedestrian trails system should be planned and developed to allow the use and enjoyment of the public of the natural environment. The trails should be shown on the plans and developed by the applicant. Structures and fences should be restricted and should not be allowed within the easement. The responsibility for maintenance of the easement should be of the private owners. Since no public park is required per the City's General Plan due to the large size of lots, park area within the subdivision will not be required but park fees must be in accordance with the City's fee schedule (General Plan policy page 4 -22, #3). Street Standards and Improvements Gypsy Hill Road is a 26 ft. wide street, while Crisp Ave. is 40 ft. wide. Connection to those streets raises the question which standard shall be used for the streets within the subdivision area. SD -88 -008; Gypsy Hill /Crisp Ave. Since all the streets proposed in the subdivision are local, only the street standards may be the same as the streets in Gypsy Hill Rd. Other Issues In response to- public questions regarding the old structures on the site, it should be noted that the Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the structures and did find the condition of the structure bad and irreversible, and did not recommend preservation of the structures. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends a two cul -de -sac alternative be developed by the applicant with more details, showing proposed building sites, open spaces, view angles and typical design of homes. Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue the application to the 8/9/89 Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant the time to work on a new circulation alternative to the proposed subdivision. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct the applicant to revise the tentative map to incorporate cul -de -sac access from Crisp and Gypsy Hill. The revised map should incorporate the following features: 1. Equitable traffic distribution between the affected neighborhoods; 2. Reductions in number of lots #1 and #35 as discussed in this report. 3. Architectural and landscape concepts; 4. Scenic easement restrictions, maintenance provisions and trail locations. Q)4a 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408). 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Conndssion DATE: 6/6/89 FROM: Tsvia Adar, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: San Marcos Heights Subdivision Following the last Committee -of- the -Whole study session and the Planning Commission direction, the applicant prepared four (4) alternatives to the proposed subdivision. Three of the proposed alternatives are variations of alternative B (as labeled in the EIR) based on two cul -de -sacs connected by emergency access road, with no through traffic. The fourth alternative is a three cul -de -sac alternative (alternative D in the EIR) and no through traffic. The alternatives of two and three cul -de -sacs are recommended in the EIR as alternatives with the least traffic, visual and noise impacts compared to other circulation alternatives which allow through traffic. Analysis of the Proposed Alternatives All of the three alternatives with two cul -de -sacs, are of the same street alignment but are different in distribution of the number of lots accessed from Crisp Avenue and from Gypsy Hill Road. The proposed distribution for each alternative is as follows: I. 28 lots connected to Gypsy Hill Road and 7 lots connected to Crisp Ave. II. 24 lots to Gypsy Hill Road 11 lots to Crisp Ave. III. 17 lots to Gypsy Hill Road 18 lots to Crisp Ave. All three alternatives prevent through traffic and allow only emergency access. The cul -de -sac from Gypsy Hill road will be very long and ranges from 2,910 ft. in alternative III to 3,960 ft. in alternative I. The size, number and shape of the lots in all three alternatives is similar. Four or five of the proposed lots, depending on the alternative, are of irregular shape. The building site on lot #10G is very limited due the open space easement, proposed on the lot. The fourth alternative includes three cul -de -sacs, from Crisp Ave., Gypsy Hill road and the Odd Fellows property. The number of lots are distributed as-follows: 14 lots to Gypsy Hill Rd. 11 lots to Crisp Ave. 10 lots to Odd Fellows property The 10 lots would be connected through the Odd Fellows property to Fruitvale by a 3,700 ft. long dead end street with no emergency accesss. The proposed road system does not connect the 10 lots to the remaining., lots in the subdivision. No through traffic would be allowed in this alternative. Only two irregular- shaped lots will be created by this alternative. In addition, -lot #10G is still bisected by the open space easement but the proposed building site will be larger. A lot adjacent to the cemetary is included in all the alternatives. It would be irregular in shape, within the riparian corridor and the building site would be remote from the street and from the other proposed lots. In the initial subdivision proposal, and all the alternatives the applicants propose 35 lots, ranging in size from 0.92 acres to 1.89 acres. The average slope of the lots ranges from 10.4% to 29.2 %. The allowable floor area on the proposed lots would be 4,596 sq. ft. up to 6,780 sq. ft. Issues raised by the Proposed Alternative - The excessive length of the cul -de -sacs from the Odd Fellows property and from Gypsy Hill Road. - Irregular shape lots, double frontage lots, restricted building sites or isolated lots created by alternatives. - The unbalanced traffic load in two of the four alternatives. - Impact on the riparian corridor and open space areas. - The connection of the lots accessed from Gypsy Hill Road to the Saratoga Union School District, which services the area, will be long and indirect. Changes in length of cul -de -sacs, size and number of lots may be considered to improve the proposed alternatives. In the case of the three cul -de -sac alternative, a pedestrian /equestrian trail system may be considered to connect the different areas of the subdivision and to integrate the lots into one neighborhood. The equestrian /pedestrian trail system may replace the street system which divides the subdivision into separate neighborhoods. Lots which are proposed within the riparian corridor may be reduced in size and dedicated to open space. The open space area should create open space corridor be connected to the open space easement in Gypsy Hill subdivision. Attachments Letters from the public received after the last'public hearing Proposed Alternatives Tsvia Adar Assistant Planner ALTERNATIVE I II III IV 2 cul -de -sac from 3 cul -de -sac from Gypsy Crisp Av. and Same as I Same as I Hill Rd., Crisp Av., and DESCRIPTION Gypsy Hill Rd. the Odd Fellows DISTRIBUTION OF 7 - Crisp Av. 11 - Crisp Av. 18 - Crisp Av. 11 - Crisp Av. LOTS 28 - Gypsy Hill 24 - Gy.Dsy Hill Rd. 17 - Gypsy Hill Rd. 14 - . Gypsy Hill Rd. 10 - Odd Fellows LENGTH OF CUL -DE -SAC 1150' - Crisp Av. 1600' - Crisp Av. 1750' - Crisp Av. 1700' - Crisp Av. (to first intersec- 2300' - Gypsy Hill 3460' - Gypsy Hill 2910' - Gypsy Hill Rd 2800' - Gypsy Hill Rd. tion) 3700' - Odd Fellows TRREGULAR AND /OR 5 4 5 3 ,TMRICI'ED #LOTS i 4 #lc, 2c, 3c, 10g,20 ( #3c, 4c, 10c, 10g) ( #lc, 9, 10c, 10g,15c) 02c, 3c, 10g) # OF LOT'S DISCONNECTED 28 FROM SCHOOL DISTRICT 24 17 14 May 8, 1989 Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: .San Marcos Development IOOF Dear Planning Commission Members: RECEIVED MAY - � PLANNING DEPT Because of a conflict with Wednesday's Planning Commission Meeting, I am unable to attend, however, I desire to express my feelings via this letter. During the past public hearings in recent months, the residents of IOOF and their representatives have strongly and arrogantly expressed their feelings of not having an easement or access road through their current development which would immensely disrupt their serene and peaceful setting. It is my understanding that Mr. Jerry Lohr presented this Commission with a possible ingress /egress easement over the IOOF property, should he have been successful in its purchase. Why, all of a sudden, the turn - around with their position in not permitting this access? If they (IOOF) are to sell their property which will significantly impact traffic on Sobey Road to the east, then I feel the sellers (IOOF) should share in this impact by allowing access through its property for a substantial or majority part of the development. Recently, underground construction was taking place on Quito Road, detouring traffic down Sobey Road. Not only the increase in the volume in traffic became dangerous, but the rate of speed in which the vehicles traveled in a 30 mph zone was incredible. This detour lasted only 2 -1/2 to 3 days. I don't want to imagine the problems that will occur if this sub- division is finally approved and all lots with the exception to those on Crisp Avenue are dumped out onto Sobey Road. WT Planning Commission May 8, 1989 Page.2 Please review police reports regarding traffic accidents from 1986 through 1988 at the Sheriffs Department. Then please seriously consider the impact on Sobey Road if the IOOF property is allowed to be developed without an access road through the subject property. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Richard L. Merwin 14466 Sobey Road Saratoga, CA 95070 RLM dlb MAY - 9 198y PLANNING DEPT 15270 Sobey Road Saratoga, California May 7, 1989 The Saratoga Planning Commission I regret that I am unable to attend the Planning Commission hearing on the Housing Development on the Odd Fellows property. The traffic on Sobey Road is fairly heavy now. In the twenty years I have owned my home I have seen it increase constantly. Since the development is for the benefit of the Odd Fellows Home, it seems to me that the impact of the increased traffic should be absorbed by that area, and that under no circumstances should it be routed to the detriment of the Sobey Road residents. Yours truly, Elizabeth Colangelo REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Tsvia Adar DATE: 2/22/89 � / , APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: SD -88 -008; Crisp /Sobey /Chester Odd Fellows) �/ APPLICANT /OWNER: Rogers and Brooks APN: Q N File No. SD -88~ -008; San Marcos Heights; Crisp /Sobey /Chester EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY• Application filed: 4/7/88 Application complete: DEIR completed 11/28/88 Notice published: 2/8/89 Mailing completed: 2/9/89 Posting completed: 2/2/89 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests certification of the EIR prepared for the proposed 35 -lot subdivision in the R -1- 40,000, pursuant to CEQA. PROJECT DISCUSSION: The purpose of the public hearing is to review the adequacy of a draft Environmental Impact Report. The draft document was prepared by a consultant on behalf of the City and was circulated for 45 days for public review. During this time comments were received from the surrounding neighborhood, state and other agencies and the general public. Issues related to a variety of topics including open space and preservation of the natural environment, traffic and circulation. The Planning Commission should expect to receive the presentation of staff, and the consultant as well as public testimony. Further hearings will be required for consideration of the tentative map after the EIR is recommended for certification. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Continuance of the public hearing considering the DEIR and the subdivision map to 3/8/89 Planning Commission meeting to allow the consultant to respond to public and Planning Commission comments for incorporation into a final EIR. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Response letters to the DEIR TA /kah SD -88 -008; Sari Marcos Heights; Crisp /Sobey /Chester STAFF ANALYSIS Procedure of the EIR Certification and the Subdivision Approval On 4/7/88 the applicants submitted an application for a 35 lot subdivision on part of the Odd Fellows care facility property. The Planning Department determined that the proposed project involves major environmental impacts, and that an EIR is required to assess the potential impacts, pursuant to CEQA section of the California Government Code. The major environmental impacts as determined by Department are the following: 1. Cumulative impacts on traffic and circulation, and air polution. 2. Noise impacts. 3. Visual impacts. 4. Impact on plant and animal life. 5. Geologic and geotechnical impacts. 6. Fiscal impact. the Planning urban services Earth Metrics was selected as a consultant for the preparation of the EIR. The consultant prepared a draft EIR. The report was sent to the State Clearinghouse for review by the state agencies. After the expiration of the 45 day review period, a public hearing was scheduled and the public within 500 ft. around the site was notified. The Public Hearing Purposes The purpose of the first public hearing is to assess the adequacy and accuracy of the draft EIR, to give the public the opportunity to respond to the conclusions of the report and to allow the consultant to respond and clarify the impacts and mitigation measures suggested in the DEIR. Additional public hearings may be required to cover all the issues and respond to all the concerns and questions raised by the agencies and the general public. Staff recommends that the discussion of the subdivision tentative map be held separately. The public hearing should be opened and continued to a later meeting. SD -88 -008; San Marcos Heights; Crisp /Sobey /Chester Suggested Schedule Considering the size of the project and the issues involved, staff recommends the following schedule for public hearings and study sessions: During the subdivision review process, the applicant is willing to organize a site visit for the Planning Commission, City Council and interested public. 3/8/89 - Public hearing to allow further discussion of the DEIR and respond to public concerns. 3/22/89 - Recommendation for Certification of final EIR. Discussion of subdivision alternatives. 3/14; 3/28 - Committee -of- the -Whole study sessions to discuss the proposed subdivision. (Possible field visit). 4/26/89 - Final action for project. Summary of Impacts Indicated in the DEIR The draft EIR discusses the significant potential environmental impacts which may result from the proposed project. The impacts and the suggested mitigation measures were roughly divided into ten categories. 1. Land Use and Planning Possible conflict between the proposed residential use and the existing day care facility was identified in the DEIR. Open space easements or buffers are suggested to mitigate those impacts. Five gallons of possible hazardous material were found on the site which must be removed in accordance with the hazardous materials expert's requirements. 2. Traffic and Circulation Traffic and circulation within the subdivision and the impacts on the surrounding neighborhood were identified by staff as a sensitive issue. Therefore, the DEIR discusses in length the possible impacts of the proposed circulation and three other alternatives. The traffic and circulation impacts are discussed in different categories of impact such as noise and visual impacts. However, under the traffic and circulation topic the consultant discusses only the proposed road system in each one of the alternatives, with respect to adequate traffic flow and safety. SD -88 -008; Sari Marcos Heights; Crisp /Sobey /Chester The circulation alternatives discussed in the DEIR are the following: 1. The proposal, as submitted by the applicant, connecting Gypsy Hill Road and Crisp Avenue. This street and two other cul -de -sacs will provide access to the proposed 35 lots. 2. Same road system with an addition of a barrier, such as a gate at some point along the connection street, to allow emergency access and prevent through traffic from using this street. 3. Connection of Gypsy Hill Road to Chester Avenue through the Odd Fellows care facility and lengthen Crisp Avenue in order to provide access to additional limited number of lots, possibly seven. 4. No project alternative was also discussed pursuant to CEQA requirement. The consultant's traffic counts anticipate minimal cumulative increases in trips after the construction of the project. The intersections, Sobey /Chester, Fruitvale /Crisp, Fruitvale /Odd Fellows entrance, are all under Level of Service Category "A ", and are expected to have very little or no traffic delays. The intersections have a reserved capacity of 400 or more vehicles per hour (Table 33.2 -2 p. 3.2 -4). No mitigation measures are suggested for any of the circulation alternatives. The comparison of traffic increase of all the alternatives are given in table 3.2 -3 in the DEIR. Different alternatives may decrease or increase the amount of daily traffic on different intersections but is not considered in the DEIR as significant. The circulation alternatives, however, have other impacts as discussed under other impacts of the project. The only significant impact identified in the EIR regarding the circulation is the sight distance which should be designed adequately, on *the detailed plans of the subdivision and meet the City Engineer requirements. 3. Public Services Increase in the requirements for fire protection services and police services is anticipated. These services can be provided by Saratoga Fire District and the developer shall meet the district requirements to reduce fire hazards. The normal operating revenues will fund the additional police services required for the project. All other utility services should be provided by the developer for the project. SD -88 -008; Sant Marcos Heights; Crisp /Sobey /Chester 4. Fiscal Effects The DEIR did not identify any significant adverse fiscal impact on the City and no mitigation measures are necessary. 5. Visual Resources Alteration of the natural environment and existing views may result from the development. Adequate design, use of materials and colors, landscaping, location and placement of the homes can mitigate the impact on views. Scenic and open easements should be dedicated on the site for preservation of the natural resources. 6. Geology Compliance with the seismic requirement of the Uniform Building Code will prevent potential damage to the project residences. Geotechnical investigations should be prepared prior to building permits to address the issues of erosion control. 7. Hydrology Alteration of the existing drainage patterns and increase of quantity and velocity of stormwater runoff from the site is one of the impacts which may result from the project. Off site erosion, along the Vasona Creek bank is a potential impact of the increased stormwater runoff. The storm drainage system, landscaping, minimal grading and erosion control measures must be incorporated in the project to mitigate the impact. 8. Biology Loss of vegetation and wildlife habitat will result from the development. This impact can be mitigated, per the DEIR, by preservation of mature native trees on the site and replacement of any mature trees on the site, if necessary to be removed, by new native trees. In addition, protection of trees during construction and preservation of the riparian corridor along the drainage swales which flow to Sobey Creek will reduce the impact. The utility lines should be limited to the roads right - of -way to minimize interference with existing trees. A streambed alteration agreement should be obtained from the California Department of Fish and Game for the proposed roadway construction across the swale. 9. Noise Construction of roads and future homes on the site will be a source of temporary increase in local noise levels. Properly muffled equipment and restriction of the construction operations SD -88 -008; Sam Marcos Heights; Crisp /Sobey /Chester to reasonable hours should mitigate the impact on the existing neighborhood. The DEIR suggests that the residences within 100 ft. around the project should be notified regarding the timelines of the construction. The DEIR also identifies an increase level of noise as a result of the additional traffic generated by the proposed project. A traffic barrier, such as a locked gate, will prevent through traffic and reduce the noise levels. 10. Air Quality Vehicle pollutants and dust resulting from grading and construction may temporarily affect the air quality. The areas of construction, soil and materials hauled by trucks should be wet to reduce the impact. Pavement to seal the disturbed area and landscaping as soon as possible will also minimize the impact. State Agencies Response to the EIR At the end of 45 days of review period, the State Departments of Transportation and of Fish and Game sent their comments regarding the draft EIR. The Department of Transportation requires that analysis of traffic distribution and assignment (ADT, AM, PM -Peak houses trips) and level of services for the proposed Route 85 shall be included in the EIR. The proposed Route 85 and affected interchanges should be included in figures 1 -2 and 3.2 -1 through 3.2 -5. The Department of Fish and Game is not satisfied with the measures which proposed in the DEIR to mitigate the significant adverse impact of the project on wildlife habitat. The Department's recommendations are as follows: 1. Redesign of the subdivision, clustering the homes and realignment of the road is recommended in order to minimize the impacts on the habitat. 2. Any unavoidable impacts to the riparian wetlands should be precisely quantified and the mitigation measures should sufficiently eliminate any loss of wetland areas or wetland habitat. The mitigation measures should be incorporated in the DEIR prior to certification by the City. 3. The army corps of engineering should be contacted for comments and requirements if the project is under their jurisdiction. The Planning Department received comments from other agencies. Santa Clara county Health Department is satisfied with the domestic water, sanitary sewer connections and the abatement procedures for hazardous materials as covered by the DEIR. SD -88 -008; Sara Marcos Heights; Crisp /Sobey /Chester Santa Clara Valley Water District anticipates impact of the proposed project on the District facilities downstream, and requests review of the hydrologic and hydraulic studies which are recommended in the DEIR. All other requirements of S.C.V.D., S.C. Health Department, West Valley Sanitation District, and Saratoga Fire Protection District are standard requirements such as wells treatment, sewer and water connection and fire hazard protection systems that shall be incorporated in the project. The Planning Department staff and all other City departments reviewed the DEIR and identified inadequate or unclear statements, inconsistent conclusions and typographical errors. The Final EIR should incorporate all the corrections. Saratoga Union School District The school district responded to the DEIR and required corrections of information in the report which was inaccurate. Public Response to the EIR Most of the public responses were regarding the circulation as proposed for the subdivision, connecting Crisp Avenue and Sobey Road, and the conclusion of the DEIR regarding the traffic and circulation impacts. The main concerns of the neighbors may be summarized in the following categories: 1. Safety on Crisp Avenue Most of the response letters expressed major concerns regarding the existing safety and the potential hazardous conditions on Crisp Avenue which may be caused by the increased amounts of traffic generated by the 35 lot subdivision. The neighbors are also concerned with through traffic, once Sobey Road and Crisp Avenue are possibly connected. 2. Noise Neighbors are concerned with increase in noise levels as a result of by increased traffic. Seven lots connected to Crisp Avenue considered acceptable by the neighbors, where a through street connecting Sobey Road and Crisp Avenue will result, in the opinion of the neighbors, significant noise impact. 3. General Plan and City Policies The residences of Crisp Avenue and the surrounding neighborhood request the City to follow previous written correspondence from SD -88 -008,- San Marcos Heights /Crisp /Sobey /Chester the City, stating that the intention of the City is to maintain the character of Crisp Avenue as a cul -de -sac and limit the number of additional lots, which will have access through Crisp Avenue, to seven lots. The guidelines for Area Development G, as set forth in the City's General Plan, states: "New development should be provided with adequate access to arterials but local access streets should be designed to prevent through traffic use." This policy should be used as guidance for evaluation of the most desirable circulation alternative. The definition of Crisp Avenue as a local or a collector street, and the determination whether or not the circulation alternative will generate a through traffic are important factors in the evaluation. 4. Odd Fellows Responsibility 5. 6. 7. 8. The neighbors expressed in their letters the sharing responsibility by the Odd Fellows. The general feeling is that since the Odd Fellows are an interested party which will gain the profit of the project, they should also be prepared to accept the impacts. DEIR Adequacy Some of the neighbors question the DEIR conclusions and feel that some of the statements of the DEIR are not objective in evaluating the impacts of the project on the Odd Fellows and the surrounding neighborhoods. The responses also include questions regarding the adequacy of the DEIR regarding traffic counts and impact of the project on the existing neighborhood. Preservation of the Natural Environment City residents, including residents of the care facility expressed their concerns about the impact of the project on the existing vegetation and mature trees and the possible preservation of vegetation and wildlife. Compatibility of Land Uses Residences of the Odd Fellows care facility requested a buffer between the new development and their facility. Historic Structures on the Site An old farm building exists on the site. All the structures are in bad condition. The responses include concerns regarding the removal of the barn, the stable, and other historic structures on the site. The Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the application and felt that although the structures were reflective of Saratoga's agricultural history, they were in too bad condition to preserve. SD- 88- 008-San Marcos Heights; Crisp /Sobey /Chester 9. Other Responses The owners, the Odd Fellows, agree with all the recommendations presented in the DEIR. The applicant represented by Nowack and Associates Civil Engineers /planners listed a number of corrections to technical information in the DEIR. They also questioned the definition of Crisp Avenue as minor residential road versus collector street. The. applicant indicates in his letter of response, only 12 ordinance size trees are proposed to be removed for the road construction. Preliminary Analysis of the Subdivision The applicant proposes to subdivide 50.66 acres into 35 lot of about 1 acre each. The existing cemetery used by the Odd Fellows care facility and the access to the cemetery proposed to be preserved and incorporated in the project. The proposed roads outlined in the subdivision request consists of a major street connecting Gypsy Hill Road and Crisp Avenue and short cul -de -sacs off the street which provide access to all of the lots. Two other alternative considered by the applicant and discussed in the DEIR. First alternative is to barrier the through street between Gypsy Hill and Crisp Avenue by emergency gate to prevent through traffic. The second alternative is to keep the current situation off Crisp Avenue as a cul -de -sac with addition of limited number of lots connected to the Crisp Avenue. Gypsy Hill Road will be connected to Chester Avenue through the Odd Fellows care facilities. Each of the proposed subdivision alternatives may result in significant impacts on either of the adjacent neighborhoods or the care facilities. The first alternative which divides (equally or unequally) the access to the lots in the subdivision between Crisp Avenue and Gypsy Hill .Road will also divide the subdivision in to two communities. Therefore, special attention should be placed upon issues of compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods, location of school and fire district boundaries, and the creation of a cohesive neighborhood. Density and Open Space The subdivision site includes natural environment characterized by qualities of views, mature vegetation, and wildlife habitat. In order to preserve this qualities open space easement, and trails accessible to the public should be considered. The current policy of the City encourages dedication of private or public open spaces in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Following the current City policies such dedication should be considered as a way to reduce the density on the property, allow preservation of the natural environment on larger area and allow the public access to and SD -88 -008, San Marcos Heights; Crisp /Sobey /Chester enjoyment of natural resources. An equestrian /pedestrian easement is designated by the General Plan through the site and should be incorporated in the subdivision. Odd Fellows Master Plan The Odd Fellows are in a process of preparation of a master plan for the expansion and upgrading of the care facility. The master plan should be reviewed and considered with the subdivision in order to evaluate the impacts of the adjacent uses, and find the appropriate ways which will allow coexistence of both uses with minimal interference with the operation and character of each use. The Planning Commission may already be aware that the City Council has begun evaluating current open space policy. At this early stage, policy direction includes revised open space land expectations, park dedication fees, inventory existing open space and opportunities for future acquisition. Staff mentions this current policy discussion in order to provide context for the consideration of this project. Staff does not intend to recommend an open space policy discussion around this proposal. Accordingly, staff felt that the recent Council decisions are germane since the subdivision will engender Planning Commission and public concerns regarding preservation of the natural environment. Conclusion The review of the EIR is the initial step in considering the major subdivision. The environmental review process provides a systematic approach in analyzing the wide variety of potential impacts. The purpose of this report and initial hearing is to provide a framework to discuss compliance with the Commission's goals and objectives for the project. Future hearings will key on specific items such as circulation, subdivision design and landuse, and preservation of the natural environment. William Cotton and Associates MEMCAL rW 'IV$ 330 Village Lane Los Gatos, California 95030 (408) 354 -5542 April 29, 1988 S1088 TO: Bob Calkins, Assistant Planner CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 SUBJECT: Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Review RE: San Marcos Heights Subdivision Vicinity of Crisp Avenue and Gypsy Hill Road At your request, we have completed a preliminary geologic and geotechnical review of the subject application using: Soil and Foundation Study (report) prepared by JCP Geologists and Engineers, dated February 25,1988; and Tentative Map and Preliminary Grading Plan (2 sheets, 60- scale) prepared by Nowack and Associates, dated April, 1988. In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical maps and reports from our office files (i.e., Gypsy Hill Farm, S1195). DISCUSSION Our review of the referenced materials indicates that the applicant is proposing to subdivide the subject property into 35 residential lots and construct primary access roads. Proposed roadways include an extension of Crisp Avenue which is located at the southwest property boundary. The extension would cross the central, northeast and east portions of the property connecting with Gypsy Hill Road to the southeast. Two cul -de -sacs are proposed off of the connecting roadway extending into the northwest and southeast corners of the property. SITE CONDMONS The subject property is situated on the lowermost fringe of the foothills where low, rolling hills are separated by gently inclined drainage swales and creek channels. The majority of the site is characterized by gentle to steeply sloping (20 to 350 inclination) natural hillside topography, facing generally to the northwest and southeast. Cut and fill slopes are common along the gravel access roads that traverse the site. The cut and fill slopes are generally small features which appear to be nonengineered and have gentle to very steep slope inclinations (16° to 541. In addition, several dilapidated structures and portions of previous foundations are located within the western half of the property. ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES • FOUNDATION ENGINEERING Bob Calkins April 29, 1988 Page 2 Surface drainage is generally characterized by uncontrolled sheetflow from northwest- and southeast - facing slopes. A creek channel trends northeast across the property extending from the southwest property corner to the central portion of the eastern property boundary. The creek channel crosses 5 proposed lots (1, 18, 19, 20 and 35) and forms the proposed lot boundaries for 6 other lots (21 - 23, and 26 - 28). In addition, an ephemeral drainage is located within proposed lots 6 -11. It appears that surface drainage is poor and shallow groundwater conditions may exist within the lower portions of these lots. Surficial materials within the relatively low valley terrain consist of sandy to clayey alluvial and colluvial deposits. The hilly terrain is mantled by gravelly, sandy, clayey residual soil and colluvium which are underlain at variable depths by poorly consolidated conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone and claystone bedrock materials of the Santa Clara Formation. Several old landslides and one active landslide were observed on the steep slopes adjacent to Sobey Creek. These landslides present potential development constraints to lots 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 28 and 29. In addition, recent slope failures were observed along some oversteepened road cuts. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION The proposed subdivision and residential development is somewhat constrained by potential slope instability on steep hillsides, regions of potentially expansive surficial materials, potential shallow groundwater conditions in the relatively low valley and swale areas, and the site's seismic setting. In addition, a few incised erosional gullies and failing graded slopes require repair. Based on our review of the referenced report, it appears that the project geotechnical consultant has, in general, adequately characterized site constraints and recommended appropriate geotechnical design criteria for apparent site conditions. However, feasible building envelopes and driveway access routes should be indicated on the Tentative Map with the assistance of the project geotechnical consultant. In addition, supplemental geotechnical evaluations and subsurface investigation should be completed for several of the proposed lots prior to issuance of building permits. We recommend that the following conditions be satisfactorily completed prior to approval of the Tentative Map. Evaluation of Feasible Building Sites - Geotechnically feasible building envelopes and driveway access routes should be indicated on the Tentative Map with the assistance of the project geotechnical consultant. Potential slope instability associated with existing landslide features should be considered when locating feasible development areas. The recommended foundation type for each building site should be indicated or the Tentative Map. The consultant should review and approve the geotechnical feasibility of proposed development as indicated on the revised Tentative Map. William Cotton and Associates . Bob Calkins April 29, 1988 Page 3 The revised Tentative Map and a plan review letter prepared by the project geotechnical consultant should be submitted to the City for review by the City Engineer and Geologist prior to approval of the Tentative Map. Prior to issuance of site development or building permits on individual lots, we recommend that the following conditions be satisfactorily completed: 1. Supplemental Slope Stability Evaluations - (To be completed for Lots 18 - 24, 28, 29 and 35) The long -term stability of steep slopes and /or existing landslide features should be evaluated under static and anticipated seismic conditions. Appropriate stabilization measures should be recommended (as necessary) to address any potential adverse impacts existing landslides pose to the proposed development or adjacent properties. Appropriate subsurface investigation should be conducted (if deemed necessary by the consultant) as a basis for the slope stability evaluation. The results of the stability evaluation should be submitted to the City for review by the City Geologist and Engineer prior to approval of site development or building permits. 2. Supplemental Subsurface Investigation - Geotechnical design criteria for individual lot development should be based on subsurface investigation in the vicinity of the proposed building site. The project geotechnical consultant should verify that sufficient lot specific subsurface investigation has been completed as a basis for recommended geotechnical design criteria. A statement to this effect should be included as part of the geotechnical plan review. 3. Geotechnical Plan Review - (All lots) The applicant's geo- technical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations and roadways) to ensure that his recommendations have been properly incorporated. The consultant should also verify that sufficient lot specific subsurface investigation has been completed as a basis for recommended geotechnical design criteria. 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 site development or building permits. William Cotton and Associates Bob Calkins April 29, 1988 Page 4 4. Geotechnical Field Inspection - (All lots) The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. 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. Respectfully submitted, WILLIAM COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. v � i William R. Cotton Town Geologist CEG 882 WRC:BH:mjs William Cotton and Associates � ."; oob Mr. Jim Rogers Rogers and brook, Inc. 2251 Grant Road Los Altos, California Re: Dear Mr. Rogers: (_Ah6aedogica pewunce S eme February 2.?., 1988 94022 -6988 A.R.S. 87 -76 Archaeological evaluation of Parcel C of the Oddfellows property, Saratoga, Ca. As per your request, Archaeological Resource Service has conducted a literature check and surface reconnaissance of the project area. The area is described as Parcel C of the Oddfellow Property, Saratoga, California, as shown on the enclosed maps. Checks of the available literature were conducted by William Roop, Jeffrey Parsons and Katherine Flynn of Archaeological Resource Service. Mr. Parsons concentrated on physiographic information, Ms. Flynn checked the data available at the Regional Office of the California Archeological Site Survey, located at Sonoma State University, and Mr. Roop checked the historic era data available in the library of Archaeological Resource Service. Mr. Parsons' research revealed that the parcel consists of portions of four north - northeast trending finger ridges which project from a high area southwest of the parcel boundary. Two dominant ridges, herein referred to as Middle Ridge and Southeast Ridge, are separated by the largest stream in the parcel. This stream is named Vasona Creek on the U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute Cupertino Quadrangle. On the adjacent U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute San Jose West Quadrangle, this same stream is named Sobey Creek and Vasona Creek before joining San Tomas Aquino Creek about a mile downstream of Parcel C. Within the parcel, Vasona Creek is intermittent. During the field evaluation, the stream had a small flow of water. In the southern portion of the parcel, Vasona Creek branches into two steep head canyons which flow to either side of a short fing.:r ridge. This finger ridge contains the I.O.O.F. cemetery preserve. All of the slopes draining 881 OLIVE AVE. • NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94947 (415) 887.4790 into Vasona Creek contain a park like growth of deciduous and evergreen oaks. The southeastern slopes of Southeast ridge drain into upper Sobey Creek. This slope is covered with low grass and is partially gullied. Sobey Creek itself only crosses the parcel at the southeast lot corner. The northwest portion of the parcel is oriented along a much more swale -like drainage containing low marshy areas instead of a well defined stream channel. The drainage separates Middle Ridge from another small finger ridge in the very northwest corner of the parcel. Most of this northwest portion of the parcel has seen land sue changes which partially obscure the original environment. Over the entire parcel, elevations range from about 400 feet in the drainages to 500 feet along the south parcel line; most of the ridges are about 440 -490 feet, as shown on the U.S.G.S. 7.5' Cupertino Quadrangle. . Ms. Flynn's research indicated that' no prehistoric archaeological sites have been recorded within or adjacent to the I.O.O.F. property. Archaeological surveys have been conducted as part of the planning process in the City of Saratoga for at least the last decade, the present project area has not been examined as part of any previously conducted archaeological evaluation. Several prehistoric archaeological sites are known to exist within the City of Saratoga. As with other prehistoric sites in the Santa Clara Valley, sites in Saratoga tend to be found in relatively predictable kinds of places. As part of the planning process, these potential areas are identified, and archaeological evaluations conducted. The I.O.O.F. parcel occupies such a potential area. A check of the data on historic era activities on or near Parcel C indicated that the I.O.O.F. has actively utilized this area since May 15, 1912, when the I.O.O.F. Home opened (Cunningham 1967:277). The establishment of this home has been described as follows: After much statewide searching the Odd Fellows bought 32 acres of Avenue about a mile south of S. concrete building, landscaped with was erected on the land at an $300,000 (Cunningham 1967:277). ON for possible sites, land on Fruitvale aratoga. A large extensive gardens, estimated cost of By 1922, the home was very active, as witnessed by the following description: One of the finest institutions of the kind is the Odd Fellow's Home, located on Fruitvale Avenue about a mile south of Saratoga. It is a concrete building and was erected in 1912 at a cost of $300.000. There are eighty -two acres in the tract. In 1920 there were 174 inmates, fifty of them being women. The main building contains a ladies parlor, library, assembly hall, reception room and rooms for the officers. A large part of the tract is planted in fruit trees and in 1919 fruit to the amount of $5,000 was sold. The home maintains hog and chicken yards and a vegetable garden, and in large measure is self supporting. The management is, in the hands of a board of trustees consisting of John Hazlett, San Francisco; D. A. Sinclair, Oakland; Fred Pierce, Los Angeles; A. H. Bullock, Sacramento; Sam E. Horeland, San Jose. The superintendant is Dr. C. S. Arnold and his wife is matron. The average age of the inmates is seventy -six years and the cost of maintenance per inmate is $25.50 per month (Sawyer 1922:248). In 1951 there were 185 people living at the home and the complex had grown to 7 buildings worth an estimated $1,500,000.00 (Cunningham 1967:278). Today, the I.O.O.F. Home still serves this purpose. No potentially significant historic activity other than the establishment and operation of the I.O.O.F. Home is known to have occurred on or near the subject parcel. Parcel C (49.103 acres), and an additional 3.333 acres from Parcel B of the Odd Fellows property were examined by Jeffrey Parsons on Friday, January 22, 1987. Mr. Parsons carried out a complete surface reconnaissance of the project area that took several hours to complete. He reports that survey conditions were good, the weather was warm and sunny and the air clear. Downtown San Jose could be easily seen. Ground visibility was limited by the luxurient growth of grasses and forbes following the recent rains. No archaeological resources were identified during the examination. Access to the parcel is by a hard packed dirt road which leads from the I.O.O.F. complex into Parcel C, past the closed Saratoga Community Gardens, through the southern, hilly part of Parcel C, and terminating at the Cemetery Reserve. A second dirt road leads from the I.O.O.F. Infirmary in Parcel D, passes over Vasona Creek in an 3 unimproved crossing, and circles the long high ridge in the southeast portion of Parcel C. A branch of this road provides access to the top of the middle ridge. Fence lines cross in many places, but access to all areas of the parcel on foot was easily achieved. The only obstacles were some steep slopes in the southern part of the parcel, and thick growth of blackberry vine along Vasona Creek. The Cemetery Reserve could not be entered as it was surrounded by a modern steel wire fence. Underlying sediments are exposed along the scraped dirt road on southeast Ridge and along roadcuts in the improved dirt road between the Community Gardens and the Cemetery Reserve. The sediments are clayey to loamy and contain some subrounded gravel consisting of hard metavolcanic and metamorphic rocks; angular pebbles of quartz also occur. These sediments are part of the Plio- Pleistocene (3 -13 million years ago) Santa Clara Formation (Brabb et. al. 1974: Plate 1). Except for the more organic soils of the community gardens, surface soils over the entire parcel are brown loams clay loams that appear shallow on slopes and deep along the flat ridge tops and in the small colluvial valleys. These soils are part of the Saratoga - Positas soil complex (Soil Conservation Service 1958:Plate 1). This soil complex also covers surrounding terraces at the same elevation as the finger ridges in the study parcel. These areas are underlain by thin old alluvium and overlie the Santa Clara formation. These soils are classified by the Soil Conservation Service as Mollic and Typic Palexeralfs. Such soils typically form in alluvium about 70- 80,000 years old. The southern portion of the parcel appears fairly undisturbed by twentieth century land changes. The ridgetops and stream valleys were intensively examined for both isolated artifacts and for concentrated uses such as habitation sites. No indications of prehistoric human land use were observed at any time during the examination. The stream valley contained several small colluvial terraces at the base of slopes adjacent to the floodwayh of Vasona Creek. One of the larger of these occurs where Vasona Creek branches at the base of the ridge containing the Cemetery Reserve. This is the site of a large pile of landscaping debris between the improved dirt road and the stream. Most of the floodway of Vasona Creek is overgrown by blackberry vine and the soil is looser than elsewhere. The northern half. of the parcel contains many areas of twentieth century activity. The crest of Middle Ridge was covered by an abandoned orchard which once appeared to extend to the parcel's east boundary, although the eastern 4 section has now been cleared of trees. Some chaparral plants have begun to grow about the edges of the cleared area. The top of Middle Ridge is currently being used for commercial beehives. Most of the land changes occur along the improved dirt road leading past the Community Gardens area. The Community Gardens occur in the upper drainage area in a swale -like area and consist of several wood frame buildings and a moderate sized garden area. The soil in the garden area has been greatly altered from gardening activities. Alongside the lower swalelike drainage and adjacent the. improved dirt road is a concrete and wood building that appears to have once been an agricultural_ warehouse building. A partially failing low concrete retaining wall occurs where the improved dirt road cuts into the hill next to the building. Another concrete and wood structure once stood along the improved dirt road where it crosses the west end of Middle Ridge. The upper portions of this building are gone. Only a few burnt timbers, the concrete pad, and some adjacent concrete pillar pads still exist. The hillside in the northwest corner of the parcel, containing a landscaping junipers and eucalyptus appears to have once been the site of a landscaped park area. All of these buildings and activities appear to be floodway century phenomena. The archival and field research has indicated that no prehistoric cultural resources lie within the subject parcel. No surface indicators of prehistoric land use were observed at any location within Parcel C or the small addition from Parcel B. Examination of the soils indicates that they are not quaternary alluvium, the soil type most likely to overlie buried archaeological sites. Plio - Pleistocene soils predate the presence of man in North America, and must, unless disturbed, lie under cultural deposits. The only potentially significant historic era activities associated with this parcel lie in its association with the I.O.O.F. Home. This facility, and the cemetery associated with it, will not be directly effected by use of Parcel C. The Home will continue to function, and the cemetery lies in a reserved, protected location, where it will remain, undisturbed by activities elsewhere. In summary, no archaeological resources, either historic or prehistoric, have been observed within the surveyed tract. Immediately adjacent to the project area are historic era features associated with the Odd fellow's Home, but they will not be impacted by the proposed undertaking. The soils of the site appear to preclude the presence of buried prehistoric sites, and none are expected to be found during construction related activities. 5 In the remote possibility that isolated archaeological features are encountered during any activities associated with the proposed project, all work should be halted within a 10 meter (35 feet) radius of the find, and an archaeologist consulted immediately. Thank you for this opportunity to participate in your project. If you have any questions or comments 'regarding any aspect of this document, please contact my office. Sincerely, William R p, Partner, A.R.S. REFERENCES CITED Cunningham, Florence R. (F. L. Fox, ed.) 1967 Saratoga's First Hundred Years. Bicentennial Edition, 1976. Saratoga Historical Foundation, Valley Publishers. Fresno. Sawyer, Eugene T. 1922 History of Santa Clara County. Historic Record Company. Los Angeles. 6 17'30' A. r 1 f + '8M 318. A /•• o, o-.! BI u Hips; :�••.` ,.Pa .:_ I,. _ _ ,: f ...I_......:�r.— ....-- • Ste\ i ! • - I` { _ + � - 1 ' 1 ;� -F, ' •' Aaq '� f •�.. .- � �. ._)� lip "t . �„'.•� ,V, ,. � /. , t,� • , ' I : ,� / �. • • u ,' Z / - , ,� Ci,., 11•WAROELL 'RD ti5 �. — ; % .X _ .II , .� .,.I 1 `'� I �� �I i.•i' 1,. 53 ���__ _ r _ 307 _: II ' .. X00 ... ,Y ' •, '; (], l I' '''` "r'�(1 /< • ••�r'�• •_ .. :� •r ''I i:� Ij - -- ';( (+ I� ell ;i• ,, .,'l. ��� ���� + • • • •� — _ _ •Substation`" � � • P I v� 'll,..' , '•i I �.! �..• • •••• Fountain. w P, 1'. r / •• .: 1 - �, r� •• ales. �u, Ll ,4 �� _ l' ._, t •'•r' � . j 6' ampu ne M 18 ' > iY ..'1 �:; :1. ; q 0.•. 7' L, . `, I F'oulIntaln: t ' 11' ' I • f • ._Ma° : • .. %! I /, �II Argona J Seh... \. I . C / •' • '. cam- � i�.1' N . \ Al \ nib' �'' k) V • --- IIII 1 ��Vi �.�PJ �+• .� . ., � .•' ,� -... ' _ JJJJ �r •�• ' -,. ", Pte. ,1 •E ` !i/ rl' I / ;titi �.I AV ,— —. I .� SdF�ye �' •n . • • ( Iv ` �J• .' " �t ''rte • • i , \ ■, II II .: ` .- . DP,•.. +� Ir'r, + , • �.Waler i a5j ._I /•• ' . B •► City eek :. �... S d p •..� 4125 P ! ♦ �• • ffM,�N A. / •+ Hallam f .I ..I, I ` t • +i�` •.I 47 IliKh Scr ti.;• <••_ a iC 1 • • .� ;'.. % .. c , sal, I �• 41' 1 ! 1 r � • �..� er .4( . � , ... � � a,•:.p 1 � !1.�� k.�� � -1 : � 4� 2 � Frular,l. = .�i ��•�'�y�,. F t'.. ,.:` :,;A • S11K �� M7 �. 1- •• • ~u�Lr -- • �i;�:�'' $AR OGA j -j l..• II 1 .I/ .0 'a, •. ,:� l p •III' _- ,•w �!1f - 4 ;N.jl fry .,on•/ �� I : aE•-• • •' �.'-J t` � b• �� . 1. �1 a ..�' •,'� �I' a;< 11' : r . `!. }I : BM : • LAN • J. �l[/ 11, /L� <f 1124 « v•�,• �• %;455 ! - /� v�aler, JI • �firc• ]� u 1,•,� aler +� Seve Pispolal (� • 1 I l _ +r .• ' 1 W o loo , - III..�Gm.Y•�'• •••! ::.BM 502 5� 9 �o p `�. I •t; ^� % Home�Mf i d• r� �.p •: -� Q I !j 5� f. 1 II 1.r t • ••• 1 : �, I ra J `r tel:' . ``` h .•� a S1A ° �• Seh n ��� ` �p •' c: � ,. I i ,'3 • - w 7 �'. (( �� _ rD •• 'h •1•;x:+!1 / 6�•'F0= Water t •�'���ii� =: ..1 ?• ! s � \: MaBroriia •.• 1 I •• 1'• •n •!' t �' Gravel X. I •` J , y Pit' : . 1 i 3 • I,: J ,ir 1.1 , /. . >• ,.1. _ /.% ,' :_� —_ • ! • • su7 / 1123009.. NO _ ■. S84 2'30" ij 'W wr■.o ■— cco•w.cw• ■unvn, a• ■ruH, r,wu,a,. -,•ra ,, l.r '•,•n 1 r,•; ,, .1� I• I IY %98099-E, 122 00 • 1 • 9' —_ I MILE ROAD CLASSIFICATION '• —s°°° 7000 rEET Heavy-duty Light-duty I KILOMETER Medium -duty Unimproved dirt .... ■.... l 1 Inlcl:.l,lll` Ituut+ State Route CALIF CUPERTINO, CALIF. QUADRANGLE LOCATION SE /4 PALO ALTO 15' OUADRANGLE N3715— W12200/7.5 oNDARDS I?evininns shown in purple compiled from aerial I.hotolllaph;; 1961 - RESTON. VIRGINIA 22092 I �1 1,1r, , rji0 roF?[:vr I.C1 ICI ,l' AND 1973 TILE ON RCQUEST tt and 1 17:3. l lu; inl,unlali'nl nnl lu•Id rh'trl,•'6 AMS 1558 1 SE- SERIES V895 Purple, hill mdi, 0, •. ' .Irn•u'.n ,•, ml.—iii aw.c. /04) L1, s � � � /iifiriiii ✓C� N J 3 333 Ac. or- cGluV-d c lea r� e,'S 1, Yc h��� � (ctyricul{tc� I) bbl lri wall l i ii ii s SA e e MihuN liy Derr V i r Q . An 1 heu5G e5 -Ale .5 Alwpo/ AM45�. EIR EXCERPTS 2. SUMMARY 2.1 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED MEASURES The characteristics of the project are described in detail in Sections 1.1 and 1.2. Section 3 of this report discusses in greater detail the existing setting, the environmental impacts which would result if the proposed project were implemented, and mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate any environmental impacts. Section 4 evaluates alternatives to the proposed project. Potentially significant impacts that could be caused by the proposed project relate to: (1) land use and planning; (2) traffic and circulation; (3) public services; (4) visual resources; (5) geology and hydrology; (6) biology; (7) noise; and (8) air quality. In all cases but one, mitigation measures identified are able to reduce the potentially significant impacts to levels of insignificance. This lone exception is the inconsistency of the proposed project to the city's general plan. The project, as proposed, calls for Crisp Avenue to be connected through tho Gypsy Hill Road which connects to Sobey Road via Chester Avenue. According to Area G, Fruitvale - Sobey Area Plans of the Saratoga General Plan, "New development should be provided with adequate access to arterials but local access streets should be designed to prevent through traffic use." If the lead agency makes a determination that this impact would indeed cause a significant change in the environment, it must first make a finding of over- riding consideration before granting approval of the proposed project. 2.2 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED The No Project, Two Cul -de -sac, Access Through the Odd Fellows Home, Three Cul -de -sac and Security Gate Alternatives are evaluated in the EIR. The No Project Alternative would postpone subdivision and eventual development impacts at the project site. The site would remain in its present state. There would be no increase in traffic volumes on existing residential areas from new land uses. Biological resources on -site would not be disturbed. An increase in demand for local public services would not occur. On -site grading would not occur, and the drainage patterns would not be altered. The project site also would generate no additional public revenues or public costs beyond current levels. The Two Cul -de -sac Alternatives would deny through traffic to the site to all but emergency vehicles. This alternative would provide for Crisp Avenue to be extended onto the west side of the site to allow access to seven lots. Access from the east would be provided to 28 lots from an extension of Gypsy Hill Road. This alternative would be consistent with the Saratoga General Plan, and would not create a significant increase in noise on the adjacent neighborhood on Crisp Avenue that would be created by the proposed project. This alternative would decrease the average daily traffic on Crisp Avenue and increase the average daily traffic on Sobey compared with that of the proposed 2 -1 SUMMARY project. Other impacts would remain approximately the same as those that would be created by the proposed project. This alternative would be an environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project. Access through the Odd Fellows Alternative would assume that Crisp Avenue would be extended onto the site ending in a cul -de -sac similar to the previous alternative. Gypsy Hill Road, however, would be extended from the east side of the subdivision north to connect with the Odd Fellow driveway off of Fruitvale Avenue. This connection would allow unrestricted through traffic to pass from Fruitvale across the Odd Fellows home property, through the site, up Gypsy Hill Road to Chester Avenue and then down Chester to Sobey Road. Twenty -eight lots would take access off of this road through the site. This alternative would be inconsistent with Saratoga General Plan in that it would allow through traffic to pass through the site, similar to the proposed project. This alternative would decrease the average daily traffic on Crisp Avenue from that anticipated by the proposed project, as would all alternatives considered here. This alternative would create noise and visual impacts of light and glare on the Odd Fellows Home facility. The other impacts would be similar to that of the proposed project. The Three Cul -de -sac Alternative assumes that three cul -de -sacs would be constructed on the site to provide access to 7 lots off of Crisp, and 14 lots each off Gypsy Hill Road and an extension of the Odd Fellows driveway. No through traffic would be provided for in this alternative. This design would be consistent -with the Saratoga General Plan in that no through traffic would be allowed. This alternative would decrease the anticipated level of traffic on Crisp Avenue with the proposed project, as would all of the alternatives, and increase the level of traffic through the Odd Fellows facility and on Sobey Road over that of the proposed project. Visual impacts of light and glare would be created on the Odd Fellows facility as a result of the new access road, although this impact would be less than would be created by the Odd Fellows alternative. This alternative may preclude the necessity of constructing a road across Sobey Creek providing that no emergency access road is required between Crisp and Gypsy Hill. If an emergency access road is required between the Crisp and Gypsy Hill cul -de -sacs via the Odd Fellows cul- de -sac, impacts to the biological resource would be equivalent to that of the proposed project. Noise impacts would primarily be caused to the Odd Fellows Home facility and the area east of the proposed subdivision, although these impacts are not expected to be significant. Other impacts would remain similar to that of the proposed project. This alternative would be an environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project. The Security Gate Alternative would assume a subdivision site plan similar to that of the proposed project with the addition of security gates at the two entrances to the proposed project at Crisp Avenue from the west and Gypsy Hill Road from the east. The security gates will in effect prohibit unrestricted through traffic from passing through the site. The alternative is consistent with the - Saratoga General Plan. This alternative would decrease the average daily traffic on Crisp Avenue compared to that of the proposed project, as would all of the alternatives analyzed here. It would also increase the average daily traffic on Sobey Road compared to that of the proposed project. Impacts to public services would not differ substantially from those of the proposed project, however, street maintenance would become the responsibility 2 -2 of the subdivision's homeowner association. The on -site roads would be private roads. Sound levels would be reduced substantially by the selection of this alternative, primarily due to the elimination of through traffic. Other impacts would remain about the same as those that would be created by the proposed. - project. This alternative would allow for Crisp to function as a A through road, if the gates at the two entrances to the proposed project would be removed. This alternative would also be an environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project. A2.3 IDENTIFIED AREAS OF CONTROVERSY The City of Saratoga Planning Department has identified access to the project as an area of controversy. The City has also identified land use and planning, traffic, public services, visual, geology, hydrology, biology, noise and air quality as areas of potentially significant environmental impacts that are addressed in this EIR. 3.2 TRAFFIC EXISTING SETTING Regional Access. Regional access is provided to the project site in the north /south direction by Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road (State Route 85), Saratoga Avenue and Quito Road. Regional access is provided to the project site in the east /west direction by Saratoga -Los Gatos Road (State Route 9). Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road extends northerly from the project area to Interstate 280 linking the project area with the cities of Cupertino and Sunnyvale. Saratoga Avenue is a major arterial extending northeasterly from the project area linking the project area with the City of Santa Clara. Quito Road is a secondary:,north /south arterial which nearly parallels Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, and provides access to the Lawrence Expressway north of the project site as indicated in Figure 3.2 -1. Local Access. Local access is provided to the project site by a combination of Crisp Avenue, Gypsy Hill Road, Chester Avenue, Fruitvale Avenue and Sobey Road, as indicated in Figure 3.2 -1. CRISP AVENUE. Crisp Avenue is an east and west oriented minor residential road extending westerly from the project site to Fruitvale Avenue as indicated in Figure 3.2 -1. Crisp Avenue is a two way roadway with one lane in each direction. P.M. peak hour traffic counts were taken Wednesday, March 15, 1989, on Crisp Avenue at Fruitvale Avenue. The exiting two way peak hour traffic volume was found to be 40 vehicles between 6:00 P.M. and 7:00 P.M. Crisp Avenue i-s estimated to accommodate a two way daily traffic volume of approximately 430 vehicles. FRUITVALE AVENUE. Fruitvale Avenue is a two way, north and south oriented roadway in the City of Saratoga. Fruitvale Avenue extends northerly from Saratoga -Los Gatos Road to Saratoga Avenue as indicated in Figure 3.2 -1. Fruitvale Avenue consists mainly of a single lane in each direction, although the roadway provides two lanes in each direction between Saratoga and Allendale Avenues. Existing P.M. peak hour traffic volumes were counted on Fruitvale Avenue on March 15, 1989. The count indicated Fruitvale Avenue currently accommodates a two way peak hour traffic volume of 680 vehicles between 6 :00 P.M. and 7:00 P.M. GYPSY HILL ROAD. Gypsy Hill Road is a minor residential roadway in the project vicinity. Gypsy Hill Road currently extends southerly form Chester Avenue to the project site boundary as indicated in Figure 3.2 -1. Gypsy Hill Road consists of one lane in each direction and accommodates a very limited amount of daily traffic estimated at 200 to 300 vehicles per day. SOBEY ROAD. Sobey Road is a two lane looped road having two intersections north and south with Quito Road. Multiple cul -de -sac connections to Sobey Road provide access to existing residences. Ten Acres Road connects Chester Avenue and Sobey Road (see Figure 3.2 -1). To determine existing daily traffic volumes, traffic counts were taken on Wednesday, March 15, 1989, between 4:00 and 6:00 P.M. The existing daily two way traffic volume on Sobey Road at Chester Avenue is estimated to be 800 vehicles per day. The peak hour two way volume occurs from 4:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M. and was counted to be 80 vehicles. Sobey Road has a two way peak hour capacity of approximately 500 vehicles. in 3.2 -1 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS QUITO ROAD. Quito Road is a north and south arterial in Saratoga. In the project area, Quito —Road is two lanes wide. Just north of the northern Sobey Road intersection, Quito Road has an estimated daily two way traffic volume of 10,950 vehicles per.day. The peak hour two way volume from 5:15 P.M. to 6:15 P.M. was counted to be 770 vehicles in both directions in 1985. Just south of -the southern Sobey Road intersection, Quito Road has an estimated daily two way traffic volume of 7,550 vehicles. The peak hour two way volume at this location was counted to be 530 vehicles in 1985. CHESTER AVENUE. Chester Avenue is a two lane, winding residential road that connects to Allendale Avenue north of the site. Currently, Chester Avenue does not have a public through connection to Sobey Road, but does have an interim private connection that is used by the residents of the area. P.M. peak hour traffic counts were taken Wednesday, March 15, 1989, on Chester Avenue at Sobey Road. The existing two way peak hour volume between 4:00 P.M. and 5:00 P.M. was found to be 18 vehicles. Chester Avenue is estimated to have a daily two way traffic volume of approximately 100 -200 vehicles per day. Level of Service. Existing service levels on vicinity roads are very adequate. Intersections of Sobey Road with Chester Avenue and Crisp Avenue with Fruitvale Avenue have short to average traffic delays during the A.M. peak hour, charac- teristic of level of service A -B, and during the P.M. peak hour,.characteristic of level of service A. Table 3.2 -1 presents definitions of service levels and corresponding delays and reserve capacities characteristics level of service (LOS) Classes A through Y. Calculations for the P.M. hour of peak traffic indicate that both the intersection of Sobey Road with Chester Avenue and the intersection of Crisp Avenue with Fruitvale Avenue have in excess of 400 vehicles per hour reserve capacity for all movements. qr The results of the A.M. and P.M. peak hour level of service analysis are summarized in Tables 3.2 -2 and 3.2 -3, respectively. IMPACTS I The following analysis identifies the impact the proposed project would have on the existing street system in the project area. The analysis also provides a detailed account of four alternative site plans with regard to access. These alternatives, referred to herein as Alternatives B, C, D and E are the following: Alternative B is the Crisp Avenue and Gypsy Hill Road Cul -de -Sac Alternative; Alternative C is the Access Through the Odd Fellows Residential Care Facility Alternative; Alternative D is the Three Cul -de -Sac Alternative with access provided to seven units via an extension of Crisp Avenue, to fourteen units via an extension of Gypsy Hill, and fourteen via a cul -de -sac through the Odd Fellows Property; and Alternative E is the Security Gate Alternative. This alternative, Alternative E, is identical to the proposed project with the exception that security gates would be provided on both Gypsy Hill and Crisp Avenue at the two entrances to the site to prevent public through traffic. For information on how these four alternatives would impact other resources, in addition to traffic, please see Section 4, Alternatives to the Proposed Action. Trip Generation. Trips which would be generated by the proposed project were estimated using Institute of Transportation Engineers standard trip generation rates for single family residential units and are summarized in Table 3.2 -4. 3.2 -3 Review of Table 3.2 -1 will indicate the proposed 35 unit project is forecast to generate 352 t -rips per day of which seven trips would be inbound and 19 outbound during the A.M. peak hour and 22 trips inbound and 13 outbound during the P.M. peak hour. Table 3.2 -5 provides estimates of average daily A.M. peak hour and P.M. peak hour trips, which would be generated by other approved and proposed projects in the immediate vicinity. Trip Distribution. Figure 3.2 -2 shows the distribution of average daily A.M. peak hour and P.M. peak hour project related traffic to the local roadway network assuming the internal roadway network as proposed. This includes an extension of Crisp Avenue through the project site to Gypsy Hill Road as shown in Figure 1.3, Site Plan. The distribution is based upon the trip distribution utilized in the traffic study completed for the Gypsy Hill Farm Residential Subdivision (Earth Metrics, 1985) modified to reflect current travel patterns based upon 1989 traffic counts. Figure 3.2 -3 shows the distribution of project related traffic-to the local roadway network for Alternative B. Alternative B would consist of extending Crisp Avenue easterly to provide access to seven new project residences with the remainder of the project being provided access by an extension of Gypsy Hill Road. Crisp Avenue would not be extended through the project site to provide a link to Gypsy Hill Road. Traffic from the seven residences served by Crisp Avenue would be required to follow Crisp Avenue to Fruitvale Avenue. Traffic from the remainder of the project would be required to follow Gypsy Hill Road to Chester Avenue to Sobey Road or Allendale Avenue. Figure 3.2 -5 shows the distribution of project related traffic to the local roadway network for Alternative C. Alternative C would consist of a combination of a cul -de -sac from Crisp Avenue with seven lots and a circular road connecting Gypsy Hill Road through the Odd Fellows facility to Fruitvale Avenue with the remaining 28 lots. This alternative would provide a through route from Gypsy Hill Road / Sobey Road to Fruitvale Avenue via the Odd Fellows site. Figure 3.2 -6 shows the distribution of project related traffic to the local roadway network for Alternative D. Alternative D would consist of a three cul -de -sac alternative with cul -de -sacs at an extension of Crisp, the Odd Fellows Property entrance road, and Gypsy Hill. This alternative would give access to seven lots on Crisp, fourteen on Gypsy Hill and fourteen.on a cul- de -sac through the Odd Fellows Property. Figure 3.2 -6 shows the distribution of project related traffic to the local roadway network for Alternative E. This alternative assumes access identical to the proposed project with the exception that security gates would be provided at entrances to the site at Crisp and Gypsy Hill to prevent public through traffic. Crisp Avenue Extension to Gypsy Hill Road. The project, as currently proposed, would include extending Crisp Avenue easterly through the project site to an extension of Gypsy Hill as indicated in Figure 1.3, Site Plan. This. extension would provide a new link between Fruitvale Avenue and Sobey Road. The existing residents in the Sobey Road area wishing to reach Fruitvale Avenue could follow Chester Avenue to Gypsy Hill Road to Crisp Avenue to Fruitvale Avenue. 3.2 -6 Travel time studies were conducted during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours as part of the analysis to determine if drivers using an extension of Crisp Avenue to Gypsy Hill Road would realize a saving in travel time compared to currently used routes. The travel time studies compared inbound travel times during the A.M. peak hour from the north, east, and south to West Valley College and outbound travel times during the P.M. peak hour from the east and south. The routes surveyed -were developed in consultation with City Staff based upon a review of data from West Valley College indicating residences of students. The alternate routes surveyed are shown in Figures 3.2 -7 and 3.2 -8. The results of the surveys, in terms of average travel time in minutes and seconds, are shown in Tables 3.2 -6 and 3.2 -7. The results of the studies indicated that use of Crisp Avenue, if extended through to Gypsy Hill Road by external traffic, oriented to and from West Valley College from the north (Saratoga Avenue and Lawrence Expressway), to and from the south (Quito Road and Saratoga - Los Gatos Road), and to and from the east (Pollard Road), would be minimal. Travel times using a combination of major roads consisting of Quito Road, Allendale Avenue, Saratoga - Los Gatos Road and Fruitvale Avenue typically provided a route twice as short timewise as a route involving the use of Crisp Avenue, Gypsy Hill Road, Chester Avenue, and Sobey Road. Currently, Sobey Road accommodates approximately 800 vehicles per day in the vicinity of Chester Avenue. If 25 percent of this traffic was diverted to Crisp Avenue via the proposed extension to Gypsy Hill Road, 25 percent of the traffic generated by the Gypsy Hill Farm Residential Subdivision and approximately 65 percent of the traffic generated by the proposed project utilized Crisp Avenue to reach Fruitvale Avenue, daily traffic volumes on Crisp Avenue at Fruitvale Avenue would be increased from approximately 430 vehicles to 1,063 vehicles per day. This would be an increase of approximately 150 percent. However, Crisp Avenue would still be accommodating approximately 1,000 vehicles per day and would retain the character of a minor residential oriented roadway. Crisp Avenue should continue to operate well below its environmental capacity, although the increase in traffic volumes would be very noticeable to existing residents along Crisp Avenue and at existing cross streets along Crisp Avenue. The same assumptions would hold if Alternative C, including a through connection between Sobey Road and Fruitvale Avenue through the Odd Fellows site, were constructed. Upwards of 200 vehicles could be diverted from Sobey Road to the new through road as would traffic from the Gypsy Hill Subdivision. As shown in Table 3.2 -8, this would increase existing traffic volumes on the Odd Fellows entrance road from approximately 350 vehicles per day to approximately 793 vehicles per day. Roadway capacity, in the traditional sense, has been defined as the vehicle carrying capacity of a roadway or street. These capacities are often measured at intersections where the greatest potential for congestion occurs. Residential streets, by their nature, have other functions than serving motor vehicles. This has led to the concept of "environmental capacity" in terms of noise levels, pedestrian and bicycle freedom, and driveway access. Research into "environmental capacity" has concluded that there is an upper limit to traffic along residential streets where residents along that street begin to experience a loss of residential character. The general observation, based upon four studies, is that when.traffic volumes on a residential street reach 2,000 vehicle passbys per day (200 per hour), that a loss in residential character is noticed. Pedestrian freedom is lost, noise levels become more 3.2 -13 noticeable, and traffic odors and dirt become objectionable at levels above 2,000 vehicle passbys per day. When traffic volumes on residential streets reach 3,000 to 4,000 vehicles per day, the residential character of a street is adversely affected (Appleyard). Crisp Avenue is forecast to accommodate a P.M. peak hour increase in two way traffic volunTes from an existing level of 30 vehicles to 80 vehicles when the proposed project, Gypsy Hill Farm Subdivision and extension of Crisp Avenue to Gypsy Hill Road, are completed. The proposed extension of Crisp Avenue through the project site should not result in any additional diversion of traffic from Quito Road through the project site to Fruitvale Avenue. In order to complete this maneuver, vehicles would be required to follow Sobey Road from Quito Road to Chester Avenue to Gypsy Hill Road to Crisp Avenue to Fruitvale Avenue. This will be a long circuitous route requiring an extended travel time as determined in the travel time analysis. The use of Allendale Avenue or Saratoga - Los Gatos Road would be more expedient. Traffic Volumes. Existing and projected average daily traffic volumes for surrounding roadways are shown in Tables 3.2 -8 and 3.2 -9. Review of Table 3.2 -8 will indicate construction of the project as proposed with the extension of Crisp Avenue to Gypsy Hill Road is forecast to decrease traffic volumes on Sobey Road north of Chester Avenue from approximately 800 vehicles per day to approximately 786 vehicles per day or by 2 percent. The reason for the decrease is the forecast shift of existing traffic to Crisp Avenue if extended through to Gypsy Hill Road. Traffic volumes on Sobey Road south of Chester Avenue are forecast to decrease by approximately nine percent from approximately 800 vehicles per day to 734 vehicles per day when the project is completed, again as a result of a shift of existing traffic to Crisp Avenue. Traffic volumes on Crisp Avenue are forecast to increase from 430 vehicles per day to approximately 862 vehicles per day (100 percent increase) if the project is completed as proposed as a result of traffic generated by the proposed project and a diversion of approximately 200 vehicles per day from existing Sobey Road traffic through the project site to Fruitvale Avenue. The proposed project is not expected to increase traffic volumes on Allendale Avenue. Estimates of cumulative average daily traffic volumes on surrounding roadways are shown in Table 3.2 -9. Review of Table 3.2 -9 will indicate a two percent per year growth in existing traffic volumes on Sobey Road and Fruitvale Avenue, coupled with traffic projections for the Gypsy Hill Farm Residential Subdivision (cumulative 1995 with project) is forecast to further increase traffic volumes on all local roadways in the project area. Sobey Road is forecast to accommodate approximately 940 vehicles per day north of Chester Avenue and 820 vehicles south of Chester Avenue. Crisp Avenue is forecast to accommodate approximately 850 vehicles per day. However, again the daily traffic volumes experienced by these roadways, Crisp Avenue and Sobey Road, would be well below the 2,000 vehicle per day environmental capacity of a residential roadway as described previously. Alternatives B C D and E. Estimates of average daily traffic volumes on surrounding roadways for Alternatives B, C, D and E assuming (1) existing and (2) projected 1995 conditions are also summarized in Tables 3.2 -8 and 3.2 -9 respectively. Review of Tables 3.2 -8 and 3.2 -9 will indicate the different project alternatives are all forecast to result in miner increases in daily 3.2 -18 traffic volumes on surrounding roads. Expected increases typically vary between zero and approximately 174 vehicles per day on Sobey Avenue north of Chester and between zero and 108 vehicles south of Chester. Increases in traffic volumes on Fruitvale Avenue are also expected to remain reasonably constant varying between approximately 40 and 246 dependent upon alternative. The real diff- erences occur on Crisp Avenue and the Odd Fellows entrance road when either becomes a primary source of project access. If Crisp Avenue is the primary source of project access and is expanded through to Gypsy Hill Road, daily traffic volumes are expected to more than double in volume at Fruitvale Avenue. Increases further east on Crisp Avenue would be even more significant. Alternative E access via Crisp Avenue, with security gates to prevent through traffic, is forecast to increase traffic volume on Crisp by approximately 230 vehicles near Fruitvale or by approximately 53 percent. Use of the Odd Fellow entrance road as the primary source of access (Alternative C) is forecast to increase traffic volumes on the entrance road by approximately 384 vehicles per day or by approximately 110 percent. If Alternative D provided access to 11 units via Crisp Avenue rather than seven units, daily traffic volumes on Crisp Avenue would be increased by 100 vehicles per day rather than 70 vehicles per day. This would provide a more equitable distribution of project related travel. Service Levels. Review of Table 3.2 -2 will indicate that service levels at the surrounding intersections of Chester Avenue with Sobey Road, and the Odd Fellows entrance at Fruitvale Avenue are forecast to continue to operate at an LOS A during both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, assuming construction of the project as proposed or construction of Alternatives B, C, D, or E. All movements at each of the intersections, assuming both existing and cumulative conditions, are forecast to continue to operate at an LOS A with a reserve capacity in excess of 400 vehicles per hour. Vehicles traveling through these intersections would encounter minimal delay during the A.M. peak hour. However, review of Table 3.2 -2 will indicate all approaches of the intersection of Fruitvale and Crisp are forecast to operate at LOS A/B during the A.M. peak hour, for all Alternatives except the proposed project. The proposed project is forecast to reduce the Crisp Avenue approach LOS from LOS B to LOS C during the A.M. peak hour as a result of project traffic and traffic forecast to be diverted from Sobey Road. The intersection is forecast to continue to operate at an LOS A/B during the P.M. peak hour, regardless of the Alternative assuming existing plus project conditions. Further review of Tables 3.2 -10 and 3.2 -11 will indicate the proposed project, and all Alternatives are not forecast to reduce projected 1995 A.M. or P.M. peak hour LOS at any of the intersections beyond projected 1995 conditions without the project. As stated above, the intersection of the Odd Fellows driveway with Fruitvale Avenue has sufficient capacity to accommodate project traffic volumes associated with Alternative C. However, the Odd Fellows driveway is located adjacent to San Marcos Road and as such, compromises safety. The driveway and San Marcos Road are approximately six to eight feet apart making it somewhat confusing for drivers exiting the driveway or San Marcos Road when an oncoming car on Fruitvale Avenue is signaling to turn. Similarly, drivers of vehicles turning right and left from northbound and southbound Fruitvale Avenue would experience some confusion if one is oriented to the Odd Fellows driveway and the other is oriented to San Marcos Road. 3.2 -21 4. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT An analysis of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project is presented in this section, focusing on four different means of providing access to the site in addition to an analysis of the No Project Alternative. The four "project" alternatives are designed to minimize the impacts of the proposed project on the surrounding neighborhoods. These new and revised alternatives were developed after the City circulated the Draft EIR and held two public hearings on the Draft EIR. These four project alternatives were established by the City of Saratoga planning staff after input from the Planning Commission, the property owner, the public, and. the applicants. One option not analyzed that was mentioned at the February 22', 1989, Planning Commission hearing was a connection from the site to Chester Avenue, however, the Planning Commission did not give direction to the staff that this alternative should be pursued. This alternative was not included for analysis principally due to topographic constraints and the presence of riparian vegetation. This section presents the likely environmental effects of the following five alternatives: (1) No Project Alternative (Alternative A); (2) Two Cul -de -sac Alternative (Alternative B); (3) Access Through the Odd Fellows Alternative (Alternative C); Three Cul -de -sac Alternative (Alternative D); and (4) the Security Gate Alternative (Alternative E). No specific site plans have been developed for these four "project" alternatives. 4.1 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE (ALTERNATIVE A) The No Project Alternative would postpone subdivision and eventual development impacts at the project site. The existing abandoned structures would not be removed. The site would remain in its relatively undeveloped state. The amount of neighborhood open space would not be reduced. Adjacent land uses which are considered sensitive would not be negatively impacted during demolition and construction activities. There would be no increase in traffic volumes on existing residential areas from new land uses. Biological resources on -site would not be disturbed. An increase in demand for local public services would not occur. On -site grading would not take place, and the drainage pattern would not be altered. The project site would also generate no additional public revenues or public costs beyond current levels. 4.2 TWO CUL -DE -SAC ALTERNATIVE (ALTERNATIVE B) This alternative assumes that the proposed San Marcos Heights Subdivision would be slightly redesigned. Crisp Avenue would be extended onto the site as a cul- de -sac. This cul -de -sac would provide access to the west side of the site for seven residential lots. Gypsy Hill Road would provide access to the remainder of the project site. This road, presently terminating in a cul -de -sac, would be extended onto the site's east side. Gypsy Hill Road would be the primary access route to the site and would be used by 28 households. This alternative would increase the traffic impacts on the adjacent residential area east of the site over the proposed project and decrease the potential traffic impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood to the west of the project site. Most of the traffic generated by the project (80 percent) would be required to access the site through the Gypsy Hill Farm Subdivision. This average daily traffic (ADT) would amount to 280 trips per day. Emergency access would only be provided to connect Crisp Avenue and Gypsy Hill Road. This emergency access would be constructed in a manner which would deny access to Crisp Avenue beyond the 4 -1 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVE B 7Mo cu4d♦ sacs comected by strWgoflcy @Muss Oypsy h! 3 G bts (11+20) Crisp *M: 22 bts (7 +15) DuoN FIGURE 4.2-1 TWO CUL DE SAC ALTERNATIVE earth metrics 4-2 aforementioned seven lots with the exception of emergency vehicles. This alternative would restrict access to Fruitvale via Crisp Avenue to 80 percent of the units in the proposed project and would prevent any traffic from passing through the site from the Gypsy Hill Farm Subdivision or beyond, to all but emergency vehicles. Land Use and Planning. This alternative would be consistent with the guidelines established for Area G, Fruitvale -Sobey Area, as stated in the Saratoga General Plan. The Area Plan, in particular, states that "New development should be provided with adequate access to arterials but local access streets should be designed to prevent through traffic use." This alternative, unlike the proposed project, prevents through traffic use. The potentially significant unavoidable adverse impact that would be caused by the proposed project would be mitigated by the selection of this alternative. Traffic and Transportation. Implementation of this alternative would decrease the potential traffic impacts on the adjacent residential neighborhood west of the parcel over the project as proposed. Conversely this alternative would increase the traffic volumes on Sobey Road over the proposed project. The reason for this increase is due to the majority (80 percent) of the project related traffic being required to utilize Gypsy Hill Road and Sobey Road. This proposed alternative would increase the average daily traffic volume in the vicinity of the proposed project by the following amounts: 70 vehicle trips on Crisp at Fruitvale, an increase of 14 percent over existing traffic, the same percentage increase as Alternative C and D; 174 vehicle trips on Sobey north of Chester, an increase of 22 percent and an increase of 108 vehicle trips on Sobey, south of Chester, for an increase of 14 percent. With regard to the proposed project, implementation of Alternative B would decrease the anticipated traffic on Crisp from 862 vehicles per day to 500, a decrease of 42 percent, the same as Alternatives C and D, and increase the anticipated traffic on Sobey north of Chester from the projected 786 vehicle trips per day to 974 trips per day, or an increase of 24 percent. South of Chester on Sobey, Alternative B would increase the anticipated number of vehicle trips from 734 per day to 908 per day, also an increase of 24 percent. Public Services. No additional impacts would occur as a result of this alternative to sewer, water, and storm drain infrastructures. Services such as telephone, electricity, natural gas and street maintenance would not be adversely impacted nor parks and recreation or schools. Bus service is not provided for either of the two school districts the site is included in. Fire and police protection services would be provided emergency access from one cul -de -sac to the other. Visual Quality. No additional impacts would occur to visual quality as a result of implementing this alternative over the proposed project. Geology and Hydrology. Impacts to geology and hydrology would remain the same with this alternative. Biology. In order for the Gypsy Hill cul -de -sac to service the northern portion of the site, a crossing of Sobey Creek would be required. If the emergency access is not placed within the riparian zone, there will be only one crossing of Sobey Creek. Given one crossing of the creek, the biological impacts of this 4 -3 with regard to the proposed project, implementation of Alternative_C would decrease the anticipated traffic on Crisp from 862 vehicles per day to 500, a IM decrease of 42 percent, the same as for Alternatives B and D, and slightly decrease the anticipated traffic on Sobey north of Chester from the projected 786 vehicle trips per day to 770 trips per day, a decrease of just two percent. South of Chester on Sobey, Alternative C would decrease the anticipated number of vehicles to fewer than 10 per day for less than a one percent change. Public Services. Impacts to public services would not differ substantially from those of the proposed project. Sewer, water and storm drain infrastructures, school and park and recreation facilities, and services such as telephone, electricity, natural gas and street maintenance would essentially remain the same. Fire and police protection services would be provided access to the site from the west via the Odd Fellows driveway and Crisp Avenue. Emergency access would be provided from the terminus of the Crisp Avenue cul -de -sac to the through road on site. From the east, emergency vehicles would be provided access off of Gypsy Hill Road. Visual Quality. Impacts related to visual quality would be altered by the selection of this alternative over that of the proposed project. Construction of a through road from Sobey to Fruitvale would cause an impact of light from vehicle headlamps from vehicles passing through a portion of the Odd Fellows property where traffic does not now currently exist. Geology and Hydrology. Impacts to geology and hydrology would remain the same with this alternative. Biology. The road connecting Gypsy Hill and the Odd Fellows Road will require a crossing of Sobey Creek. If the emergency access between this connector road and the Crisp Avenue cul -de -sac is placed outside of the riparian zone, there will be only one crossing of Sobey Creek. Given one crossing of the creek, the biological impacts of this alternative would be similar to the proposed project, assuming a crossing at the same location as the proposed project, i.e., -where the dirt road crosses Sobey,Creek. If the emergency access requires an additional crossing of the creek, then the biological impacts of this alternative would be greater than the proposed project. Noise. Implementation of this alternative will increase the sound levels in the project vicinity by approximately three decibels (dBA) to approximately 59 dBA Ldn. Impacts will be primarily on the site and on the Odd Fellows property north and northwest of the site. Noise levels would substantially decrease on Crisp from that of the proposed project and remain approximately the same on Gypsy Hill Road and Chester as that of the proposed project. This three decibel increase in noise would be considered to be a perceptible increase in the ambient sound level, however, this increase is not expected to be significant. 4.4 THREE CUL -DE -SAC ALTERNATIVE (ALTERNATIVE D This Alternative assumes that three cul -de -sac will be constructed on the site to provide access to the proposed 35 lot subdivision. Access through the Odd Fellows property will provide access to 14 lots, access off the extension of Crisp will provide access to seven lots and access of the extension of Gypsy Hill Road will provide access to 14 lots. Emergency access would be provided from the Crisp Avenue cul -de -sac to the cul -de -sac off Gypsy Hill Road to emergency vehicles only. No through traffic would be allowed (see Figure 4.4 -1). 4 -6 CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVE D Ttraa cW-de -sacs: Odd FNows a$ -do-Sm 14 bts and Odd FNOws ttaffk Qypsy HE cV- ds-sar. 26 bts Cffsp *A nA a&ds -S= 22 late FLUE D L All R- 1- X0.000 A A I - ODD FELLOWS D 1 R A. 1 �; �►i�i� gjj... 1740 r i iii si— 4 FIGURE 4.4 -1 THREE CUL DE SAC ALTERNATIVE earth metrics /. - -r 0 This alternative would provide access to a total of 22 lots on Crisp (15 existing and 7 proposed), 25 lots on Gypsy Hill (11 existing and 14 proposed), and 14 off of the extension of the Odd Fellows driveway. Land Use and - Planning. This alternative would be consistent with the guidelines established for Area G, Fruitvale - Sobey Area, as stated in the Saratoga General Plan, particularly with the guideline that states that "New development should be provided with adequate access to arterials but local access streets should be designed to prevent through traffic use. This alternative prevents through traffic from passing through the site from Fruitvale to Sobey as would be possible in the proposed project and in Alternative C. Both the proposed project and Alternative C allow through traffic to pass unimpeded through the proposed project. Traffic and Circulation. This proposed alternative would increase the average daily traffic volume in the vicinity of the proposed project by the following amounts: 70 vehicle trips on Crisp Avenue at Fruitvale, an increase of 14 percent over existing traffic, the same as Alternatives Band C; 141 vehicle trips on the Odd Fellows driveway an increase of 40 percent; an increase of 87 vehicle trips on Sobey, north of Chester and an increase of 54 vehicle trips on Sobey, south of Chester for increases of 11 percent and 7 percent respectfully. With regard to the proposed project, implementation of Alternative D would decrease the anticipated traffic on Crisp from 862 vehicles per day to 500, a decrease of 42 percent; increase the anticipated traffic on the Odd Fellows driveway by 141 vehicles per day, a increase of 40 percent; and increase the traffic on Sobey, north of Chester by 101 vehicle trips and south of Chester by 120 vehicle trips. This would amount to increases of 13 percent and 16 percent respectfully. Implementation of this alternative would reduce the anticipated number of trips on Crisp Avenue with the proposed project by 362 vehicle trips, for a 42 percent decrease in traffic. This would, however, also create a 16 percent increase over existing levels of traffic on Crisp Avenue. No through traffic would be possible with this alternative. Public Services. Impacts to public services would not differ substantially from those of the proposed project. Sewer, water and storm drain infrastructures, school and park and recreation facilities, and services such as telephone, electricity, natural gas and street maintenance would essentially remain the same. Fire and police protection services would be provided access via the Odd Fellows Care Facility or through Crisp Avenue and Gypsy Hill Road at the entrances to the site. Access between any of these three cul -de -sac would be available for emergency use only. No through traffic would be permitted or allowed. Visual Resources. Impacts related to visual quality would be similar to that of the proposed project with the exception that the construction of an access road through the Odd Fellows property to serve the 14 lots that would be accessed by this proposed road, would create an impact of light and glare from motor vehicles passing through the facility. This impact would be less than that proposed under Alternative C, Access Through the Odd Fellows Alternative. Geology and Hydrology. Impacts to geology and hydrology would remain the same with this alternative. 4 -8 io o The implementation of this alternative would preclude the necessity of constructing a road across Sobey Creek, providing that no emergency access road is built between the Crisp cul -de -sac and the cul -de -sac at the terminus of Gypsy Hill Road. Providing an emergency access road between the Crisp Avenue cul -de- sac and the ctrl -de -sac at the terminus of the Odd Fellows Road would not necessitate the crossing of Sobey Creek. Providing an emergency connection between the Odd Fellows Road and Gypsy Hill cul -de -sacs would result in the same biological impacts as that of the proposed project, assuming that Sobey Creek would be crossed at the same location as that of the proposed project, where the dirt road crosses the creek. Providing an emergency access road between the Crisp Avenue cul -de -sac and the Gypsy Hill cul -de -sac would result in biological impacts greater that those that would result from the proposed project. It is possible, however, to connect these three cul -de -sacs with only one crossing of Sobey Creek, at the location where the dirt road crosses Sobey Creek at the present time. Noise. Implementation of this alternative will increase the sound levels in the project vicinity by approximately two dBA under the cumulative traffic conditions to approximately 58 dBA Ldn. Impacts would primarily be to the northwest and to the east of the site, and unlike the project, as proposed, are not expected to be significant. A two decibel increase in the ambient noise level is not anticipated to be a noticeable increase, and, therefore, would not be considered to be significant. No through traffic would take place as a result of this alternative. Air Oualitx. Impacts to the project vicinity's air quality will be altered insignificantly by the implementation of this alternative. 4.5 SECURITY GATE ALTERNATIVE_(ALTERNATIV This alternative assumes the identical design of the proposed project with the addition of security gates at the two entrances to the proposed project, one at the entrance to the project at Crisp Avenue from the west and the other from the entrance at Gypsy Hill Road on the east. The security gates will in effect prohibit unrestricted through traffic. Alternative E would allow for a maximum of 50 lots to have access off of Crisp Avenue (15 existing plus 35 proposed) and 46 lots off of Gypsy Hill Road (11 existing plus 35 proposed) (see Figure 4.5 -1). Land Use and Plannin . This alternative would be consistent with the guidelines established for Area G, Fruitvale -Sobey Area, as outlined in the Saratoga General Plan. One of the guidelines in the Area Plan states that local access streets should be designed to prevent through traffic use. Security gates at the entrances to the site will prevent through traffic from traveling from Crisp Avenue to Sobey Road through the site. Traffic and Circulation. This proposed alternative would increase average daily traffic in the vicinity of the proposed project by the following amounts: 230 vehicle trips on Crisp Avenue at Fruitvale, an increase of 53 percent over current levels;,100 vehicle trips on Sobey, north of Chester and 100 vehicles on Sobey, south of Chester. The construction of the gate alternative would prevent traffic on Sobey from traveling through the site. 4 -9 GENERAL PLAN & COUNCIL LETTER TO CRISP APPENDIX F AREA G - FRUITVALE -SOBEY -ROAD The Fruitvale -Sobey Road area is bounded by Allendale-Quito- Pollard on the north, Quito Road and city limits on the east, Saratoga -Los Gatos Road to the south and Fruitvale Avenue on the west. One acre residential development predominates; however, since the last General Plan update, several hundred high density units have been built on the Odd Fellows property including approximately 150 subsidized units. There still remains considerable undeveloped land made up of rolling hills and chaparral. Any further high density development in this open land threatens to change the predominant low density single - family character of Area G. Other land uses include two schools, Marshall Lane Elementary and West Valley College, two churches along Allendale and the Odd Fellows complex of buildings off San Marcos in the eastern portion of the Fruitvale -Sobey Road area. Much of Area G is included in the City's equestrian zone, which permits residents to keep horses on their property. The Fruitvale -Sobey Road area is encircled by arterials. Collectors within the area are Sobey Road and Chester /Ten Acres. The major traffic generator in the area is West Valley College in the northwest corner. Future development of the-Fruitvale -Sobey Road area should be restricted to very low density single family homes in order to preserve the character of the area and the strong wishes of the area residents. An important part of the orderly development calls-for the City to change its policy regarding use permits or variances that would allow even further high density development. There is no publicly owned open space or recreation areas in the Fruitvale -Sobey Road area. However, the existing orchards and large parcels associated with residential development reduce the need for public open space. 'The continued use of the Community Gardens, and the proposed equestrian trail, which may also serve as a hiking trail, could provide a valuable public recreation resource in this area. The Fruitvale -Sobey Road area appears to be adequately served by arterials. Future traffic projections indicate that by 1990 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, Quito Road and Fruitvale Avenue will be carrying significantly more traffic. Allendale and Fruitvale are already carrying substantial traffic loads. Plans to increase the capacity of Fruitvale, more safely, should be studied. The future need for improving Quito from Allendale to Saratoga -Los Gatos Road should also be studied. Current projections for State Highway 9 without the West Valley Freeway, indicate that Highway 9 will have to be made capable of handling average daily traffic of 30,000 to 45,000 by 1990. Any improvements should not be detrimental to the scenic quality of this highway. 4 =21 ' AREA G - GUIDELINES FOR AREA DEVELOPMENT The General Plan Map shall be modified to limit the future tions 1, to those p institutional use of the Odd Fellows property facilities. The of the property already used for quasi-public remainder of the property shall be designated Very Low Density Residential (R-:1-40,000). to 2, New development should provided streets shoulddbeudesignedsto prevent arterials but local acc ess through traffic use. 3. The large parcel zoning of the Fruitvale -Sobey Road area reduces eques- trian and hiking trail to provide some p the city the need for public open space; might support an eq ublic recreation al- ternatives within the area. The City might investigate further permanent support of the community garden. over a heavily travelled major road. 4. Fruitvale Avenue is presently only part of its length and Fruitvale is a dual roadway aspects of the road residents are concerned about thareaalso conc in its current con erned about re- dition. They solving the safety issue but cothattcurreritly exists �ng desire to maintain the scenic quality 5. within the next decade, Quito Road from Allendale to Saratoga- Los Gatos Road iRoute 9) should be studio to o de a tetmine if any improvement is needed and the best Y quality of this thoroughfare. 6. Current State Highway traffic projections indicate that the use of Saratoga -Los Gatos Road (Route 9) will be increased y 1990. Any improvements neeacent should a l s a land usesandtoprote protect to mitigate problems of add scenic quality of this highway. The intersection of Fruitvale and Burgundy should be review d 7' especially during right turns from Burgundy for hazards, esp ecit dangerous for joggers and vehicles. Fruitvale, making_ regular and the addition of rep g, The .side of Quito ReXast ngshould landscapingbeautified throng re awed. maintenance of the The present bicycle path should be P _ new landscaping. Quito Road should be designated Road heritagedlane from aP No proximately Saratoga -Los Gatos to Quito Road from for major improvements (street widening) Saratoga Avenue to Poard Road should be allowed except alterations needed for public in should be required along the western 9. Extensive 'landscaping arty near Chablis and Zinfandel portion of the Odd Fellows prop act of Courts to buffer the residences in the area from the imp new institutional develop 4 -22 V_1) ogu'ff o O&MANEQ)(M& 13777 FRUITVALE AVF:NUI: • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 ' v COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Joyce Hlava David Moyles Donald Peterson January 21,; 1988 TO: Residents of Crisp Avenue Saratoga Planning Commission Saratoga Planning Director Saratoga City Engineer In response to the December 26, 1987, letter of Clark and Joanne Basset, the City Council, at its meeting- of January 20, 1988, reaffirmed the position established by the City Council. on March 16, 1977, to wit: "It is the expressed intent of. the City Council that in conformance with the 1974 General Plan, Crisp Avenue shall not become a through, feeder, or connector street, but that it will culminate in a cul -de -sac, such c.ul -de -sac not to exceed seven additional lots as now provided for in Ordinance 60 (Subdivision Ordinance)." In keeping with this intention, future development occurring on the Odd Fellows property adjacent to the and of risp Avenue shall preclude allowing access to Crisp Avenue. Sincerely, �t 1 on Peterson Mayor in n_7 CORRESPONDENCE Dabney and Woodruff Tompkins 14740 Sobey Road Saratoga, California 95070 October 13, 1989 Dear Saratoga City Council Member: You have before you an appeal of the approval of the proposed San Marcos Heights development plan. We support that appeal. The currently approved plan allows for 18 homes to have traffic access to Sobey Rd. As parents of 2 small children who attend Marshall Lane School we have a major concern about the impact .additional traffic will have on their safety. One of the entrances to Marshall Lane is on Sobey Rd. and since no bus service is provided for Sobey Rd. area residents, children must either walk or be dropped off. We feel the current situation is only marginally safe. Sobey Rd. is most narrow between Ten Acres Rd. and Marshall Lane. We have not yet seen the impact of traf- fic from the 23 new homes being built in the Gypsy Hill (J. Lohr) development. If an additional 18 homes (with 4 car garages) are allowed to dump traffic on to Sobey Rd. there is no question in our minds that a major safety problem will exist. We appeal to you to keep these points in mind and consider the safety of both children and parents. With additional traffic it will be unsafe for children and par- ents who use Sobey Rd. and the Sobey Rd. entrance to Marshall Lane. Additional traffic will also cause safe- ty problems when the Marshall Lane playing fields are used for soccer and other games. We suggest you take time any school morning to .observe this problem first hand.(6/ 5 3Oa4,) Sincerely, (,Cjff 1 Q'C , Carolyn Armstronglr. 15121 Sobey Road Saratoga September 1, 1989 Dear Members of the Planning Commission, Again I cannot attend your meeting Tuesday Sept. 5, 1989 to study the design of the IOOF development. I would like to submit my thoughts. I understand you have decided on a 3- cul -de -sac plan, and are now deciding how many homes to access on each cul -de -sac. Due to the past commitments made to Crisp area residents, I believe in all good conscience you cannot recommend more than seven to that exit. The rest of the homes should be divided at a minimum evenly between Sobey and the IOOF exits, preferably with a majority going to Fruitvale. There are two points to consider in this decision: One, foot and bike traffic is very heavy on Sobey. You are adding to the danger to these users of this area with every new home. This area is already getting a large new development. I would guess that over the next few years individual owners will find ways to split properties and add at least another fifteen homes to the road. I know there are machines to measure vehicular traffic, can the same be done with pedestrian and bike traffic? Make these kinds of measurements after mid- September, when West Valley and Saratoga High begin sending out their athletes and see how many users in each area will be endangered by more traffic. Second, you are getting impassioned pleas to help retain the beautiful atmosphere created by the IOOF property. But the once self- sustaining community has long ago, by their own hands, without selling any land, changed the character of their community and their property. There are no longer any farming activities that once supplied their needs. They have built multi- storied modern housing that would be at home in any urban area. They have added large numbers of residents, members and non - members, to the originally envisioned group occupying the property. Now they want to add more residents and more facilities. These additions will unequivocally alter the atmosphere there, with or without selling their land. These changes are not bad, but show how changes are accepted. These changes are being made because they choose to make them, no one is holding a gun to their heads. While these changes will meet the needs of many seniors, they must acknowledge some trade -offs for the deal.,One of the trade -offs would be ten to fifteen homes accessing through or around the perimeter of their central buildings. I believe they are over - reacting in their vision of what this will do to their community. Did they all protest when the towers were built with parking facilities for all the new cars that would come in? Do they plan on building more parking for the new residences? If they can acknowledge that more seniors will want to keep the independence of their own cars when they move in, they can tolerate these few more. With or without selling their land, the IOOF property will never remain the same atmosphere it was years ago. Neighboring areas should not be so imposed upon for their gain. Thank you for your consideration, Carolyn rrmstrong Steve Emslie Chairman of Planning Department Saratoga City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Ave, Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Emslie: 'Ser���� 13750 Harleigh Ct. £ Saratoga, CA 95070 August 30, 1989 t7��iPC'c J I am a Boy Scout working on my Citizenship in the Community badge. As one of the requirements, I must write to an official about a local issue. Also as part of the requirement, I must show my counselor a response. Please write back! I am writing about the debate over the Odd Fellows Home road. I have read the letters to the editor in a recent edition of the Saratoga News, and I agree with the majority of the people - why turn the road leading to the OFH into a through street when you can just build one around instead? One of the letters was for the road being converted. The writer mentioned that the Odd Fellows owned the land that is planned to be used for the new houses. He also mentioned that if the Odd Fellows didn't want the road converted, they just shouldn't sell the property. The only flaw in that logic is that the Odd Fellows don't have enough extra money to use the land efficiently. In fact, the reason why they were selling the land was so they could bring the rest of their facilities up to date!! If they don't sell it now, while the demand is great, they won't be able to get the money they need for updating. One other reason I give for not converting the street: It will lower the standard of life at the OFH because of sound pollution, as well as endanger residents who like to go for walks. Who knows? If the street is converted, then in the future we may see a headline in the newspaper reading: DRUNK DRIVER RUNS INTO SENIORS, THREE KILLED!!! Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Greg Mulert Date 'Recciv A: Hearing Date . Fee C, �- CITY USE APPEAL APPLICATION Name of Appellant: Address: S l LQ.��R . , d Telephone: Name of Applicant: a'" . Project File No.: S0 — RR Project Address: - Project Description: Decision Being Appealed: 044-IL 91KA I Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): �t / C`nct�C cS!� titc -cam - 11 L A Pcllant's ignature *Please 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. TIITS APM.TCATTON MUST BE SUMUTTED 11TTI-IIN TCN 10) CALENDAR DAYS OI' jENT TO Fxffr(~�p0 GOVERNING BOARD Diane V. Carlson Los Gatos - Saratoga High School District Nancy O. Crampton Robert L. Dunnett 17421 Farley Road West • Los Gatos, California 95030 -3396 Richard P. Karnan (408) 354 -2520 Donald R. Worn — VISION . A�HrEVEMEVT . pRipt SUPERINTENDENT Terrence M. Towner, ED.D. September 21, 1989 The Honorable Martha Clevenger Mayor, City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mayor Clevenger: I am writing at the request and direction of the Los Gatos - Saratoga High School District Governing Board. The matter of the expansive residential development of Odd Fellows land was a topic of discussion at the regular Governing Board meeting this past Tuesday evening, September 19, 1989. It was the unanimous concensus of opinion by our members that the preferable alternative for students who would be attending local schools to have all access routes of this development directly within our district. The ingress /egress onto Gypsy Hill Road and then onto Sobey Road is not in keeping with a sense of community identity for families and students who may in the future live in this development. It is our hope that your careful review of this situation will ultimately provide a decision by the members of the council that will make all access routes of this development begin and end directly within our own district. Such a decision would be in the best interest of our citizens and would afford a true sense of community for families coming into our city and district. We will appreciate your fair consideration and favorable decision in this matter that we believe to be so important to the students who will be attending our schools in the future. Sincerely, Terrence M. Towner Superintendent TMT:ps NATIONAL 8 STATE RECOGNIZED DISTINGUISHED HIGH SCHOOLS Los Gatos High School Saratoga High School Mark Twain High School Los Gatos - Saratoga Alternative High School Adult Education Matteoni, Saxe & Nanda /Lawyers An Association including a Professional Corporation 852 North First Street • 3rd Floor /San Jose, CA 95112/(408) 971 -6411 • FAX (408) 288 -9385 September 25, 1989 Ms. Betsy_Cory City Clerk City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Comments to Notice Commission Decision on Project File No. Dear Ms. Cory: Norman E. Matteoni Allan Robert Save Margaret Ecker Nanda Peggy M. Cocker Leslie R. Lopez of Appeal of Planning on September 13, 1989, SD88 -008 This letter is in response to my telephone conversation with you on September 25, 1989, wherein you informed me that a person named Devora Lockner of Sobey Road has appealed to the City Council the decision of the Planning Commission approving Tentative Map IV -A at the public hearing on September 13, 1989, in Project File No. SD88 -008. Given that this appeal will result in a de novo hearing of this project before the City Council, on behalf of our clients, the Grand Lodge of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows of the State of California and the Odd Fellows Home of California (hereinafter jointly referred to as "IOOF ") wish to lodge their own objections to the Planning Commission decision approving Tentative Map IV -A. The IOOF objects to this decision on the issue of access in that it would result in the imposition of a road approximately three - quarters of a mile long through the property of the Odd Fellows Home of California to service nine residential lots in the proposed San Marcos Heights Subdivision. The IOOF's reasons for objecting to this decision are as follows: 1. Excessive Condition. This decision resulting in a through road on the Odd Fellows Home property as a condition for the San Marcos Subdivision Tentative Map Alternative IV -A is an unreasonable and excessive condition for the following reasons: Ms. Betsy Cory September 25, 1989 Page Two a. There are existing public streets (Crisp Avenue, Gypsy Hill, and Sobey) which are capable of servicing the nine lots with minimal or no impact to the surrounding properties. b. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the San Marcos Heights Subdivision specifically comments on the negative impacts of a public road through the Odd Fellows facility (Section 4.3). These negative impacts are: (1) The road would separate and segregate the senior residential and nursing care uses within the Odd Fellows Home property. (2) The road would create a degree of inflexibility in maximizing utility of the Odd Fellows facility with regard to the Odd Fellows proposed improvement and renovation plans of their senior resi- dential and nursing facility. (3) The road would create a safety hazard to the many seniors who reside at the Odd Fellows Home. (4) The road would create a potentially dangerous situation at the intersections of San Marcos Road and the Odd Fellows driveway with Fruitvale Avenue. C. This proposed road would traverse the property of the Odd Fellows Home of California, a non - profit corporation. The Odd Fellows Home of California is neither the owner nor subdivider of the property referred to as the San Marcos Heights Subdivision property. The San Marcos Heights Subdivision property is owned by a distinct and separate entity: The Grand Lodge of IOOF of the State of California, an unincorporated fraternal association. Ms. Betsy Cory September 25, 1989 Page Three Accordingly, it is an unreasonable and excessive condition of the tentative map to require a road through property not owned by the applicant to service nine lots in the subdivi- sion. It is the Odd Fellows' opinion that this condition of development results in the taking of property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitition. 2. Lack of Nexus. There is a lack of nexus between the burdens imposed by the development in terms of traffic and the condition (i.e., the road through the Odd Fellows Home property). It has not been shown or a finding made that the traffic impacts due to the development of these nine lots necessitate a road through the private property of the Odd Fellows Home. 3. Inconsistencv With the General Plan. The decision of the Planning Commission allowing a road through the Odd Fellows Home property is inconsistent with certain goals and policies of the General Plan for the City of Saratoga as follows: a. Section CI.2.0 of the General Plan provides that the goal is to facilitate the safe movement of vehicular traffic within and through the City taking into consideration the environmental, historical and residential integrity of the City. The road through the Odd Fellows Home property is I2t a safe movement of traffic (e.g., safety hazards due to the presence of elderly residents and safety hazard due to the intersecting of the private drive and San Marcos' private drive onto Fruitvale) and does it not consider the environmental, historical and residential integrity of the Odd Fellows Home which has been in opera- tion since 1910 in the City of Saratoga. b. Section CI.8.0 states that the goal of the General Plan is to "encourage the preservation of the width and appearance of those roads designated as heritage Ms. Betsy Cory September 25, 1989 Page Four resources by the City." It is the IOOF's belief that their private driveway servicing its facility is a heritage resource and should not, accordingly, under this provision be expanded for residential use. C. Section CI.10.0 provides that traffic impacts that create excessive noise, safety hazards and air pollution shall be mitigated. It is the Odd Fellows opinion that a road through their private facility not only creates excessive noise, but more importantly, poses an extreme safety hazard to its elderly residents. d. In the housing element of the General Plan pertaining to retirement housing, there is a recommended action section providing that the City should "encourage the development of additional units of a retirement housing in Saratoga." The decision of the Planning Commission allowing a public road through the existing retirement facility of the Odd Fellows Home discourages the maintenance of and /or development of retirement housing in Saratoga. 4. Subdivision Map Ordinance. Section 14- 20.070 of the City of Saratoga Ordinance provides that a tentative map should not be approved if the proposed map is not consistent with the General Plan or if the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvement are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or that the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health or safety problems. It is the opinion of the IOOF that this present map is inconsistent with the General Plan as outlined above, and further, that an access road through the Odd Fellows property poses safety hazards to its elderly residents and to vehicular traffic on Fruitvale Avenue at the intersection of San Marcos Drive and the Odd Fellows private drive. Moreover, there is serious concern that any access road through the Odd Fellows Home property could have serious environmental impact given the topography, vegetation and habitat on this site. Ms. Betsy Cory September 25, 1989 Page Five Would you please see that the Mayor and the Members of the City Council receive copies of this letter and that it becomes a part of the administrative record on Project SD88 -008. Very truly yours, PEGGY My COCKER PMC:md cc: Jim Rogers Henry Roux Norman Smith Art Cort Max Holloway Larry Wilkinson U 60 Qq 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE . SAR,-\TOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: September 26, 1989 Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger David Moyles Ms. Devorah Lackner Donald Peterson 14851 Sobey Road Francis Stutzman Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Ms. Lackner: We have received your application for an appeal of approval of 34 -lot subdivision located at the Odd Fellows property southerly to the senior care facility, between Gypsy Hill subdivision and Crisp Ave (SD88 -008). We have also received your check in the amount of $100.00 for the appeal and noticing requirements, as well as the required plans. This matter has been set for the City Council meeting of October 18, 1989. Please be advised that the City Council will allow ten minutes for your presentation on this appeal. The hearing is "de novo," which means that any relevant issue for or against your appeal may be considered, whether or not it was considered by the Planning Commission and regardless of whether the Planning Commission approved the application. If you have substantive questions on your appeal, please contact the Planning Department; for procedural questions, you may contact me. Sincerely, Ji �. C-1 Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk cc: V Tanning Department Rogers & Brooks, Applicant 152.70 Sobey Road Saratoga, Salifornia, 95070 � ugust 6, 1989 Mr. Richard Siegfried, Planning Commission Chairman 13777 Fruitvale five. Saratoga, California Dear Mr, S iegfried i A UG .. J' 1989 PLANNING DEPT I am unable to attend the meeting on Wednesday night, because I do not drive at night. Increased traffic on Sobey Road will present a. hazard to the residents, and to traffic control. The Odd Fellows development should not be allowed to send its traffic onto Sobey Road. The access roads should be to Fruitvale, which is much better equipped to handle the traffic. The Odd Fellows benefit financially. Why should they not accept the rusults of their business venture ? Sobey Road traffic has reached the point of satiety. I have lived here for many years, and have seen the traffic, both volume and speed increase so that I am no longer able to cross the road without carefully listening for a car which cannot be seen, but is speedilM toward me. Please have the Odd Fellowsdevelopment traffic flow onto Fruitvale. Yours truly, / Elizabeth Colangelo C A Z r� - -AT c �� � ''��, -tee % � a..ti� a�.,�. ci-O hx 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: RECEIVED Karen Anderson JUL 114 1Q,8� Martha Clevenger •J fi David Moyles July 13, 1989 Donald Peterson PLANNING DEPT Francis Stutzman TO: Planning Commission FROM: Parks & Recreation Commission SuBBeECT: Q j�j SPA , MARCOS ILE12= DEVELOPMENT ------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- Planning staff, consisting of the Planning Director, Steve Emslie and Associate Planner, Tsvia Adar gave a presentation on the background and options available, and asked for the input from the Parks & Recreation Commission on the preliminary plans for open_ space in the San Marcos Heights developement. V. Fanelli, representing the firm of Rogers & Brook, answered questions and expressed the oninions and concerns of the developer. After reviewing the options presented, being 1) to require the open space area t4 be dedicated in fee to the City, or 2) to Drovide the open space area through easements to the City, it is the recommendation of the Parks & Recreation Commission that open space is indeed desirable, that that the land remain in private ownership, and that the City acquire scenic /open space easements that prohibit fencing and other improvements. It is also recommended that formation of an assessment district to maintain the area be considered. Parks & Recreation Secretary DT /mt August 18, 1989 Honorable Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Odd Fellows development To Mr. Emslie and Members of the Planning Commission: I was most dismayed by the Planning Commission's decision not to take any more public comment on traffic access for the Odd Fellows development after the August. 9th public hearing. I felt that the Odd Fellows made a last ditch, highly emotional appeal for the two cul -de -sac alternative which apparently swayed certain members of the planning commission to their side at that hearing. I feel that the public should be given an opportunity to respond to the Odd Fellows' newly concerted efforts. Please understand that when I refer to the "Odd Fellows" that I am certainly not referring to the residents. I have the greatest respect for our seniors and I understand their concerns completely. I am, for the first time, thoroughly irritated with the attitude of the Odd Fellows' directors. They may be a non - profit institu- tion, but they are selling their land for profit, with arrogant disregard for the neighbors in their area. The neighbors have been willing to take a fair share of the traffic burden, yet the Odd Fellows continue to insist that they cannot share in any of that burden. I understand from people who know about such things that it is highly unusual for a seller not to shoulder some of the burden of adverse impacts of a sale, even if the seller is a non - profit organization. The Odd Fellows packed the audience with dozens of the facility's residents at the hearing in order to evoke an emotional response from the Planning Commission. While it is true that no one wants to see seniors walking on traffic - filled roads, maybe we should have packed the audience with children in order to evoke an emotional response for "our side!" We must remember that the two cul -de -sac alternative will bring greater risk to children walking to Marshall Lane on Sobey Road or to other schools, or to children simply riding their bikes for recreation. The traffic access decision should not be based on an emotional sympathy for the residents of the Odd Fellows, but on a fair assessment of the total picture. I think that the fairest alternative would be for the Odd Fellows to reconfigure the number of lots it will sell in order to be able to accomodate the major access road to the development. Not only will this arrangement be the fairest sharing of the traffic burden but it will allow the Odd Fellows plenty of room for their proposed expansion, reroute the traffic away from the seniors of Odd Fellows and the children of the surrounding neighborhoods, allow for more logical access to the Saratoga school district and ease the concern of the planning department regarding the length of the cul -de --sac off Gypsy Hill Road. This reconfiguration would address the legitimate concerns of all the residents of the area. The Odd Fellows expressed the desire to be considered good neigh- bors at the last hearing, and I believe that this arrangement will allow them to earn that reputation. I wish to thank the Planning Commission for all the time and thought they are giving this major project, in order to best serve the needs of the community. Sincerely, 4-e.'LefaiL, atkW_,(_ Devorah Lackner 14851 Sobey Road O� i= lanning Commission, 1'777 Fruitvale Y've. 7aratoga, C; 95070 Saratoga, Calif. .august 17, 1089 City of Saratoga Lear P. °.embers of the Commission: We are very concerned over the possibility of a third access street to the proposed subdivision being put through the grounds of the !:add Fellows Home. We feel that it will detract from the quality of life at this fine facility which includes an Infirmary. This Odd :Fellows Home has been a "show - place" for the fifty -plus years that we have lived here, and for many years before. It has always been a well - managed facility and an integral part of our community. During the past several years there has been much discussion by the Planning Commission and the City Council about the need of housing for seniors. It seems to us that it would be inconsistent to allow an access road through this beau- tiful piece of property when it would be detrimental to the quality of life of the several hundred seniors who live there. Saratoga has an asset which is recognized state- wide. Let's not do anything to detract from its value or from our City's reputation as a city which cares about its older citizens. Si/ncerely, �LLru/� T�Ir. & Mrs;. Virgil H. Campbell P. 0. Box.-145 - Saratoga-ACA 95071 '-4~. 22701 �-,' u �ouL EJs^ Road & Ur � =°'-z lsu �f~/if~zoiaP5O70 August 16, 1989 Members Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Allendale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Friends: The scheme to build a thoroughfare through the center of the IOOF property is ridiculous. Splitting the Home complex for access to San Marcos Heights development so that newer, more upscale neighborhoods need not assume so great a share of the traffic to be generated would be a tragedy , destroying many of the amenities of the Home, restricting the use of the property by the residents as well as endangering them � personally. The IOOF Home is a social and historical resource of significance. It has been part of and has contributed to our community as long as I can remember. I know those few others who remember earlier times would agree with me. I suppose I am prejudiced - my father was an Odd Fellow, my Mother a Rebecca, and my Grandfather spent his last years there, very contentedly doing technically accurate watercolors of the ships he sailed in long before his death in 1942. Over the years many of the senior members of our community have found a haven there - near home - in a lovely protected atmosphere. In order to better carry out its mission for its members and for others who need its services the Home has sold some of its property in order to finance up to date facilities. Some neighbors maintain that the IOOF, as the seller should be responsible for increased traffic. (Where would all of the residents of Saratoga subdivisions be if earlier land owners had not sold propery for developement and the incumbent traffic?) The developers, Roger and Brook, prefer not to use the IOOF route. As you well know, in study sessions with the Planning Commission and staff the developer has evolved a plan that can spread the burden of the increased traffic with out an invasion of the heart of the Odd Fellows complex, which is, after All, separate private property. Any such invasion on the part of the city and developer should be resisted by the IOOF with all legal means, which would be expensive and time consuming for all involved. The two cul-de-sac solution is perfectly adequate and not all the neighbors are protesting. Actually, Crisp Avenue was designed and built to the requirements of a collector street, and which can adequately handle the traffic. So, members of the Planning Commission, I urge you to stay with the principles of good planning and not unnecessarily invade private property or bow to the selfish protests of a limited number of neighbors. Si l 41 Louise Ga d Co SAS CC Saratoga Area SENIOR COORDINATING COUNCIL P. O. Box 3033 • Saratoga, California 95070 (408) 867 -3438 Bat. 57 The Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Planning Commission Members: �y ; y RECILIVED ��u 1 N. PLANNING DEPT August 15, 1989 The Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council has met and discussed the various aspects of the San Marcus Heights sub - division. We unanimously support the concept of the proposal for 2 cul -de -sacs on the property and vigorously disagree with any plan that would put a public road through the IOOF grounds. It is inconceivable to us that clear thinking citizens of Saratoga would consider allowing a public road to encroach upon the IOOF home, dividing its grounds and becoming a hazard to its aging residents. Since our charge is the well -being of all Senior Citizens of the Saratoga area, the members of the Board, representing approximately 900 members of SASCC, are vitally concerned with the interests of over 400 Seniors residing on the IOOF property. We sincerely request that the Planning Commission vote against any plan that intrudes on the private property of the IOOF grounds. Sincerely, Betty Eskeldson President BE /bc cc: Mr. Harry Peacock, City Manager City Council Members Carolyn Armstrong 15121 Sobey Rd. Saratoga, CA 95n7n 354-6925 August 9, 1989 To the Board of the IOOF and the Saratoga Planning Commission I am opposed to any traffic from the San Marcos heights development coming onto Sobey Road. I am appalled at the arrogance of any landowner saying, "I want all the profit but not any of the traffic from selling my extra land." The new traffic should exit onto Fruitvale. It makes the most sense from every aspect except their own. ;heir age should not be an issue or consideration in this case. All residents of this city of every age want the same peace and quiet, that is one of the main attrac- tions of this city. All ages deserve the same consideration on this issue. I have been out of town much of the time since the last hearing and, an leaving again this morning, but wanted you to know I have been thinking about the problem with the aim of satisfying both sides of the issue. I have two idesa I believe should be given fair discussion I went to the city offices to look at a map showing all the IOOF propery with existing buildings in order to think about the problem. This type of map was not available. I had to settle for two maps that did not quite fit together, so I cannot make specific suggestions here. What I had in mind was a plan for the IOOF to develop the back portion of their property for themselves and sell the front section to a developer who would want to use the existing buildings in another type of project. The beautiful original lodge could be converted into elegant condos. There are many examples of this type of project elsewhere. Single family homes could be built on surrounding lots. I realize this is a radical change Saratoga is a city of many seniors in all of its neighborhoods. To rationalize sending traffic into one area to protect the seniors in another area is absurd. All ages in our community deserve equal consideration When it comes to increased traffic and noise. My commitment to this issue led my to delay leaving town until I could get this letter delivered to your offices. Yours passionately, Carolyn Armstrong (� Honorable Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 August 8, 1989 PLANNING DE-PT Re: Odd_Fellows Development To Mr. Emslie and Members of the Planning Commission: I was somewhat puzzled by the atmosphere of the Planning Commission's July 18th study session. In contrast to the interest exhibited by several Commission members during the previous public hearing, the Commission seemed to be shying away from the issue of studying reduced housing density in the Odd Fellows development. I do not understand this since I don't think that this alternative has been given sufficient inquiry. In fact, I was quite surprised that at the end of the last public hearing the developer was not asked to come up with an alternative proposal with reduced density, considering the interest shown by several members of the Commission, even though the developer was asked to come up with alternative access proposals. I believe that this alternative should be studied, as it is in keeping with the Saratoga general plan to construct hiking and equestrian trails (CI 6.0 and CI 6.5) and to conserve natural vegetative and significant topographic features (CO 2.0), and to allow for some open space recreation areas for the enjoyment of Saratoga's residents. I like the idea of having pedestrian easements through the pro- posed development as mentioned during the study session, but I am concerned that property owners could effectively eliminate the easements through their private property. I believe something similar occurred in the past with some equestrian trails in Saratoga. Also, who would pay for maintaining the trails and constructing barriers between the trails and the rest of the private property? It seems to me that if the city will be paying for trail maintenance, then the trails may as well be made public property. I was disturbed by the letter to the Planning Commission dated July 5th from Rogers and Brooks. My impression from the letter was that they were saying that your primary moral obligation is to the developer and that you must work to maximize the develop- er's profits. They should be reminded that the Planning Commis- sion works to benefit all its citizens. I am happy that they have proposed leaving 10+ acres undeveloped; however, this is primarily undevelopable land -- steep, riparian corridor. There is nothing to say that the Planning Commission can't set aside areas for public recreation. Planning commis- sions have been known to change zonings before. There was open space recreation area set aside for the Gypsy Hill development, but the City decided to take in- lieu -of fees instead. They probably felt at the time that there was enough open space on the Odd Fellows property, as stated in the draft EIR for Gypsy Hill: "The city has no future plans to develop community parks in the vicinity due to the already large amount of existing open space. A half -acre [of the project] is designated for a horsetrail staging area" (3.3 -2). However, Rogers and Brooks is proposing that every last acre of usable open space be turned into private property. There will be no more "buffer" open space when this is gone, and the land which people do currently use for walks and nature -study CDEIR 3.5 -5) will be closed to them. I like the idea that was proposed at the last hearing, of "cluster housing" with an open space buffer in between. This will enhance the sense of community in the project, and enhance the value of those properties in the eyes of their owners who will always be assured of beautiful open space nearby. We need open space for mental and physical health and relaxation. You are not making a decision just for this generation, but for future generations as well. We see more people becoming health- conscious and greater numbers of people walking, jogging and bicycling. Open space will become an even more precious resource in the future, a resource that could only enhance the quality of life in Saratoga. I am all for the developer making a profit, and they will make a handsome one on this project. But in addition to assuring the developer of a good profit, let us in addition assure ourselves and future generations a small piece of the rolling hills and oak - studded grasslands that was Saratoga of the past, and hope- fully still some part of the future. Sincerely, P"Wx",L�� Devorah J. Lackner 14851 Sobey Road 15270 Sobey Road Saratoga, Salifornia► 95070 -kugust 6, 1989 mr. Richard Siegfried, Planning Commission Chairman 13777 Fruitva.le 1,ve. Saratoga, California Deer Ivir, Siegfried: AUG 1989 PLANNING DEPT I am unable to attend the meeting on Wednesday night, because I do not drive at night. Increased traffic on Sobey Road will present a. hazard to the residents, and to traffic control. The Odd Fellows development should not be allowed to send its traffic onto Sobey Road. The access roads should be to Fruitvale, which is much better equipped to handle the traffic. The Odd Fellows benefit financially- Sobey Road should they not accept the rusults of their business venture Y traffic has reached the point of satiety. I have lived here for many years, and have seen the traffic, both volume .-`that I am no longer able to cross the road withou% and speed increase so carefully listening for a car which cannot be seen, but is speedjWT toward me.. Please have the Odd Fellowsdevelopment traffic flow onto Fruitvale. Yours truly, GC . Lc� -� Elizabeth Colangelo j- AUG A pi a ► August 7, 1989 Richard Siegfried PLANNING DEPT Planning Commission Chairman 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Sir: As residents of the Sobey-Road area, we strongly urge the San Marcos Heights lots (the IOOF property - Odd Fellow Home) be accessed toward Fruitvale Avenue, not Sobey .Road. Traffic using Sobey to reach Quito Road proceeds through Sobey without stop signs on a narrow twisting road. For years now, the traffic has been so heavy and so fast that we have not felt comfortable letting our children walk or ride their bikes to school or to the homes of friends. To add traffic from the 23 homes in the Sobey Oaks division and 27 additional homes from the San Marcos project seems an unfair bur3en and safety risk to us. As a result of our location in Saratoga, our children must attend Campbell District schools and are not considered members of the Los Gatos - Saratoga Recreation Department. In many ways, the Saratoga residents of this Sobey area are not treated as full - fledged citizens of the City of Saratoga. We do enjoy living in our neighborhood and we would like it to continue to be as safe as possible. Please consider having the traffic from the San Marcos Heights homes directed towards the larger Fruitvale Avenue and the Saratoga schools those children will be attending. Thank you. Very truly yours, Barry and Toby Fernald hn an Pat Pope 14344 Evans Lane 14356 Evans Lane 866 -0289 866 -6560 Gene an Mary ynne Bernald Barbara Tennison and Carol Evans 14398 Evans Lane 14452 Evans Lane 866 -6162 379 -4991 Jim and Charlotte Lafferty 14464 Evans Lane 7 ^l I 0 AA/% August 6, 1989 Gloria McFarland 14851 Sobey Road Saratoga, CA 95010 Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 To the Planning Commission: P LAN! N! IN, � DE- p l I am writing to express my views on the proposed Odd Fellows development. . I am concerned about the high level oC traffic on Sobey Road, and to ask the Commission to please go with the three cul -de -sac alternative. The increased traffic should be distributed equitably, and I believe that the Odd Fellows can shoulder some of the burden. I am afraid to let my daughter walk or ride her bike on Sobey Road because of the - traffic. Also, I would like to ask the Commission to consider leaving some of the land as open space to the public. My twelve - year -old daughter loves going for walks and nature study on the land. She especially loves going to the highest point and looking out over the Santa Clara valley. It would be wonderful if that high point could be preserved as a "scenic view treasure." At any rate, we would like to see some of the land left for the birds and wild- life, and for the enjoyment of people, as well. Yours;f�ruly, Gloria McFarland AUG r� J p�gnn, /Nr" r9Q5 OFp� August 5, 1989 Sir, As a resident of Sobey Road, I find the possibility of a decision to release additional traffic onto Sobey lacking in foresight. Sobey Road has always been and will continue to be a narrow, winding road with no sidewalks and much pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Joggers, walkers, children and equestrians frequent this road all day long. Thus, the impact of additional cars over and above the already existing Sobey Oaks subdivision will only create an increasing safety danger to all. How can there be a choice in this matter when any school age children in the new 27 additional homes will be attending a Saratoga school in the Fruitvale direction. I am amazed that any pressure would cloud your judgement when considering the safety of all. Sincerely, �,, "(4tav� Marigene Schiffman 617r 14 &T -p 8"1; � PETITION THE FOLLOWING SARAT06A RESIDENTS HEREBY REQUEST THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE AGAINST ANY PUBLIC ROAD- GOING THROUGH THE ODD FELLOWS PROPERTY NAME ADDRESS •raw► � ��.r,,.s:.s. Pimp- I Mi a• � ` W�� - .J �,z PAIM SAW PETITION THE fOLLQWIN6 SARAT06A RESIDENTS HEREBY REQUEST THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE AGAINST ANY PUBLIC ROAD 601NG THROUGH THE ODD FELLOWS PROPERTY NAME ADDRESS als o B A c5r"" _. �, d� A-� ' Zl L� T PETITION r - H THE FOLLOWING SARAT06A RESIDENTS HEREBY REQUEST THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE AGAINST . ANY PUBLIC ROAD GI IN6 THROUGH THE ODD FELLOWS PROPERTY NAME ADDRESS • Wife; / -- s. ��� ,� • �. , f..r i_ Lam'! �; � .:/i 1 ' ' � PETITION THE FOLLOWING SARAT06A RESIDENTS HEREBY REQUEST THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE AGAINST ANY PUBLIC ROAD GOING THROUGH THE ODD FELLOWS PROPERTY NAME ADDRESS o /g �y3 � „��� 'L 030 All )zL ��� - pie PETITION THE FOLLOWIN6 SARAT06A RESIDENTS HEREBY REQUEST THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE AGAINST ANY PUBLfC ROAD- 66IN6 THROUGH THE ODD FELLOWS PROPERTY NAME ADDRESS INS '1 ... ism ,�. • J:1� _ L. � �_ �! A �; � ��� ..... - =. • r PETITION THE FOLLOWING SARAT06A RESIDENTS HEREBY REQUEST THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE AGAINST ANY PUBLIC ROAD GOING THROUGH THE ODD FELLOWS PROPERTY NAME ADDRESS i - 't'� PETITION THE FOLLOWIN6 SARAT06A RESIDENTS HEREBY REQUEST THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE AGAINST ANY PUBLIC ROAD 66IN6 THROUGH THE ODD FELLOWS PROPERTY NAME ADDRESS • or mom i PETITION THE FOLLOWING SARAT06A RESIDENTS HEREBY REQUEST THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE AGAINST ANY PUBLIC ROAD GOING THROUGH THE ODD FELLOWS PROPERTY NAME ADDRESS y , ICC�dGc� c C' `f 'P` % PETITION THE FOLLOWING SARAT06A RESIDENTS HEREBY REQUEST THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE AGAINST ANY PUBLI-C ROAD 66IN6. THROUGH THE ODD FELLOWS PROPERTY NAME ADDRESS Saml rrrrrrrrr !� PETITION THE FOLLOWING SARAT06A RESIDENTS HEREBY REQUEST THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE AGAINST ANY PUBLIC ROAD GOING THROUGH THE ODD FELLOWS PROPERTY NAME ADDRESS 84 i , 3e PETITION ALi1, THE FOLLOWING SARAT06A RESIDENTS HEREBY REQUEST THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE AGAINST ANY PUBLIC ROAD- GOING. THROUGH THE ODD FELLOWS PROPERTY NAME ADDRESS ra�r- Ir / 1 , !mil► � r� • � �_ -' 4 _ mv, W �11,- END ",- / / I A A* yo, CA PETITION THE FOLLOWING SARAT06A RESIDENTS HEREBY REQUEST THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE AGAINST ANY PUBLIC ROAD 60ING THROUGH THE ODD FELLOWS PROPERTY NAME ADDRESS 8/ v I 4 v I (ICY �z> -p� . FA F,i! PETITION - �Uu THE FOLLOWING SARATOGA RESIDENTS HEREBY REQUEST THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE AGAINST ANY PUBLIC •ROAD- GOING THROUGH THE ODD FELLOWS PROPERTY NAME ADDRESS IN .,.,1P •� =A& �.� - � . ' Re s � PETITION THE FOLLOWING SARAT06A RESIDENTS HEREBY REQUEST THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE AGAINST ANY PUBLIC ROAD GOING THROUGH THE ODD FELLOWS PROPERTY NAME ADDRESS r 4 her 5r ti ii,C/ Sto r the Road News Bulletin �br 3 We're Wzniung :Wte's Starting to Turn Our. Way r . Saratoga '> Wednesday August 9, 1989. Three members of the Saratog, Planning Commission finally agreed with residents of Odd Fellows: No N&G D Road.. However —they delayed the vote on the new road for two weeks, . Bu, o Chmmissios Lion Karen a n rocker, John Kolstad, and Ann Mane /V ��p' urg �v ppo a road through the Odd Fellows T - More than 200 people- from-.Saratoga attended the marathon .meeting (3 -1/2 hours long) to defeat a ;plan -to put a. new road through- the Odd Fellows prop�,rty Several `residents;:. including: Wanda. Allinger -from `Fellowship- Plaza, spoke` before the Planning Commission on behalf of the: - residents: " .This. k unpressive showKdf force, particularly from residents of Odd, Fellows setsuthe f stage for futureyictory - - • '' `S., (` c v xiC '` yY; After the meeting; Wanda�Alhiiger said, "The commission �lieard:our concernsa ' Looking around the meeting mom;. they. coul`dn't- help but see how strongly A :oppose any:planszfor anew road 'I hope, my fellow residents: will:.join nieym jthankmgjthe Commissioners." t l � Our Home, Today and Tomorrow F ; vYh §� '';j b s � • _ �, $ . .i -- '` f _' -- .; ( ,'• , , ' -. - - Saratoga �s our'hvme3 We want to contmue.to hve to this safeand health environmea�t as y we grow older m ourretirement. But-that nieans`.we.need to fixwhat'stbroken and improve what s below standards We desperately nee d unprove -our 77 year'old Home, and s Infirmary ff�wedon't' then neither we'nor future; senior cinzens will: °lave;a place m call 4 a Home r ? f., cr, ; h�5���•"'. b+3�,r#�°" ``V t4 ;J"•.e^'C,w "�. , - e _"' - We'red sad ;to have do give = ari p up u�portant part of Odd Fellows: heritage ;Nevertheless, we s C must•suppaa t tt demon to 'Sell- '. property to ruse money:far our care and the care of C?tt the ,4- anew road' is necessary. We oppose.- the proposed road i r ' Ort signs w P- Ain selling some property. We need to b6 safe and secure in • YE F � t �! � � T 9 - 6 L^ei } 1 F d 4 ,'1'tie Plani ing'Commv.slon meets again, Wednesday, 'ugust.23rd at 7.30 pm. The���firstfztem oa th, agenda `will,N. tlie: proposal for a new road Mark your M1• r t t ', r "d ,y, +n .`€ t tom, ,: ..c `.- • . 5 calendars Jom us for tlusuriportant; meeting; Let's ' show againhow >mportant ' Please take a moment to write` or' call° to say thank you to, .Commissioners: z. , Karen cker x - John Kolstad Anne_ Marie Burger '4 s 13645 Riverdale Dr: _ 13600 Westover Dr. 20045: Winter Lane < s ; r Saratoga 95070 Saratoga, 95070 Saratoga. 95070 +tea s 8a 677 4 { 06r 5 �,. 'N (867 -7494) (867` -0242) .. r r"'fi C�4,- Yc . � ± F• (Z. V S ' k -A .1- %i ... _ .. F ,. : aa. v aY . :. .. Y .':, yY : _ - . Dear Friends: The Saratoga Planning Commission, a group of -fair- minded citizens, could not come to a decisive vote at the meeting of August 9; such a Commission must be sure what they are under- taking is done to the best of their knowledge and ability; therefore we must wait further for the outcome of their study. For the benefit of all. may I be allowed, please, to set forth the pertinent and important facts. Homeowners who, in the last decade or so, have built around the complex known as the Odd fellows Home (Odd fellows was the name given to a group of men in the 1700's in England who banded together to help widows and orphans) have applied to the Planning Commission for a road to be built THROUGH THE COMPLEX WHICH PROPERTY IS OWNED by the Odd fellows' Home of California. (Each State operates its own State Home of this semi - worldwide Order) We feel that should a road be allowed to be built to cut through this very important and independently owned refuge since the year 1908, built for our old age and supported by our membership in California, a precedent would be set: dangerous to the welfare of other citizens and voters in our coutry. Such a road would sabotage all the benefits we have strived to institute in the last seventy years. Such welfare should not be subjugated. I. the undersigned, representing the membership, request that our Home, built and supported by hardworking members be allowed to proceed with caring for its elderly without having tc resort to higher costly and time consuming avenues. Mary D. Pitts Mary D. Pitts 19821 vineyard Lane Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Friend: August 3 1989 I am 92 years old and one of the elderly on the long waiting list to be admitted to the home referred to in the attached review. Many of us must wait until the death of others will afford us the room to be admitted I know this matter may not be of interest to you. But it should appeal to your sense of fairness because if a few homeowners can cause one upheaval as in this instance it may happen to others in other phases of activity or possession. We need your vote of common sense to help us retain the Home without the suggested thoroughfare through our property!l our retirement community!l which the Order of Odd Fellows and Rebekahs paid for from our years of dues payments and sacri- fices. We may have to take to the streets if no effective substitute becomes available and the Order's efforts to update our refuge are sabotaged after all these prepareatory years. One more item: the nieghbor homeowners want to take over Odd Fellows' Road to make it into a wide public roadway. It is the only place where the residents can take a daily walk because it is level and not up and down hilly territory: and it is the property of the Order!!! We are all too old now to start afresh. I've paid dues for fifty years. We all have paid for years. At our age even sleeping in a soft bed hurts. We do not own the patent on old age. Everyone will be favored with the same bag of "chronics" AND this little event comes suddenly and sooner. I hope in reading the attached resume you will appreciate our dilemma and give us your voice of support to retain a very valuable community commodity, not just for us, but for the need of the needy that follow who will not be Odd Fellows and Rebekahs. Sincerely Ma y D. Pitts HELP, PLEASE HELP US We the elderly people who are now living in the California Odd fellows' Home in the hills of Saratoga; and those of us who are on the long waiting list to be admitted need your HELP. It is the last Home for our aged members; and, its grounds also house elderly people who are not members of the Order but need the aid of this Odd Fellows' Retirement-facility. The encroachment of progress in housing has grown and the Home E3oard Members have always cooperated with requests for relinguishment of portions of valuable territory to accommodate the neighboring community. The membership purchased land in Saratoga in 1908 to be used for a place of refuge for the aging, when they no longer could do for themselves. A place in Glilroy also for homeless children of California was established. These two institutions are provided for by members of the Order throughout the State of California. by paying dues to the Order. The Planning Trustees of the Girder have made provisions to upgrade the living quarters of the residents because having been built in 1912 the antiquated facilities need remodeling for improvement essentially to abide with safety regulations. The waiting list for admission grows and members have to wait for two or more years to be admitted. The Infirmary is painfully crowded and the patients lack the comfort the Order intends to provide by the upgrading plans which have been approved and now in the operative process. WHY WE DESPARATELY NEED YOUR HELP111 Some of the homeowners have applied to the Saratoga Planning Cowission to allow then to build a road through the MIDDLE OF THE ODD FELLOWS' RETIREMENT COMM MITY WHICH WILL INVALIDATE ALL PLANS OF THE ORDER TO IMMPROVE CONDITIONS FOR THE RESIDENTS. THE ROM WOULD ONLY ADD DISORDER AND CONFUSION FOR RESIDENTS TO CROSS AN UNNEEDED ROAD TO REACH OTHER PARTS OF THE COMPOUND FOR NEEDED SERVICES. THE RETIREMENT FACILITY IS A UNIT. IT IS NOT A VILLAGE.IT IS ONE ENTITY WITH BRANCHES OF SERVICES OWNED AND PAID FOR BY THE ORDER. THE REQUEST BY NEIGHBOR HOMEOWNERS IS ILLOGICAL AND GRIEVOUS TO A LONGTIME ESTABLISHED FACILITY FOR THE ELDERLY BUILT IN 1912. IT REPRESENTS A GREAT AMOUNT OF SACRIFICE AND UNITED ECONOMIC EFFORT OVER THE YEARS-TO ACCOMPLISH THIS SERVICEABLE REFUSE. THE HOME CANNOT FUNCTION EFFICIENTLY WITH A ROAD DIVIDING ITS VITALITY THE REQUEST OF THE HOMEOWNERS WILL ULTIMATELY BENEFIT SUCH A FEW COMPARED TO THE PRODUCTIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE HOME THAT WE FEEL IT WOULD BE A PERMANENT EXPENSIVE LOSS FOR THE GOOD OF ALL TO UNDEFUINE THE HOME'S ESSENTIAL COMMlNITY VALUE. The people who are housed in that Home are those who worked,donated, paid taxes. and helped to make our LOCALITY what it is today which the younger generation is enioyinni Please let the Howe continue to overcome its present burden of inadequacy to add comfort for the residents without the harassment of ambitious transients. • • a San Jose Mercury News a Thursday, P -gust 10, 1989 3B Closing greet to campus The Alameda. Officials say this week's opening of the new El Ca- mino route along the north side of campus will unify the school and make traveling across campus saf- er for students. It also will allow school officials to progress with plans to expand the campus and make the trip fast- er for drivers. Two traffic fights will be eliminated. The 8,000 - student school, found- ed in 1851 by Jesuits, is the oldest university in the state. Former res- idents said the neighborhood to the northeast of the campus was the kind of place where everybody knew everybody. But that was destined for change in 1958, when the university drew its first plans to reroute The Ala- meda. The university began buying property in the mid -1960s and stepped up its effort in the early 1970s. By Thad Kava Mmury News Staff Writer Santa Clara University's equiva- lent of the Berlin Wall is about to fall, as the long- awaited project to close The Alameda to cars is com- pleted Friday. Since 1958, university officials have discussed the $25 million pro- ject to reroute traffic that runs through the middle of campus on CLOSING, from Pa- ge major thoroughfare at five traffic lights to get from one side of the campus to the other. The new route will have only three lights and they shouldn't be in the path of as many students. Frequent stu- dent crossings made traffic on The Alameda constantly stop and go, McCormick said. The university figured that pe- destrians made about 18.000 trips across the busy thoroughfare a day. In December 1982, Professor Mark Lynch was killed on The Ala- meda in a hit - and -run accident. Northbound traffic on The Ala- meda will be rerouted starting 11 a.m. today, and southbound lanes will be changed Friday afternoon. Barricades will be put up today and Friday at Franklin, Bellomy and Lafayette streets. On Sunday, a new entrance to the campus, Palm Drive, will open off El Cami- no. The cost of the project was shared by the city, state and uni- versity. The city spent about $4 million to move utility lines and pipes. Then, the city and university split $20 million in construction and right -of -way costs with the state. The university donated about $8 million in land and money, and the city donated $2 million worth of land. The rest of the expenses were paid by private utilities and companies. Part of the expansion project included relocation of about two dozen residents from houses along Franklin Street, Campbell Avenue and Homestead Road and the pur- chase of the building that con- tained the Yee Lim restaurant, and the popular campus bar, Lord John's. It also included the pur- chases of an old cannery and wood shop. The restaurant and bar have been leased back to the owners for the next 3 % years. After that, they will be closed so the buildings can be demolished, McCormick said.. In all, the university will have spent about $7 million to buy 42 parcels in the area, said Jack Go- ing, the project consultant. When the project began, Mayor Everett "Eddie" Sousa, who op- posed it, joked that he thought the students with grade-point averages above 3.6 were intelligent enough to negotiate the crosswalks. "This is a great achieven.cru, said John McCormick, supervisor of campus construction. "For years the campus has been divided by The Alameda. Now, with it closed off, it will feel a lot more intimate. It will be a much better atmospbere and it will be much safer.' SUMents have had to cross the See CLOSING. Page 3B After discussions with the uni- versity, Souza supported the pro- je I Udnk generally anything that adds to the quality of life and de- velopment of the community is ex- cellent," he said. '"Phis is just one more thing that is going to help Santa. Clara clean up some of the old areas." Now 1 f - El Camino Reel f" ffft a . bypass wpwkOr 6FANfne0 cbm s, , ununhW8 4► yr� APO Closing of The Alameda HELP, PLEASE HELP US We the elderly people who are now living in the California Odd fellow's Home in the hills of Saratoga; and those of us whor•are on the long waiting list to be admitted need your HELP. =t is a last Home for aged nembers; and, its grounds also house elderly people who are not members of the Order but need the aid of this Odd Fellows' Retirement Home. The encroachment of progress in housing has grown and the Home Board Members have always cooperated with requests for relinquishment of portions of valuable territory to accommodate the neighboring community. The membership purchased land in Saratoga in 1908 to be used for a place of refuge for the aging, when they no longer could do for themselves. A place in Gilroy also for homeless children of California was established. These two institutions are provided for by members of the Order throughout the State of California. The Planning Committee of the Order has made provisions to upgrade the living quarters of the residents because having been built in 1912 the antiquated facilities need remodeling for improvement essentially to abide with safety regulations. The waiting list for admission grows and members have to wait for two or more years to be admitted. The =nfirmary is painfully crowded and the patients lack the comfort the Order intends to provide by the upgrading - plans which have been approved and now in the operative process. WHY WE DESPARATELY NEED YOUR HELP!!! Some of the homeowners have applied to the Saratoga Planning Commission to allow them to build a road through the MUDDLE OF THE ODD FELLOWS' RETIREMENT COWAINITY WHICH WILL INVALIDATE ALL PLANS OF THE ORDER TO BETTER CONDITIONS FOR THE RESIDENTS. THE ROAD WOULD FURTHER ADD DISORDER AND CONFUSION FOR RESIDENTS TO CROSS A ROAD TO REACH OTHER PARTS OF THE COMPOUND. THE RETIREMENT FACILITY IS A UNIT.IT IS NOT A VILLAGE. IT IS ONE ENTITY WITH BRANCHES OF SERVICES.The few homeowners who would benefit by such a road is incongruous compared to the the state -WIDE BENEFIT OF THE RETIREMENT HOME (WHICH HAS NO is zooay,wnicn ine younger generations are enioying! Please let the Home continue to overcome its present burden of inadequacy to add comfort for the residents without the monstrosity of a dividing thoroughfare to complicate the already difficult life style of our elder citizens Let thediff difficult life style of our elder citizens Let the hone�roceed with the improvements WITHOUT forcina then to change PLANS!! /�NNING DEPT 0 J I glary D. Pitts 19821 Vineyard eYard Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 044" N 3, /1 vi M J Am� KATHY AND GREG WEINER 14965 SOBEY ROAD SARATOGA, CA. 95070 408 - 354 -2029 July 30, 1989 Mr. Richard Siegfried Planning Commission Chairman 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Dear Mr. Siegfried: RECEIVE AUQ PLANNING DEPT We purchased our home on Sobey 2.5 years ago. We had long admired the area because of the rural, quiet neighborhood. We have three children under 5 and purchased our home with the intention of providing a wonderful home and neighborhood for our children. Shortly after moving into our home, shots were fired into our living room windows in the middle of the night. The sheriff that responded to our call told us that Sobey Road is often the play area of teenagers in the area having "fun ". Since then we have seen quite a bit of evidence to substantiate what the sheriff said, such as bashed in mailboxes, lawns and shrubbery run over by vehicles, etc. We have also been amazed at the number of non - residents that enjoy using Sobey as a detour to Quito. It is also a rural "raceway" with drivers challenged by the two mile stretch. There has been a great deal of construction on Sobey in the. last two years. We have no problem with those homes, including even Sobey Oaks being built because those lots are on Sobey. However, there is now a real possibility that the home that we purchased and our neighborhood is in great jeopardy of becoming a major thoroughfare. And when we ask "why ", we find that it is because the IOOF, that is selling their property for $7 million, does not want their peace disturbed. We even heard that an old.woman stood up at a hearing and said that she wanted to die in peace and therefore, they don't want traffic disturbing them. Well Mr. Siegfried, our family and the residents of Sobey want to live in peace. Apparently, the planning commission believes that the residents on Sobey are apathetic. That is not the case. We are too �i busy making a living and raising our children and have believed that reason would prevail. That if the IOOF wants to sell their property, they have a right to do so but that they should absorb the problems that are associated with doing so. NOT THE RESIDENTS OF SOBEY ROAD! If traffic from the IOOF property flows onto Sobey, then our neighborhood is destroyed and the values of our homes will decrease. This is not acceptable. There is not even any logic to substantiate doing this. The IOOF property is in the Saratoga School District. Why direct the traffic to Sobey? If the residents on the IOOF property want to live in peace, let them. They can either not sell the property or they can subdivide with a great deal of vacant land around the residence. Why should the residents of Sobey suffer and give up our peace and safety for their sake? We ask you to do what is fair and right. Don't affect our neighborhood. Let the IOOF suffer the consequences of selling their property. Sinc rely, Ill W Kathy and Greg Weiner cc: ' Saratoga News -- A- At��%u.- 7b 0 �? Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777_Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, Ca 95070 14141 Sobey Road Saratoga June 24 1989 408 - 730 -1313 (wk) 408 - 867 -6539 (hm) Concerning : Proposed San Marcos Heights Subdivision TO: Mr Emslie• and Planning Commission Members Over the past several months I have attended numerous meetings on this subject. First the "through - road" proposal connecting Crisp and Sobey was strenuously opposed. Later, various 2 and 3 cul -de -sac options were explored. At the most recent meeting it appeared that none of the current proposals were even reasonably acceptable to the neighbourhood in general, or to the Commision as a whole. It seems to me that adding 35 new homes on this site is simply not acceptable to Saratoga. Therefore I am taking the liberty of proposing a significant reduction to 22 new homes. To get an idea as to how this might potentially be implemented I sketched two possible plans which are attached. Both include approx 15 contiguous acres of riparian corridor /open space, incorporating trails, and a variety of natural habitats. Plan PSI: 2 cut -de sac 8 homes to Crisp 14 homes to Sobey total 22 Plan PS2: 3 cul -de -sac 7 homes to Crisp 6 homes thru Odd Fellows 9 homes to Sobey total 22 Obviously the concept of only 22 homes could be applied with various access plans - the important point is to reduce the development to a level acceptable to the community and the Commission. I anticipate opposition to this reduction from both the developer and the city. The developer would face reduced profits. However, this would be offset to some extent by increased attractiveness of the sites due to the adjacent open space. Certainly the developer stands to lose if the current opposition and dissention leave the project in limbo for many more months. Under the circumstances, accepting a reduced level of development, and thereby removing delays, could be beneficial. The city may have concerns about maintainance and supervision of the open space. In the two plans submitted the undeveloped area can easily be observed.by sherrif's dept road patrols. The addition of a neighbourhood watch program in the development and perhaps "volunteer rangers" could remove any cause for concern. I hope you will give serious consideration to reducing the San Marcos Heights development to a level acceptable to the community. Sincerely Pauline Seales Z Cl.- G$ )- -i-s o0olic-TED Tb CR l i P AV ? T"t- SI - S14 "-r-S To 303E V RD VIA CYPsv HILL 14 1-D-i74 L O V F`R Rt L - - - -- PLO AV 7b C .— e-t,ny - - - PRo Do sip TR A, L 3 (P�P/1it�gr.J � -n �o NE , 4- f+ 60,.2 4(--s lztr- &oi Fr p $ - .Z G , L - C) C- /�L 3 C-ftf7S 23 5?5 I c� 4 e • � CI s ► e c 2 c3 03 Cq n � % 02 T'o C A. s P Ay y L 7 -7 -MTTL _ r3kA4 01 I_0 O wNN� -L�p •moo ` \, \ � � =;:' � ��•��_••. , °• O � 6 \ O T/M .4 o o D Fe- L4-0 . J S `� \ �- �� ,` _ ' •A b \ S I oTs caNNctx= ( i . • . ? V �A Cr-v?S ° fz.� ovkmftA- S 2 • e �1� e �• _ - - -- Ram s3 s9 •• °O• 0RI;Ij#LLY PRo /occla • °•• sl:—%c ERSfn.wT -SopEY CREED SAN MAR CO. 3 Itrcl CAF+ i S f�IPRR A+J -0RR�00� "S'" NC"k14& --It R-Lr CtiN 2_ DE-SA� Bti P ��ES x.23 89 May 3, 1989 Saratoga Planning Commission: I have been a resident of Sobey Road for 27 years and am writing to you to express my deep concern over the proposed San Marcos Heights project. Sobey Road has had far more than its share of accidents over the years. A review of current Sheriff's Department files shows: 1988 Accidents 12/21 At 10 Acres Road 8:15AM 9/5 11 Sobey Road 1:10PM 8/3 Evans 7:31PM 7/2 Quito ? 6/29 Springbrook 1:01PM 6/15 Evans 5:25PM 2/18 Sperry 5:24PM 1987 Accidents 11/21 At Sobey Meadows 11:30PM 6/27 It 11 11:05PM 5/14 10 acres 7:40AM 5/9 Sobey 2:45PM 5/8 Quito 4:30PM 4/25 10 Acres 2:15AM 4/21 It Springbrook 7:30PM 1/28 of Sobey 8:OOPM 1986 Accidents 10/6 At Quito 2:30PM 9/9 Sobey Meadows 9:30AM 7/21 Quito 11:54AM 6/10 7:OOPM 6/3 8:20AM 5/24 8:15AM 4/17 Sperry 2:35PM Several of these accidents were labeled "Major ". In years prior to these statistics, we lost power to our homes many times due to speeding, out of control cars taking down power poles. Years ago, Mrs.Belleville, who lived off Sobey on Evans Lane was confined to a wheelchair for the rest of her life due to a head -on collision with an out of control car on Sobey. A few weeks ago, Mrs. Bunch, a Sobey Road resident, was hit, her car totaled and she will now undergo serious neck surgery, I am sure other residents can recount their own horror stories. To make matters worse, I am told that local high school students are currently attempting to negotiate the length of Sobey in the least possible time, (Sobey to Sobey contest). -2- The Gypsy Hill project will add a couple of dozen more homes off Sobey, generating a significant increase in traffic to an already serious situation. The thought of additional dwellings from the San Marcos project dumping on to Sobey and a new through access from.Fruitvale for West Valley students is appauling. Sobey is fre- quented by many walkers, and bikers daily, and present traffic is already making these activities hazardous. I attended your Feb.22nd hearing and was more than annoyed by the cav- aT'br" arrogance of the Odd Fellows lawyer stating that the IOOF would not consider access for this project over the IOOF property since there was no practical access and the presence of access traffic would jeopardize the "health and safety" of IOOF occupants. This is nonsense: a. Mr'. Lohr presented you with an IOOF generated map showing a possible ingress /egress easement over their .property that they were considering when discussing the sale of the property to him (copy attached). In other words, they were willing in the past to consider easements that would enhance the sale of this property. What has suddenly created this "health and safety" problem? b. In many years of walking by and through this IOOF property, I have rarely seen people wandeuing the grounds. It is little wonder with the average age of 80 years and many inhabitants infirmed. How is it possible, then, that additional traffic through their property will effect the health and safety of IOOF inhabitants? Conversely, the health and safety of surrounding neighbors, eg. Sobey Road, must be of serious concern to the City of Saratoga since our health and safety are already at risk. C. At the Feb. 22nd hearing, Mr. Lohr also made the point that the San Marcos project is in the Saratoga School District. School access generates many trips. It does not seem sensible to force this traffic East when their schools lie to the West. At the March 22nd meeting, a spokesman for the IOOF project inad- vertently mentioned that at least one large older building on the Fruitvale side of the IOOF property will be torn down as a part of their renovation project. Even without this removal, it appears from the attached plot map, that it will be possible to construct an access road on the Fruitvale side of the IOOF property, (far removed from the IOOF residents that possess automobiles, and most of their other residents as well) to access San Marcos Road or a road adjacent to San Marcos. I have had some experience in subdividing Saratoga acre properties, and I think it is possible that a subdivision plan could be devised such that all San Marcos Heights lots could ingress /egress in this direction. -3- In summary, I urge the Planning Commission to evaluate San Marcos Heights access with primary emphasis on ingress /egress toward San Marcos Road and secondary emphasis on Fruitvale Avenue (San Marcos and Crisp) since: a. School traffic needs Fruitvale access. b. Clearly, safety problems exits on Crisp, (previous testimony) and Sobey roads today. These problems would only be exacerbated by additional traffic. C. There appears to be no legitimate basis for concerns over the "health and safety" of IOOF residents. Many are infirmed; those that drive are no more at risk than sur- rounding neighbors while driving, and seldom are residents to be seen walking or jogging on IOOF property in striking contrast to nearby neighborhoods. Yours truly, / Neal P. Kirkham 18630 Sobey Road Saratoga, Calif. 8�Czl VCD MAR , .- I.Qpcl 0 I- M I - ill FAMPER I- RECEi ve.0 M, R -,op 14141 Sobey Road �� T Saratoga February 25 1989 Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, Ca 95070 Concerning : Proposed San Marcos Heights Development TO: Mr Emslie and Planning Commission Members, I wish to formally express my views on the proposed project , and the draft EIR. I am very concerned about the impact of increased traffic on Sobey Road, and about the destruction of the last piece of open space in the area. The EIR purports to address these issues but the mitigation measures listed are woefully inadequate. The suggested "gate" in the center of the project would prevent through traffic, but would be unsitely and inconvenient to the residents. The draft EIR ignores both West Valley College traffic, and the impact on Sobey Road of the Gypsy Hill development already in process. The "scenic easement" mitigation is not at all practical with the proposed lot plan. Several lots would be bissected or reduced by up to 80% . It is highly unlikely that the new residents will be content to leave the area untouched. This riparian corridor would be completely destroyed within a few years. The effect on wildlife would be particularly severe because the area is totally surounded by development with no way out to the Santa Cruz mountains. Assuming that the Oddfellows land must be developed I would like to suggest the following: Three cul -de -sac option with cluster development on each road and a central open space /park. This open space could include not only the riparian corridor along the creek but also some of the grassland and the two specimen oaks. If the city and community were prepared to support the park, 1 would be happy to donate money to initiate a park maintainance fund. sincerely, Pauline Seales ^;i­ � , 14803 Granite Way Saratoga, CA 95070 February 22, 1989 Planning Commission Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Commission Persons: As residents of Saratoga since 1970 and of Granite Way since 1972, we would like to comment on the proposed San Marcos Heights development and say we disagree intensely with the conclusions of the Draft Avironmental Impact Report as it currently stands. We were the first residents of this Lohr-Turgeon development, and have already been burned, when the land to our north was removed from the Williamson act, and Granite Way was cut through to Burgundy and hence to Fruitvale. What had been a quiet cul-de- sac was transformed into a raceway, and traffic on Granite Way quadrupled at the very least and increased the neighborhood noise level very substantially ! Should Crisp Avenue be connected, even circuitously, to Sobey Road the traffic increase could be at least 400% immediately, perhaps more. The shortest distance between two points is no longer a straight line if one can move faster on the byways, so, to retain the peace and tranquility of our residential neigh- borhood, a cul-de-sac at the end of Crisp is the only viable option for any development there. This has always been the opinion of Saratoga in the past and should remain so. An additional argument for this same conclusion is the extreme danger which already exists at the intersection of Granite and Crisp. ADy increase in traffic is bound to result in more accidents there. In addition to the increased noise level and traffic danger, we would like to also comment on the self-serving stand of the Odd Fellows, who will benefit quite handsomely from the development of this property. I have no quarrel with their good fortune. We had felt they were reasonable neighbors, and we have not com- plained over wailing sirens or loud picnics, nor opposed their new building plans. However, the San Marcus Heights development does not benefit our property in any way. It will, in fact, be detrimental, and we are appalled at their hypocrisy in suggest- ing that their neighbors bear the responsibility for all access while they bear none. For that reason we do not advocate jDy development at all at this time. Sincer l � Alice M. & Arthur D. Heinze ^'^ April 6, 1988 Job No. 87 -314 a PREPARED BY: NOWACK & ASSOCIATES, INC 1570 NORTH FOURTH STREET SAN JOSE, CA 95112 (408) 297 -9777 AVERAGE SLOPE AND SLOPE DENSITY CALCULATIONS SAN MARCOS HEIGHTS - 35 LOTS 50+ AC = ODD FELLOWS SITE SAN MARCOS ROAD, SARATOGA AVERAGE SLOPE SUBTOTAL 1,356.6 in 934.6 in TOTAL CONTOUR LENGTH = 2,291.2 in TOTAL CONTOUR LENGTH = 91,648 ft (1" = 40') TOTAL SITE AREA (Gross) = 50.66 + (per lot line adjustment application & incl. cemetery) AVERAGE SLOPE .00229 IL .00229 (5) (91,648) S = A = 50.66 = 20.71% AVERAGE ACRES PER DWELLING UNIT 1 1 a = 1.089 - 0.01778S = 1.089 - 0.01778 20.71) 1 a = 0.7208 = 1.39 AC /D.U. ALLOWABLE DWELLING UNITS A 50.66 D.U.'s = a = -T.-3T = 36.4 DWELLING UNITS (incl. cemetery) CONTOUR LENGTH (in) CONTOUR LENGTH (in) 485 3.9 425 151.4 480 12.4 420 145.5 475 30.8 415 144.7 470 46.2 410 119.8 465 97.8 405 95.4 460 121.7 400 80.8 455 143.5 395 59.7 450 154.8 390 47.7 445 201.1 385 35.0 440 212.4 380 27.2 435 169.6 375 18.2 430 162.4 370 9.2 SUBTOTAL 1,356.6 in 934.6 in TOTAL CONTOUR LENGTH = 2,291.2 in TOTAL CONTOUR LENGTH = 91,648 ft (1" = 40') TOTAL SITE AREA (Gross) = 50.66 + (per lot line adjustment application & incl. cemetery) AVERAGE SLOPE .00229 IL .00229 (5) (91,648) S = A = 50.66 = 20.71% AVERAGE ACRES PER DWELLING UNIT 1 1 a = 1.089 - 0.01778S = 1.089 - 0.01778 20.71) 1 a = 0.7208 = 1.39 AC /D.U. ALLOWABLE DWELLING UNITS A 50.66 D.U.'s = a = -T.-3T = 36.4 DWELLING UNITS (incl. cemetery) r IA SUxJ=S Grant Final Acceptance and Release of Bond for Tract 7795, Chardonnay Court Aeeosmeendid Motion= Grant Final Acceptance and Release of Bond for Tract 7795. Report sommaW g on June 15, 1988, City Council gave Construction Acceptance for the•above project. Developer has maintenance for one year for the above project. Fugal- Smoacts: City -will maintain Chardonnay Court. Attachmenta s 1. Resolution 36 -B. 2. Bond Memo. Motion and Votes I-- F.ecosded at tho request of, and -co, -to returned to: City Clerk City Of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA. 95070 RESOLUTION NO 36 -8- 8ESOLUTION ACCEPTnIG DEDICATION OF STRMWa C h a r d o n n a y Ct. Zt- appearing that on or about October 16 1985 , imPrOvements as shown on the hereinafter referred �the•street, story drain and other improvement plans therefore were completed and thereafter �viison map and on approved divider for a period of not less than an addition" maintained by the sub - completion. � Year from date Of satfsfactory NOSE, THEJMMRa, the City Council of the City of Saratoga bes�by resolves sa f That the Cit s all atre.ts,*storm drains � Previous resolution rejeatin q the dedication of certain airs and other easements as shown on the following described subdivi maps Map cf act -- recorded in Hook Office of the County Recorder of the Coup's of ��• at Page 5 in tl on October 25, of Santa Clara, State o California Calif 19_ 8_�. and as set forth in the Clerk's certificate on said ma Previously rejected offers of dedication on said map are hereby rssainded and the followings reby accepted,, except the and all of the above streets which are accepted under th clared to be public streets of the Ci f resolution are hereby de- California. tY o! Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of BE IT Mm= RESOLVED: That the following described improvement bond or bonds am hereby ordered released: That certain DP =vwmant Bond No, U5116 0 9 issued by United Pacific Insurance o atN October 11,198 and The above and foregoing • �J ing resolution was Passed and adopted on the 1 at a regular meeting of the .o! the following vota :_ y Council of Saratoga by AYES: R Assom s . ATTESTS 9 CITY CLERK MAYOR �VIEMOORANDUM 0"97ff @9 O&M&MOM"A 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 TO: City Manager DATE: 10 -10 -89 FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Release of Monument Bond for Tract 7795 Name & Location: Chardonnav Ct. All public street monuments for Tract 7795 , have been in- stalled, verified in writing by the engineer or surveyor and are acceptable to us. The engineer or surveyor has also verified he has received payment for placing the monuments. Therefore, I recommend the City Council approve the release of the monument bond posted by the developer. The following information is submitted for your use: 1. Developer: J. Lohr Properties- Address: 2021 The Alameda, San Jose 2. Bond Type: Surety 3. Bond Amount: $1,000.00 4. Bond, Certificate or Receipt #: U 5116 08 5. Issuing Company: United Pacific Insurance Company Address: 6. Special Remarks: Robert S. Shook RSS /dsm a 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 - (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager DATE: 10 -10 -89 FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Release of Monument Bond for Tract 7795: Name & Location: Chardonnay Court All public street monuments for Tract 7795 , have been in- stalled, verified in writing by the engineer or surveyor and are acceptable to us. The engineer or surveyor has also verified he has received payment for placing the monuments. Therefore, I recommend the City Council approve the release of the monument bond posted by the developer. The following information is submitted for your use: 1. Developer: Pan Cal Address: 2021 Alameda San Jose 2. Bond Type: S urety_ 3. Bond Amount: $400.00 4. Bond, Certificate or Receipt #: U 553251 5. Issuing Company: United Pacific Insurance Company Address: 6. Special Remarks: Robert S. Shook RSS /dsm 4 axaco ==va swea nr no's -7 c 2, a 10 -18 -1989 am= Enaineerina r� r $Q= Graht Final Acceptance and Release Bond for Tract 7794, Via Escuela CF. Reaomm"Udid Motion: Grant Final Acceptance and Release Bond for Tract 7794. RAoort Sm MILTY s On June 15, 1988, City Council gave Construction Acceptance for the'above project. Developer has maintenance for one -year for the above project. lisaal• Zmoacts:. City will maintain Via Escuela Court. &ttac m enta s 1. Resolution 36 -B. 2. Bond Memo. Motion and Votes D l -'-' Ate... Recorded at: 'tho request of, and ,00 : e returned to: City Clerk City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga,. CA. 95070 RESOLUTION NO 36 -13- REESOLUTI0H ACCEPT= MDICATION OF S TATS Via Escuel /a Ct. Zt' appearinq that on or about October 16 , 1985 �- improvements as shown on the hereinafter referred to''street, atoss drain cad othej imprOVement plans therefore war c subdiviisOn map and on approved divider fora Period completed and thereafter were maintained by the sub. p iod o! not less than an additional year ! dots of sattslactory completion. NON, THEFXMRS, the City Council of the Cit y of Sara That portion of the City's previous toga hereby resolves as fall resolution rejeatin ertaia map: streets, stator drains and other easements as q the dedication of a shown on the following described Lain 3 Map of SDiR 7_ 7�recorded is Hook �5 5_1 o! Maps, at p 3 office of the County Recorder of the County o! Santee — in t on October 25 " l9 8 5 . CLsa, State o!�ifornia, and an. set forth in ,�� Previously rejected the of dedication oa said map � is hereby rescinded and the followings hereby accepted., except the and all Of the above streets which are accepted under clared to be Publia streets Of the City his resolution a=V hereby de- California. tY o! Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of RR IT FURTHgg RBSOLVWx That the following defame improvement bond or bonds That are hereby ordered released: attain �va"nt Bond No. U444350 issued by United Pacific Insurance Company Oct. 14, 19$5 and The above and foregoing resolution was passed 'and and adopted on the the followin at a regular meeting at the City Council — Of Sara by 9 vote= AYES: NOES: ABSENTS. ATTEST: IB CITY CLERK �lAYOA R� f ' !h3' \o1 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUI; SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 05070 008) 867 -3138 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager DATE: 10 -10 -89 FROM: City ' Engineer SUBJECT. Tract 7794 SDR -- (Final Acceptance) Location: Via Escuella All improvements required'of Tract 7794 and agreed ..to in the Contract Improvemen Agreement dated Oct. 16, 1985 have been satisfactorily completed.. Therefore, I recommend the improvement security posted to guarantee that agreement be released. The following information is included for your use: 1. Developer: Pan Cal Address: San Jose, Ca. 2. Improvement Security: Type: Surety Bond Amount: $67,500 00 Issuing Co.: ,United Pacific In Company Address: - -- Reaffxxffi, Bond or QaXkikiM&ka No.: U 444350 3. Special Remarks: RSS /dsm Robert S. Shook E O:' 2 FO. �- eau zsrea 4-F- JUMTM 0=8 10 -18 -8 9 C=r Un. A?PNOM CIIIG MMS Enqineerinq Dept. $per= Final Acceptance, SDR 1259, Pike Road Joe Politi ltscosand" Notion= Grant Final Acceptance for SDR 1259, Pike Road and release Bond. Relieve Mr. Politi from condition to improve minimum access Road. tort ?n®ary: Joe Politi had no easement to use-the private road across Dr. Head's property even though a paved road could serve his property. He was, therefore, required to construct minimum access road through Mr. Noonen's property for the above project. In 1988 when Dr. Head gave an easement to Politi, no improvements were required except the driveway. The driveway has now been completed. Fiscal Xwoacts: &ttaclmnts: 1. Bond Memo. Notion and VatA: 0�- s N] F: !%1� A N n[ 1 I�-11 U'l--MuW @:T §&UL/21YQX5& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA.95070 008) 887 - 3.3:38 TO: City Manager DATE: 10 -10 -89 FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Tract SDR 1259 (Final Acceptance) Location: Pike Road Joe Politi ------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- All improvements required of SDR 1259 and agreed to in the Building Site Agreement dated 2 -14 -1979 have been satisfactorily completed. Therefore, I recommend the improvement security posted to guarantee that agreement be released. The following information is included for your use: 1. Developer: Joe Politi Address: 14447 Deer Canyon Lane Saratoga, Ca. 2. Improvement Security: Type: Assianment Certificate Amount: 521.595.15 Issuing Co.: Imperial Savings & Loan Association Address: Saratoga Receipt, Bond or Certificate No.: 85- 1008383 3. Special Remarks: Release Assignment Certificate. Ro rt S. Shook RSS /dsm A SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL �^ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: 10/18/89 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planning CITY MGR. APPROVA SUBJECT: Review of Draft Survey Instrument Recommended by the Open Space Survey Committee --------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Recommended Motion: Review and comment as appropriate regarding the adequacy and accuracy of the draft survey instrument. Report Summary: The consultants, Moore, Iacofano and Goltsman, have recently completed a revised draft of the survey instrument. The document the Council has before it was the product of both citizen and Committee input. First, the Review Committee composed of one representative from the Council, Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission met with the consultant to express its impression of open space issues. Second, the consultant met with the Focus Group, a representative sample selected by the City Coucil who expressed its viewpoint regarding the content of the survey. The draft survey was prepared and presented to the Review Committee who made several modifications. With Council's approval, the survey will be used in a pilot test to determine if there are any inherent problems or misunderstandings. Therefore, technical corrections to the instrument may be required after the results of the test are available. Fiscal Impacts: Attachments: Motion and Vote None 1. Draft Survey Instrument l0//Y % )t, 4kd`1.c1`` -� A4 O c'T - 1 2- S 9 T H U 15:45 M O O R E I A C O F A N O G O L T S M A N P_ 02 City of Saratoga DRAFT park, Recreation and Open Space Needs Assessment Survey lb Hello, my name is _ , and I am conducting a community survey for the City of Saratoga. We're interested in gathering your thoughts and ideas about parks, recreation and open space opportunities In Saratoga. The results of this survey will play an important role in planning the future of the community's parks and open space areas. This survey should take about 15 -20 minutes. Do you have time to participate? [If yes, say thank you and proceed; if no, say thank you] REF #: DATE: Interviewer 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 INT: LK AR SM CV VT $ hG JG JL M AD _ Time of Day 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TIME: am am pm pm Day of Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DAY: M t w th 1 S s -- Neighborhood 1. 9. NGHB: 2. 10. - 3. 11. 4. 12 5. 13. 6. 14, 7. 15, 8. 16. Gender 1. Male 2. Female GEN: -. - -- L —� Ethnic Background f --- �— �- �.��• --�, 1. White 3, Hispanic 5, Other E8: 2. Black 4. Asian L OCT -12 -89 THO 15:46 MOORS IACOPANO GOLTBMAN P_03 city of Saratoga Park, Recreation and Open Space Needs Assessment Survey page 2 1 would like to begin by asking you a few general questions about parks, open space and recreation. 1. What are your favorite recreation or leisure activities? 7a 1b 2. What percentage of your recreation or leisure time is spent at home(on your own property) What percentage is spent at public facilities (such as parks, playgrounds, etc) 2a 2b 3. What do the words "open space" mean to you? 3a 3b CURRENT OPEN SPACE USE I would like to ask you a few questions about your use of existing parks and open space areas. Please look at this map which shows their locations. [Identify locations on map] Parks and Open Space Areas Operated by the City 4A. As I read through a list of city- operated parks and open space areas, I'd like you to indicate how often you and /or other members of your family use each one: Two or more times a week, once a week, two or more times a month, once a month, several times a year, seldom or never. 1A. Azuie Park (Y) 1B. Azule Park (F) 2A. Kevin Moran Park (Y) 28. Kevin Moran Park (F) 3A. Congress Springs Park (Y) 3B. Congress Springs Park (F) 4A. Brookglen Park (Y) 48. Brookglen Park (F) Two or Ones Couple Once Several Seldom more times a wook times a month times or Never a week a month a year C� C) Q Q (D ® ® T 03 (2) O G) O Q ® O Q O a ® 0 0 o 0 © T ® d [If all are seldom or never used:] 4B. Why don't you use any of those parks? 4b -1 4b -2 4C. Do you use any other parks and /or open space areas which 1 haven't mentioned? (Write in names from map, if none are used, go to Question 10a] A. I B. C. OCT- 1 2 -c'C9 THU 15:4s MOORS I ACOPANO iGOLTSMAN P. 04 City of Saratoga Park, Recreation and Open Space Needs Assessment Survey Couple Page 3 Several Seldom more times a week times a month times or Never a week a month 'rwo or Once Couple Once Several Seldom G more times a week times a month times or Never C. Area G m a weak G a month O a year 5A, El Quito Park (Y) S G O 5B, El Quito Park (F) ® ® O 6A. Gardiner Park (Y) 0 ® (D 6B, Gardiner Park (F) ® ® U G G T 7A. Wildwood Park (Y) Q ® ® 4 O 7B. Wlldwood Park (F) O $A. Foothill Park (Y) G G G G O 8B, Foothill Park (F) © Q 9A, Hakone Japanese Gardens (Y) (7 ® O G ® Q 9B. Hakone Japanese Gardens a 0 T G O 10A. Villa Montalvo Arboretum (Y) Q G Q ® Q 4 10B. Villa Montalvo Arboretum (F) Q S T G G O [If all are seldom or never used:] 4B. Why don't you use any of those parks? 4b -1 4b -2 4C. Do you use any other parks and /or open space areas which 1 haven't mentioned? (Write in names from map, if none are used, go to Question 10a] A. I B. C. 4D. Please indicate how often you visit these areas: two or more times a week, once a week, two or more times a month, once a month, several times a year, seldom or never. 'Irwo or once Couple once Several Seldom more times a week times a month times or Never a week a month a year A. Area _ G Q ® G G O B. Area ® ® G C. Area G m ® G G O OCIT- 1 ^ -5-D THU 15:47 MOORE I ACOFANO GOLTSMAN City of Saratoga Park, Recreation and Open Space Needs Assessment Survey 5. Which two parks and /or open space areas do you use the most? (Or: So, the two parks or open space areas you use the most are and Park /Open Space # 1 1. Azule Park 2, Kevin Moran Park 3. Congress Springs Park 4, Brookglen Park 5. El Quito Park 6, Gardiner Park 7. Wildwood Park 8. Foothill Park 9, Makone Japanese Gardens 10. Villa Montalvo Arboretum 11, Other Park /Open Space # 2 1. Azule Park 2, Kevin Moran Park 3. Congress Springs Park 4, Brookglen Park 5. El Quinto Park 6. Gardiner Park 7. Wildwood Park 8. Foothill Park 9. Hakone Japanese Gardens 10, Villa Montalvo Arboretum 11. Other P - 0!5- Page 4 Park and Open Space #1 6 -1. Which of the following activltfes do you do at [park/open space # 1], either alone or with others? [Read through list and check all that apply] 1. Walking 9. Baseball/softball 2. Bicycling 10. Football 3. Picnic /barbecue 11. Soccer 4. Spectator sports 12. Children's play 5. Running/logging 13. Sunbathing 6, Tennis 14, Meetings 7. Badminton 15. Aerobics 8. Volleyball 16, Dogwalking 7 -1. What do you like best about this park or open space area? 8-1. What do you like least about this park or space area? 9.1. Do you have any Ideas or suggestions for improving this park or open space area? 17. Basketball 18, Socializing 19, Eating Lunch 20, Bird - watching 21, Meditation 22. Team Sports 23. Other: 7 -1 a 7 -1 b 8 -1 a 8-1b 9 -1a 9 -1 b O C T- 1 2- S'D T H U 1 5= 4 2 M O O R S I A C O F A N O G O L T S M A N P- 0 G City of Saratoga Park, Recreation and Open Space Needs Assessment Survey 18. Villa Montalvo OS(F) Page 5 Park /Open Space # 2 d 2A, Lexington Lake OS (Y) ® 6 -2. Which of the following activities do you do at park /open space # 21, either alone or with others? (Read through list and check all that apply) S 0 1. Walking 9. Baseball/softball 17. Basketball 2. Bicycling 10, Football 18. 3. Plcnlc /barbecue 11. Soccer 19. Eating Lunch 4, Spectator sports 12. Children's play 20. Bird - watching 5. RunningAogging 13. Sunbathing 21, Meditation 6. Tennis 14. Meetings 22, Team Sports 7, Badminton 15, Aerobics 23. Other: 8. Volleyball 16. Dogwalking 7 -2. What do you like best about this park or open space area? 7 -2a 7 -2b 7:1 8 -2. What do you like least about this park or open space area? 8 -2a S -2b 9 -2. Do you have any Ideas or suggestions for improving this park or open space area? 9 -2a 9 -2b Parks and Open Space Areas Operated by the County 1 QA. As I read through a list of county- operated parks and open space areas, I'd like you to indicate how often you and /or other members of your family use each one: Two or more times a week, once a week, two or more times a month, once a month, several times a year, seldom or never. Two or Once Couple Once Soveral more times a week times a month times a week a month a year 1A. Villa Montalvo OS (Y) T $ (9) 18. Villa Montalvo OS(F) O ® d 2A, Lexington Lake OS (Y) ® S C 2B, Lexington Lake OS (F) s4 S 0 3A. Los Gatos Creek Park (Y) 3B, Los Gatos Creek Park (F) 4A. Rancho San Antonio Park (Y) 48. Rancho San Antonio Park (F) ® C� � � O S © 4 0 4 C C) O O a 0 Q 0 0 Fa Seldom or Hover Q Q 0 0 O OC'T- 1 2-S'3 THU 1 5 : 4S MOORE I ACOFANO iGOLTSMAN City of Saratoga Park, Recreation and Open Space Needs Assessment Survey 5A, Sanborn Skyline Park (Y) SB, Sanborn Skyline Park (F) 6A, Stevens Creek Park (Y) SB, Stevens Creek Park (F) 7A. Vasona Lake Park (Y) 713. vasona Lake Park (F) P. 07 Page 6 Two or Once Couple Once Several Seldom more times a week times a month times or Never a week several times a year, seldom or never, a month Two or' Once a year Once (1) (5) O (1 ® d S (B T a month Q O T 3 T D Q O 0 B. Area ® 0 O C. Area T a d [it all are seldom or never used:] 108. Why don't you use any of those parks? 10B 10C. Do you use any other parks and /or open space areas which I haven't mentioned? (Write in names from map; if none are used, go to Question 16131 A. B. C. 10D. Please indicate how often you visit these areas: two or more times a week, once a week, two or more times a month, once a month, several times a year, seldom or never, Two or' Once Couple Once Several Seldom more times a wook times a month times or Never a week a month a year A. Area ® 0 B. Area ® 0 O C. Area T a 11. Which park and /or open space area do you use the most? (Or: So, the park or open space area you use the most is _ County Park /Open Space 1. Villa Montalvo Open Space 2. Lexington Lake Reservoir 3. Los Gatos Creek Park 4. Rancho San Antonio Park 5. Sanborn Skyline Park 6. Stevens Greek Park 7. Vasona Lake Park S. Other: i]C'T- 1 2 -8'D THU 15 :49 MOORS I ACOFANO GOLTSMAN City of Saratoga Park, Recreation and Open Space Needs Assessment Survey P. 08 Page 7 County Park /Open Space Two or Once Couple 12 -1. Which of the following activltles do you do at , either alone or with others? (React through list and check all that apply] more times a week times I . Walking 9. Baseball /softball 17, Basketball 2. Bicycling 10. Football is. t50ualrz,T 3. Picnic /barbecue 11. Soccer 19. Eating Crunch 4. Spectator sports 12. Children's play 20. Bird - watching 5. Running4ogging 13. Sunbathing 21. Meditation 6. Tennis 14, Meetings 22. Team Sports 7. Badminton 15. Aerobics 23. Other: S. Volleyball 16, Dogwalking @ 13.1. What do you like best about this park or open space area? 13 -1 a 13 -1 b 14 -1. What do you like least about this park or space area? 14 -1 a 14-1b 15.1. Do you have any Ideas or suggestlons for improving this park or open space area? 15-1a 15 -1b Recreation and Open Space Areas Operated by the City School District 16A. As I read through a list of recreation and open space areas, I'd like you to indicate how often you and /or other members of your family use each one: Two or more times a week, once a week, two or more times a month, once a month, several times a year, seldom or never. Two or Once Couple Once several Seldom more times a week times a month times or Novar a week a month a year 1A. West valley College (Y) C�7 C� C Q © (D 7B. West Valley College (F) Q Q 2A. Saratoga High School (Y) ® d 28. Saratoga High School (F) @ © Q 3A, Prospect High School (Y) ® Z 3 O 33. Prospect High School (F) Q ® ® © ( d 4A. Redwood High School (Y) O © Q 48, Redwood High School(F) � � b � T Q OCT -12 -89 THU 15:49 MOORE IACOFANO GOL.TSMAN P.09 City of Saratoga Park, Recreation and Open Space Nceds Assessment Survey Page 8 Two or Once Couple Once Several Seldom more times a week times a month times or Never a week a month a year 5A. Foothill School (Y) ® O O 0 O 58. Foothill School(F) 6A, Argonaut School (Y) ® Q O 0 68. Argonaut School (F) 4 (g} C7 O O 7A. ,AP,4rVC-A su -�da� Q O ® (D 78.5,q)eAT -0&14 S-P4001— C§� ( OO ® O 9A. &El Quito Park School(Y) 9B. LE/ Quito Park School(F) i c O ® O O 11A. Hansen/McAullife School (Y) ® © O t0 11B. HansenlMcAullife School (F) d o O 12A. Blue Hill School (Y) 126. Blue Hill School (F) 3 O (D 13A, Marshall Lane School (Y) 138. Marshall Lane School (F) (7) O 14A. Sacred Heart School (Y) C$} O Q 4 O 148. Sacred Heart School (F) 15A, St. Andrew's High School (Y) Z C3? O Q Q O 158. St. Andrew's High School (F) 6 ® b � � O [if all are seldom or never used:) 168. Why don't you use any of those parks? 16B OICT -12 -S9 THU 15:50 MOORS IACOFANO GOLTSMAN P_10 City of Saratoga Park, Recreation and Open Space Needs Assessment Survey Page 9 160. Do you use any other school recreation and /or open space areas which I haven't mentioned? [Write in names from map; if none are used, go to Question 1613] A. B C. 16D. Please indicate how often you visit these areas: two or more times a week, once a week, two or more times a month, once a month, several times a year, seldom or never. YWo or Once Couple Once Saveral Seldom more times a week times a month times or Never a week Hansen /McAuliffe School a month Blue Hill School a year Marshall Lane School A, Area Sacred Heart School T 0 16, Other: B. Area ( O © O 0 C. Area Football O 3. Picnic /barbecue Q 17. Which school recreationand /or open space area do you use the most? (Or: So, the school recreation or open space area you use the most is ] School Recreation /Open Space 1. West valley College 2. Saratoga High School 3. Prospect High School 4. Redwood School 5, Foothill School 6. Argonaut School 7. SA"T-ov-A. SN{ooL 9. BI Quito Park School 11. Hansen /McAuliffe School 12, Blue Hill School 13, Marshall Lane School 14. Sacred Heart School 15. St, Andrew's High School 16, Other: School Recreation /Open Space 17 -1. Which of the following activities do you do at either alone or with others? [Read through list and check all that apply] 1. Walking 9. Baseball /softball 17, Basketball .r SouMiti,x,� 2. Bicycling 10. Football 3. Picnic /barbecue 11, Soccer 19, Eating Lunch 4. Spectator sports 12, Children's play 20, Bird - watching 5, Running /jogging 13. Sunbathing 21, Meditation 6. Tennis 14, Meetings 22. Team Sports 7. Badminton 15, Aerobics 23, Other: 8. Volleyball 16. Dogwalking 007 -12 —S9 THU 15:51 MOORS IACOFANO GOLTSMAN P - Ii i,ity of Saratoga Park, Recreation and open Space Needs Assessment Survey 18 -1. What do you like best about this recreation or open space area? 18 -1 a 1&ib Page 10 19 -1. What do you like least about this recreation or space area? 19 -1 a 19.1b 20 -1. Do you have any Ideas or suggest/ons for improving this recreation or open space area? 20 -1 a 20 -1 b Private -Owned Recreation /Open Space Areas Used by the Public 21 A. As I read through a list of privately -owned recreation /open space areas, I'd like you to indicate how often you and /or other members of your family use each one: Two or more times a week, once a week, two or more times a month, once a month, several times a year, seldom or never. [if allare seldom or never used:] 21 B. Why don't you use any of those areas? 218 21 C. Do you use any other privately -owned open space areas which I haven't mentioned? [Write in names from map; if none are used, go to Question 16B] A. B. C. TWo or Once Couple Once Several Seldom more times a week times a month times or Never a week a month a year 1A. Saratoga County Club (Y) 1 T ® ( Q 1B. Saratoga County Club (F) 0 2A, Notre Dame Novitiate (Y) 0 T 2B, Notre Dame Novitiate (F) ® Q O a 3A. Parker Ranch Open Space (Y) ® T m 3B. Parker Ranch Open Space (F) T ® O [if allare seldom or never used:] 21 B. Why don't you use any of those areas? 218 21 C. Do you use any other privately -owned open space areas which I haven't mentioned? [Write in names from map; if none are used, go to Question 16B] A. B. C. OOT -12 -87 THU 15:51 MOORE IACOFANO GOLTSMAN P -12 23 -1. Which of the following activities do you do at City of Saratoga Park, Recreation and Open Space Needs Assessment Survey Page 11 [Read through list and check all that apply] 21 D. Please indicate how often you visit these areas: two or more times a week, once a week, two or more times a month, once a month, several times a year, seldom or never. Baseball /softball Two or once couple Once Several Seldom more times a week times a month times or Never a woek a month a year 19, A, Area ® e 9) 3 O Children's play B. Area e T © O 5. Runningrogging 13, C. Area ® ® 4 O O 22. Which privately -owned recreation /open space area do you use the most? (Or: So, the privately -owned recreation or open space area you use the most is Prlvately-Owned Recreation /Open Space 1. Saratoga Country Club 2. Notre Dame Novitiate 3. ParkerRAtika-(Open Space 4. Other; Privately Owned Recreation /Open Space 23 -1. Which of the following activities do you do at , either alone or with others? [Read through list and check all that apply] 1. Walking 9. Baseball /softball 17. Basketball 2. Bicycling 10, Football 18. _l2a94q)-eat 56 cra,4tzu 3. Picnic /barbecue 11, Soccer 19, Eating Lunch 4. Spectator sports 12. Children's play 20. Bird - watching 5. Runningrogging 13, Sunbathing 21. Meditation 6. Tennis 14. Meetings 22. Team Sports 7. Badminton 15, Aerobics 23. Other: 8. Volleyball 16. Dogwalking 24,1. What do you like best about this recreation or open space area? 24 -1 a E== 24 -1 b I 25 -1. What do you like least about this recreation or space area? --� 25 -1a I 25 -1 b 26.1. Do you have any ideas or suggestions for improving this recreation or open space area? 26 -1a F_ 26 -1 b OCT -12 -S9 THU 15:52 MOORE IACOFANO GOLTSMAN P_13 City of Saratoga Park, Recreation and Open Space Needs Assessment Survey Page 12 Desires for Future Recreation Facilities and Programs 27. I'd now like to ask you about recreation facilities and programs. As I read through a list, please indicate whether you think the facility or program needs much improvement or expansion, some improvement or expansion needed or no improvement or expansion needed. Much Some No Don't Know/ Improv /Expan Improv /Expan Improv /Expan No Opinlon Needed Needed Needed A. Children's play areas © O 4 B. Walking or hiking trails { Q Q C. Bicycle trails or paths ® Q O D. Equestrian trails or stables ® G3? Q O E. Par Courses ® z O F Bocci ball 0 G. Connecting trail network ® CD H. Softball /baseball ® Q T O I. Soccer field ® Q O J. Basketball courts Q ® T O K. Volleyball courts L. Tennis courts ® Q Q G7 M. Swimming pool Q ® O N. Group Picnic Areas ® ®J Q 0. Family Picnic Areas ® © C27 Q P. Activities for children C47 C? Q Q. Activities for teens © O O R. Activities for seniors O S. Skateboard Park T. Arts and cultural programs Q Q O O U. Areas and activities for ® Q O people with disabilities V Environmental education dU O Q O areas /interpretive eco. preserve W. Agricultural Interpretive Center ® O (Z O 06T-12-89 THU 15:5 MOORE IACOFANO GOLTSMAN P.14 City of Saratoga Park, Recreation and Open Space Needs Assessment Survey Page 13 28. Are there any other recreation facilities or programs which you think are needed in Saratoga? 2$a Potential Planning Policies for Future Park and Open Space Areas 29, in providing new parks and open space areas, the City may proceed in a variety of directions. Please indicate what potential policies or directions you think are desirable for the improvement of open space, parks and recreation service in Saratoga on a scale from very desirable, somewhat desirable, somewhat undesirable or very undesirable. Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Don't Know /No Desirable Desirable Undesirable Undesirable Opinion A. Acquire and develop Q 0 more parkland for recreational use B. Acquire parcels to maintain ® a O d O as low usage open space C. Acquire parcels to develop Q ® ® Q several small parks rather than one larger park, D. Use easements on private O private property which have already been dedicated for hiking and equestrian trails. E. Work with the School District ® a0 © Q O to develop Joint -use recreation facilities on school sites. F, Use City General Fund money Q Q Q T to acquire school sites if they become available. G. Annex county lands in the ® O 0 western hillsides to manage development In those areas. H. Establish stricter controls on Q Q O private property owners In order to preserve views and the feeling of open space. I. Utilize existing watercourses Q ® Q Q d (i.e., Saratoga Creek) for trail use. OCT-12—SK-31 THU' 15:53 MOORE IACOFANO GOLTSMAN City of Saratoga Park, Reoraation and Open Space Needs Assessment Survey J. Acquire all or a portion of agricultural lands to secure them for future park or open space use. K. Work with Southern Pacific Railroad to develop the railroad right of way for trail use. P. 15 Page 14 Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Don't Know /No Desirable Desirable Undesirable Undesirable Opinion (V T a o Q $ Q Z 9 10 Potential Funding Sources 30. Several strategies for obtaining additional funds for open space, park and recreation Improvements have been proposed. As I read each of the following strategies, please consider whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with the strategy. Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Don't Know/ Agree Agree Disagree Disagree No Opinion A. Residents of Saratoga should chi O ® m T tax themselves through a bond measure to pay for park and recreation improvements. B. User fees should be charged for specific facilities such as pools, ballfieids, etc. C. The City should encourage sponsorship of parks by local corporations or organizations (e.g., "Adopt -a- Park" program). 0. The City should give priority to parks and recreation programs when allocating General Fund monies. c9 O © Q b e O O 047-7-12 -89 THU 15:54 MOiORE IACOFANO GOLTBMAN P_16 City of Saratoga Park, Recreation and Open Space Needs Assessment Survey Page 15 Paying For Open Space, Parks And Recreational Facilities 31. To what extent would you be willSng to pay for more open space, parks and /or recreation facilities through a special taxpayers' assessment on a scale from very willing to pay, somewhat willing or not willing to pay. [Read scale as necessary] Very Somewhat Not Don't Know/ Willing Willing Willing No Opinion To Pay To Pay To Pay A. Approximately $ 5.00 per O O (2) O month for the average home which would pay for approximately 1 acre of parkland per year, B. Approximately $ 8.00 per T month for the average home which would pay for approximately 2 acres of parkland per year. G. Approximately $12.00 per C� month for the average home which would pay for approximately 3 acres of parkland per year. M L ® o (D O OGT -12 -89 THU 15 -54 MOORE IACOFANO GOLTSMAN City of Saratoga Park, Recreation and Open Space Needs Assessment Survey GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION To finish up, I have a few questions for general background information. 32. How long have you been living in Saratoga? (# of Years] 33. Do you own or rent your place of residence? 1. Own 2. Rent 34. What is your current employment Status? 1. Working away from home 4. In between jobs 2. Working at home 5, Unemployed 3, Retired 6. Student 35. What is your occupation? 1 Construction 6 Service 2 Agricultural 7 GovernmenUPublicService 3 Legal 8 Clerical 4 Sales 9 Other; 5 Business Professional 35 36. Where do you work? [or] Where does the person in your household who works away from home work? 1, In Saratoga 2. Other, In Santa Clara County 36 3. Other; 37. Which age category describes you best? T NA m NA ® NA C@ NA ® 18 -25 cD 26-35 ® 36-50 qD 51 -64 a 65+ 38. Including yourself, how many people live in your household? [Write in number] P - 1 7 Page 16 O i-- T- 1 2- S 9 T H U 15:55 M O O R E I A C O P A N O G O L T S M A N City of Saratoga Park, Recreation and Open Space Needs Assessment Survey 39. What are the ages of other persons in the household? m Under 2 (D Under 2 n Under 2 n Under 2 Q Under 2 T 2 -5 ® 2 -5 ® 2 -5 (D 2 -5 ® 2 -5 a) 6 -10 ® 6 -10 ® 6 -10 ® 6 -10 C£ 6 -10 ® 11 -17 T 11 -17 ® 11 -15 ® 11 -17 0 11 -15 18 -25 18 -25 ® 16 -18 T 18 -25 0 16 -18 26-35 (D 26-35 CV 26-35 W 26-35 (11) 26-35 m 36-50 m 36 - 50 (Z 36 - 50 ® 36-50 T) 36.50 ® 51-64 ® 51-64 8 51-64 0 51-64 0 51- 64 0 65+ M 65+ (T 65+ (M 65+ 0 65+ P. 18 Page 17 40. The City is compiling a mailing list to keep people informed about planning issues, Would you like to add your name to the list? [If yes, ask respondent to sign mailing list] 1. Yes 2, No 41. Is there anything else you'd like to say about things not covered on the survey? 1. Yes 2, No 42. Additional Comments 31a 31b 31c That's all the questions I have ... Thank you for your time and participation.