HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-23-1983 CITY COUNCIL AGENDACITY OF SARATOGA
1 n/ Initial:
AGENDA BILL /NO. ylo Dept. Hd.
DATE: 2/23/83 C. Atty.
DEPAR maiT: Community Development C. Mgr.
-------------------- - - - - -- --- - - - - --
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of SD -1531, Wilson Developmen
Tricia Way - Tentative Subdivision Approval - 9 Lots
Issue Slmmary
Applicant requested a.9 -lot subdivision with access via an extension of Tricia Way. The issues
were; 1.) the Council settlement concerning the project; 2.) the traffic generated by the project.;
3.) access for the project - Saratoga /Sunnyvale or Tri6ia; 4.) the General Plan and Subdivision
Ordinance policies regarding 15 lots on a cul -de -sac; 5.) the proposed sound wall; 6.) the cul-
de -sic longer than 400' and; 7.) the number of lots.
The Planning Commission denied the proposal on a split vote, with a majority favoring access
from Tricia, but not 9 lots.
Recommendation
1. Conduct a public hearing on the appeal.
2. Determine the merits of the - Appeal and approve ( with approval of the Negative Declaration
prior to this action) or deny.
3. Staff recommended approval of the subdivision approval.
Fiscal Impacts
N/A
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Letter of Appeal
2. Staff Report dated 1/6/83
3. Planning Commission minutes of
1/12/83 & 1/26/83
4. Exhibit "B -1"
Council Action
5. Negative Declaration
6. Traffic Reports
7. Staff Reports, Planning Commission & City Council
minutes on previous subdivision applications.
8. Correspondence received on the project.
3/2: Consensus to continue to Study Session April 26; public hearing
tMay 4.
5/4: Mallory /Clevenger moved to direct staff to prepare resolution approving Map A (9 lots off
Tricia) as amended. Passed 3 -1 (Callon opposed, Fanelli abstaining).
FEB l99J
cc 7
Date Received ,2 4
Hearing Date:
Fee�C,
CITY USE ONLY
�OMNIUNITY DEVELOPMU!T �,zc�✓ l�v
APPEAL APPLICATION
Name of Appellant:
- �ZO� E� ✓T �?
Address:
Telephone: 7 —E //0
Name of Applicant:
Project File No.: /,5"3 J
Project Address:
i
Project Description:�J
Decision Being Appealed: �,n,J;�,ic/G / � /�lj -r, .c% e�,t
Ap ant�'js Signature k
*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.
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF
THE DATE OF THE DECISION.
a6�. --dl
Grounds for
the Appeal
(Letter
may
be attached):
Ap ant�'js Signature k
*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.
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF
THE DATE OF THE DECISION.
a6�. --dl
i
FEB r 3
WILSON
0!J!PJIU�JITY DEVELOPMENT
Development, Lic.
14370 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070, (408) 867 -5110
February 1, 1983
City Clerk
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Dear City Clerk:
This letter is a request for an appeal hearing before the City Council
of the Planning Commission's denial of SDR 1531 for a tentaitve nine
lot subdivision on Tricia Way.
At their meeting on Wednesday, January 26, 1983, the Planning
Commission took the following actions:
1. Approved 4 -2 the Tricia Way access
2. Split 3 -3 on allowing nine lots
3. Split 3 -3 on approval of the tentative map
This split vote constitutes denial, and, therefore, I am filing
this appeal on the basis that the map meets all the criteria
of the subdivision and zoning ordinances and is in compliance with the
General Plan.
Very truly yours,
WILSON DEVELOPMENT, INC.
David S. WIlson
}
t i
as
Mf I'm-
l
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 1/6/83
Commission Meeting: 1/12/83
SUBJECT SD -1531, Wilson Development, Saratoga - Sunnyvale and
Tricia Way, Tentative Subdivision Approval -
----------- 9- Lots---------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 4 acre
site on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road in the
R- 1- 12,500 zoning district into 9 lots. The lots are shown to take
access from an extension of Tricia Way with a gated emergency access
road connection to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. In a stipulated settle -
;pent (attached).the City agreed to approve a tentative subdivision
map through extension of and connection to Tricia way for nine par-
cels for development-as one story single family residential sites.
The site has a slope of 3.05 %. Numerous large trees (oaks, peppers,
firs and redwoods) exist on the site, eight of which are proposed
to be removed with the extension of Tricia Way. The two existing
residences and accessory structures are to be removed with the
subdivision.
Several concerns were raised with the proposed subdivision in 1981.
Since the site is located on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, a noise study
was required with the environmental information. The recommended
mitigation measures include a 6' high barrier wall along Saratoga -
Sunnyvale and a wall, to be continued at the same height along the
intent was a continuous fence height per a conversation with Mr.
Pact on May 7, 1981.) Additionally, Mr. Pack's report specifies 6"
high walls along the emergency access road, however, the alternative
of an air - impervious gate for the emergency access road would also
satisfy the condition (5/7/81). The fencing is conditioned for
Design Review Approval prior to Final Map Approval. Any fencing
over 6' in height requires a Use Permit or Variance.
A second concern was the access. The proposal creates 18 units
on a cul -de -sac with an emergency access to Saratoga - Sunnyvale.
The Subdivision Ordinance states:
Report to Planning Commission 1/6/83
SD -1531 Page 2
"Not as a mandate, but as a statement of future policy on all
matters concerning the design and improvement of site and
subdivisions the following shall generally not be approved:
C. Cul -de -sac, dead -end, or other streets not having a
means of secondary access, where such street services
more than fifteeen lots or building sites."
The General Plan states:
"For safety, every new or developing residential area in the
City with more than 15 housing units should have a primary
and secondary (or emergency) access."
However, the City has agreed to an additional nine parcels on
Tricia, and an emergency access to Saratoga- Sunnyvale is shown on
the map.
Since the cul -de -sac exceeds 400' in length, the Subdivision
Ordinance also requires a finding that is "the only feasible
method of developing the property ".
Finally, the Commission previously expressed concern about the
landscaping along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and the transition of
the pathway at the northeast corner of the project. The applicant's
engineer submitted a blow -up of their proposed transition and a
letter in response to these concerns.
PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the
1974 General Plan, and all requirements of the
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga.
The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been
balanced against the public service needs of its residents and
available fiscal and environmental resources.
A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the
County of Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental
impact of this project, if approved under this application. Said
determination date: December 16, 1982.
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SD -1531
(Exhibit "B" filed November 19, 1982) subject to the following
conditions:
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance
No. 60, including without limitation, the submission of a Record
of Survey or parcel map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and
recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the time of
final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any
street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department re-
gulations and applicable Flood Control regulations and requirements
Report to Planning Commission 1/6/83
SD -1531 Page 3.
of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance
for further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance
with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other
Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply
with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby required
and set forth in accord with Section of Ordinance No. 60.
II. SPECIFIC CONDTTTONS - PTTRT.Tr wnnuc nVnA VMMi7ATT
A. Standard Engineering Conditions.
B. Street improvements on 50 ft. right -of -way to be 33 feet.
C. No direct access allowed onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road from Lots 6 - 9.
D. Construct Emergency Access Road to conform to minimum access road
standards.
E. Provide pedestrian walkway along Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. Subject
to additional requirements of Planning Commission and /or Design
Review.
F. Provide decorative wall or fencing, including tree planting within
lots along Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. Subject to additional re-
quirements of Planning Commission and /or Design Review.
G. Landscape area between fence and highway. Subject to additional
requirements of Planning Commission and /or Design Review.
H. Construct storm line as per Master Drainage Plan and as directed
by the Director of Community Development.
I. Remove the existing temporary turn around on Tricia Way and
construct standard street section.
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional
for:
1. Foundations, prior to issuance of building permits.
B. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing:
1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills, slopes, cross - sections,
existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities).
2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope outfall, location, etc.)
3. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E.
for walls 3 feet or higher.
4. All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be removed.
r
Report to Planning Commission 1/6/83
SD -1531 Page 4
5. Erosion control measures.
6. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan
using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos.,
owner's name, etc.
C. Bonds required for removal of existing structures including
wells and septic tanks.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT
A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with
Requirements of Cupertino Sanitary District as outlined in a
letter dated November 29, 1982.
B. Annex to Cupertino Sanitary District prior to Final Approval.
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT
A. Extension of existing water system adjacent to site is required
for fire protection. Plans to show location of water mains and
fire hydrants.
B. Developer to install 1 hydrant that meets Saratoga Fire District's
specifications. Hydrant to be installed prior to issuance of
building permits..
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and
connected by the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers
of the Cupertino Sanitary District. Prior to final approval, an
adequate bond shall be posted with said district to assure
completion of sewers as planned.
B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works.
C. Existing septic tank to be pumped and backfilled to County
Standards. A $400 bond to be posted to insure completion of work.
D. Seal well in accordance with County Standards. A $300 bond to
be posted to insure completion of work.
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans
showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to
the Santa Clara Valley Water District for review and certification.
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of
permits, The residences shall be built in accordance with the
recommendations of the Noise Assessment Study dated April 8, 1981
on the project.
ly
in
Report to Planning Commission '
1/6/83
SD -1531 page 5
B. No two -story residences shall be constructed within the sub-
division.
C. Individual structures shall be reviewed during Design Review
to evaluate the potential for solar accessibility. The developer
shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or
natural heating or cooling opportunities on /in the subdivision/
building site.
D. Applicant shall landscape all portions of the public right -of -way
and the landscape easement that are to remain unimproved. Land-
scaping (including fencing) and irrigation plans shall be sub-
mitted to the Planning Commission for design review and approval
prior to Final Map Approval. Landscaping and irrigation improvements
shall be installed and established within 90 days of completion
of the right -of -way improvements. Fencing shall be in accordance
with the recommendations of the Noise Assessment Study dated
April 8, 1981, and the stated alternatives.
E. The applicant shall enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement
with the City for those landscaped areas within the public right -
of -way and easements. The applicant shall maintain these
landscaped areas for a minimum of one year after which the homeowners
association shall be responsible for maintaining the landscaped areas.
F. All individual lot owners shall be required to become members
of a homewoners association for the express purpose of maintaining
all landscaped areas within the public right -of -way and easements.
The CC & R's of the homeowners association shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department, prior to final map approval.
Approved :`�������
Kathy Ker�us, Planner.
KK /bjc `
P.C. Agenda: 1/12/83
Y
RESOLUTION NO. 2024
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA AUTHORIZING AND APPROVI`:G
THE EXECUTION, DELIVERY AND I,IPLEMENTATION
OF THAT CERTAIN STIPULATION FOR SETTLE:IENT
RELATING TO WILSON DEVELOPMENT, INC.,-PE':Z-
TIONER, v. CITY OF SARATOGA, CITY COU`:CIL
OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA, RESPONDENTS, SANTA
CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT NO. 493448
A. Wilson Development, Inc. ( "Wilson ") is petitioner
and City of Saratoga ( "Saratoga ") and City Council of the City
of Saratoga ( "Council ") , are the respondents in that certain
action entitled, Wilson Development, Inc., Petitioner v. City
of Saratoga, City Council of the City of Saratoga, Respondents,
No. 493448, now pending in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Santa Clara ( "the lawsuit ").
B. In the lawsuit, Wilson filed a petition for writ
of mandate seeking, among other things, an order requiring
Respondents to vacate and set aside their denial of Wilson's
tentative map application (SD -1505) or, alternatively, to recon-
sider Wilson's application SD -1489 for the purpose of determining
whether Respondent Council can now make the findings required
-nder Section 13.3 -4 of the City's Subdivision Ordinance, namely,
that extension of Tricia way is the only feasible method of
and eveloping the property. Respondents, Saratoga and Council deny
continue to deny each and every one of Wilson's allegations
Is to all issues and in all respects although no formal denial
res?onse has been filed in said lawsuit by Respondents.
C• Wilson, Saratoga and Council acknowledge that all
allegations or claims which have been or could have
``en made by Wilson in the lawsuit are disputed by Saratoga and
Cc�nc == as to validity and any other aspects. without admitting
the :•a'_:dity Of any of the contentions which have, or might have
been made by any of them, Wilson,. Saratoga and Council, desire
-1-
and intend fully and finally to compromise and settle all such
contentions and other matters in controversy among them.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City. Council of the City of Saratoga
( "Council ") RESOLVES as follows:
1. The.Council hereby authorizes and approves the
execution, delivery and implementation by City Manager of a
stipulation for settlement on the terms and conditions as set
forth in said stipulation for settlement attached hereto marked
Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference and any and
all other documents necessary to consummate such stipulation
for settlement. Recitals A through C hereinabove are incorporated
herein by reference.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at
a regular City Council meeting held on the 3rd day of tiovember
1982, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmenbers Clevenger, Mallory, Moyles, and Mayor Callon
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Councilma:ber Fanelli
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY MANAGER
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
ALLAN R. SAXE
Matteoni & Saxe
1625 The Alameda, Suite 400
San Jose, California 95126
(408) 286 -4800
Attorney for Petitioner
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUN'T'Y OF SANTA CLARA
WILSON DEVELOPMENT, INC. ,
r1o. 493448
Petitioner, )
V.
STIPULATION FOR SETTLEMENT
)
CITY OF SARATOGA, CITY COUNCIL) AND ORDER THEREOr1
OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA, )
Respondents. )
The parties hereto desire to enter into this
stipulation by way of compromise and settlement of all
_contentions arising out of the above - captioned action.
For its part, Petitioner, Wilson Development,
Inc., agrees to file with Respondent City of Saratoga a new
application for subdivision of the Property comprising
approximately four acres, which property is the subject of
this litigation and is the real property proposed by
Petitioner for subdivision under applications SD -1505 and
SD -1489 previously filed with Respondent City. Said new
application (a) shall be filed by Petitioner within 180 days
following execution of the order pursuant to this stipula-
tion, (b) shall be processed in accord with normal City
processing of subdivision applications except as provided
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
ALLAN R. SAXE
Matteoni & Saxe
1625 The Alameda, Suite 400
San Jose, California 95126
(408) 286 -4800
Attorney for Petitioner
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUN'T'Y OF SANTA CLARA
WILSON DEVELOPMENT, INC. ,
r1o. 493448
Petitioner, )
V.
STIPULATION FOR SETTLEMENT
)
CITY OF SARATOGA, CITY COUNCIL) AND ORDER THEREOr1
OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA, )
Respondents. )
The parties hereto desire to enter into this
stipulation by way of compromise and settlement of all
_contentions arising out of the above - captioned action.
For its part, Petitioner, Wilson Development,
Inc., agrees to file with Respondent City of Saratoga a new
application for subdivision of the Property comprising
approximately four acres, which property is the subject of
this litigation and is the real property proposed by
Petitioner for subdivision under applications SD -1505 and
SD -1489 previously filed with Respondent City. Said new
application (a) shall be filed by Petitioner within 180 days
following execution of the order pursuant to this stipula-
tion, (b) shall be processed in accord with normal City
processing of subdivision applications except as provided
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
® _ 1
{
otherwise in this stipulation, and (c) shall propose access
to the subdivision through extension of and connection to
Tricia [day rather than out Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road.
For its part, Respondent City of Saratoga and its
City Council agree to approve a tentative subdivision map
filed by Petitioner and conforming to the above requirements
whereby the aforementioned real property is divided into
nine parcels for development as one story single family
residential sites /homes. Assuming subsequent submittal of a
final map by Petitioner or any successor owner of subject
property which final map conforms to the approved tentative
map, Respondent City and City Council also shall approve the
final map. In processing the tentative map application,
Respondent. shall apply such conditions of approval as are
typically imposed by Respondent in approving similar
subdivisions within the City and shall be guided by the
conditions previously formulated by it in connection with
processing of Petitioner's previous application SD -1489.
Within 120 days following recordation of the
aforementioned final map dividing subject property into nine
parcels, Petitioner shall dismiss this action against
Respondent City and City Council, such dismissal to be with
prejudice.
This stipulated settlement is entered into between
the parties in order to eliminate the necessity and to avoid
the expense of further litigation over a matter which has
been before Respondent City's Planning Commission or City
Council at public hearings or study sessions on at least six
O►:
A
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
different occasions and in recognition of the fact that the
density (9 lots) allowed pursuant to this agreement has been
reduced from the density proposed by Petitioner in previous
applications (SD -1489, SD -1505) - even though the densitv
requested in those earlier applications conformed to the
requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance and City General
Plan.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this
STIPULATIO14 FOR SETTLEMENT as indicated below.
Dated:
Dated:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PAUL B. SMITH, City Attorney
04, (?.
ALLAN R. SAXE
Attorney for Petitioner
[•WILSON DEVELOPMENT CO., INC.
By
Title
CITY COUNCIL on behalf of
CITY OF SARATOGA
LINDA CALLON
MAYOR? City of Saratoga
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
different occasions and in recognition of the fact that the
density (9 lots) allowed pursuant to this agreement has been
reduced from the density proposed by Petitioner in previous
applications (SD -1489, SD -1505) - even though the densitv
requested in those earlier applications conformed to the
requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance and City General
Plan.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this
STIPULATIO14 FOR SETTLEMENT as indicated below.
Dated:
Dated:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PAUL B. SMITH, City Attorney
04, (?.
ALLAN R. SAXE
Attorney for Petitioner
[•WILSON DEVELOPMENT CO., INC.
By
Title
CITY COUNCIL on behalf of
CITY OF SARATOGA
LINDA CALLON
MAYOR? City of Saratoga
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1, r
�r s,
ORDER
The parties are hereby ordered to carry out the
provisions of the stipulated settlement agreed to by then
and set forth above.
Dated:
4
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
t -,
Planning Commission �)
Meeting Minutes 1/26/83
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3a. V -597 - Gerald Butler, Lira\
3b. A -839 - Review Approval and
single family dwelli
Montalvo Road in the
Drive and Montalvo
Variance Approval
Cg on Lot 3, Tract
R -1- 40,000 zonine
Page 3
Road, Request for Design
to construct a two -story
6732 near Lira Drive and
district
The proposal was described by Staf \and reported that because of the change
in the Design Review Ordinance the ce is no longer required.
The public hearing was opened at 8.
No one appeared, and Commissioner ed moved to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Nellis seconded the mwhich was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to ap-839, making the findings in the
Staff Report dated January 11, 198xhibits "B" and "C ". Commissioner
Nellis seconded the motion, which Tied S -1, with Commissioner Bolger
dissenting.
4a son Develo
�IVilson Development, Request for Tentative Subdivision Approval
for a 9 -lot subdivision for a site on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
near Tricia Nay
Chairman Schaefer discussed the study session on this item and the three
traffic reports. She reported that the neighbors had expressed concern
regarding (1) safety of the children on the street, (2) people moved in not
expecting that the street would continue out, per their discussions with
Mr. Pinn, (3) the U -turns required if access is off Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road,
(4) the noise abatement might not be as great because of opening up an area
onto Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road and it would cause division of neighborhoods.
She added that the options that would be considered tonight are whether the
project should access off Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road or Tricia Nay, or a com-
bination of both. She indicated that the Commission is treating this as a
new application; however, realizing that whatever decision is made will be
appealed to the City Council because of the agreement reached between the
developer and the City Council.
Staff submitted the preliminary map that had been submitted by NIT. Pinn in
1978, which shows his intentions if he were to develop the two properties.
They explained that his map shows the extension of Tricia Nay and shows some
10 lots proposed on the two adjacent parcels. They added that his map is
basically the same as has been presented. The traffic studies that have
been done and the traffic counts in the area were discussed.
Commissioner Crowther asked if it were futile for the Commission to even con-
sider this issue of 9 lots off of Tricia because of the stipulation. The
Deputy City Attorney commented that his previous advice still stands. He
explained that this is a new map and the Commission should give their recom-
mendation to the City Council. The Council can stay by the stipulation or it
can elect to go back to court. He added that he feels it appropriate for the
Commission to vote if there is a consensus for an alternative arrangement. .
The public hearing was opened at 8:50 p.m.
Dave Nilson, the applicant, compared the present proposal with the previous
one of 10 lots accessing off of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road relative to the grad-
ing and the impact on the pedestrian bike path and trees.
Alfred Ruffo, attorney representing the homeowners in the area, discussed the
Negative Declaration regarding traffic. He discussed the traffic reports
that have been made and referenced the Subdivision Ordinance which relates
to more than 15 homes on a cul -de -sac. He commented that on the basis of the
ordinance and the General Plan it seems that the weight of the language
definitely favors a rejection of a subdivision having more than 1S units unless
there is no other feasible method of development. He pointed out that the
developer did submit plans that did show otherwise, and there is an indication
that there is another feasible way of developing this property. Ile added
that he feels that the developer should be willing to compromise, as the
homeowners are. He indicated that they would be willing to have 6 lots onto
Tricia Nay and the others on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road.
- 3 - a,(,� . -1-13
Planning Commission ~ Page 4
Mceting Minutes 1/26/83
SDR -1531 (cont.)
Ron Piziali, 13123 Regan Lane, stated that all of the neighbors had approved
the map that the developer had presented showing 10 lots off of Saratoga -
Sunnyvale Road and the developer at that time had stated that he was very
willing to develop the property that way. He indicated that there had been
a 2 -2 split vote by the Council at that time, and he urged the Commission to
send that map back to them.
{William Gloege, 13109 Regan Lane, submitted a petition against the present
proposal. He urged that if the project is approved exiting onto Regan Lane,
that it be limited to 6 homes. He stated that the issue to consider at this
time is the impact of the proposed project on existing residents, proposed
new residents, and the City as a whole. He cited the following advantages
for 6 lots: (1) it remains consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance, (2) it
mitigates the safety impact on the children in the area, (3) it mitigates the
negative impact that the sound barrier opening would have if there were either
emergency or complete access onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, (4) it reduces the
general impact on the Regan Lane area, and (5) it does not have the disad-
vantages of the safety factors of opening onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road.
Bob Granum, Tricia Way, expressed his dissatisfaction with the process of
the development. He stated that there is no way that the City can defend the
fact that there is not a feasible alternative to developing this property. He
explained that he had researched the Subdivision Ordinance before he bought
his home, and it states clearly that you have to show that there is no other
feasible alternative to developing that property, and the applicant has pre-
sented such a plan. He added that he has had to come down to the City three
times to protect his rights and he is very upset with the process of exclud-
ing neighbors from the meeting where the stipulation was signed by the City
Council.
The Deputy City Attorney explained that there are only two situations where
a public body is allowed to meet in private, one being to discuss litigation
and to receive advice and review the status of law suits with the City
Attorney's office. The resolution concerning the stipulation was discussed
and voted upon at a public meeting. He added that litigation sessions do not
involve any other parties except the City Council; it is not a situation
where the developer or his attorney was present at any private meeting solely
between the Council and the City Attorney's office where this lawsuit was
discussed. Discussion followed on the procedure used regarding litigation
sessions.
Vera Carroll, Tricia Way, dommented that they had not been told of the public
hearing on this matter or the action taken. It was noted that the hearing had
been agendized and published in the paper. Chairman Schaefer encouraged
everyone to either subscribe to the Saratoga News or the mailing list for
Council and Commission agendas.
Commissioner Siegfried commented that there is something here to be learned
by everyone, including the Council. He stated that it is his personal opinion
that when that matter did come to vote as to the settlement, which was a
Public matter, some effort should have been made to notify the people involved.
Mr. Gloege commented that there has been over the whole history of the project
a very good interchange of communication between the City and the residents
except during the issue of the settlement; there was no notification and no
communication on that.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Siegfried asked the City Attorney for clarification regarding
the section of the Subdivision Ordinance relative to a cul -de -sac and the
limitation of 400 ft. Fie commented that it states that the advisory agency
has to find that it is the only feasible method of developing the property
unless any other method of subdividing the property would create block lengths
of less than 800 ft. Ile indicated that he interpreted that to read that in
fact there need not be a finding in this case that it is the only feasible
way of developing the property; the finding could be that the extension of
Tricia Way is appropriate in that any other method of developing the property
would create block lengths less than 800 ft.
The Deputy City Attorney agreed that the sentence reads as a disjunctive. He
- 4 -
14
r_,
Planning Commission Page 5
Mecting Minutes 1/26/83 l
SDR -1531 (cont.)
stated that he would like to check with Staff to see if this interpretation
has been applied in any other situation. Commissioner Crowther indicated that it
nppeared that the proposed interpretation did not make sense.
Commissioner Crowther expressed his concern with the Negative Declaration.
lie indicated that lie feels with the number of public inputs and concerns on
this project, particularly regarding traffic, that the traffic reports are
grossly deficient and they don't really address this project. He commented that
there were unique safety problems associated with the 900 cul -de -sac which have
not been addressed, and the Commission does not have sufficient facts on traffic
safety to make a decision. He added that he could not approve the Negative Dec-
laration without a study of the alternatives. He stated that he thinks that if
* *addition below
Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve the Negative Declaration, stating that he
feels there is enough information before the Commission on the traffic to do so.
Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried 4 -2, with Commissioners
Bolger and Crowther dissenting.
Commissioner Siegfried moved that the access be as proposed by the developer,
namely an extension of Tricia way as shown on his map. Commissioner Nellis
seconded the motion. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he had not been
on the Commission during the previous applications, and while reviewing the
reports several things came to mind: (1) the question of inconsistency with
the Subdivision Ordinance. He indicated that he feels that there is really
not an inconsistency because the only other way of accessing this property
results in a street of 500 or 600 ft.; (2) If the access is off Tricia Way,
should the Commission consider limiting it only to 6 lots, thereby meeting the
situation of there only being 15 homes off of the cul -de -sac. He stated that
he could think of no such instance where the Commission denied an application
for more than 15 homes where a secondary access could be provided. Fie added
that it was also his remembrance during the time that the Pinn Brothers sub-
division came in that the street was purposely stubbed where it was so that
it would provide access to the remaining undeveloped properties. Commissioner
Crovther reminded Commissioner Siegfried that the applicant had indicated that access off of
Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road would result in a 400 ft. street, not 500 -600 ft.
Commissioner Bolger stated that he cannot envision this emergency access as being
anything more than a try to get the maximum density out of the subdivision. He
He added that if the applicant wishes to access off of Tricia it should be strict-
ly 6 lots or the entire two parcels which would be combined into one.
Commissioner Nellis stated that he could not agree with that comment re the
density, noting the fact that the zoning is R -1- 12,500 and the size of the lots.
Commissioner Bolger commented that if they wish to access them some other way
the R -1- 12,500 is applicable.
Commissioner Crowther agreed-with Commissioner Bolger, stating that he feels
that the access as shown is not protected and is a phony emergency access.
Fie stated that it is part of an individual's lot without anything separating
it from the lot, and within a year or two it is not going to exist. lie added
that he thinks the project is not consistent with the General Plan, in addition
to not being consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance.
Commissioner Nellis commented that the issue at this time is the difference
between the 9 lots proposed by the developer and the 6 lots favored by the
residents. Fie stated that he lives in an area that has a higher traffic
count than what is presented here, and he does not feel that his children's
safety has been jeopardized; he does not feel that with the addition of 3 lots
the safety of the residents on Tricia Way is jeopardized.
Commissioner Hlava stated that her primary concern is that she does not feel
the access to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road is appropriate. She explained that she
feels that it would isolate the resulting street from all of their neighbors,
and she feels that it would be very unsafe.
Commissioner Schaefer also strongly disagreed with the access to Saratoga -
Sunnyvale for the reasons stated by Commissioner Hlava, and in addition it would
also reduce the noise barrier..
The vote was taken on the motion to have the access off of Tricia Way. The
motion was carried 4 -2, with Commissioner Bolger and Crowther dissenting.
Commissioner Crowther then moved to restrict this project to the conditions of
the General flan, which states that there should be no more than 15 lots off
of a cul -de -sac; this would mean 6 lots in this subdivision. Commissioner
* *addition - the project was restricted to 6 lots off of Tricia the applicant
would find a way to get access for the remainder of the lots.
- -40 , ,, l
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 1/26/83
SDP. -1531 (cont.)
Bolger seconded the motion.
—) Page 6
Commissioner Schaefer commented that when she voted before on the previous
application she felt that the access should only be Tricia Way, and she
believes she voted for 6 lots; she may have compromised for 8.
The vote was taken on the motion, which resulted in a split vote 3 -3, with
Commissioner Nellis, Hlava and Siegfried dissenting.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve SDR -1531, per the Staff Report and
as proposed by the applicant. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which
resulted in a split vote 3 -3, with Commissioners Bolger, Crowther and Schaefer
dissenting.
The Deputy City Attorney stated that the split vote constitutes a denial, and
the applicant has the right of appeal to the City Council within 10 calendar
days. He commented that he feels it has been indicated to the City Council
that the majority of the Commission would consider Tricia the appropriate
access, but there is not a majority vote for 9 lots.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that he voted for the SDR -15331 as proposed
because he feels that it is a genuine secondary access. He reiterated that,
given that fact, he knows of no instance where the Commission has denied an
application for a number of lots that meets the underlying zoning, provided
that the secondary access is there.
Commissioner Bolger commented that he personally cannot make a finding that
this would be a secondary or emergency access.
Commissioner Schaefer stated that she would prefer a compromise. She added
that she thinks the width of one of the lots is 88 feet, and she feels that
because the development is abuting Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road the lots need to
be a little bit larger for more noise abatement. She commented that she
feels the traffic is secondary; she doesn't think the traffic will be that
great of an impact.
Break - 9:55 - 10:10 p.m.
5a. A -845 - Don Coffey, 13217 Padero Court, Request for Design Review and
5b. V -602 - Variance Approval to construct a two -story single family dwelling
which encroaches into the required side yard setbacks (20' where
30' is required)
The Land Use Committee gave an on -site visit, noting the following issues:
(1) size of the home for the neighborhood, (2) compatibility of design, (3) set-
backs, (4) What will happen to the velocity of the creek water when the creek
is straightened out; will there be problems downstream to neighbors' land,
(5) possible destruction of trees, and (6) proposed deck, its location and the
fact that it spans the creek.
Staff described the proposal. They reported that they received today a modi-
fication to the originally submitted plan which in effect reduces the work
within the swale and does not relocate the swale. They noted that the change
in zoning to NHR has changed the setback standards for this lot, whereas the
balance of the subdivision was developed with 20' setbacks.
The public hearing was opened at 10:20 p.m.
Bill Heiss, civil engineer, gave a presentation on.the project. He described
the changes which have been made to the plan. The setbacks, deck, and the
channel were discussed. Mr. Heiss discussed the additional development in
the area which would increase the runoff.
Don Coffey, the applicant, described the project and discussed the size of
the other homes in the subdivision.
David House, 13223 Padero Court, inquired about the decking. Mr. Coffey
compared the amount of decking on this home to others in the area. Mr. House
expressed concern with the size of the house. He also noted that there had
been considerable problems with slides in the area.
The letter from Mr. and Mrs. Franklin, expressing concern about the size and
- 6 -
-A
Planning Commission ) Page 3
Meeting Minutes 1/12/83
SDR -1496 (cont.)
with the Design Review. They tatcd that the change to the driveway will be
a modification to the Site Dev lopment Plan, and what the Commission would be
extending now is the Site Devel pment Plan from Canyon View.
Tree removal was discussed, and Ir. Araldi indicated that the reason the
—� driveway was changed was to elim nate significant tree removal because of the
retaining walls. He added that t ere are not any retaining walls of any
significance needed in the modifi d grading plan.
Staff indicated that the Fire Chie had verbally stated that he is not opposed
to the driveway as it is now graded They added that the new access is a
better design and the driveway is le s steep. Commissioner Crowther stated
that he was concerned because there tad been a lot of public discussion on this
project, and Ile feels that the new pl n should go back to the public. It was
noted that the Design Review will be public hearing.
Commissioner Bolger stated that he was somewhat concerned that this situation
would occur without the Planning Commis ion being advised and moved to continue
this matter to January 26, 1983, in ord r to get information from Rich (iarison
regarding the driveway and Chief Kraule egarding the fire situation. Commis-
sioner Crowther seconded the motion, whi h was carried unanimously 6 -0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
6a. Negative Declaration - SDR -1527 - WilAiam Johnson
6b. SDR -1527 - William Johnson, ReqAeq Tentative Building Site Approval
for a 2 -lot subdivis8935 Monte Vista
It was reported that the applicant u sted a continuance to the February
9, 1983 meeting.
The public hearing was opened at 8:o one appeared, and it was directed
that this matter be continued to a ession on January 25, 1983 and the
regular meeting of Feb ruary 9, 19837a. Negative Declaration - SDR -1530 a K its Bolin
7b. SDR -1530 - Anita Korts Bolin, Rfor Tentative Building Site Approval
for a 3 -lot subdivisa s'te at the southwest corner of
Sobey Road and Quito
Staff gave a report on the project, indicating hat a previous approval had
lapsed.
The public hearing was opened at 8:31 p.m.
Commissioner Bolger gave a report on the on -site visit. Bill Heiss, the civil
engineer, appeared to answer any questions.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public earing. Commissioner Bolger
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
It was noted that the Negative Declaration had bee approved with the previous
approval. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve DR -1530, per the Staff
Report dated December 16, 1982. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which
was carried unanimously 6 -0.
Commissioner Crowther expressed concern about the qu lity of the contour maps
being submitted with the applications, adding that h felt the City should
have a requirement that all applications use orthoph to contour maps. Dis-
cussion followed on the process, and it was determin d that this matter will
be studied further at a study session.
8a - U"4•,� „e Declaration - SDR -1531 - Nilson Develo
t
Nilson Development, Request for Tentative Subdivision Approval
for a 9 -lot subdivision for a site on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
near Tricia IVay
Chairman Schaefer reported that it has been approved by the City Council
through an executive session that there are to be 9 lots, and they will have
- 3 -
Planning Commission —� Page 4
Meeting Minutes 1/12/83
SDR -1531 (cont.)
access off of Tricia Way. She indicated that the issues that the Planning
Commission will consider at this time are the location of the lots, the width
and length of the lots, the landscaping and noise mitigation of Saratoga -
Sunnyvale Road, maintenance of landscaping, setbacks, fences, etc. She added
that the City Council had advised the Commission that they were not to con-
sider the number of lots or the access, since these issues have been decided.
The Deputy City Attorney disagreed, explaining that the Council did enter into
a stipulat'ion with the developer as a way of settling pending litigation. How-
ever, it was his understanding that they had not given specific direction to
this Commission, and it would be his opinion that it would not have been appro-
priate to do so. The stipulation provides that the application is to be pro-
cessed in the normal fashion, and from his point of view the Planning Commission
should treat this application in the same manner as anv other and either approve,
deny or modify. He added that the Commission should ignore the fact that there
was litigation nending and that the City Council did enter into a stipulation
with the developer.
Chairman Schaefer stated that at the Joint Council /Commission meeting the
previous evening the City Council had told the Commission what she had earlier
stated, and the Mayor had again told her that in a phone conversation that
afternoon. She added that she stands corrected by the Deputy City Attorney;
however, unfortunately this is an example of miscommunications. She stated
that the Commission will therefore consider all issues on this application.
Commissioner Siegfried noted that three of the present Commissioners, including
himself, had not been involved with the previous applications. He stated that
he feels that he would like to take a look at the property and have a study
session on the project.
Commissioner Crowther commented that it is clear that this project exceeds
the General Plan statement on the number of lots on a cul -de -sac, and one of
the key issues for the Commission to review is the consistency with the General
Plan.
The public hearing was opened at 8:45 p.m.
Staff reported that Lot N5 would have to be modified relative to its depth if
the Commission does determine to approve the application. They added that,
for continuity of the landscaping and the pathway, they would suggest that
the right -of -way line on Lot N6 be adjusted to have uniformity of the easement
width.
Chairman Schaefer reviewed the previous applications, noting that there had
been a very strong split feeling on the Commission regarding the exit, and
a difference of opinion on what the number of lots should be. She stated
that some of the concerns of the neighbors are traffic, noise off Saratoga -
Sunnyvale Road, safety off of both areas, and the number of total lots.
Dave !Nilson, the applicant, gave the history of the project and described the
current proposal.
Alfred Ruffo, attorney representing the homeowners on Tricia Way, stated that
he felt there should be at least a traffic report on this project. He
referenced a traffic study done by Renaldo Martinez on the previous applica-
tion. Mr. Ruffo stated that he felt there would be greater risk in increasing
the danger at Blauer and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road by the current proposal. He
urged the Commission to have a fair hearing on the application and thereafter
judge it on its merits without any impediment by way of the fact that the
City Council has already agreed by stipulated judgment to a conclusion. He
submitted a petition from the homeowner's regarding the project.
Mr. Wilson stressed the fact that time is a hardship on his company. It was
determined that individual interested Commissioners will make an on -site
inspection.
Commissioner Crowther commented that he felt the Commission does not have the
kind of facts that are needed to make a good decision. He moved that an EIR
be required for this project, including traffic data. Discussion followed
on the scope of the EIR requested by Commissioner Crowther, and he then modi-
fied his motion to clarify that a traffic study be required, which is a com-
posite of the three studies previously prepared, to be made available to the
Planning Commission to evaluate to determine if an EIR is needed. Commissioner
- 4 -
N
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 1/12/83
SDR -1531 (cont.)
Page 5
Bolger seconded the motion, which resulted in a split vote with Commissioners
Nellis, Hlava and Siegfried dissenting, indicating that they would like to
see the individual reports first to see if they are adequate before requiring
that a composite report be done. Commissioners Crowther and Bolger amended
the motion to state that the three previous traffic studies be made available
with some statement by Staff. The motion was carried unanimously 6 -0.
It was directed that this matter be continued to a study session on January
25, 1983 and the regular meeting of January 26, 1983.
9. Tract 5693 - Phil Hon , 21072 Comer Drive, Consideration of Expansion of
Buildin; Envelope, Lot #2, to allow for retaining wall and fencing with
grading, per Scenic Ea ement recorded on Tract Map
Staff gave a history of thiN matter and the request made by the applicant,
stating that the City Counci has asked for a recommendation from the Planning
Commission. They discussed he available options.
Commissioner Crowther stated hat he had problems with all of the options
because they have major impact He indicated that he was also opposed to
expanding the building envelop just for a retaining wall, and it was clari-
fied that the applicant could t en build anything in that envelope. He asked
the Deputy City Attorney if it 1ould be possible to grant a variance to permit
retaining walls. The Deputy Cit Attorney commented that it was his under-
standing that the easement was c eated as part of the subdivision map and he
would have a problem with modifyi g in terms of the easement which affects not
only this property but everyone use's property in the subdivision.
It was clarified that if the application is denied then the existing structure
would have to be removed. Discuss on followed on the process for restoring
the area to its previous condition .f the structure were removed.
The public hearing was opened at 9:31 p.m.
Ernie Porcelli, one of the neighbors ,stated that Mr. Hong has violated some
easements which were put in for a purpose not only for scenic but for drainage
and preservation of the hills, and it has jeopardized his property directly
below it. He also nointed out that Alin. Hong has an unfenced pool which is
dangerous to the neighborhood. He urg d the Commission to do something about
this situation which has been going on for 1 %z years.
Barbara Porcelli submitted pictures of he problems that have been created.
She indicated that if Mr. Hong is allow Ad to increase the building envelope
and put a fence on top of the bank, the will be in a hole with no view at all.
Mr. Hong, the applicant, reported that tIAe pool fence had been inspected by
the City yesterday. He described the fen e and stated that the drainage on
his property had been studied by a licens d engineer and he had said it was
adequate for retaining walls. Staff noted that Mr. Hong had submitted plans
to correct the retaining walls, which are eing held in abeyance relative to
determination of the wall or building envel pe to be modified.
Janet Harris, 21083 Comer Drive, stated tha they had been required to appear
before the City Council to get a variance fo the scenic easement in order to
have a driveway. She also expressed concern about the grading that Mr. liong
has done on the northwestern side of the prop -rty. She submitted photos of
what the scenic easement had looked like befo e the grading and pictures of
the portion that has been graded. She added t at she finds the road objectional
and the ground cover and vegetation have been emoved.
Mr. Hong discussed the four - wheelers and motor c cles on his property. He
stated that if lie receives a permit for the ret ining wall he will do all of
the landscape. He also indicated that if the r taining wall has to be removed
it will not look the same as before.
Commissioner Bolger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried
seconded the motion, which was carried unanim0 us1
Commissioner Crowther asked the Deputy City Attor ey if the application is
denied, is there some wav to control what is done n the property; can the
requirement be made that drainage be restored and access by four -wheel vehicles
across the property be prevented?
- 5 -
EIA -4
Saratoga
DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED
(Negative Declaration)
Environmental Quality Act of 1970
File No: SD -1531
The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the
CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation
has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable
provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15080
through 15083 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653 -
of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have
no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment
within the terms and meaning of said Act.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project involves dividing a 4 acre site into 9 - 12,500 sq. ft. plus lots in the
R -1- 12,500 zoning district. Presently the site consists of 2 lots with 2 houses and
accessory structures. The Olson lot also contains old equipment, cars and various
discarded items. Several significant trees exist on the site, with 3 large firs, 2
Brazilian peppers and 3 Silk Oaks proposed for removal by the road. The site fronts
on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road with proposed access from the extension of Tricia Way.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
Wilson Developoent
gg144�33��7t0 Saratoga gASven7nue
., REASH�QR' NEGATIVE DECLARATION
A noise study and review of the traffic and drainage impacts on CalTrans facilities
are included as part of this document. Mitigation measures for the noise impact
of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road are recam ended by the study and are to be included in
the project. The project, developed in accord with the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision
Ordinance and recommended mitigation measures, is not expected to have a significant
effect on the environment.
Executed at Saratoga, California this 16th day of December 19_a2L.
ROBERT S. SHOOK
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVI O MENTAL CONTROL OF THE CITY OF
S A GA n /-, %1.
DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER
q
r,
TELEPHONE
(415) 948 -1105
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Council umbers:
Auk
RENATO G. MARTINEZ, C.E
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANT
P.O. Box 177
LOS ALTOS. CALIFORNIA 94022
Novembear 18, 1981
RG M
ASSOCIATES
OFFICE:
146 MAIN STREET
LOS ALTOS. CALIFORNIA
Re: Residential Street Access to
Wilson Development Co. Property
from Sunnyvale- Saratoga Rd. (SR82)
This is to advise you that a direct access street from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd.
approximately 500' south of Blaur Drive could be designed to conform with
State Standards as contained in the Cal Trans Highway Design Manual. Right
turn access to and from Sunnyvale - Saratoga Road is an acceptable means of
access for the proposed 10 unit subdivision. The existing driveway is about
300' south of Blaur Drive and would be closed.
Respectfully submitted,
Renato G. Martinez, C. .
Traffic Engineering Consultant -
Ecn: Cal Trans Planning Manual Excerpts
p. 7- 206.1 Road Connections and Driveways
Fig. 7 -206.1 Access Openings on Expressways
p. 7 -406.1 Typical Intersection Designs
Fig. 7- 406.1 All -Paved Public Road Intersection
RGM /nw
0
P.O. BOX 177 • LOS ALTOS. CALIFORNIA 94022 • TELEPHONE (4 15) 948 -1105
w
f
DESIGN SPEED STOPPING
M.P. H. SIGHT DISTANCE
FEET_
30 200 MINIMUM STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE
40 275
0 350 R•120,
0 475
70 Goo R-32'
I
R•120'
37, ,,—Encroachments limited to this Sight jUne
V-14 12'
Soso.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
10 F-7 — 0 =--9 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Encroachments limited to this Sight Line
0
R•120'
R•32' A
Ilhccc R•120' .ole Stopped vehicle Is assumed
MINIMUM STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE
C C
C a
'14
Part 7— Design PLANNING MANUAL
7 -406.1
August, 1964
Typical Intersection Designs (7 -406)
7 -406.1 All -Paved Public Road Intersection
Figure 7 -406.1 illustrates the minimum standard
all -paved public road intersection design for a right -
angle crossing. The 3- center compound curve closely
approximates the turning requirements of the com-
mercial design vehicle. For skewed intersections, the
curve central angles and radii must be adjusted to
fit the angle of intersection. The design should be
checked for adequacy with the truck turn templates
(see Index No. 7- 405.4).
In the application of the minimum all -paved public
road design to skewed intersections, it may be desir-
able to introduce a small triangular traffic island in
the acute angle to reduce the size of the paved area
and to provide a location for the installation of stop
and directional signs. Also, in the obtuse angle of
skewed intersections, it may be desirable to substitute
a simple curve for the 3- center combination when the
reduced length of the central are makes a 3- center
curve impractical.
7 -406.2 Bulb Connections for Frontage Road
Bulb connections are used at intermediate connec-
tions to frontage roads. (See Figure 7- 406.2.) They
are designed to accommodate the maximum vehicle.
Instructions for determining the width of pavement
necessary are given under Index No. 7- 405.4.
If it can be expected that heavy vehicles will use
an opening frequently, the throat should be wide
enough to accommodate two vehicles simultaneously.
For less important bulb connections, the throat can
be designed to accommodate the maximum vehicle by
allowing encroachment on the opposing lane. Chan -
nelization may be required to prevent wrong -way
movements.
7 -406.3 Two -lane Road With Separate
Turning Lane
Figure 7 -406.3 illustrates an intersection on a 2 -lane
facility where traffic volumes justify a separate turn -
ina lane in one quadrant only. The same principle
may be expanded to provide separate turning lanes in
each giiadrant when traffic warrants exist. Left -turn
conflicts for the traffic volumes, indicated do not war-
rant channelization for the left -turn movements.
7 -406.4 Minimum Median Left -turn
Channelization
Figures 7- 406.4A -B are examples of median left -
turn channelization for undivided highways where a
minimum design is warranted because of traffic con-
ditions and right of way limitations.
(1) Storage Length. In urban areas where blocks
are short the needed storage length may be obtained
by the following expedients:
(a) When space is limited, 'as in a channelization
confined to a length of one block, a median speed -
change lane taper 60 feet long should be used (See
Table 7- 405.5).
(b) If the storage length is such that the channel-
ization cannot be confined to one block, the method
shown in Figure 7- 406.4B may be used.
The principles governing the layout illustrated in
Figures 7406.4A -B apply to both 2 -lane and multi-
lane roads and to situations where unequal widening
would be required.
(3) Shoulders. The full shoulder width should be
provided whenever feasible. Where the improvement
is confined to the existing right of way or the talce of
additional right of way must be minimized, the shoul-
der may be omitted and parking restricted.
7 -406.5 Channelized "Y"
Figure 7 -406.5 illustrates a 4 -lane divided channel-
ization at a "Y" connection where relatively heavy
turnins volumes must be accommodated. This type of
channelization may be applied to a 4 -lane divided
through facility; it also may be used on a 2 -lane facil-
ity by transitioning to a 4 -lane divided section
through the intersection area.
7 -406.6 Four -lane Divided Highway With
Separate Turning Lane
Figure 7 -406.6 illustrates.a channelized intersection
on a 4 -lane divided highway with a 22 -foot median.
The traffic flow diagram shows warrants for a sepa-
rate turning lane in one quadrant. Median decelera-
tion lanes are provided for both left turns.
7 -406.7 Widening of 2 -Lone Roads at Signalized
Intersections
Two -lane state highways should be widened at in-
tersections to 4 lanes whenever signals are installed.
Sometimes it is also necessary to widen the inter-
secting road. The minimum design is shown in Figure
7406.7. More elaborate treatment may be warranted
by the volume and pattern of traffic movements. Un-
usual turning: movement patterns may possibly call
for a different shape of widening.
l
A',
Ah IIIGII%VAY DESIGN MANUAL
Figure 7 -206.1
— August 1. 1975
PLAN
......., ��..A.
PLAN V „ZH
jo
PLAN
f
Zeyend
Access acquired ._...y
Preperiy Line
Area acquired by State Q
NOTE: By widening the eapresswoy
shoulder deceleration lones
may be provided where
justified.
i
PLAN A.—o.�. v
vier 1N
J1AA
-Lam iiiir ee• [/w �
t
so
f
CASE Joint Openings when Angle of F CASE
Joint Openings .Mn Angle of Properly
iProperty Line varies from 60' to w Line is less than 60' or more then 120'
120' with the Right of Way Una. L with the Right of Way Una.
ii
so
Zeyend
Access acquired ._...y
Preperiy Line
Area acquired by State Q
NOTE: By widening the eapresswoy
shoulder deceleration lones
may be provided where
justified.
i
PLAN A.—o.�. v
vier 1N
J1AA
-Lam iiiir ee• [/w �
t
so
f
CASE Joint Openings when Angle of F CASE
Joint Openings .Mn Angle of Properly
iProperty Line varies from 60' to w Line is less than 60' or more then 120'
120' with the Right of Way Una. L with the Right of Way Una.
l 7 -206.1
I
J
&IGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
Road Connections and Driveways (7 -205)
Access Openings on Expr *ssways
Access openings are used only on expressways. The
term access opening applies to openings through the
right of way line which serve abutting land owner-
ships whose remaining access rights have been ac-
quired by the State.
(1) Criteria for Location. To discourage wrong
way movements, access openings should be located
at least 300 feet from a median opening. This does not
prohibit locating an access opening opposite the
median opening. (See "Control of Access," Index 7-
104. )
(2) Width. The normal access opening width
shall be 30 feet A greater width may result in large
savings in right of way costs in some instances but
should be considered with caution because of the
possibility that public use might develop. Conversion
of a private opening into a public road connection
requires the consent of the CTC, which cannot be
committed in advance. Openings greater than 30
feet but not greater than 60 feet, will be permitted
only if all of the following conditions are met:
(a) Concurrence of property owner.
(b) Information has been furnished to the prop-
erty owner that conversion of the private road
connection to public road usage, by subdivid-
ing the adjacent property would be lawful
only by consent, by resolution, of the CTC.
(c) Substantial savings in right of way costs.
(d) Sight distance equivalent to that required for
public road intersections.
(e) Not less than' /, mile spacing to adjacent exist-
ing public road intersection or to another pri-
vate access opening that is wider than 30 feet.
(f) Discussion with local agencies.
(g) Recommended by the District Director based
on both design and right of way considera-
tions.
(h) Approval by the Chief, Office of Planning and
Design.
(3) Recessed Openings Recessed openings, as
shown on Figure 7- 206.1, are desirable at all points
where private access is permitted and shall be pro-
vided whenever they can be obtained without re-
quiring alterations to existing adjacent
improvements. When recessed openings are re-
quired, the opening shall be located a minimum dis-
tance of 75 feet from the nearest edge of the through
pavement
(4) Joint Openings A joint access opening serv-
ing two parcels of land is desirable whenever feasi-
ble. Approved designs are shown on Figure 7- 206.1.
(5) Surfacing. All points of private access shall be
provided with surfacing of sufficient width and struc-
7 -206.1
August 1, 1979
tural strength to adequately serve the anticipated
traffic. Such surfacing shall extend from the edge of
the traveled way to the right of way line.
(6) Delineation ofHans Access taking and access
openings are designated on the plans as shown in
Figure 7- 206.1. :: r
7 -206.2 Private Rood Connections
The minimum private road connection design is
shown on Figure 7-- 206.1. Sight distance require-
ments for the minimum private road connection are
the same as for all -paved public road connections
shown in Figure 7- 406.1.
7 -206.3 Urban Driveways
These instructions apply to the design of driveways
to serve property fronting on State highways in cities
or in areas outside the cities where urban type devel-
opment is encountered-
They do not apply where access is controlled by
deed conditions. For driveways on frontage roads
and in rural areas see Index 7- 206.4. Details for drive-
way construction are shown on Figure 7- 206.3.
(1) Correlation with Local Standards Where
there is an ordinance regulating driveway construc-
tion the more restrictive standard will normally gov-
ern.
(2) Driveway Width. The width of driveways for
both residential and commercial usage is the dis-
tance "W" between slopes. (The widths of the slopes
are called "X" distances. See Figure 7- 206.3.)
(3) Residential Driveways The width of single
residential driveways is 12 feet minimum and 20 feet
maximum. The width of a double residential drive-
way such as used for multiple dwellings is 20 feet
minimum and 30 feet maximum The width selected
should be based on an analysis of the anticipated
volume, type and speed of traffic, location of build-
ings and garages, width of street, etc. The sides of
these driveways shall be at right angles to the curb
in all cases where the sidewalk is less than 3 feet from
the curb.
(4) Commercial Driveways The maximum
width for commercial driveways is established as fol-
lows
(a) When only one driveway serves a given prop-
erty frontage and the speed limit is less than
45 mph the maximum width of driveway shall
be 35 feet Where such a speed limit is 45 mph
or more the maximum width of driveway may
be increased to 40 feet, if this width is consist-
ent with existing or proposed improvements.
In no case shall the width of driveway includ-
ing the "X" distances exceed the property
frontage.
(b) When more than one driveway is to serve a
AL
November 6, 1981
Mr. David Wilson
Wilson Development Inc.
14370 Saratoga Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mr. Wilson:
This report is an evaluation of the traffic impacts generated by each of the proposed
developments to be located on the subject property on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, south
of Blauer Drive.
SETTING
The proposed development fronts Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road between Blauer Drive
and Miljevich Drive. Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road is a four lane state highway. It
has two lanes in each direction with a raised median island with parking
permitted.
Blauer Drive is a two lane collector street running east from Saratoga - Sunnyvale
Road. Tricia Drive terminates at right angles to the southerly property line
of the subject property.
Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road currently averages 17,600 vehicles between 6:30 a.m. and
6:30 p.m.; Blauer Drive generates 2,274 vehicles during this same time period.
These counts were recorded in June, 1980, by the State of California, Department
of Transportation and they are considered representative of current conditions.
IMPACT - PART I
The first proposal consists of a mixed use of a one story and a two story office
building providing a total of 26,250 square feet of gross leasable area and six
single- family detached homes.
The office buildings' vehicular traffic would enter and exit on Saratoga - Sunnyvale
Road. The 26,250 square footage would generate 326 trips per weekday. Depending
,.
Mr. David Wilson
-2-
November 6, 1981
on the mix of tenants, approximately 80% of these 326 trips would arrive and
depart between the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., or 260 additional vehicles
on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, which equals to 1.4% net increase.
The six single - family dwellings will generate 60 trips per average weekday.
All of these will ingress and egress by way of an extension of Tricia Drive.
The impact of these additional trips to the residents of Tricia Drive and its
feeder streets will be minimal.
The impact of the office building traffic performing U -turns at Blauer Drive
is difficult to assess; however, about one -half of the 326 vehicles will have
need to proceed south, and by a similar comparison all southbound traffic
going to the development will be required to make a U -turn at Miljevich Drive.
IMPACT - PART II
The second proposal consists of the entire parcel being developed into ten
single - family detached dwellings. As in the former discussion, each home will
again generate ten trips per dwelling, aggregate g, or an a re ate total of 100 trips per
average weekday. All of these trips will enter and exit by means of a new
street connecting to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road.
This proposed street would enter Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road approximately 350
feet south of Blauer Drive. Thus, all vehicles leaving would, by necessity,
travel north and if required to go south, make a U -turn at Blauer Drive, The
reverse situation would occur for vehicles southbound, with the U -turns taking
place at Miljevich Drive.
The traffic counts indicate that approximately one -half of all trips generated
per day will make U -turns at one of these locations. It is beyond the skills
of this profession to predict the accident potential for these additional
maneuvers.
Mr. David Wilson
-3-
November 6, 1981
CONCLUSION
Each proposal has numerous merits and demerits from the standpoint of safety,
convenience, residential integrity and the needs of the community.
Strictly from a traffic engineering viewpoint, neither proposal's traffic
generation figures will significantly alter the existing level of service on
the adjacent streets. Obviously, the ten -home residential proposal will have
a higher safety index since it will generate fewer vehicular trips than the
Office complex.
Respectfully,
Robert G. Temmermand
Traffic Engineer
30
�) r
7 �7
eb v.
j rr
A -f
10,
—j: 0
10
IS,
�oo n's k !-Lz'.'ej'd 7c,
OW
_,.TD
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
TO: Director of Public Works DATE: 7/15/81
FROM: Asst. Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: SD 1489, Wilson Development - Tricia Way
The following report is intended to make you aware of the position I
presented to the Planning Commission during their consideration of the
subject subdivision.
It was and remains my position that direct access onto Highway #85 would
be undesirable. Due to the proximity of the Blauer Dr. intersection, a
median opening most likely would not be permitted by Caltrans. This
would require U -turns to be made at either Blauer Dr. or Paramount Dr.
Such maneuvers on a high volume road are considered very bad practice
I explained the potential for accidents is closely related to roadway
volume and, therefore, felt the use of Regan Ln. and Blauer Dr. for
access was clearly preferred. Because of these and other potential
traffic safety problems, i recommended that the subdivision take access
by extending Tricia Way. Further, that it was my opinion that Tricia Way
was stubbed at this location to provide this access.
Background Data:
Blauer Dr. (west
of Regan
Ln.)
2071 ADT
Peak Hr.
(3 -4 p.m.)
volume
244
Regan Ln. (south
of Blauer
Dr.)
1378 ADT
Peak Fir.
(4 -5 p.m.)
volume
203
Hwy. #85 (south of Cox Ave.)
30,000 ADT*
Peak Hr. volume
3,300
*Two -way total of divided roadway.
I hope that this memo gives :you 0an rs tandi.iq of what took place at
the Planning Commission.
Dan Trinidad, Jr.
DT /dsc
ru:•,:
2940 SCOTT BOULEVARD
SANTA CLARA. CALIF. 95050
Ms. Virginia Laden
Butler & Wilson Inc.
14370 Saratoga Avenue
EDWARD L. PACK ASSOCIATES ,INC.
Consulting, Acoustical Engineers TELEPHONE: (408) 727 -6840
April 8, 1981
Project No. 13 -057
Saratoga, California 95070
Subject: Traffic Noise Assessment Study for the Proposed
"Tricia Woods ", Single - Family Residential
Development, Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road and Tricia Way,
Saratoga
Dear Ms. Laden:
This report provides the results of an environmental noise study
which included field measurements of existing noise levels,
predictions of future noise impacts and evaluations for the
proposed single - family development, as shown on the Tentative
Tract Map, Ref. (a). The measurement data were used to assess
the existing noise environment at the site due to traffic
sources on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. The mitigation measures
presented herein have been designed to achieve compliance
with the noise standards imposed by the City of Saratoga, Ref. (b).
Sections I and II of this report contain a summary of our
findings and recommendations, respectively. Subsequent
sections contain the measurement data, calculations and
analyses. Appendices A and B, attached, contain the reference
material and definitions of the standards and terminology, a
description of the acoustical instrumentation used for the
field survey, and the ventilation and building shell requirements.
MEMBER: ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF SAFETY ENGINEERS
AUDIO ENGINEERING SOCIETY
INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
2
I. Summary of Findings
The findings of this section were made from the on -site
measurements and analyses of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road traffic
noise. The field measurement data were used to calculate the
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), as specified by the
City of Saratoga and used in the standards imposed on this
project. The standards are described in Appendix B.
The noise levels and excesses shown below are based on an
estimated minimum setback distance and are without the
application of mitigation measures.
A. Exterior Noise Levels
Exterior noise levels are 64 dB CNEL at a 50 ft.
setback distance from the west property line along
Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road on lots 7 thru 10. Under
Projected future traffic conditions for year 1995, the
noise levels will be increased to 67 dB CNEL. Therefore,
the existing and projected future levels on lots 7 thru
10 will be 4 dB and 7 dB, respectively, in excess of
the 60 dB exterior limit. Noise levels on lot 6
will be 2 dB lower based on a setback distance from
SaratogaT Sunnyvale Road of 100 ft.
B. Interior Noise Exposures
Interior noise levels will be 49 dB CNEL in the most
impacted living spaces, i.e., in houses on lots 6 thru
10 will be 15 dB lower than the exterior levels shown
above. Thus, the interior levels will be up to 7 dB
in excess of the 45 dB interior limit of the Saratoga
standards.
TZ;R)
I
1
111
l`
J
1
ti
o0
14��AA1101 t+. sd I
r
r
r
• r I
�h MD 7 W*
r ~
- 16 r mols4
`wa/is
z
r -o
r
r \ �
H
r _
MHA
FOR
Faw
r
F1I
3
1
1
w
fl5flAb YZI /L DING ..
�TOBF REN10Vflly
t� -- N
1,1 r
go,. }. NO 7
ro
LF
,y(4
a,. V1_ tip' Moir
700 5
,G�
,� '3 ,8o= 9
r� e5 s -roe-T f foot
s
JjLUS1 AC)
�.
LEX.DRwr1'7,0 V17 ,•�
— - — _ / •rte /1 A-
-
Noise Barrier
_,tr
fi.
tt�.•• `I
�F,•. '� • :rte
gA?
1�
!O III
r
Mf4'(1
6 wa,a
EAS"IL -AI T
I �-
<I
l�
a
IANDSL- 'IN6 Ike! JN/
TO MA N fR
Figure 1. Recommended Noise Barrier Walls For
A 50 Ft. Setback From The West
Property Line On Lots 7 Thru 10 and
A 100 Ft. Setback On Lot 6. Barrier
heights are in reference to existing
ground elevation at the barrier
locations.
3
Mitigation measures to control the exterior and interior
noise excesses will be required and are described in Section II
below.
II. Summary of Recommendations
In order to achieve acceptable exterior and interior noise
levels, the following noise control measures are recommended:
- A 6 ft. high barrier wall along the west property
line of lots 6 thru 10, based on a house setback
distance from the west property line of 50 ft. or
greater for the houses on lots 7 -thru 10 and a
house setback distance of 100 ft. for the house on
lot 6.
- For sound flanking control, an 8 ft. high barrier wall
is required, extending continuously along the north
property line of lot 6, and a 6 ft. high barrier along
both sides of the emergency easement. In addition,
the barrier must connect with the existing wall at
the adjacent property to the south along Saratoga -
Sunnyvale Road.
If a house setback of less than 50 ft. is used on lots 7
thru 10 and less than 100 ft. on lot 6, then an 8 ft. high
barrier wall will be required along the west property line.
The barrier wall heights specified above are in reference
to the ground elevation at the barrier location. The barrier
wall locations are shown on Figure 1, herein.
4
A barrier wall to be acoustically effective must be
constructed air - tight, that is without cracks, gaps or other
openings and should provide for long -term durability. The
barrier can be constructed of earth berm, masonry, stucco, or
wood, and with a minimum surface weight of 1.5 lbs. per sq. ft.
A combination of earth berm with masonry or wood fencing on top
is also acceptable. The pre -cast masonry walls shown on the
plans, by WTW, Inc. for Sierra Precast, Ref. (c), will be
acceptable if the heights and locations conform to the
specifications described herein and to Figure 1. If wood fencing
is used for some barrier segments, homogeneous sheet materials
are preferable to conventional wood board fencing because of
the tendency of the latter to warp and form openings with age.
However, high quality, airtight tongue- and - groove, shiplap or
other board construction can be utilized. All joints including
connections with posts or pilasters must be sealed and no
openings are permitted between the upper barrier components and
the ground. The flanking control barriers along the emergency
easement can use masonry or wood and must be extended along the
full length of the easement as shown on Figure 1.
The noise control barriers recommended above will resolve
first -floor interior noise excesses for houses on lots 6 thru 10.
However, if two -story houses are constructed on these lots, a
closed window condition with appropriate ventilation will be
required at second -floor spaces having a direct or side view
of Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, where the line -of -sight path is
less than 200 ft.
In addition, double- strength glass (rated STC 21 or higher),
must be installed in windows which are specified to be closed
and which are within 50 ft. of the west property line. All
other windows can use standard single- strength glass or
thermopane. The windows specified to be closed are to be operable,
as the requirements does not imply "fixed" windows. The
ventilation requirements must conform to'those specified by the
Uniform Building Code (UBC), as described in Appendix B.
III. Site, Traffic and Project Description
The proposed development site in Saratoga is located
directly east of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and is between Blauer
and Miljevich Drives. The site is generally level, with an
elevation of 6 -9 ft.' above the adjacent roadway surface of
Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. The surrounding land use is single-
family residential and commercial.
Noise intrusion over the site originates primarily from
the vehicular traffic on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, which carries
an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of approximately 25,000 vehicles,
as reported by Cal Trans, Ref. (d).
After completion of the proposed project, the site will be
occupied by ten single - family detached houses. Access will be
by way of Tricia Way.
IV. Existing and Future Noise Levels Impacting the Site
A. Existing Noise Levels
To define the existing noise enviornment, continuous
recordings of the sound levels were taken at a location 40 ft.
from the curb of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road on lot 6 of the planned
project. This location was considered a worst -case location
6 -
for the backyard recreation area. The measured noise levels
were adjusted for additional distance to a 50 ft. house setback
for the CNEL evaluation.
To obtain the equivalent continuous sound levels .(Leq) for
calculation of the CNEL index used in the standards, the noise
levels were recorded on March 31, 1981 for a total duration of
8 hours. The recordings included sampling intervals in the
daytime, evening and nighttime periods.
The primary measuring instrument used for the field survey
was a Gen Rad Company Community Noise Analyzer. The analyzer
processed the daytime, evening and nighttime recordings to yield
a series of statistical values of the sound levels versus time,
in the L10, L50' and L90, i.e., the levels that were
exceeded 100, 500" and 900 of the time, and also the Leq, which
was used in the CNEL calculation. The statistical levels are
expressed in "dBA ", and the CNEL values are expressed in "dB ".
As shown in the table, the Leq values measured along Saratoga -
Sunnyvale Road were 66 to 68 dBA in the daytime period, 63 to 64 dBA
in the evening and 61 to 62 dBA in the nighttime recording interval.
TABLE I
Traffic Noise Levels Measured at
40 Ft. From the Curb of Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road
Time
Period
Noise Level,
dBA
max
L10
L50
L90
Lmin
L
2:00 -3:00
pm
(daytime)
78
70
65
am _
3:00 -4 :00
pm
of
79
71
58
49
66
4:00 -5:00
pm
66
59
50
67
5:00 -6:00
pm
11
79
72
67
50
41
68
8:00 -9 :00
pm
(evening)
80
78
72
68
67
59
50
68
9:00 -10:00
pm
62
56
47
64
10:00 -11:00
P m
(nighttime)
77
79
67
66
61:
55
46
63
11:00 Pm -12:00
midnight 11
77
65
60
54
45
62
59
53
44
61
Traffic noise diminishes at the rate of 3 -6 dB for each
doubling of the distance. Therefore, lots 1 thru 5 on the site
at greater distances from Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road will be
subjected to lower levels of noise. Additional acoustical
shielding will be provided by future intervening buildings on
lots 6 thru 10.
B. Future Noise Levels
Future traffic volumes on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road along
the site are projected to increase from the existing ADT of
25,000 to an ADT of approximately 46,000 in 1995, as reported
by Cal Trans, Ref. (e). This additional volume will yield a
sound level increase of approximate)
levels shown in Table I above. y 3 dBA over the Present
V. Evaluation of Traffic Noise Exposures
To evaluate the on -site noise levels against the City of
Saratoga standards, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)
descriptor was calculated as a decibel average of the Leq values
for the daily time periods. Evening and nighttime weighting
factors were applied and an adjustment was included to represent
average traffic conditions in the daily subperiods using methods
developed by the Highway Research Board, Ref'. M. An adjustment
was also applied to allow for a rear setback distance from
Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road of 50 ft. on lots 7 thru 10 and a setback
Of 100 ft. on lot 6. Thus, the CNEL was computed in accordance
with the mathematical "formula shown in Appendix B.
The calculations yielded a CNEL of 64 dB on lots 7 thru 10
for existing traffic conditions and will increase to 67 dB CNEL
for future year 1995 traffic conditions. The CNEL on lot 6
was calculated to be 2 dB lower due to additional shielding
effects and distance. The excesses over the standards will be
4 and 7 dB for existing and future conditions on lots 7 thru 10,
and 2 and 5 dB for existing and future conditions on lot 6.
To determine the interior CNEL, a 15 dB reduction was
applied to the exterior levels to account for the attenuation
of the building shell under annual average conditions. The
annual average condition assumes that windows are open half of
the year and closed the remaining half of the year. Thus, the
interior CNEL in the most impacted living spaces, i.e., the
houses on lots 7 thru 10, based on a 50 ft. setback distance
from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, will be 49 dB for existing traffic
conditions and will increase to 52 dB CNEL for future year 1995
traffic conditions. Thus, the noise excesses will be up to
7 dB over the interior limit of 45 dB CNEL.
8 -
V. Evaluation of Traffic Noise Exposures
To evaluate the on -site noise levels against the City of
Saratoga standards, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)
descriptor was calculated as a decibel average of the Leq values
for the daily time periods. Evening and nighttime weighting
factors were applied and an adjustment was included to represent
average traffic conditions in the daily subperiods using methods
developed by the Highway Research Board, Ref. (f). An adjustment
was also applied to allow for a rear setback distance from
Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road of 50 ft. on lots 7 thru 10 and a setback
Of 100 ft. on lot 6. Thus, the CNEL was computed in accordance
with the mathematical "formula shown in Appendix B.
The calculations yielded a CNEL of 64 dB on lots 7 thru 10
for existing traffic conditions and will increase to 67 dB CNEL
for future year 1995 traffic conditions. I The CNEL on lot 6
was calculated to be 2 dB lower due to additional shielding
effects and distance. The excesses over the standards will be
4 and 7 dB for existing and future conditions on lots 7 thru 10,
and 2 and 5 dB for existing and future conditions on lot 6.
To determine the interior CNEL, a 15 dB reduction was
applied to the exterior levels to account for the attenuation
of the building shell under annual average conditions. The
annual average condition assumes that windows are open half of
the year and closed the remaining half of the year. Thus, the
interior CNEL in the most impacted living spaces, i.e., the
houses on lots 7 thru 10, based on a 50 ft. setback distance
from Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, will be 49 dB for existing traffic
conditions and'will increase to 52 dB CNEL for future year 1995
traffic conditions. Thus, the noise excesses will be up to
7 dB over the interior limit of 45 dB CNEL.
r,
ARM
�.
9 -
In the house on lot 6, the interior levels will be 47 dB
CNEL for existing traffic conditions and 50 dB CNEL for projected
year 1995 traffic conditions, based on a 100 ft. setback from
Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. These levels will be 2 and 5 dB in
excess of the 45 dB limit.
Therefore, mitigation measures will be required in order
to comply with the standards imposed by the City of Saratoga.
The recommended measures are described in Section II.
As a result of the combined noise attenuation effects of
the recommended noise barrier wall and the elevated west
property line, the noise reduction will be 8 -10 dB for houses
on lots 6 thru 10. Future houses on lots 1 thru 5 will benefit
additionally from increased distance from the road and from
shielding by interposed buildings on lots 6 thru 10. Thus, all
exterior and interior locations will be within the 60 dB and
45 dB CNEL limits, respectively.
The study findings and recommendations for present conditions
are based on field measurements and other data and are correct
to the best of our knowledge. However, the future noise level
predictions are based on information provided by Cal Trans.
Significant deviations in traffic volumes from the predictions
and future changes in motor vehicle technology and noise
regulations may produce long -range noise results different from
our estimates.
- 10 -
This report presents our acoustical assessment for the Proposed
single- family residential development at Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
and Tricia Way in Saratoga. If you require any additional
information or elaboration of this report, please call me
at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Edward L. Pack, P.E.
Principal Acoustical Consultant
ELP:m
Attachment: Appendices A and B
i I
APPENDIX A
References:
(a) Tentative Tract Map for "Tricia Woods ", for Butler and
Wilson, Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Tricia Way, Saratoga,
by Kier & Wright, Santa Clara, February 27, 1981
(b) Information on City of Saratoga Standards Provided by
Planning Department Staff in a Telecon to Edward L. Pack,
March 25, 1981
(c) "Precast Concrete Wall Assembly ", by Sierra Precast,
San Jose, and WTW, Inc., San Jose; Irrigation and
Planting Plan for Tract 6199, Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road,
Saratoga, by Onorato Associates, San Bruno, November 4,1977
(d) "1979 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways ",
State of California Department of Transportation, -
Sacramento
(e) Information on Future Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road Traffic
Provided by Mr. Fong, Cal Trans, San Francisco, by
Telecon to B. W. George of Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc.,
April 3, 1981
(f) Highway Research Board, "Highway Noise, A Design Guide
for Highway Engineers ", Report 117, 1971
APPENDIX B
Noise Standards, Terminology,
Instrumentation and Ventilation Specifications
1• City of Saratoga Noise Standards
The standards of the City of Saratoga as imposed on this
project, use the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)
descriptor, and identify an exterior noise level of up to
60 dB CNEL as a satisfactory exterior environment for single -
family residential land use. The standards also establish a
noise level limit of 45 dB CNEL for interior living spaces.
B -1
2. Terminology
A. Statistical Noise Levels
Due to the fluctuating character of urban traffic noise,
statistical procedures are needed to provide an adequate
description of the environment. A series of statistical
descriptors have been developed which represent the noise
levels exceeded a given percentage of the time. These
descriptors are obtained by direct readout of the Community
Noise Analyzer. Some of the statistical levels used to describe
community noise are defined as follows:
Leq The equivalent- energy level is that level of a
steady noise having the same energy as a given time -
varying noise. The Leq represents the decibel level
of the time - averaged value of sound energy or
sound pressure squared. The Leq is the noise
descriptor used to calculate the CNEL.
L10 - A noise level exceeded for 100 of the time,
considered to be an "intrusive" level.
L50 - The noise level exceeded 500 of the time,
representing an "average" sound level.
L90 - The noise level exceeded for 900 of the time,
designated as a "background" noise level.
B -2
Planning Commission Meeting Page 3
Minutes 9/23/81
SDR -1453 (c nt.)
Commissioner D nia moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SDR -1453.
Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner King then restated his motion to approve SDR 1453. Commissioner
Monia seconded the Imotion, which was carried unanimously.
Vice - Chairman explai ed. -to the applicant that the Commission is very concern-
ed about setting a precedgnce at this level for safety conditions that can
come about. She notified tie applicant of the 15 -day appeal period.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4a._.,.Negative Declaration - SD -1505 - Wilson Development Corporation
4b. SD -1505 - Wilson Development Corp., Request for Tentative Subdivision
Approval for 10 lots on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road
Staff described the current proposal, stating that the project had been
before the Commission and appealed•.to the City Council for a 10 -lot sub-
division with access off of Tricia Way; the current proposal is for access
off of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. They indicated that Staff still feels
that the safest access is from Tricia Way; however, the access out to Sara-
toga- Sunnyvale Road should be such that the site problems and access diffi-
culties are minimized.-
The public hearing was opened at 8:20tp . vi.
Dave Wilson, the applicant, pointed out that the Staff Report states that
the present application meets Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance criteria.
He commented that they felt the best way to develop these lots would be
with access off of Tricia Way; however, they have listened to the neighbors,
the Commission and the City Council, and this proposal is a compromise of
their wishes. He noted that they have discussed the access with CalTrans,
and have received a letter stating that this current proposal is acceptable
to them. Mr. Wilson stated that this area is zoned R- 1- 12,500, and the
subdivision has an average lot size of 15,560 sq. ft. He pointed out that
if only eight lots were approved, they would increase in size to over a
half -acre, and that is not compatible with all the other houses in that area.
Dick Kier, the engineer, discussed the intersection of the proposed street
and Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, including the treatment of the existing path.
He noted that Condition II -B should read "Street improvements on 45 ft. of
right -of -way to be 30 feet."
Bob Saxe, the attorney for the applicant, stated that the project meets all
City requirements. He discussed the access and the visual aspects. He
commented that this subdivision has been studied, designed, and redesigned
:.�.,� ;:.;;::,:•,,:; .., in a way to accommodate every concern that was raised.
Bob Granum, 20421 Tricia Way, addressed the Commission, stating that the
proposal does not address good solid consistent planning principles. He
commented that he feels this is not the only alternative plan and does not
eliminate the temporary easement that exists in front of his home. Mr.
Gramm indicated that the City street is on 9 feet of his property, and it
was always intended to be removed. He stated that Lot a2 backs up into his
front yard, into his neighbor's front yard, and is viewed by the people on
Tricia Way. Mr. Granum stated that he did not know of any instance where
a hack yard is contiguous to the front yard of another home in Saratoga.' He
submitted an alternative plan, which (1) eliminated the temporary cul -de -sac
and temporary easement; (2) adheres to the findings of the Commission and
City Council; and (3) eliminates the poor principle of having rear yards
face front yards.
Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Monia
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Staff commented that, while it is true that it is not common practice to have
•i• .�t; -r•R•• -
Planning Commission Meeting Page 4
Minutes 9/23/81
SD -1505 (cont.)
rear yards adjacent to side or front yards, it would not be unique in
Saratoga; there are other such situations.
Commissioner King stated that, while the Commission has heard a great deal
from the neighbors about their concern with traffic, he feels that the origi-
nal proposal for 10 lots as an extension of'Tricia Way was far superior to
the current one. He added that good planning says that this is a less safe
.alternative to the original proposal. Commissioner King stated that he
believes that if the subdivision were conditioned for single -story struc-
tures it would eliminate a lot of the concerns of the neighbors expressed
in many hours of testimony, and that the traffic issue would be better served
by the original plan.
Commissioner Dlonia stated that he feels the current proposal is the best,
given the alternatives that have been studied. He added that he feels that
is the basic consensus that came out of the meetings with the developer, the
residents and the City Council. Commissioner blonia moved to approve the
Negative Declaration for SD -1505.
Commissioner Bolger commented that he has had a great deal of concerns
about this particular project. He noted that his original comments were
that he did not feel that the first proposal was consistent with the General
Plan and he was not in favor of the emergency access the way it was proposed.
He added that he has been concerned about the routing of the traffic out to
Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road; however, he feels if the traffic was routed back
out through Tricia Way, it would go down Regan and eventually end up on
'...;•r.`;- = >:a`:;_;:',�._.; Blauer. He stated that he has concluded that this proposal would generate
only around 120 vehicle trips per day qn a road that is probably generating
an excess of 20,000 vehicle trips per day; therefore, he would second the
motion to approve the Negative Declaration for SD -1S05.
Commissioner King commented that he did not feel it is the number of trips
per day that cause the hazard, because the number is quite small in either
case. He explained that he is troubled by the incidents of people turning and
stopping for turns at another intersection, as opposed to vehicle trips per
day.
Commissioner Bolger commented that he has taken that into account, and he
feels that primarily there will be vehicles turning to the right or coming
out and turning to the right, not cross traffic. He added that he feels
that since there is not going to be a traffic light at Blauer Drive at this
time, the original proposal would merely be impacting that unlighted inter-
section with more traffic that would be going across at a full intersection.
The vote was taken on the motion to approve the Negative Declaration for
SD -1505. There was a tie vote, since Commissioners King and Schaefer
dissented.
Commissioner Schaefer stated that she had voted against the motion because
she agrees with Commissioner King. She explained that, although CalTrans
has said they feel that it is potentially safe, she feels that having two
roads so close together is critically unsafe, particularly for pedestrians
and bicyclists. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she would like to see
a compromise on Tricia !lay with perhaps 8 homes, rather than creating little
pockets off,of Saratoga- Sunnyvalo.Road.
Tile Deputy City Attorney stated that, since there is a split vote, the matter
could be agendized at the next meeting, when there will be a full Commission.
Discussion followed, and Mr. Wilson, the applicant, stated that lie felt the
matter would end up at the City Council in any event, and he would like to
expedite the matter.
Commissioner Monia moved to deny the Negative Declaration for SD -1505,
because there was a deadlock and the applicant would like to move to the
City Council as soon as possible. Commissioner King seconded the motion,
which was carried unanimously.
- 4 -
0
. _:..; y °mss..: <: .... _ ...........
_1
Planning Commission Meeting Page 5
Minutes 9/23/81
SD -1505 (cont.)
Commissioner Monia moved to deny SD-1S0S. Commissioner King seconded the
motion, on the basis that the prior plan of the 10 -lot subdivision taking
access off of Tricia Way is the desirable solution. Commissioner Monia
commented that the purpose of making the motion to deny this subdivision
is to allow the applicant to have some expeditious means of resolving his
problem. The motion was carried unanimously.
S. A -782 Aaron Berman, Request for Design Review Approval to allow the
construction of a one -story single family dwelling over 22' in
height (32' -36' max.) on Via Tesoro, Lot #2
Staff described e current proposal.
The public heari was opened at 8:57 p.m.
Angelo Lieber, rep esenting the applicant, stated that the house they have
submitted is 21 ft. high and they are asking for a 14 ft. rise, which would
total 35 ft., not 41 \42 ft., as suggested in the Staff Report. Staff
clarified that they lb ave m0a sured the height of the proposed structure
from the approved fin shed floor of 404 to the top of roof, which would
make the structure 34 t. from natural grade or 39 ft. from finished grade.
Mr. Lieber stated that hey feel they have a problem with the interpreta-
tion of natural grade be ause the lot is unique, and the ordinance does
allow for the alleviatio when one has a nonvisible basement area. He
commented that they would like the tintprpretation of a nonvisible basement
addressed at this time. M�. Lieber indicated that Mr. Haas had represented
himself as the developer at\the previous hearing; however, Mr. Berman owned
the property at that time, " d he was not aware that the property was under
review. Therefore, he did n t have the opportunity to address the 2 ft.
request to drop the pad down o 404, which it is now. Mr. Lieber submitted
an exhibit showing this and stated that the house that Mr. Berman had
designed did not take this requirement into consideration at the time.
He explained that Mr. Berman has been promised an outstanding view of 360
degrees; he now does not have this. Mr. Lieber indicated that they have
submitted a new plan which has a 'reduced height in the structure itself;
secondly, they are asking that it'be raised so the applicant has a reasona-
ble view. He clarified that Mr. Berman bought the property from Mr. Haas,
and Mr. Haas was not under contract at the time of the previous hearing in
February to develop the property.
The Deputy City Attorney stated that \t is should be considered as a new
design review approval, and he did not feel that the situation involving
Mr. Haas was pertinent at the present time.
Commissioner King commented that the neighbors had previously been concerned
about the,height of this house, and now the,applicant is proposing to
raise it to a 443 elevation.
Mr. Weaver stated that another reason for tl\e,request to raise the pad is
because Mrs. Berman has a problem with her legs and cannot go upstairs.
Chuck Allen, aide to the applicant, clarified that Mr. Berman's plan does
not include a cellar, and the large void that exists there now because of
the cut will be backfilled.
Ron Mancuso, Chester Avenue, stated that he was confused, because he thought
the design had been worked out. fie commented that, looking at this plan,
the refill is going to he at a point as high or higher than the highest
point of the lot that exists nog:, and from that point-,it will be raised.
He expressed concern for himself and the homeowners im.that area regarding
the impact on privacy. He stated that he feels this design takes unfair
advantage of the privacy of the existing homes, and some, type of modifica-
tion should be considered.
Chuck Allen indicated that the landscaping
g plan has a IS ft. landseaned
I�
A-
�1
AGENDA
V. PUBLIC HEAPING - 8:00 p.m.
T
A. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION
DENIAL OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION
APPROVAL FOR TEN LOTS ON TRICIA
WAY (Applicant /appellant, David
S. Wilson)
7- 7/15/81
ACTION
The City Manager reviewed the appeal.
The Planning Director briefed the
Council on the subdivision, stating
that the principal issues were (1) nu
ber of lots on a cul -de -sac, (2) leng
of the cul -de -sac, and (3) number or'
location of two - stories. It was note,
that the Public Works Department had
indicated that the mose* logical and
safest way was to have access on Tric
Way; however, the neighbors were not
in favor of this access because of th,
increased traffic. The Planning Dire
for pointed out that the General Plan
as well as the Subdivision Ordinance,
indicates as a matter of policy that
there only be 15 lots on a cul -de -sac
unless there is an emergency access.
He added that this project does have
an emergency access provided in the
cul -de' -sac to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
which does meet that provision.
Discussion followed on the length of
the cul -de -sac and the possibility of
full access onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale
Road. The Public Works Director
stated that it has been an effort of
the City to minimize the number of
streets intersecting thoroughfare
streets, particularly streets such as
Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road which has a
heavy traffic volume. He explained
that to access this would require
U -turns at Blauer and Paramount and
creates an additional maneuver in a
traffic stream of heavy volume, ivtiich
adds to the hazards of the roadway.
The Planning Director discussed the
proposed soundwall, including land-
scaping, sound - proofing and the
appropriate setbacks.
The public hearing was opened at 8:20
p.m.
Bob Saxe, attorney representing the
appellant, stated that the engineer
was present tonight to explain how
the design of the adjacent Pinn
Brothers subdivision, which he pre-
pared, was done in such a way that
Tricia Way was intended to he the.
extension to serve this property. Mr.
Saxe quoted the Staff Report on this
project, which states that the project
complies with all objectives of the
General Plan and requirements of the
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. He
pointed out that this proposal speci-
fically provides for emergency access
I
8- 7 /1S /S1
AGENDA ACTION
and is consistent with the language
in the General Plan. He noted that,
regarding the length of the cul -de -sa
the Planning Commission had agreed
that it was not realistic to take
access directly onto Saratoga- Sunnyva
Road; therefore, he felt the finding
could be made that Tricia Way is the
only feasible access. Mr. Saxe dis-
cussed the traffic and pointed out
that the Public !Yorks Staff had state
that there would be no traffic impact
as a result of this project.
Dave Wilson, the appellant, discussed
the development of the project, stat-
ing that, after much time and study,
they had determined that the most
intelligent and well planned develop-
ment would be an extension of Tricia
Way. When questioned about alterna-
tives, he stated that if the Citv
makes the determination that Saratoga
Sunnyvale Road is a better access to
the property, they will investigate
that access. Mr. Wilson discussed
the proposed landscaping along Sara-
toga-Sunnyvale Road.
Mr. Richard Fier, engineer, described
the soundwall, including its location
and setbacks.
Thomas O'Donnell, the attorney repre-
senting the neighbors on Tricia Way,
showed a chart indicating the loca-
tion of the signators on the petition
which had previously been submitted
against the project. He explained
that his clients are not against the
development of the property, but arc
concerned about access and density.
Mr. O'Donnell stated that they would
like to see the access be right turns
onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, and if
the Council does not feel that to be
a satisfactory solution, then they
would like the number of homes to be
reduced to 6. He pointed out that
a right turn onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale
Road does not seem to be that dan-
gerous, and they are concerned with
the safety of the children.
Pat Carroll, resident of Tricia liay,
discussed the proposed access onto
Tricia, stressing concern that there
are 18 children in the 9 homes on
Tricia Way.
Ronald Pizaiali, 13123 Regan, stated
that he had not seen any other
alternatives from the developer, even
Z
AGENDA
f
�
9- 7/15/81
ACTION
though promised. He expressed con-
cern over tree removal, specifically
at the entrance point into the expan-
sion of the cul -de -sac. He added
that they were only asking for an ex-
tension of the current access to
Saratoga - Sunnyvale that already exists
My. Touns, 13035 Regan Lane, expressed
concern over the traffic and the
height of the houses. The Planning
Director explained that each home will
be going through design review.
Gil Troutman, 13070 Regan Lane,
commented that two -story homes would
completely block his view. He express
a desire for a stop sign on the corner
of Tricia Way and Regan and also on
Argonaut and Regan, in order to slow
down traffic. He indicated that he
felt a traffic light at Saratoga -
Sunnyvale would slow down traffic
sufficiently to make a safe access ont
that road from the new development.
Alan Kin„ 14690 Fieldstone Drive,
spoke to the fact that he believes th;o
the Planning Commission erred in this
decision, and he feels the project
does meet the intent of the General
Plan and the local zoning. He added
that he feels the Planning Commission
should have conditioned the develop-
ment for single -story homes, which
would be appropriate for the community
Bob Granum, Tricia Way, referenced
the petition with 72 signatures that
had been submitted, opposing this
development. He stated that he has
the right to preserve the well being
of his family and property value, and
when he purchased his home there was
clearly a temporary curve at the end
of the cul -de -sac. He noted that the
initial Staff Report had been changed
and it now says that an option does
exist. He stated that he had con-
tacted CalTrans, who said that an asses
can be provided on Saratoga - Sunnyvale
Road if a reasonable plan is presented
lie urged that this proposal be
referred hack to the Staff or develops
for alternative solutions.
Mr. Saxe again addressed the Council,
clarifying that construction traffic
on Tricia Way could be avoided by
constructing from Saratoga-Sunn \'Cale
Road up the existing driveway. lie also
commented that they are agreeable to
C
-AGENDA
10- 7/15/81
'L
ACTION
Ithe condition of one -story homes.
Mr. Kier explained that the sub-
division map for Pinn Brothers very
clearly shows the extension of Tricia
Way and also indicates a temporary
turnaround easement that was granted
to the City by the developer.
WATSON /MALLORY MOVED TO CLOSE THE
PUBLIC HEARING (S -0).
�CLEVENGER /JENSEN MOVED THAT THE
APPEAL FOR SD -1489 BE DENIED.
Councilmember Clevenger stated that
she felt 1S homes should be allowed
but no more. She added that she felt
the overall cumulative traffic impact
of a future development at Cunningham
Court should also be considered. She
stated that the access should be from
Tricia Way and not Saratoga- Sunnyvale
Road, and the issue is the number of
homes on the cul -de -sac. She would
approve this cul -de -sac if there were
only 6 homes on it and it would not
exceed the 1S homes that the City
advocates.
Councilmember Jensen concurred. She
expressed the desire for the access
to be moved to preserve the cluster of
fir trees. She also indicated that
she would like Staff to explore the
possibility of a stop sign at Argonaut
and Regan and Regan and Tricia Way.
Mayor Callon indicated that she did
not feel 10 homes would add much more
traffic than 6, but expressed concern
about the length and desilan of the
cul -de -sac. She suggested the possi-
bility of the developer either
reducing the number of homes and
shortening the cul -de -sac with access
onto Tricia, or open the access onto
Saratoga..Sunnyvale Road with the full
number of homes. She added that she
felt openings on Saratoga - Sunnyvale
are dangerous, but if there were just
10 homes, it may be possible.
The City Manager pointed out that
this is not a de novo hearing and the
issues to be considered at this time
are those that were presented to the
Commission. He explained that, while
the Council may express preference or
indicate its views with re -ard to the
project, it would be inappropriate to
condition the conclusions or findings.
It was clarified that the issue of
access is appropriate, but it would
C
AGENDA
C C
11- 7/I5/81
ACTION
not be appropriate to amend the
tentative map. However, the Council
can give the developer an indication
of the direction the}, feel he should
take.
Councilmember Watson stated that he
feels the significant issue is the
number of cars that would impact that
area; however, he is sensitive to the
fact that Mr. Wilson would like to
develop this in the most efficient an
effective way. He concurred that
there are alternatives that have not
been explored that can minimize the
impact to adjacent people, and, for
that reason, he would support a denia
of the application.
The Planning Director clarified the
fact that the developer could come
in with a new map with 10 homes that
had access only off of Saratoga -
Sunnyvale Road, provided that lie meet
all the necessary street standards
and was able to meet the lot widths.
Councilmember Mallory stated that
he would vote against the motion,
because he feels very strongly that
there should not be a permanent acce�
onto Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road with
the increased houses in this area. H
added that he thinks that the emergenc
access is proper on Saratoga- Sunnyval
and that Tricia Wav should be used fo
the full access. He explained that
the proposed development would main -
tain the basic character of Tricia.
He basically feels there is no reason
because of the emergency access, to
only have 15 homes in this area and
feels this proposal is a moderate one
The findings were discussed by the Ci
Attorney.
CLEVENGER /JF.NSEN .AMENDED THE MOTION
TO DENT THE APPEAL ON SD-1489 WITHOU'i
PREJUDICE, MAKING THE FINDING THAT
THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION DOES NOT MEI
THE TERMS OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANC
BECAUSE IT DOES REQUIRE A CUL -DE -SAC
IN EXCESS OF 400 FEET wiTHOUT SECON-
DARY ACCESS, AND THEY CANNOT MAKE
THE FINDING REQUIRED BY SECTION 13.
WHICH PROVIDES AN EXCEPTION TO THAT.
Passed 4 -1 (Mallory opposed).
Exhibit "A"
Q..
oO�Goo Qq°
o X000
ORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 9/16/81
Commission Meeting: 9/23/81
SD -1505 Wilson Development, Inc., Saratoga - Sunnyvale & Tricia
Way, Tentative Subdivision Approval - 10 lots
-------------------------------------------- - = - - --
The applicant proposes to subdivide a 4 acre site on Saratoga -
.e Rd in the R -1- 12,500 zoning district into 10 lots. The access
lots is proposed to be via a public road from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd.
iENTAL ASSESSMENT: Negative Declaration dated 8/27181 to be acted
to action on the project.
OTICING: The project has been advertised by posting publication in
paper & mailings to neighbors within 500 feet.
PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential
R -1 - 12,500
ING LAND USES: Commercial and Professional Administrative to the
:ad residential to the east, south & west.
± 4 acres
?E: 3.05%
Report to Planning Commission 9/16/81
SD -1505 Page 2
STAFF ANALYSIS: The previous application for the site (SD -1489) proposed
10 lots with access via an extension of Tricia Way and an emergency access
road to Saratoga - Sunnyvale. The City Council, on appeal of this proposal
made the finding that "the proposed subdivision does not meet the terms of
the Subdivision Ordinance because it does require a cul -de -sac in excess
of 400 feet without secondary access, and they cannot make the finding
required by section 13.34 which provides an exception to that." (minutes
attached)
The present application meets Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance criteria.
In discussion at the Planning Commission Committee of the Whole, some
Commissioners expressed concern as to whether creating an additional access
onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale would be a safe solution for -the subdivision's design.
With respect to circulation safety the General Plan states "Facilitate the
safe movement of vehicular traffic within and through the City; however.,
some inconvenience will be accepted where necessary to preserve residential
integrity." Staff has stated that the safest way to access the proposed.
subdivision is via an extension of Tricia Way. With this proposal the Tricia
Way temporary cul de sac is left as is, contiguous to the rear yard of one
proposed lot. Other concerns with the proposal are:
1. The noise generated by Saratoga - Sunnyvale traffic. A noise study was
done with the original proposal and staff is recommending the applicant
be conditioned to landscape and fence per the Noise Assessment Study.
2. The landscaping and pedestrian walkway along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road.
Staff recommends the applicant be conditioned to provide landscaping
in the right -of -way and landscape easement continuing from the adjacent
development. Additionally, for safety, the grade difference should be
minimized for access onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road.
3. Location of two -story homes. Staff recommendations include a condition
. for no two -story homes.
4. Trees. The site contains several significant trees, some of which.are
to be removed by;the proposed street and several of which may need to be
removed at the time of construction. Staff is recommending a condition
for Design Review Approval for all the homes which includes review
of any tree removals.
If the Commission finds the project as proposed, complies with all
objectives of the 1974 General Plan, they need to make the following
findings:
PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974
General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga.
The housing needs.of the region have been considered and have been balanced
against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and
environmental resources.
Report to Planning Commission 9/16/81
SD -1505 Page 3
A negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with County of
Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of
this project, if approved under this application. Said determination
date: August 27, 1981
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SD -1505
(Exhibit "B" filed August 20, 1981) subject to the following conditions:
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60,
including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or
parcel map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as
established by Ordinance in effect at the time of firral approval; sub-
mission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and compliance
with applicable Health Department requlations and applicable Flood Control
regulations and requirements of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby
made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site approval in no way
excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor
with any other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall
comply with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby required and
set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60.
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
A. Standard Engineering Conditions.
B. Street improvements on 45 ft. right -of -way to be 30 feet.
C. No direct access allowed onto Saratoga Sunnyvale Road from Lots 1, 8 -10.
No direct access allowed on Tricia Way from Lot 2.
D. Provide pedestrian walkway along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road at street grade
as required by Director of Community Development. Subject to additional
requirements of Planning Commission and /or Design Review.
E. Provide decorative wall or fencing, including tree planting within
lots along Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. Subject to additional require-
ments of Planning Commission and /or Design Review.
F. Landscape area between fence and highway. Subject to additional
requirements of Planning Commission and /or Design Review.
G. Construct storm line as per Master Drainage Plan and as directed
by the Director of Community Development.
ti
Report to Planning Commission 9/16/81
SD -1505 Page 4
III, SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional for:
1. Foundations, prior to issuance of building permits.
B. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing:
1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross sections, existing
and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities).
2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope outfall, location etc.)
3. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for
walls 3 feet or higher.
4. All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be removed.
5. Erosion control measures.
6. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using
record data, location map, north arrows, sheet nos., owner's
name, etc.
C. Bonds required for removal of existing structures including wells and
septic tanks.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT
A. Sanitary Sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with
requirements of Cupertino Sanitary District as outlined in letter
dated August 26, 1981
B. Annex to Cupertino Sanitary District prior to Final Approval.
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT
A. Extension of existing water system adjacent to site is required for
fire protection. Plans to show location of water mains and fire
hydrants.
B. Developer to install 1 hydrant that meets Saratoga Fire District's
specifications. Hydrant to be installed prior to issuance of
building permits.
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and
connected by the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers of
the Cupertino Sanitary'District. Prior to final approval, an adequate
bond shall be posted with said district to assure completion of
sewers as planned.
B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works.
Report to Planning Commission / 9/16/81
SD -1505 Page 5
C. Existing septic tank to be pumped and backfilled to County Standards.
A $1,000.00 bond to be posted to insure completion of work.
D. Seal well in accordance with County Standards. A $300.00 bond to
be posted to insure completion of work.
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the
location and intended use of any existing wells to the Santa Clara
Valley Water District for review and certification.
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of
permits. The residences shall be built in accordance with the
recommendations of the Noise Assessment Study dated April 8, 1981 on
the project.
B. No two -story residences shall be constructed on any of the lots.
C. Individual structures shall be reviewed during Design Review to
evaluate the potential for solar accessibility. The developer shall
provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating
or cooling opportunities on /in the subdivision /building site.
D. Applicant shall landscape all portions of the public right -of -way and
the landscape easement that are to remain unimproved. Landscaping
(including fencing) and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission for design review and approval prior to Final
Map Approval. Landscaping and irrigation improvements shall be in-
stalled and established within 90 days of completion of the right -of-
way improvements. Fencing shall be in accordance with the recommenda-
tions of the Noise Assessment Study dated April 8, 1981, and the
stated alternatives.
E. The applicant shall enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with
the City for those landscaped areas within the public right -of -way and
easements. The applicant shall maintain these landscaped areas for a
minimum of one year after which the homeowners association shall be
responsible for maintaining the landscaped areas.
I
Report to Planning Commission
SD -1505
9/16/81
Page 6
F. All individual lot owners shall be required to become members of a
homeowners association for the express purpose of maintaining all
landscaped areas within the public right -of -way and easements. The
C, C, & R's of the homeowners association shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department, prior to final map approval.
Approved:
Kathy K&dus,
Assistant Planner
P. C. Agenda: 9/23/81
KK:lt
w �
a
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes - 5/13/81
Page 8
E
V -546 (coat.)
North stated that the proposed construction enhances the house as it
now stands. lie
commented that the side yard clearance is very close
to what leas been granted their
neighbor, and lie would like same
consideration.
Commissioner Zambetti moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Monia
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Bolger gave a report on the on -site visit, describing the
site. Ile indicated
that he did not feel the suggested options are
viable. Commissioner Zambetti added that the
options do not fit into•
the classic design of this home. He added that the applicant has
some
difficulty because he is a corner lot and is set back on the lot. There-
fore, there is
no other location for him to expand his garage as other
People in similar neighborhoods have done.
Commissioner Crowther commented
that the neighbor's house to the east does have
a similar setback to that
being proposed on the side yard.
Commissioner Bolger moved to grant V -S46, making the findings. Commis-
sioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
8a.- Negative Declaration - SD -1489 - Wilson Development
SD -1489 - lV" son Development, Tricia Way - 10 lots, Tentative Subdivision
_ roval
ssioner Laden abstained from the discussion and voting on this matter.
Staff described the
proposal, stating that several concerns have been
raised: (1) the noise that is
generated on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road.
A noise study was done with the
environmental documentation and it
recommends a 6 ft. high barrier along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
to be con-
tinued to the north on lot 6; and (2) access. The access was discussed.
Staff
explained that this would create 19 units on a cul -de -sac with
an emergency access road, and City policy has allowed only 1S lots on
a cul -de -sac
unless there is a secondary or emergency access way. Staff
noted that six neighbors have submitted
letters requesting that no addi-
tional access be allowed onto Tricia Way. They indicated that
an option
does exist to have public access from Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road instead
of
extending Tricia Way, and also limiting the numbers "of
units on a cul -de-
sac to 1S. The setbacks from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and the
• -. . "..
noise were
discussed. The public hearing was opened at 10:00
p.m.
Dick Kier, civil engineer, discussed the proposed subdivision, including
the access. He indicated
��- yx_.•�•,Y._;,
that they have submitted additional documents
on lot x6 to show the building nad area and the
setbacks. The sound wall
and emergency access were discussed.
Commissioner Schaefer explained that on the on -site visit the intent
seemed to be that i.t
_
was not particularly safe to have another road come
down onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
-
or very advisable, because of the
turnaround to go in the opposite direction there and because
--
station traffic. of the gas
Hal Ilamawi, 20432 Tricia Way, stated that he was very concerned about
the new development because
of safety as it relates to increasing density
and the use of Tricia hlav during any construction.
lie also indicated
that he would like the Commission to comply with the Citv policy regarding
the number of homes on a cul -de -sac without an emergency access.
William Gloege, 13109 Regan Lane, requested that the Commission continue
this matter, in
order to give them an opportunity to prepare their comments.
Staff suggested that it be continued
to a study session where the neigh -
hors and the engineer can discuss the
project, and it could then he
8 -
E
S!,_-
r •1
Planning Commission
Dtceting Minutes - 5/13/31
Page 9
SD -1439 (cont.)
returned to the Planning Commission's regular meeting, inhere a decision
could be made. It was determined that it should be scheduled for a
study session on Tuesday, June 2, 1931 at 7:00 p.m.
The Commission requested the neighbors to exnress their concerns now,
to allow the developer some time to prepare answers to the questions.
Mr. Gloege commented that he would not feel comfortable about going
beyond what they have submitted in writing at this point. It was
suggested that there be another on site visit arranged by the developer
and neighbors.
Mrs. Townsend, Regan Lane, stated that she has lived there for 21 years
and has watched deterioration take place. She stated that she was
concerned about two -story houses being built behind them, since it
mould block their view. She also expressed concern about the traffic
impact on Blauer and the noise level.
Staff was requested to do a traffic study on what the volume of traffic
on Blauer is now and what it might be with additional homes. The
intersection of Blauer was discussed. Staff indicated that there most
likely will be.a signal either at Blauer or Brandywine, but currently it
is being held in abeyance to gather further data.
•- aa�::, ":�:s.�:�iy.'� °•fir :rte �=�
It was directed that this item be continued to a study session on June 2,
1931 and the regular meeting of June 10, 1931.
9a. Negative Declaration - SD. 1490 - Park Saratoga Associates
9b. SDR -1490 - Park Saratoga A sociates, Prospect .avenue and Saratoga - Sunnyvale
Road - 3 Commer ial Lots (Re- division), Tentative Building
Site Approvnl
Staff described the current troposal, explaining that the three buildings
on the site would be separated evidently for tax purposes. They added
that all of the buildings are either under construction or they have
been completed. Staff noted hat the main concern has been by the Central
Fire District, and they have c nditioned the Staff Report. Staff com-
mented that there are three ad itional parking spaces on the second
parcel; therefore, tile)- could a d an additional 450 sq. ft. They explained
that the use permit would have o be modified to allow that.
The public hearing was opened at :3S p.m.
Commissioner Crowther stated that le would be strongly opposed to any
new construction on that site, and asked if the split could be conditional
on there being no new construction n an) of the lots. The Deputy City
Attorney stated that the condition s already there to the extent that it
is under a use permit and further c struction would require a modifica-
tion of the use permit.
Bob Pcdrick, reproscnting the applica t, stated that they were asking
for the rediyision to separate the tilt c lots for tax purposes. He
stated that he realised th;!t if one of the three lots is sold, a new
use permit would have to be granted to nll -)w the existing uses to con-
tinue.
It was noted that a letter from Dr. Smit had been received, and it had
')con explained to him that there would he no new huildings.
COm!!li5siO1let Za,ihctti moved to close the p blic hearing. Commissioner
Schaefer seconded the motion, which was ca -ied unanimously.
Commissioner Zamhctti moved to approve the Negative Declaration for
SD- 14911• Commissioner Schaefer `econded the motion, which was carried
9
1•
Planning Ccrm.ussion
I
Page 2 I
Ikoeting Minutes 6/10/81 g
SDR 1495 (cunt.)
COmrussioner
Bolger asked row e spring aryl ground water would impact the
pro-
ject. assistant Dir�ztor of �;alic Works Trinidad stated that the problem
would have to be dealt w-iti in she future, since it had not been identified
earlier. fie believed it wig: ^.t not impact the project.
Dennis Eccles, soils er1ci per f:r Terratech, explained that his main concern
was la.erinq the water level f.r excavation of the foundations. The soil was
suitable for construcrion, he felt, but Terratech did not have sufficient data
on the water level. f:e belie ;_�i the problEm might be solved by extending the
subdrain system, if :0-utrrinc proved it necessary to do so. In. response to
CxT,Ussioner Schaefe_,t- state_` that all drainage problems would be resolved.
COrmissioner King noted that t`-- newer members of the Commision were not familiar
with the case. COM[r ssicnar Zambetti then reviewed the history of the project.
He pointed out that i- t:a Ccrr_ssion did not ask for widening of the street,
no
non - conforming problem would tcist. Other houses in similar situations have
not been required to . -aK-e stro = improvements, underground utilities, or meet
setback requirements, v sayd, _-d the structure is a good one which would meet a
need in the Village. He e ,-:)re__ed concern that the project would not be built
because of the cost of i:_rov� -ents.
Cemmission-er Nbnia eti.ressed '• _s opinion that _-e e- -fisting non - conforming tuilding
was being used to ta.e a.=va nt� of the circua-stances by pe^ sitting a rcn- cenforni .g
use
to continue.
Planning Director not- that th�- non - conforming section of the ordinance should be
revised. In any case, however, the General Plan indicated the necessity for
increased
density in be a=ea _ question. Further, the fact that the Village
Merchants want increased foot ---affic inthe
area should be considered, he believed.
ZA%1BMI I /KING MOVED it GZ �„ B ?DLtiG SITE APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH EXHIBITS
ON
FILE A.ti•D S"AFF RE-= CA ED :/2, INCLUDING THE MITIGF:TION mEASURES OUTLINM IN
THE COIZUN REPORT Dr,-, D 5/ /Sl, aND THE TERRATECH R-EPOf2T A� [.?F,f D-K; THE FIVDMIGS
REQUIRED IN ACCO.RDPNCZ
::? -: T` :ALIFORNIA E1�VIF� i c TlI Q'Ik1LITY F:CT AID TI?F
PRQ7 =�1 Iz C�;._= cTE2Zr WITH rIHE GENERAL PLAN. Passed 4 -i
(tibnia opposed) .
ftniG epos d).
PUBLIC HEPRIC;GS .
i
2. r' SD 1489 - iilson DeveLczrenc, Tr -cia Way, 10 hats, Tentative Subdivision Approval";
Continuedd from May 13, 1981
!ari Negative DeclDration)
The biic hearing was open -d a_ 8;10 p.m.
Planning Director reviewed :.istrl of project. The main issues, he said, were
access and location of zwo- stor'_es.
Deputy City Attorney T 1pel ad s": that the Commission must decide whether the'
developer may exceed t - 15 -lot -dvisory limit placed by the General Plan on
cul-de -sacs, since sec_--idar: aca:ss can be provided.
In response to Commissi_+rrr Sul is question,AssistintPublic 11orks Director
explained that an emer-�.c_ �Zc is is closed to regular traffic; secondary access
can be op0 0 n to the DUt:_c. "- s7_ited that the Public Works 0.partment felt that
Tricia should be used ns u r_7or-access; that direct access onto Ilighway 85 would
_, -be undesirable because c=t. - t-:_fic volume there; and that the traffic would
not adversely ir. --oct ex_stin: ,vies.
Alb =rt J. Ruffo, 101 Pa='.; C -�a .r ?laza, San Jose, s:)oke as the attorney repre-
senting the hcmc- clmers =:, T_-c_= 1rd the adjacent street. 1!a stated that the
p
develoer was consider_-= u__nq i_ghtay 9 as access. 110 asked to see any
studies on the issue.
Dick. Kier, reorOSentinc _!,e w:.: per, stated that he concurred ,.•ith the staff
report's thlt 'ta.::crs v -fiich track up to the Saratoga- Sunny ^gale Ebad
17e restricted to one st1,;•. Me -IvOrecl access onto Tricia. Goinq farther
south to construct a r_.: "i »_..:. •� quire more grading, hoc said, aryl he =,hasized
that ter•unation of Tr:c.1 1`;:c
porary.
Planning Corrission
Page 3
"leeting Minutes 6/10/31
\\ SD 1139 (cont.)
Mr. Ruffo stated that if Tricia were extended, the distance of the cul -de -sac
would be at least doubled, to 800' or 8501. He asserted that the General Plan's
intent was to provide traffic safety, as well as emergency access. He also stated
that if the sole exit wtse on Highway 9 some problems might be created, but that
there were no significant problems in a similar situation at the Argonaut Shopping
Center. He noted that the neichbors object to two - stories on the east side of the
extension of Tricia; single- stories on High -,my 9 could be placed behind a wall
to buffer the noise. The neighbors ,.ould accept the project if it were limited to
15 lots, he felt, and sulmitted a petition signed by 72 persons to that effect.
He stated that cul -de -sacs in the area have nine lots at the frost.
Commissioner Schaefer questioned Mr. Ruffo's statement that there were no traffic
problems at Blauer and Brandywine, and Asst. Public Sdorks Director countered that
there were significant accident problems in that area,.primarily from left turns
being made onto the street.
Dave Wilson, president of Wilson Developers, stated his belief that the project
complied with the General Plan and all ordinances if served from Tricia Way.
Caltrans would need to approve if Highway 9 were selected; then an exception from the
subdivision ordinance would have to be granted because at least one lot with streets
on three sides would thereby be created.
Pat Carroll, 20418 Tricia Wav, said that District Engineer Ken Berner from Caltrans
had claimed no jurisdiction when asked about the situation and had said that
Caltrans would probably grant access through Highway 9 if a reasonable plan were
surutted.
Bob Branham, Tricia hay, asserted that the graff repo -t says no option for access
through Highway 9 on aright- turn-only basis e::ists. He said that similar ex& -oles
do exist in the City. He asked whether there had been a finding that no alter-native
means of developing the property existed. Cormissioner Schaefer explained that the
Commission has explored all options in spite of the statement in the staff report and
C had made every effort to obtain public input. Planning Director pointed out that the
Planning Co-mission was to make a decision on that mutter tonight; if they cannot make
the finding, they must adhere to the 400' length requirement. Mr. Branham stated he
would like to see the subdivision ordinance upheld.
Ronald J. Piziali, 13123 Regan Lune, stated that there was already a development
having homes with streets on three sides; the proposed development would result in
a cul -de -sac of odd shapes and excessive number of lots.
Bill Gloege,13109 Regan, asserted that the main issue was the impact on the City
and residents of the development..,Ebmmissioner Schaefer noted that one may hear
different issues covered in different public hearings.
:ti.rabeau 'Ibwns, 13035 Regan, spoke against multi -story hones because of the
resulting loss of view.
Gil Troutiran, 13070 Regan, spoke in favor of access onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road,
saying that any problems would be mitigated by installing a traffic light.
4bodv Watlee, a realtor, stated that Saratoga needed more louses and that owners
should be able to develop their. property.
Mrs. Mirabeau Towns, 13035 Pcgan, stated that she objected to the traffic problems
on the corner and did not ...ant second -story homes.
KI:•G /Pl3IZ ^R :'-.OV D 10 CLGSE 71!E PUBLIC I RIi -:C T 9:00. Passed 5 -0.
Commissioner :Mania asked the correct way of measuring the long th of the cul-de-sac.
Asst. Public :,brks Director replied that it ...ould be measures fray the intersection
with Rogan, center to center. Commissioner bbnia stated that it .,ould then t»
460' to 475'.
Ca- luSSioners then discussed their individual opinions. Bolger stated that the
ai,ergcnc., access on lot, 6 and 7 , ;as i,.ot sufficient to protect the access. He felt
trot access on S.iratorla- Sunm.vale Rrkid ':.ould not be prudent. Za,:.betti spo";e for
exterdinq Tricia to allow more traff4c dispersal. Kinq believed proper access was
through 1Yicia; he felt corX ?itionincl single stor; tares should be consi,�ered.
�bnia felt tF.c 1%1Qt i_7'dt should r acihercri to, with access from Saratoga- Sunr.vale
F1»cl• Schaefer bel _vL�d Tricia shoulc:, the access, with no tho- stories alle.:cd a:ri
with re(2uct;cn in t`)�- .., Iy�r of lots. mania wis al to allcv a total of � ,
1
Planninq Camussion Pa e 4
Dk�:ting 'Linutes 6/10/81 g
SD 1489 (cont.)
fifteen homes, which would not require emergency access. Ydnq did not object to
19 lots; he felt it important to prevent emergency access from boceming secondary
access. Zambetti felt 19 lots were acceptable but objected to t,,o -story homes and
w3ntod emergency access from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Bolger felt 15 lots were
acceptable but also objected to two -story homes. Schaefer favored 17 lots to
avoid having odd- shaped lots and excessive lots on the cul -de -sac.
Planning Director explained that the developer would not need to pay more fees if
the application were denied without prejudice and he wished to bring the same plan
back with a reduced number of lots. The developer may also appeal a denial.
BOLGEl"'•ONIA MOVED DENIAL OF SD 1489 FOR TEN UNITS WITIIOUP PREJUDICE. Passed 3 -2
(Zambetti, King opposed).
Commissioner Schaefer summarized Camrission's consensus as calling for single -story
hares only, with access from Tricia. King felt there might be a canprcmise in re-
moving emergency access if the proposed number of lots were reduced. Zambetti
suggested a compromise of 17 lots with emergency access required to prevent further
development.
3. UP 497 - Roger Lee, 20899 Maureen way, st for a Use Permit to allot. a cabana
over 6' high (11'6" maximum) to be located the required rear yard
Planning Director reviewed staff report. Th public hearing was opened at 9:50 p.m.
Commissioner Bolger asked if the cabana were t feasible on the north end because
of the sewer hookup. Asst. Planner Lester s ted that the sewer hookup had not
been a consideration; she had left the cabana ;here proposed because of the lack of
impact on surrounding area; there is an adjacent structure on the north end.
Mr. Lee, the applicant, explained that there w4 only one place for a sewer hookup.
The public hearing was closed at 9:55 p.m. `
ZA- MB=I /1 :ING 14OVED TO APPROVE UP 497 IN ACCORDAIJC�- WITH STAFF REPORT DATED 5/29/81
MID EXHIBITS B AND C WITH CO
r
:ZITIONS 1 (a) and (b) \ Passed 5 -0.
4. UP 498 - Donald Lightbody, 13522 Debbie Lane, Request for a Use Permit to Allow
the construction of an 8' hiqh sound :,all in the required rear yard
Assistant Planner Flores reviewed the staff report and submitted brochures picturing
the fence type.
Commissioner Schaefer noted that the advertising brochure had nothing to do with the
Saratoga City Code, contrary to a statement in the brochure. The public hearing
was opened at 9:57.
Donald Lightbody, the applicant, explained that the density of the concrete proposed
for the wall qualified it for sound reduction. Mrs. Lightbody stated her desire to
live in the area and asserted that trees would cover the wall.
1
The public hearing was closed.
1
KIIr,/ZFi B=I vOIED TO APPRME APPLIQITION, MAKING T1IE FINDINGS OF THE STAFF REPORT
DATED 6/3/81, WIT1EXHIBITS B AND C. Passed 5 -0.
1
5. A 770 - B. Kelly, Live Oak Lane, Request for Design Review Approval for a One -Story
single- family dwelling that would 1-- over 22' in height (27' max.) on a lot with
an avera %ae slc :� of less than 103 in the R- 1- 40,000 zoninr• district
Planning Director revie:•md staff r- port, including letters from the Lonchars,
Careys , and Shapiros opposing the application. The public heari g was orencd
v
at 9:55.
John Berg, 14355 Baranqa, stoke in orpo,ition to the application, 4tatirh; tlot he
had not received proper notice of the public hearing. 1!e felt the proposed struc-
ture would not be consistent with the area of lance lots and low h0fk -s ark-1 that the
Proposed grading would raise the structure too hirh.
i
George Lunch -,, 14775 Fruitvale, spoke ac;ainst the application, sayi .; that the
grade level has 3' to 4' above the existing grade, both for the structure and far
the tennis court.
1I
r �
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 5/8/81
Commission Meeting: 5/13/81
SUBJECT' SD -1489 Butler and Wilson, Inc. Saratoga - Sunnyvale and
Tricia Way, Tentative Subdivision Approval -
----------------- - - - -19 1Qt3 - --
-------------------------------------------
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
district
of Tricia
Sunnyvale
The applicant proposes
on Saratoga - Sunnyvale
into 10 lots. The lots are shown t
Way with a gated emergency access
Road.
to subdivide a 4 acre site
Road in the R -1- 12,500 zoning
o take access from an extension
road connection to Saratoga-
The site has a slope of 3.05%. Numerous large trees (oaks, peppers, firs
and redwoods) exist on the site, some of which are to be removed with the
extension of Tricia Way. The two residences and accessory structures are
also to be removed with the subdivision.
Several concerns have been raised with the proposed subdivision.
Since the site is located on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, a noise study was
required with the environmental information. The recommended mitigation
measures include a 6' high barrier wall along Saratoga- Sunnyvale and a
wall, to be continued at the same height along the northern border of Lot
6. (The second study specifies 8' but the intent was a continuous fence
height per a conversation with Mr. Pack on May 7, 1981.) Additionally,
Mr. Pack's report specifies 6' high walls along the emergency access
road, however the alternative of an air - impervious gate for the emergency
access road would also satisfy the condition (5/7/81). The fencing is
conditioned for Design Review Approval prior to Final Map Approval. Any
fencing over 6' in height on Lot 6 requires a Use Permit.
A second concern is access. The proposal would create 19 writs on a
cul -de -sac with an emergency access to Saratoga - Sunnyvale. The Subdivi-
sion Ordinance states:
"Not as a mandate, but as a statement of future policy on all
matters concerning the design and improvement of site and
subdivisions the following shall generally not be approved:
C. Cul -de -sac, dead -end, or other streets not having a
means of secondary access, where such street services
more than fifteen lots or building sites."
Report to Planning Co sion
SD -1489
The General Plan states:
"For safety, every new or developing residential area in the
City with more than 15 housing units should have a primary
and secondary (or emergency) access."
i
5/8/80
Page 2
Since the cul -de -sac exceeds 400' in length, the Subdivision Ordinance
also requires a finding that is "the only feasible method of developing
the property ". An option does not exist with this proposal to create
public access and limiting the number of units on a cul -de -sac, however
good traffic engineering would minimize the number of intersections on a
high volume roadway.
Finally, at the Committee -of- the -Whole and on site inspection, the
Commission expressed concern about the landscaping along Saratoga - Sunnyvale
Road and the transition of the pathway at the northeast corner of the
project. The applicant's engineer has submitted a blow -up of their
proposed transition and a letter in response to these concerns.
PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974
General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga.
The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced
against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and
environmental resources.
A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the County of
Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this
project, if approved under this application. Said determination date:
April 10, 1981.
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SD -1489
(Exhibit "B" filed March 10, 1981) subject to the following conditions:
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60,
including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or
parcel map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as
established by Ordinance in effect at the time of final approval; sub-
mission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and compliance
with applicable Health Department regulations and applicable Flood Control
regulations and requirements of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby
made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site approval in no
way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor
with any other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall
comply with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby required and
set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60.
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
A. Standard Engineering Conditions.
:II.
L 1
Report to Planning C sion 5/8/81
SD -1489
Page 3
B. Street improvements on 50 ft. right -of -way to be 33 feet.
C. No direct access allowed onto Saratoga Sunnyvale Road from Lots 6 - 10.
D. Construct Emergency Access Road to conform to minimum access road
standards.
E. Provide pedestrian walkway along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. Subject
to additional requirements of Planning Commission and /or Design Review.
F. Provide decorative wall or fencing, including tree planting within
lots along Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. Subject to additional require-
ments of Planning Commission and /or Design Review.
G. Landscape area between fence and highway. Subject to additional
requirements of Planning Commission and /or Design Review.
H. Construct storm line as per Master Drainage Plan and as directed by
the Director of Public Works.
I. Remove the existing temporary turn around on Tricia Way and construct
standard street section.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional for:
1. Foundations, prior to issuance of building permits.
B. Detailed on -site impeovement plans showing:
1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross - sections, existing
and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities).
2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope outfall, location, etc.)
3. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for
walls 3 feet or higher.
4. All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be removed.
5. Erosion control measures.
6. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using
record data, location map, north arrown, sheet nos., owner's
name, etc.
C. Bonds required for removal of existing structures including wells and
septic tanks.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT
A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with
1�
Report to Planning Co. i-ssion 5/8/81
SD -1489 Page 4
requirements of Cupertino Sanitary District as outlined in letter
dated March 19, 1981.
B. Annex to Cupertino Sanitary District prior to Final Approval.
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT
A. Extension of existing water system adjacent to site is required for
fire protection. Plans to show location of water mains and fire
hydrants.
B. Developer to install 1 hydrant that meets Saratoga Fire District's
specifications. Hydrant to be installed prior to issuance of
building permits.
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and
connected by the developer to one of the existing trunk sewerw of the
Cupertino Sanitary District. Prior to final approval, an adequate
bond shall be posted with said district to assure completion of
sewers as planned.
B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works.
C. Existing septic tank to be pumped and backfilled to County Standards.
A $400.00 bond to be posted to insure completion of work.
D. Seal well in accordance with County Standards: A $300.00 bond to
be posted to insure completion of work.
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the
location and intended use of any existing wells to the Santa Clara
Valley Water District for review and certification.
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of
permits. The residences shall be built in accordance with the
recommendations of the Noise Assessment Study dated April 8, 1981 on
the project.
B. No two -story residences shall be constructed on Lots 6 - 10.
C. Individual structures shall be reviewed during Design Review to
evaluate the potential for solar accessibility. The developer shall
provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating
or cooling opportunities on /in the subdivision /building site.
J
Report to Planning Col ssion 5/8/81
SD -1479 Page 5'
D. Applicant shall landscape all portions of the public right -of -way and
the landscape easement that are to remain unimproved. Landscaping
(including fencing) and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission for design review and approval prior to Final
Map Approval. Landscaping and irrigation improvements shall be in-
stalled and established within 90 days of completion of the right -of-
way improvements. Fencing shall be in accordance with the recommenda-
tions of the Noise Assessment Study dated April 8, 1981, and the
stated alternatives.
E. The applicant shall enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with
the City for those landscaped areas within the public right -of -way and
easements. The applicant shall maintain these landscaped areas for a
minimum of one year after which the homeowners association shall be
responsible for maintaingin the landscaped areas.
F. All individual lot owners shall be required to become members of a
homeowners association for the express purpose of maintaining all
landscaped areas within the public right -of -way and easements. The
C, C, & R's of the homeowners association shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department, prior to final map approval.
Approved: .
KaXhy r d s, Assistant Planner
KK /clh
P. C. Agenda: 5/13/81
To: Members of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga
Subject: Wilson Development Proposal SDR 1531
An item raised in the Planning Commission meeting of January 12, 1983
requires clarification. It is, in fact, the issue which is creating
most if not all the concern on the part of the residents of Saratoga.
The original (Pinn Brothers) plan for development of Tricia Way included
provisions to future access one other property, the Olson property.
Wilson Development has in fact acquired two properties, which they have
combined in their proposed development; the development of the two
combined properties increases the density of housing accessed by Tricia
Way beyond a reasonable level.
On January 12, Mr. Wilson stated that the Pinn Development plan intended
to access both properties via Tricia Way. This is not so. A feasibility_
study performed by Pinn Brothers considered among other things, access
to both properties, but their final plan concluded that the second
property would continue to be accessed from Sunnyvale- Saratoga - while
the Olson property would be accessed from Tricia Way.
By complying with the intent of the original plan, I believe a reasonable
development can be designed that would be acceptable to the residents,
and consistent with the area.
Accessing one additional home via Tricia Way would make Tricia Way
consistent with the sister development, Cunningham Way (10 homes
each)
' Accessinq two additional homes may be most site efficient, perhaps
a total density of ten homes could be provided on the site.
Patrick J. Carroll
U
1 c A v -iA y
V/ y/ g 3
1 In 1
I'll
JA
All�
PET !7 1 ON
TO uhf"'; CITY OF S11RATOGZA
P-*.:%NNiTNG C'OM'MISSION
CITY COUNCIL
i-`NDERSIGNED, being homeowners and resident.,; or.
Nav, Lane and g,-.-merally in the, area in e
-)f real Property situated adjacent to FIiqhwav
to ':,,e developed 1.)y Ivilson Devciopmc,11-
C10 an,, plan whicli-, pg,---i' of: t
-ots a S111j.;C11%li Sion OF sai--' propert\ to have access hy mc ans
OZ:
N.7-, 1, 1,-
I I Axk-
4Z a
Cj
;i D E S 3
/0
13A�2
7!FZ
/Z 1�6 1-64
11 -7
P I T I`t'I ON
3 THE \C- I T Y OF S i . 1 T, T C,, C,'. F,
I;IE UTNDERSIC,-NED, neinq i-,orricownors and resiGents on
7.' 7 . .
,.a\ , Rcc,:an Lar,--:_' ai:i, d in tj-jo. arc-t 2-11 pro:i
m,
.,
t C.)
parcci. Of real prope-rt.%, si'-.ua-'Cci cidjacert to jjichway 9 a n cl;
',:-Iv, PrOlPose,_1 to be dev•-A.OPCCl D 0 31 1 )0 0 1
d-o he 1:F''." op-,-Ios(, ne=m—its all Of t,,-,-
1 C', t s r,l subc `,.'1510:1 01 Said , iDropc-r ty t c. have access by s
�%'Ay.
71 b J%i. !,
125 a
J 36
DDRESS
u
I (JVv
�.q Lt
�11461 k.
PETI,i,-, oN,
TO 'L , I- ':, L ,
I . ITY OF SARATOGA
PT ,ANNING '701'1`1ISSION
C-Ty COUNCIL
-;,*r.'i', UNDERSIGNED, being homeowners and residents on -_.-icia
1%7, y, R,--Tan Lane and generally in the area in proximity to t.,-.-
parcel of real property situated adjacent to Highway 9 and
Tlcicia ';ay, proposed to be developed by -V1ilSc,n Development
,.ompar.y.- do hereby oppose an}, plan which permits a';L1 of t--I-.e
lots in a subdiv-ision of said property to have access
TricIa 1-v7o 17
N A ,,! 7
I LL4- f
F S S
/312,3, Aytj L, A J
f
o
C
-SLY
/-24 1 /3//,
f /SZ 13 LI Y
_P
Alb-
/ t F3 / 31-7,S-
O�
77
!iOin,
ti
t2A!-4 C L
PETI".'10LN
THE -.CITY OF S,�IRATOGA
P:,AN'NING Co"IMT S SION
CITY C C, U,,,-, C I L
1:1: --.
- — UNDE!-tSIGNED, IDein,-.f homeowners and residents on Tricia
�.ay, Tj,(,-yan Lane and qinerally in the area in proximity to :.he
!-arce-' of real :rop�rt-y situat,�d adjacent to Hi-ahwa-v 9 anL
T
;.rici--. 'Vlay, prc-�osed to 1:)0. de-volopec, by j.,,ilsojj -evelopmen-c
11ej:0J'-)y Oppose any plan whicii
1 c t s, -'n a subc': ivis-Lo,-, of said proper t,
Of Tric-1-a
M 'o , A, 7
7
DDRESS
2-170
la-
co .
v�
PETITION
TO THE CITY OF SARATOGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COU '-17
THE UNDERSIGNED, being homieowners and residents on Tricia
Way, Regan Lane and generally in the area in proxin;ity to the
Parcel of real property situated adjacent to Highway 9 and
^riciFi ay, proposed to be developed by Wilson Development
Company, do her oppose any plan which permits all of the
lots in a subdivision of said Property to t,ave access by r :leans
of Tricia WAy.
N A M L
A D D I: E S S
ZI J7
i
.f sAR�
REPORT
TO MAYOR AND
CI'T'Y COUNCIL
DATE: 4-27 -83
COUNCIL MEETING: 5 - 4 - 8 3
SUBJECT SDR -1531, David Wilson, Tricia Way
At your April 6th meeting you continued the public hearing on the
subject SDR to May 4th and voted to reconsider two previously
denied maps on the same area. You will also be reviewing two
maps which are before you in an informal manner. Therefore you
will be reviewing five separate development scenarios at the
May 4th meeting.
There is a great deal of history and interest in this property,
and I would like to restate Staff's position on its development.
Staff has always maintained that access to the site should be via
Tricia Way.. Further, given an emergency access, the number of
lots being in excess of fifteen is mitigated.
Staff still recommends that access to the entire property be on
Tricia Way and that there be an emergency access between the
cul -de -sac and Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road.
RSS:cd
Rob e S hook
Director of Community Development
a
A
4- 4/6/83
Council discussed issues, including why the Planning Commission denied
application; which Commissioners had been present and voting; the impact
of reducing the pitch to 8 /1Z thus lowering the house 2 or 3 feet;
the possibility of referring the matter back to the Planning Commission; and
the lack of impact of removing the greenhouse.
MOYLES /FANELLI MOVED TO GRANT THE APPEAL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE
PITCH OF THE ROOF BE REDUCED TO 8/12, AND MAKING THE APPROPRIATE FINDINGS.
Passed 5 -0.
Councilmenber Mallory commented that he voted for the notion because of the
reduced bulk of the structure.
C. Rezoning from R -1- 40,000 to HCRD of a portion of a 7.4 acre parcel
(APN 517- 22 -77) at terminus of Madrone Hill Rd. and consideration of
zoning 3 parcels (approx. 16 acres) (APN 517-- 23 -35, 36, 37) partially
as R- 1- 40,000 and partially as HCRD, to be annexed to the City
(which parcels are ajacent to and south of the abovementioned parcels
and on the west side of Peach Hill Rd. in Santa Clara County), and
the associated Negative Declaration (Applicant, J. DiManto, C -200)
Assistant Planner Flores stated that the General Plan would have to be
adopted before this matter could be considered. Bill Heiss rose to point
out that a letter requesting waiver of fees had been submitted.
CONSENSUS TO CONTINUE TO 5/4.
VI. BIDS AND CONTRACT'S - None.
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Resolution No. 1099.14increasing appropriations and amending the
1982 -83 fiscal year budget for City Manager salary and benefits.
B. Consideration of Claim - E. Suden on behalf of P. Anderson
C. Consideration of Claim - Mr. and Mrs. R. Block.
D. Herriman Avenue Pedestrian Study
E. Approval of Warrant List
CLEVENGER/MALLORY MOVED ADOPTION OF ITEMS A- E, INCLUDING DENIAL OF ITEMS
B AND C AS RECOMMENDED. Passed 5 -0.
VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
A. MAYOR
1. Resolution concerning Cancer Awareness Week
M UMRY /FANELLI MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2050. Passed 5 -0.
2. Discussion of Tricia Way Proposed Map
CouncilTreviber Fanelli excused herself., since she is an employee of the appli-
cant, and did not narticipate in any way. City Manager explained that the
applicant wished to submit a revised tentative map.
Albert J. Ruffo, an attorney representing neighbors on Tricia Way and the
adjoining street, stated that they felt the revision was a reasonable compromise.
He preferred a straighter curie -sac and requested that construction workers
not come in Tricia Way for transporting materials.
Mr. Wilson spoke as the applicant, stating that he had not agreed to straighten
the cul-de -sac. He reviewed the maps which had been suhmitted and stated that
a
5- 4/6/83
the neighbors with whom he had met preferred six lots with the first Profes-
sional Administrative map approved so that there would be residences behind
them. He stated that his own preference was for seven lots, six being resi-
dential and one being Professional Administrative.
City Attorney explained the options available to Council. Bob Saxe, another
attorney, pointed out that Council could also consider combining three lots
on one of the nine -lot maps, thus considering a seven -lot subdivision, at
the appeal hearing May 4.
CLEVENGER/MDYLES MDVED TO RECONSIDER THE TWO PREVIOUSLY -DENIED MAPS. Passed
3 -1 (Callon opposed, Fanelli abstaininq).
City Attorney explained that three maps would be before the Council formally,
and the two 6 -lot maps off Tricia would be before the Council informally.
He stated that Council could not take formal action on either of the maps
showing the Professional Administrative maps unless three lots could be
combined as Mr. Saxe had discussed. Further, he pointed out that if the
larger remnant parcel remained residential it would be subject to further
subdivision with access only by Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. Mr. Ruffo stated
he did not know whether the neighbors preferred that it remain residential
or be zoned Professional Administrative. City Manager co miented that he was
concerned about potential PA zoning; he clarified that the subdivision pro-
cess had nothing to do with any potential rezoning.
Mayor Callon then invited Mr. Doamaral, who had presented his request under
Oral Communications, to acme forward. Community Development Director explained
that the final site approval for SDR 1534 was routine and staff recommended
approval. In answer to Councilmember Mallory, he explained that the matter
had gone through normal site review with the Planning Commission.
MALLORY /CLEVENGER MDVED TO GIVE FINAL BUILDING SITE APPROVAL FOR SDR 1534.
Passed 5 -0.
B. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION REPORTS
Mallow - suggested assigning the responsibility for the Community Newsletter
to the City Manager; he believed that might be more acceptable to the residents.
Councilmember Fanelli reported that, as Council had directed, she was acceptinq
information from individuals who wished to be considered for newsletter editor.
After discussion as to various alternative methods of handling the newsletter,
there was consensus to discuss at the goals and priorities session.
Fanelli - reported that, partly because of concern over fire district con-
solidation, citizens had requested that a public safety citizens committee be
established. Consensus to discuss at the goals and nriorities session.
Councilmember Fanelli also suggested that the Council microphone system be
improved and a podium for public speakers be provided. City Manager directed to respond.
Clevenger - reported in response to Written Communication #4 that it was pre-
mature to place the Route 85 corridor on the ballot before the alternatives
analysis was complete. In. response to Written Communication #7, she reported
that CalTrans was to provide for purchase of anv threatened parcels.
Callon - urged that Council press for formation of a committee to keep the
Saratoga Fire District. Mayor Callon suggested that Councilmember Fanelli
could write the Board of Supervisors for the Council on the matter.
C. DEPARTMENT HEADS AND OFFICERS
1. Finance Director
a. Presentation of Final Financial Report 1982 -83
b. Presentation of Final Budget 1982 -83
Mayor Callon asked about the budget schedule, and it was decided that there
would be study sessions May 24 and June 7; a public hearing June 1; adoption
of the budget June 15.
o1 §&M& BOO C
r7 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
City CbanUi
March 9, 1983
Mr. Albert J. Ruffo
101 Park Center Plaza
San Jose, California
Dear Mr. Ruffo:
The City Council, at its.regular meeting of March 2, 1983, opened the public
hearing on the Wilson Development Carpany's appeal of Planning Commission
denial of SD 1531. At the request of the appellant, the City Council continued
the public hearing and set a date for consideration of the matter at a study
session.
i have been asked to inform you that the study session is set for April 26 and
the pontinued public hearing, for May 4. It would be appreciated if you would
notify those who you think would be interested in this matter.
Sincerely,
'I
Grad E. Cory
Deputy City Clerk
T•1,