HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-04-1982 CITY COUNCIL AGENDACITY OF SARATOaN
03 0 1 Initial:
AGEMA BILL NO. Dept. Hd.
DATE: August 4, 1982
C. Atty.
DEPART=: Community Development C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: Modification to Site Development Plan of Lot 13, Tract 65 1,
- - - -- Rancho Bella Vista - T. Lerone, and Amendment to CC$R's
Issue Summary
On July 14, 1982 the Planning Commission voted to recommend to the City
Council that the CC&R's of Tract 6531 be amended to allow a pool to be
located on Lot 13, with the condition that no trees are removed, and the.
caveat that no precedent will be set that other pools will be constructed
if there is any possibility of removal of oak trees. No trees are indicated
for removal with this proposal.
Recommendation
1. Review the attached materials and determine the merits of the request.
2. Approve or deny the request.
3. A public hearing is not required.
4. Staff recommended approval to the Planning Commission.
Fiscal Impacts
None noted.
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Applicant's letter dated 6/24/82
2. Letter from Nino Gallo Construction dated 6/16/82
3. Letter from Pool Service, Inc. dated 4/29/82
4. Staff Report dated 7/9/82
S. Exhibit "B -1"
6. Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes, Meeting of July 14, 1982
7. Resolution
8. Excerpt from CC&R's Tract 6531
Council Action
8/4: Mallory /Fanelli moved adoption of Res. 2004 approving modification with addition of
paragraph after two conditions as third condition. Passed 5 -0.
LI V k:�,U
20190 Rancho Bella Vista
Saratoga, California 95070 JUN 2.a 19U
408/741 -1298
PI'W"IT +�EViE�J
June 24, 1982
City of Saratoga
Planning Commission
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
RE: 20190 Rancho Bella Vista
Tract 6531, Lot #13
To Whom It May Concern:
Our family would like to request...your permission to install a natural
swimming pond in our back yard. 'We have had a landscape architect and a
pool design engineer develop-,a free -form shallow design which we feel would
blend ;perfectly with the natural setting of our yard. Also, a pool service
firm has recommended a pool sweep which has proven extremely effective in
dealing with leaves from nearby trees. Enclosed for your review are
renderings of the entire lot-including the proposed swimming pond and all
existing trees as well as a letter from the pool service company.
Since there is an existing restriction on our lot we have discussed these
plans with our neighbors and none had any objections. Enclosed for your
information is a letter from the major property owner in our development
requesting that permission be granted.
We have previously owned a large swimming pool with a spa, so are well
acquainted with the amount of care and maintenance required.
Please let me know if you require any additional information.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Lerone
TAL:mat
Enclosures
k'ECEIVED
JUN 2 J 1982
NI NO GALLO CONSTRUCTION PERMIT REVIEW
13165 VIA RANCHERO
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA
JUNE 16, 1982
City of Saratoga
13777 Frui tvale
Saratoga, California
Re: Tract 6531 - Lot #13
Gentlemen:
Mr. & Mrs. Tom Lerone have indicated to me that they would
like to install a free form shallow pool in their back yard. This
lot has an existing restriction prohibiting the installation of a
swimming pool. When this restriction was placed on the lot the
main consideration was possible' damage to existing trees and
vegetation on the property. On inspection of the yard and going
over the proposed plans, it is apparent that there is adequate open
space to accomodate the shallow pool without interfering with the
existing trees. Also, the owners plan to install a high quality
pool sweep that will more than take care of any leaves that might
normally accumulate from the surrounding trees.
It is my opinion that Mr. & Mrs. Lerone have put a lot of
time, money and effort to propose a pool that would definitely be
an asset to their home and neighborhood. I feel that this pool
would not interfer in anyway with the natural beauty of the yard
and would like to request that they be granted a permit for con-
struction.
Respectfully submitted
NI NO GALL O
NG /kb
HILL'S POOL SERVICE, INC. 0�3
SWIMMING POOL SERVICE, SUPPLIES AND REPAIRS
100 HEARST AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94131 - (415) 333.1762
23 EDWARDS CT. • BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 - (415) 342 -2484
April 29, 1982
rccC EIVE:D
JUN 2 J 1992
PERMIT REVIEW
Mrs. Chris Lerone
20190 Rancho Bella Vista
Saratoga, CA 95070
To Whom It May Concern:
After examining the tentative plans of the Lerone swimming
pond, we feel that the Polaris Vac Sweep would very adequately
solve any type of leaves and debris problems encountered.
The Polaris Vac Sweep travels submerged on the floor and walls
of the pool. It has a sweep hose and a self - contained "vacuum
system ". Its primary method is to vacuum the floor, and sweep
the wall surfaces. All debris sucked up is depssited into a
catch bag attached to the unit. The sweep hose also suspends
materials which are drawn into the circulation system. '
We have had a great deal of experience with this product in
similar environments and have found it quite successful. We
trust this information will be satisfactory. If you have any
further questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
`Gerald A. Hill
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 7/9/82
Commission Meeting: 7/14/82
SUBJECT- Tract 6531 Lot 13, (A -680) Rancho Bella Vista
Chris & Thomas Lerone
REQUEST: Recommendation of approval to the City Council to
amend CC & R's, and a site modification to allow.the construction
of a pool.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
PUBLIC NOTICING:
Categorical Exemption
This project does not require noticing
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
ZONING: R -1- 20,000
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Low Density Residential
Single family residential
STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant is proposing to place a pool on
their site. Since this lot has a recorded condition which prohibits
the installation of a pool, the CC & R's would need to be amended
which requires both approval from the City and 60% of the homeowners
within the Tract. The developer, Nino Gallo owns more than 60°s of
the lots within the tract and his letter enclosed.
This restriction was placed on this tract to preserve trees. No
trees will be removed with this proposal. The pool landscaping
plan indicates that sufficient area will be left between the pool
and the nearest trees so that they may be preserved.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve per Staff report dated July 9, 1982 and
Exhibit "B -1" subject to the following condition:
1. Box trees during construction located within 20 feet of any
grading.
APPROVED: Sf1Ct�
Sharon Lester
Planning Aide
SL /bc
•
I •
J
r
v
lk
Y
a
Jr
v l
R�
_1 r
✓^ � T 4
CLA
rq,tck4cb�a��f
E 1`� J•
Z
96��
,may
�tl A viyt
A,
E4 pd-fjj;PrW-57,0%
fl�>��lds� S�Jafp'$r
XD "0,376'U 6" M
,4c46 J�
�'s~EV 94.0
G
ffit !1
� IN
IN
Ilk
I
13 Tic►-
t- t �ssi �t rQ1t�
Eik i V4
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 7/14/82
UNAPPROVED
Chris and Thomas Lerone, 20190 Rancho. Bella Vista, Request for Amendment to
CC &R's and Site Modification to allow the construction of a Pool
Staff described the request, stating that no trees would be removed to
accommodate the pool. It was noted that the developer still owns the
balance of the subdivision and has given his approval for this amendment.
Commissioner Monia.stated that he would rather see the entire CC &R's
changed for the development for that area, provided it would still be the
same criteria, since the future owners would then have the equal process.
Staff stated that, because of the.nature of this particular wooded sub-
division, it would be appropriate to handle the changes on an individual
basis. It was noted that the removal of trees had been an important issue
during the previous.discussions of this subdivision; therefore, pools were
restricted in the CC &R's. Discussion followed regarding setting a precedent.
Nino Gallo, the developer, indicated that he had suggested this restriction
in the CC &R's to control removal of trees; however, in this case he feels
there is no damage to the trees and the pool is extremely shallow.
Commissioner King moved to recommend to the City Council the amendment of
the CC &R's regarding this site, to allow a pool, with the condition that no
trees are removed. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion.
Commissioner Bolger stated that he could vote for the motion if a caveat
could be attached saying that no precedent will be set that other pools
will be constructed if there is any possibility of removal of oak trees.
Commissioners King.and Monia accepted the amendment to the motion, which
was carried unanimously.
Commissioner King moved to recommend the site modification to the City Coun-
cil, per Exhibit "B -1" and the Staff Report dated July 9, 1982. Commissioner
Monia seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO MODIFICATION
OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
TRACT 6531
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga has previously approved an
application submitted by Thomas Lerone for approval of a Site
Development Plan, identified as SD -1341, pertaining to Lot 13
of Tract 6531; and
WHEREAS, approval of the Site Development Plan was conditioned
upon a restriction against the installation of swimming pools on
certain lots,within the subdivision, and further required such re-
strictions be rated
;., ..,. , , .;• °. .: , .. •....,,. striction nco p into the covenants, conditions and re-
strictions o ove
strictions for the subdivision, and prohibited any amendment to such
covenants, conditions and restrictions without the prior consent of
the City of Saratoga; and
WHEREAS, Thomas Lerone has.requested the City to modify the
Site Development Plan and•the covenants, conditions and restrictions
to allow the construction of a swimming pool on Lot No. 13, which is
presently one of the lots on which the construction of a swimming
pool is prohibited; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on July 14, 1982, the Planning
Commission of the City of Saratoga considered the request by Thomas
Lerone for modification to the Site Development Plan and consent by
the City to amendment of the covenants, conditions and restrictions
to permit the construction of a swimming pool on Lot No. 13, and
:.. the Planning Commission has recommended to the City Council that
such request be granted,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Saratoga that consent is hereby given for modification of SD -1341
and amendment to the covenants, conditions and restrictions filed
of record pertaining to Tract 6531, to permit the construction of
a swimming pool on Lot 13, as shown on Exhibit B -1 attached hereto
and made a part hereof, subject to the condition that prior to the
issuance of any building permits:
1. Box trees during construction located within 20' of
any grading.
1,
_;?KYy,•3- ar- �ts'.,7y,y�:s.. r i� - ..:`..? , - .. j,:t. L c. , ._:.
is ;� ... . -. ._. .. ..
O W,
2. No trees shall be removed during construction of pool.
'"Df A copy of the amendment to the covenants, conditions and re-
strictions for Tract 6531, permitting the construction of a swimming
pool on Lot 13, shall be furnished by Thomas Lerone to the Community
Development Department. The consent herein granted by the City of
Saratoga to such amendment shall not constitute a consent to any
further or other amendment to such covenants, conditions and re-
strictions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HELD ON THE 14th day of July, 1982,
by the following vote:
AYES:. Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, King, Monia and Schaefer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
City Clerk
W
Mayor
Excerpt from CC&R's
Tract 6531
(3) No artificially created slopes of earth
shall be maintained on any Lot on which the slope thereof
exceeds one foot of rise for each one and one -half feet of
lateral distance. Retaining walls may be utilized so long
as they are of adequate strength and attractive appearance
and are approved by the said Architectural Committee.
(4) No carports shall be constructed so that
their interiors are visible from the public street or the
adjacent lots.
(5) No television, shortwave or other aerials
shall be erected on anv structure or Lot except as approved
by the Arch. ctural Committee.
F. Sw.imming:Pools.
(1) No swimming pool may be constructed on
or in Lot 8, Lot 10, he ?,t 11, Lot. 12, Lot 13, Lot 14, Lot 1S
Lot 16 or Lot .17, it being understood that such construction ,
may damage or destroy existing trees and vegetation on said
Lots. The Architectural Committee shall. have no power or
authority to waive this' prohibition, said prohibition being
for the benefit of all Lot owners .and the City of Saratoga.
The foregoing notwithstanding, a spa havin a surface area
not to exceed 100 square .feet may be instayled upon any of
said Lots.provided the Architectural Committee shall have
first approved said construction.
(2) Swimming pools to be constructed on Lots
not described in subparagraph (1) above, are subject to
Staff design review to insure correct placement of the pool
with relation to trees.
G. Tem.orar,� Dwellings. No structures or build-
ings other than a conY�p eted resioence, designed as such,
shall be used or occupied as a dwelling place on any Lot in
Project. No tent, trailer or other temporary habitation is
to be used. No trailers max be stored or parked on any Lot
in this Project unless within a garage -or completely screened
from the view of the street and all surrounding property.
Ii. Siqns. No sign of any kind shall be displayed
to the public view on any Lot except one sign of not more
than five (5) square feet advertising said Lot for sale or
l:cnt, or signs used by a builder to advertise the property
during the construction and sales period.
I. Cara of Properties. All. vacant Lots in the
Project shall a-E--a1i -mes e ept free of rubbish and
Approval limit the Architectural Committee's right to place
greater restrictions on any improvements to be constructed;
provided, however, that all improvements shall first comply
with all restrictions placed on construction of improvements
by the Design Review Committee. Approval shall be as pro-
vided below.
(2) Two complete sets of plans for each
separate improvement shall be submitted by the Owner to the
Architectural Committee. Said Committee will return one
approved or corrected sets of plans to the Owner and shall
retain the second duplicate set of plans in a file which
shall be available to all Owners of Lots in the Project.
. (3) If said Committee fails to disapprove -
such plans and specifications within thirty (30) days after
receipt thereof, such plans and specifications will be
deemed to have been approved, but such approval shall be
conditional upon compliance with all other provisions of
this Declaration and all applicable ordinances.
H. Governmental Approval.. Design Review Approval
of all single-family awe Tings sial be required prior to
the issuance of a building permit. In the event that of
modification to the Site Development Plan shall be desired
approval by the Land Development Con'Tr.ittee shall be obtained.
IV MISCELLANEOUS
A. Subordination to Mortga3es and Deeds of Trust.
Nothi:ig container is eclara�oii -sfi7il impair or ren er
invalid the .lien of any mortgage or Deed of Tryst made in
good faith and for value, but title to any property-subject
to this Declaration obtained through sale in satisfaction of
any mortgage or Deed of Trust or otherwise shall hereafter
be held subject to all of terms and provisions hereof.
B. Terms of Restrictions. These covenants,
restrictions, and agreements are to run with the land and
shall continue in full force and effect until June 30, 1999,
at which date the same shall be automatically extended for
a Successive period of ten (10) years, unless a statement is
properly executed and recorded by the then Owners of fifty
percent (50`-0) or more of the Lots subject to this Declar-
ation electing to terminate or amend them in whole or in
part.
C. Richt to Modification. The undersiUned
further reserves o itself, ids successors and assigns in
the Project, the right from time to time to waive, release
MOM
i
CITY OF SAI:i1=�
AGENDA BILL NO. :303 Initial:
Dept. F3d.
DATE: August 4, 1982 C. Atty.
DEP1V,1n,=: Community Development C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: VILLAGE LIBRARY RENOVATION, Authorization for Advertising for Bids
Issue S=ary
The Plans and Specifications for the Village Library at the corner
of Saratoga -Los Gatos Road and Oak Street are complete. The work
includes the addition of shear panels to increase the earthquake
resistance of the building, termite repair work, and site work to
correct drainage problems. This is a 1981 -82 Budget carryover.pro-
ject to be funded through Revenue Sharing. The Engineer's Estimate
is $19,500.
Recommendation
1. _Approve the Plans and Specifications for work.to be done.
2. Authorize Community-Development Director to advertise for bids upon
direction from Council following discussion of.lease agredment.
Fiscal Imoacts
$19,500 - Revenue Sharing Fund
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Plot plan
2. Cost Estimate Summary
Council Action
8/4: Clevenger /Mallory moved to authorize adveritising forthwith and proceed with work.
Passed 4 -1 (Mallory opposed).
oAr E� i�rr
KArY
Zs .6. 1-
F,'CIJ(,o NAFI�,
A-&-
0,*, K,
O
12
sl
O
LL
oAr E� i�rr
KArY
Zs .6. 1-
F,'CIJ(,o NAFI�,
A-&-
0,*, K,
O
12
sl
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
VILLAGE LIBRARY RENOVATION
1. Shear Panels - 6 locations
2. Structural Pest Control.- Clark Termite
Control Report dated 4/25/82
3. Drainage Improvements
TOTAL
$4000.00
$4500.00
$11;.000.00
$19,500.00
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. ( Dept. Hd.
DATE: July 27, 1982
DEPARTMENT:. Administrative Services
SUBJECT: Donations for Saratoga Community Library
Issue Summary
C. Atty
C. Mgr.
The Council has requested to be able to review and accept all donations to the
Saratoga Community Library. Attached is a letter from Lois Thomas, Head Librarian,
outlining various gifts to the Saratoga Community Library from.the Friends of the
Saratoga Library and various individuals.
Recommendation
Accept donations to the Community Livrary as indicated on attachment, and request
letters of acknowledgement be sent.
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachments
Letter from Lois Thomas, Head Librarian
Council Action
8/4: Clevenger /Fanelli moved approval. Passed 5 -0.
County of Santa Clara
California
Mr. Wayne Dernetz
City Manager
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mr. Dernetz:
Saratoga Community Library
13650 Saratoga Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070 -5099
867 -6126 Area Code 408
July 12,1982
The Saratoga Library's Gift Committee recommends acceptance by the City Council
of the following items donated to the library during the first six months of 1982:
Donated by the Friends of the Saratoga Libraries, P. 0. Box 2642, Saratoga:
Date
Received Item $ Value
5/28/82 1 Brodart double- tiered index table in light oak, from 1,741.40
Bob Malloy & Associates, San Francisco
6/2/82 18 Buckstaff light oak stools, from Tony Dedier Co., 1,462.17
San Francisco
6/4/82 4 oak tables, to be used for the Com -Cats, constructed 598.00
by Jack Becker, Cupertino
The Friends have also supplied supporting funds as follows:
2/8/82 New tapes for the Automatic Telephone answering service 57.16
machine
2/8/82 Cash funds for miscellaneous needs, e.g. supplies and 100.00
and refreshments for children's programs; film for publicity
6/7/82 pictures; 2 easels; postage for Friends' letters soliciting 100.00
donations for magazine subscriptions; etc.
5/5/$2 Check for the purchase of puppets to be used in children's 300.00
programs
6/15/82 Fund for the purchase of paperback books to be used as 350.00
awards in the children's summer reading program
Various Friends' expenditures for new plants and for plant care 75.00
dates materials used in maintaining library plants
Friends' donations July 1, 1981 - June 30, 1982 TOTAL $7,-773--73
cont.
S An Equal Opportunity Employer
County of Santa Clara
California
Donated by the Over 491ers Trailer Club:
Saratoga Libraries
Members, Santa Clara County Library System
Saratoga Community Library Village Branch Library
13650 Saratoga Avenue 14410 Oak Street
Saratoga, California 95070 Saratoga, California 95070
(408) 867 -6126 (408) 867 -3893
3/8?_ Check for the purchase of Playschool picture puzzles for
young children
Donated by Congregation Beth -David Synagogue:
3/82 Check toward the cost of the children's program presented
by Marilyn Hirsh, author
Sincerely,
l�l�,c� L•l f�
Lois H. Thomas
Community Library Supervisor
TOTAL DONATIONS 7/1/81 - 6/30/82
An Equal Opportunity Employer
$ 50.00
35.00
$4,868.73
�I
r
CITY of sAizidi ) Q%
AGENDA BILL NO. 3Op2,
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
DATE: August 4, 1982 C. Atty.
DEPt�I IT: Community Development C. Mgr.
--------------------------------------- - - - - -- - - --
SD -1522 and Negative Declaration �Geral3 Buffer, - -lira �3ri e anT - --
SUBJECT: Montalvo Road, Request for Tentative Subdivision Approval - 6 lots)
Issue SL- -rmary
The applicant submitted a proposal for a six -lot subdivision to be located
off of the Lira Drive extension and Montalvo Road (the Arata property).
This application is similar to that approved by the Planning Commission in
1977 after they had denied without prejudice a proposal which involved the
"cul- de- sacing" of Lira Drive (SD- 1296). The original approval, SD -1296,
expired while the applicant was in court with a private lawsuit on this property.
The Planning Commission denied the Negative Declaration and the application,
finding the project inconsistent with the General Plan with respect to (1)
Montalvo traffic; (2) loss of the eucalyptus trees; (3) the Lira Drive Extension
(location, traffic, noise and potential maintenance); (4) drainage and (5)
density.
Recommendation
1. Review the attached materials and determine the merits of the project
and Negative Declaration.
2. Approve or deny the request, making the necessary findings. (See
attachement). If the project is to be approved the Negative Declaration
must first be adopted.
3. Staff recommended approval of the Negative Declaration and subdivision
per the Staff Report dated June'18, 1982 as amended.
Fiscal Imoacts
None known
Exhibits /Attachrr nts
1. Letters of Appeal
2. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 14, 1982 (unapproved)and June 23, 198
3. Negative Declaration and Staff Report dated June 18, 1982
4. Staff Report dated June 18, 1982 as amended
5. Tentative Map Exhibit "B -2"
6.- Minute_s,:of previous applications (SD -1296, SD -1358 and SD- 1418) *& related
7. Staff _ Report dated July 9, 1982* material
8. Correspondence received on project*
*See Agenda Bill for SD -1521
Council Action
8/4: Fanelli /Mallory moved approval of Negative Declaration. Passed 4 -1 (Moyles opposed).
Fanelli /Mallory moved approval of appeal with conditions. Passed 4 -1 (Moyles opposed).
I
FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL OR DENIAL
PER THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT
66473.5. No local agency shall approve a map unless the legislative
body shall find that the proposed subdivision, together with the pro-
visions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the general
plan required by Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3
of Division 1 of this title, or any specific plan adopted pursuant to
Article 8 (commencing with Section 65450) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of
this title.
A proposed subdivision shall be consistent with a general plan or a
specific plan only if the local agency has officially adopted such a plan
and the proposed subdivision or land use'is compatible with the objectives,
policies, general land uses and programs specified in such a plan.
66474. A legislative body of.a.city or county shall deny approval of
a final or tentative map if it makes any of the following findings:
(a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and
specific plans.
(b) That the design or improvement.of the proposed subdivision is not
consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
(d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density
of development.
(e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are
likely to cause 'substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish.or wildlife or their habitat.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is
likely to cause serious public health problems.
(g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will
conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access
through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.
IV. GROUNDS FOR MAP APPROVAL OR DENIAL
A. ( §1.14] Findings Required by Local Agency
(Govt C §66473.5)
Nachu UvAtr 4%e,
subaim.;I,- Map etc{'
S.'k9slass b '
I
1. Local agency must affirmatively find proposed subdi-
vision consistent with general plan or specific plan adopted
under the Planning and Zoning Law. Govt C § §65000- 65008. Cam
v Board of Supervisors of Mendocino County (1981) 123 CA3d
334, 176 CR 620; Save E1 Toro Assn v Days (1977) 74 CA3d 64, i
114 CR 282; Woodland Hills Residents Ass'n v City Council
(1975) 44 CA3d 825, 118 CR 856.
2. Housing balance finding. Govt C 566412.2.
3. Future passive or natural heating or cooling oppor-
tunity findings. Govt C §66473.1.
B. [ §1.15] Sufficiency of Findings and Grounds for Denial
Findings are sufficient if they (1) inform parties of the
bases on which to seek review and (2) permit the courts to
determine whether the decision is based on lawful principles.
They may incorporate the staff report. McMillan v American
General Finance Corp. (1976) 60 CA3d 175, 131 CR 462. See
also Topanga Ass'n for a Scenic Community v County of Los
Angeles (1974) 11 C3d 506, 113 CR 836.
1. If the legislative body makes any of the following
findings with respect to a tentative or final subdivision i
map, it shall deny approval of such map (Govt C §66474):
a. The map, design, or improvements of the proposed
subdivison are inconsistent with-the applicable general and
specific plans. See Woodland Hills Residents Ass'n v City
Council (1975) 44 CA3d 825, 118 CR 856. ]
b. The site is not .physically suited for t lie 'proposed f '
type or density of development. In Carmel Valley View, Ltd. v
Board of Supervisors (1976) 58 CA3d, 817, 130 CR 249, the
court upheld the disapproval of a map because the site was
not physically suited for the proposed development. If the
site is not suited for the proposed density of population or
structures, the legislative body must disapprove the map on
conditions that will reduce the density. 56 Ops Cal Atty Gen
274 (1973) .
C. The design or proposed improvements are likely to
cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially and
avoidably injure fish, wildlife or their habitat, or cause
serious public health problems. Regarding assessment of
environmental impact, see Environmental Quality Act of 1970
(Pub Res C § §21000- 21003). See also 59 Ops Cal Atty`Gen 129
(1976) (Govt C §66412.2) for a discussion of the exactives
that the legislative body. may impose as a condition of
approval.
d. The design or improvements of the proposed subdi-
vision will conflict with public easements for access
through, or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.
The legislative body may approve map if alternate public
easements will be provided.
2. Approval of final map that is in substantial confor-
mance with the approved tentative map. Govt C §66474.1.
General rule: Approval is a ministerial act, and mandatory
approval is required [if the final map complies with state and
local law and conditions to the tentative map] Youngblood v
Board of Supervisors (1978) 22 C3d 644, 150 CR 242; Great
Western Say. & Loan Assn v Citv of Los Anqeles (1973) 31 CA3d
403, 107 CR 359. The final map need only conform to the
general plan in effect when the tentative map is approved.
3. Are these the exclusive grounds for denial? In 62 Ops
Cal Atty Gen 233 (1979), the attorney general determined that
the grounds stated in the act for disapproval of a map are the
j only grounds on which a map may be disapproved.'
nY„,T• S 5. .Ic
~
'
~7 ^ � 7
'--�,��"'����___
�� /
� -^ '2 0
0 '
^
�
'
'
'
EIA -4
Saratoga
DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED
(Negative Declaration)
Environmental Quality Act of 1970
File No: SD -1522
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,s'aid Act.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Tentative subdivision approval for 6 lots on 11.95 acre site in R -1- 40,000
zoning district off of Montalvo Road and extension of Lira Drive over
400 feet in length. The sixth lot contains an existing residence on
6.5 acre site which is to remain and continue its access from Hill Ave.
Three new residences are proposed to access from a cul de sac on the
Lira Drive ,Extension and two residences will access from Montalvo
(one requiring a special finding to allow access from a minimum access
roadway for a subdivision lot).
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
Gerald Butler
15015 Vickery Avenue
• Saratoga, CA. 95070
REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Review by the Planning Commission for con -
forance to the General Plan (fiery Low Density Single Family Residential),
the subdivision and zoning ordinance requirements and compliance with
responsible agency conditions will minimize the impacts the project
will have on the environment. The FEIR for the nearby "Young" property,
finds that the Lira Drive extension will not increase the traffic signi-.
ficantly and will be within the.capacity;of, the street system but suggests
a mitigation measure of widening of remaining sections of Montalvo Road
to 26 feet which should be conditioned with the project. Additionally
this is an infill situation consistent with the zoning. This project
will not have a significant impact on the environment.
Executed at Saratoga, California this. 27th day of Ma
ROBERT S. SHOOK
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OF THE CITY OF
SA . TOG / n
&
DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER
19 82 .
i
INFO
-, R-Mr, I xl-�, J 10"AT
MINES I I
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 6/18/82
Commission Meeting: 6/23/82
SUBJECT: Negative Declaration for SD -1522
Gerald Butler, Montalvo Road, Tentative Subdivision Approval
--------- 6--lots ----------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Staff has submitted a Negative Declaration for your certification
on this project prior to any approval.
Staff does not feel that the project (5 new homes and the extension
of Lira Drive) will have a significant impact on the environment.
The responsible agencies for this project have been notified of
the intent of adopt a negative declaration and have not indicated
that rthey feel there are significant impacts associated with this
project. Significant is defined by CEQA as "a substantial, or
potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical
conditions within the area affected by the activity."
For additional perspective, recent CEQA Guideline changes include
an allowance of a categorical exemption for "division.of property
in urbanized area zoned for residential... into four or fewer par-
cels when the division is in conformance with the General Plan
and zoning, no variances or exceptions are required, all services
and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available,
the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel with-
in the previous 2 years, and the parcel does not have a slope
greater than 20V". (Class 15)
An EIR is required when 1) the lead agency finds there will be
significant effect on the environment or if it can be fairly
argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect" or 2) when there is "serious-- public
controversy concerning environmental effects of a project. Con-
troversy not related to an environmental issue does not require
the preparation of an EIR ". (Public Resources Code 15084).
An EIR was prepared and certified for the 8 homes at the end of
Lira Drive. Public Resources Code 15067 states that "no additional
EIR need be prepared unless, -there are changes proposed in the
project which require important revisions of EIR or new significant
impacts or information have occured."
The major citizen concerns expressed on this 5 lot project relate
to traffic and geology. The FEIR for the 13 lot Butler subdivision
discusses the traffic impacts of that subdivision as well as the
extension of Lira Drive and its proposed total of 15 units. (pp.
21- 27)_... These increments would not exceed existing roadway
capacities or cause significant increase in congestion." The
City Geologist has reviewed the 8 lot subdivision and recommended
approval given the Geologic and Geotechnical investigation report
prepared by Terratech, Inc. dated June, 1978. With the concern
expressed during the on site visits of the geology of the Lira
Drive extension, staff has requested the City Geologist to review
the road alignment and feels this can be handled through the..
Tentative Map process. Soils and foundation engineering is nor-
mally required prior to issuance of building permit.
Given the FEIR on the Butler Subdivision and the information
known on this project, staff does not feel that a new EIR would
generate substantial additional information. If the Commission
desires more information for review and conditioning of the pro-
ject, as on geology or drainage, it can be generated through the
subdivision approval process.
1
APPROVED:
Kathy' Kerdus
Planner U
KK /bc
Agenda: 6/23/82
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
0
AMENDED 71g182 EXHIBIT "A"
DATE: 6/18/82
Commission Meeting: 6/23/82
SUBJECT: SD -1522 - Gerald Butler, Lira Drive, Tentative Subdivision
Approval - 6 Lots (Formerly SD -1296)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
REQUEST: Grant of Tentative Subdivision Approval for 6 lots (including one
containing the existing Arata residence) on a.parcel located on the proposed
Lirs Drive extension (off of Montalvo).
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Negative Declaration (one previously received on
May 31, 1977).
PUBLIC NOTICING: Noticed by posting on site, advertising in the Saratoga News
and mailing notices to property owners within 500'.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
ZONING: R -1- 40,000
Very low density residential
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single family residential, San Jose Water Works tanks
to the west and Villa Montalvo to the south.
SITE SIZE: 5.3 Acres for proposed 5 lots. 11.95 Acres for entire parcel,
including Lot 6 with existing house:; The proposed lots are .92 or 1 Acre in size.
SITE SLOPE: 4.8% for 5.3 acres (Tract 6632) and 7.7% for Lot 6.
6.5% for 11.95 acres overall.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has submitted the same map for the subject
site that was approved in May, 1977. The original application in file SD -1296
showed Lira Drive as a cul -de -sac with 4 and then 3 lots taking access from it
and 2 lots taking access from Montalvo Road. This map was denied by the Commis-
sion without prejudice on the basis of inadequate area -wide circulation.
The map now up for your consideration divides an 11.95 acre parcel into 6 lots.
Lot 6 could be further subdivided.
Minutes of the previous meetings relating to the proposed subdivision and its
access are attached to this report.
Report to Planning Comm'ission 6/18/82
SD -1522, Gerald Butler Page 2
Two of the proposed lots will take access from Montalvo Road. One of these
lots does not front on a public street and, therefore, since it is part of a
major subdivision (5 or more lots) an exception from Section 13.3 -7 is required.
In order to make this exception, (per Section 15.2 of the Subdivision Ordinance)
the Planning Commission must find "that there are special circumstances or con-
ditions affecting said property, or that the exception is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property rights of the petitioner,
and in either event, that the granting of the exception will not be materially
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to other property
in the territory in which said subdivision is located." An option may be avail-
able since access for Lots 3 and 4 from a cul -de -sac is recommended as a condition
by the Community Development Department. This could be made a public cul -de -sac.
Three additional lots will access from a cul -de -sac off the Lira Drive extension
while the Arata residence will continue to take access from Hill Ave. When the
Planning Commission considered the extension of Lira Drive, they thought one
additional residence on the remaining 6.8 acre Arata lot might take access from
Lira Drive.
This proposal will help create a cul -de -sac longer than 400'. Therefore, the
Planning Commission needs to find that the proposed,length is "the only feasible
method of developing the property for which it is zoned" (Section 13.3 -4 of the
Subdivision Ordinance).
The parcel being subdivided has a slope of less than 10% and, therefore, does
not require geological review, nor a Site Development Plan, prior to Tentative
Approval. Since concerns have been expressed about the stability of the proposed
Lira Drive extension, Staff has..requested the City Geologist to review its align-
ment. A report on this review is- included in your packet.
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: 5/27/82
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1522 (Exhibit
"B -2" filed 6/21/82) subject to the following conditions:
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
Applicant shall comply withall 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;
' Report to Planning Cc'si on 82
.....- 6 / 18 /
SD -1522, Gerald Butler Page 3
submission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and
compliance with applicable Health Dept. 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 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
A: Comply with Standard Engineering Conditions dated 4/11/77.
B. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final
Approval.
C. Submit Map to City for Checking and Recordation (Pay required
Checking & Recordation Fees).
D. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 25 ft.
half- street on Lira Drive and Montalvo Rd,
E. Improve Lira Drive and Montalvo Rd. to City Standards, including
the following:
1. Designed Structural. Section 13 ft. between centerline and flowline.
2. P.C. Concrete Curb and Gutter (R -36)
3.. Undergrounding Existing Overhead Utilities.
F. Construct cul -de -sac having 32' radius at south end of Montalvo Rd.
G. Street improvements on 40 foot right -of -way (cul -de -sac) to be
26 ft.
H. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Drainage Plan"
and as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff
to Street, Storm Dewer or Watercourse, including the following:
1. Storm Sewer Trunks with necessary manholes.
2. Storm Sewer Laterals with necessary manholes.
3. Storm Drain Inlets, Outlets, Channels, etc.
I. Construct Emergency Access Road 18 ft. wide plus 1 ft. Shoulders using
double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6 in. aggregate base
from tract boundary through lands of S.J.W.W. to Vickery Ave. gated
at both ends. Slope of access road shall not exceed 122% without ad-
hering to the following:
oAccess roads having slopes between
using 22 in. Asphalt Concrete on 6
oAccess roads having slopes between
using 4 in. of P.C. Concrete rough
Aggregate Base. Slopes in excess
in length.
12-1A and 15% shall be surfaced
in. Aggregate Base.
15% and 172% shall be surfaced
surfaced using 4 in.
of 15% shall not exceed 50 ft.
Report to Planning Cc'`:,,.:: �s i on
SD -1522, Gerald Butler
6/18/82
Page 4
°Access roads having slope in excess of 17,% are not permitted.
NOTE: °The minimum inside curve radius shall be 42 ft.
°The minimum vertical clearance above road surface shall
be 15 ft.
°Bridges and other roadway structures shall be designed to
sustain 35,000 lbs. dynamic loading.
°Storm Runoff shall be controlled through the use of culverts
and roadside ditches.
J. Construct temporary turnaround having 32 ft. radius on temporary
easement at the end of Lira Drive (22" A.C. on 6" Aggregate Base).
K. Construct Standard Driveway Approach.
L. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as
required at driveway and access road intersections.
M, Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change,
retard or prevent flow.
N. Protective- Planting required on roadside cuts and fills.
0. Obtain Encroachment Permit from the Dept. of Community Development
for driveway approaches or pipe crossings of City Street.
P. Engineered Improvement Plans required for:
1. Street Improvements
2. Storm Drain Construction
3. Access Road Construction
Q. Pay Plan Check and Inspection, Fees as determined from Improvement
Plans.
R. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be
completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval.
S. Post bond to guarantee.completion of the required improvements.
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Geotechnical report required prior to final approval. Applicant's
geotechnical consultant should speak to all matters that may be
affected by or have affect on the proposed development.
B. Applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review all site, pool,
grading, drainage and foundation plans for the site and provide
a written statement to the City certifying he has done such a
review, and that the plan in question is consistent with the
recommendations of his report. Building permits will not be
issued until this statement is received.
Report to Planning Com"iin ss i on
SD -1522, Gerald Butler
6/18/82
Page 5
C. A grading plan for each lot shall be submitted and approved prior
to building permit at time of Design Review. (This plan to be
prepared by a licensed engineer). This plan is to be accurate to
within + 0.5 foot and be of such scale and contain detail as to
allow accurate determination of slopes, cut and fill quantities
and limits of grading /excavation. Cross - sections and calculations
shall be submitted as appropriate. All grading shall be in accordance
with City grading ordinance and the applicable geotechnical report.
All grading is to be contoured.
D. All slopes either stripped during or created by construction shall be
treated adequately for, erosion control. The grading plan shall contain
details of how*this is to be accomplisehd. This work shall be completed
prior to final inspection /certificate of occupancy. No cuts and fills
are to be undertaken or left open at a time of year subject to signi-
ficant rainfall. Erosion control measures shall be installed when rainy
season or occupancy occurs, whichever comes first. Earthmoving
equipment to be fitted with noise reducing mufflers.
E. All engineering structures /components, foundations and retaining
walls over 3 feet in face height shall be designed by a registered
civil engineer.
F. All structural fill shall be keyed into side slopes, placed on
stable existing ground stripped of all organic /deleterious material,
and.compacted to a minimum 9 M relative compaction. Non - structural
fills shall be likewise placed except to a minimum 85% relative
compaction.
G. A drainage plan for each lot shall' be submitted and approved prior to
building permits. This plan should address all potential runoff
reaching, created by and leaving the site (including water from
paved and roof areas). Plan shall show method of collecting, carrying
and disposing of all such water. Water shall not be directed onto
adjacent private property without° proper authority (existing
natural water - course, private storm drain easement, etc.). Consi-
deration is to be given to subsurface water and drainage therefore
provided.
H. The applicant's geotechnical consultant is to observe construction
sufficiently to validate his report and to insure its recommendations
are followed. A letter stipulating this is required prior to final
' inspection of any structures.
III. .SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4
A. Sanitary sewers and easements to be provided and fees paid in accordance
with requirements of Sanitation Dist. No. 4 as outlined in letter dated
June 4, 1982.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT
A. Property is located in a potentially- hazardous fire area. Prior to
issuance of building permit, remove combustive vegetation as specified.
Fire retardant roof covering and chimney spark arrestor details shall
be shown on the building plan. (City Ordinance 38.58 and Uniform Fire
Code, Appendix E).
Report to Planning CcP:t: "lion 6/18/82
SD -1522, Gerald Butler Page 6
B. Construct driveway 14 -feet minimum width, plus one -foot shoulders using
double seal coat oil and screening or better on 6 -inch aggregate base
from public street or access road to proposed dwelling. Slope driveway
shall not exceed 122% without adhering to the following:
1. Driveways having slopes between 122% to 15% shall be surfaced
using 22" of A.C. on 6 -inch aggregate base.
2. Driveways having slopes between 15% to 172% shall be surfaced
using 4" of P.C.C. concrete rough surfaced on 4 -inch aggregate
base and shall not exceed 50 feet in length.
3. Driveways with greai;er slopes or longer length will not be
accepted.
C. Construct a turnaround at proposed dwelling sites having a 32 foot
inside radius. Other approved type turnarounds must meet require-
ments of the Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on building plans.
D. Driveway shall have a minimum inside curve radius of 42 feet.
E. Provide a parking area for two (2) emergency vehicles at proposed
building site, or as required by the Fire Chief. Details shall be
shown on building plans.
F. Extension of existing water system adjacent to site is required for
fire protection. Plans to show.location of water mains and fire
hydrants.
G. Fire hydrants in all hazardous fire areas as designed pursuant to
Section 6 -2.42 of the Saratoga City Code shall be located so that
no part of any residential structure shall be further than five
hundred feet from at least one hydrant and the fire protection
system shall be so designed and ch,ar.ged with water under pressure
so that each hydrant for residential fire protection shall deliver
no less than 1,000 gpm of water. Water storage or other availa-
bility shall be such that.for any one hydrant of the system, the
1,000 gpm minimum shall be maintained for a sustained period of two
hours (Ordinance No. 60.4).
H. Provide 15 -foot clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to
building site. Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles.
I. Developer to install one (1) hydrant -that meets- Saratoga Fire District's
specifications. Hydrant to be installed and accepted prior to issuance
of building permits.
J. All bridges and roadways shall be designed to sustain 35,000 lbs.
dynamic loading.
K. Emergency gate at Lira Drive and Olavarri driveway must have a
security system with a lock box. Plans to be approved by Fire
District prior to Final Approval.
Report to Planning Cominission 6/18/82
SD -1522, Gerald Butler Page 7
V. 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 Santa Clara County Sanitation District No. 4. Prior to
final approval, an adequate bond shall be posted with said dis-
trict to assure completion of sewers as planned.
B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works.
C. Existing septic tanks are to be pumped and backfilled. A $400.00
bond is to be posted with the City of Saratoga to insure completion
of work.
D. Any wells located on the property must be properly sealed and aban-
doned.
VI. 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 SCVWD
for review and certification.
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION
A. Design Review Approval required,on the emergency access road and barrier
prior to Final Subdivision Approval.
B. House locations and driveway designs to be reviewed and approved by
Saratoga Fire District.
C. Design Review Approval required.onproject prior to issuance of
permits. On -site lighting to be reviewed and approved through Design
Review.
D. Any modifications to the Site Development Plan shall be subject to
Land Development Committee approval..
E. Prior to issuance of building permits, individual structures shall be
reviewed by the Permit;,Review.Division to evaluate the potential for
solar accessibility. The developer shall provide, to the extent
feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportuni-
ties on /in the subdivision /building site.
F. Widening of remaining sections of Montalvo Road between Lira Dr. and
Saratoga /Los Gatos Rd. to minimum standard 26 ft.
IX. COMMENTS
A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances.
Approved:
Kathy Kerd�Us
Associate Planner
KK /dsc
P.C. Agenda 6/23/82
I
..
CI1 Z Or SARIYFCGG
�� Z
Initial: _Wk
AGENDA BILL NO. Dept. Fid.
DATE: August 4, 1982 C. Atty.
DEPt'1F 11=: C'nmmnn i ty nPvel onment C. Mgr.
------- — ---------- --------- — ------ ----------------------- -- ------- -- - * - ---------
SUBJECT: SD- 1521, G. Butler, Lira Drive (access from Lira Drive and emergency
access to Vickery), Request for Tentative Subdivision Approval - 8 lots
Issue SL'IidTlary
The applicant submitted a proposal for a eight -lot subdivision to be located
at the end of the proposed Lira Drive extension on the former Young property.
This application represents a portion of the same proposal that the Planning
Commission approved in 1978 (SD -1358) with an EIR and that was later unitized
(Unit 2) by the Council in 1979 (SD- 1418),;which have expired while the appli-
cant was in.court with a lawsuit on the adjacent property -(that parcel being
proposed for subdivision by SD -1522 which provides the extension of Lira Drive),.
The Planning Commission denied this application as inconsistent with the General
Plan with respect to density and circulation improvements. The greatest con-
cerns expressed by the Planning Commission were (1)- Montalvo traffic; (2) loss
of the eucalyptus trees; (3) the Lira Drive extension location, traffic, noise
and. - maintenance; (4) drainage and�'.(5) density.
Recommendation -
l. Review the attached materials and determine the merits of'the request.
2. Approve or deny the request, making the necessary findings. (See
attachement) The EIR for this project was certified in 1978 by the
Planning Commission as adequate.
3. Staff recommended approval of the subdivision per the Staff Report
dated June 15, 1982 as amended..
Fiscal Imoacts
None Known
Eyh ibits /Attachments
1. . _Letter of .Appeal
2. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 14, 1982 (unapproved)and June.23;, 198
3. Butler EIR
4. Staff Report dated June 15, 1982 as amended
5. Tentative Map Exhibit "B -2"
6. Minutes-of previous applications (SD -1296, SD -1358 and SD- 1418)x, related mater
7. Staff Report dated July 9, 1982 ial
8. Correspondence received on project
Council Action
8/4: Fanelli/Mallory moved to approve appeal with conditions. Passed 4 -1 (Moyles opposed).
FINDINGS.REQUIRED FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL OR DENIAL
PER THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT
66473.5. No local agency shall approve a map unless the legislative
body shall find that the proposed subdivision, together with the pro-
visions for its design.and improvement, is consistent with the general
plan required by Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3
of Division 1 of this title, or any specific plan adopted pursuant to
Article 8 (commencing with Section 65450) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of
this title.
A proposed subdivision shall be consistent with a general plan or a
specific plan only if the local agency has officially adopted such a plan
and the proposed subdivision or land use is compatible with the objectives,
policies, general land uses and programs specified in such a plan.
66474. A legislative body of a city or county shall deny approval of
a final or tentative map if it makes any of the following findings:
(a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and
specific plans.
(b) That the design or improvement.of the proposed subdivision is not
consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
(d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density
of development.
(e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is
likely to cause serious public health problems.
(g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will
conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access
through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.
Arac,hu Uwdcr .ate
IV. GROUNDS FOR MAP APPROVAL OR DENIAL SubdW&�6•0_ MaP
A. [ 51.14] Findings Required by Local Agency Cgrhh'1)o�dt' ldc�/ii�' Mau'
60IVt61rs, 5k�ys � 2avos
"« (Govt C §66473.5)
3. Are these the exclusive grounds for denial? In 62 Ops
Cal Atty Gen 233 (1979) , the attorney general determined that
the grounds stated in the act for disapproval of a map are the
only rounds on which a
. Y map p ma be disapproved.
t
I x.
f
1. Local agency must affirmatively find proposed subdi-
vision consistent with general plan or specific plan adopted
under the Planning and Zoning Law. Govt C § §65000- 65008. Cam
v Board of Supervisors of Mendocino County (1981) 123 CA3d
334, 176 CR 620; Save E1 Toro Assn v Days (1977) 74 CA3d 64,
114 CR 282; Woodland Hills Residents Ass'n v City Council
(1975) 44 CA3d 825, 118 CR 856.
2. Housing balance finding. Govt C §66412.2.
3. Future passive or natural heating or cooling oppor-
tunity findings. Govt C §66473.1.
"
B. [ §1.15] Sufficiency of Findings and Grounds for Denial
j
Findings are sufficient if they (1) inform parties of the
bases on which to seek review and (2) permit the courts to
:
determine whether the decision is based on lawful principles.
They may incorporate the staff report. McMillan v American
General Finance Corp. (1976) 60 CA3d 175, 131 CR 462. See `
:.
also Topanga Ass'n for a Scenic Community v County of Los
Angeles (1974) ll. C3d 506, 113 CR 836.
+
1. If the 'legislative body makes any of the following
findings with: respect to a- tentative or final subdivision
map, it shall deny approval of such map (Govt C §66474):
a. The map, design, or improvements of the proposed
subdivison are inconsistent with-the applicable general and
specific plans." See Woodland Hills Residents Ass'n v City
Council (1975) 44 CA3d 825, 118 CR 856.
b. The site is not .physically suited for the 'proposed "
type or density of development. In Carmel Valley View, Ltd. v
Board of Supervisors (1976) 58 CA3d . 817, 130 CR 249, the
court upheld the disapproval of a map because the site was
not physically suited for the proposed development. If the
site is not suited for the proposed density of population or
structures, the legislative body must disapprove the map on
conditions that will reduce the density. 56 Ops Cal Atty Gen
274 (1973) .
c. The design or proposed improvements are likely to
cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially and
avoidably injure fish, wildlife or their habitat, or cause
serious public health problems. Regarding assessment of
environmental impact, see Environmental Quality Act of 1970
(Pub Res C § §21000- 21003). See also 59 Ops Cal Atty Gen 129
(1976) (Govt C §66412.2) for a discussion of the exactives
that the legislative body may impose as a condition of
approval.
d. The design or improvements of the proposed subdi-
vision will conflict with public easements for access
through, or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.
The legislative body may approve map if alternate public
.. ".. ;_,• ....,
easements will be provided.
'
2. Approval of final map that is in substantial confor-
mance with the approved tentative map. Govt C §66474.1.
General rule: Approval is a ministerial act, and mandatory
approval is required Cif the final map complies with state and
local law and conditions to the tentative map] Youngblood v
Board of Supervisors (1978) 22 C3d 644, 150 CR 242; Great
Western Say. & Loan Ass In v City of Los Angeles (1973) 31 CA3d
403, 107 CR 359. The final map need only conform to the
general plan in effect when the tentative map is approved.
3. Are these the exclusive grounds for denial? In 62 Ops
Cal Atty Gen 233 (1979) , the attorney general determined that
the grounds stated in the act for disapproval of a map are the
only rounds on which a
. Y map p ma be disapproved.
t
I x.
f
.'FSZO 70 -- ---- --
az
Gu ��� �Ztieu- �.c�.cG
-4,7L
JAA
.>mar et Lo -040,
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 7/14/82
UNAPPROVED . �
SD -1521 - Gerald Butler, Lira Drive (access from Lira Drive and
emergency access to Vickery Avenue), Request for Tentative
Subdivision Approval - 8 lots.
Negative Declaration - SD -1522 - Gerald Butler
SD -1522 -.Gerald Butler, Lira Drive and Montalvo Road, Request for
Tentative Subdivision Approval - 6 lots
The two above projects were discussed simultaneously. The correspondence
received on the projects was noted and the issues summarized, i.e.,
traffic increase, water runoff, geology, tree removal, driveways and
access. Discussion followed on the traffic counts in the area.
The public hearing was opened at 7:55 p.m.
Harry Lalor, civil engineer for the applicant, spoke in support of the
projects and noted that the issues have been debated at previous public
hearings.
Mike Kern, from Terratech, discussed the landslides in the area.
Bill Ziebron, Urban Planning Consultant, stated that he was rebresenting
the Arata family and concerned citizens in the Montalvo area. He sub-
mitted and read a statement addressing the traffic counts and impact
and General Plan consistency. He questioned the legality of the City
approving these projects since the Housing Element has not been adopted.
He added that he felt the decision should be delayed on the projects
until a comprehensive study can be done of cumulative impacts, especially
on traffic, of the proposed subdivision and future development surround-
ing the project.
Discussion followed on the traffic study. It was determined that the
increase by this subdivision would be 360, and the total possible maxi-
mum increase with future development would be 820, based on the data
base and assumptions.
Leo Shortino, 15252 Montalvo Road, spoke in opposition to the extension
of Lira Drive.
Mrs. James Marino, 20553 Montalvo Lane, addressed the traffic and noise
issues, noting that the trees are a wind and sound barrier.
Howard Allen Sharek, 25220 Adams Road, spoke in favor of the projects.
He commented that the people buying the homes will be older people and
will not be wild drivers. He added that the applicant wishes to build
beautiful homes.
Margaret Dennis, Hill Avenue, addressed the traffic to Villa Montalvo
and spoke against the project as proposed.
Marjorie Ann Warner spoke in favor of the proposal. She stated that
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 7/14/82
SD -1521 and SD -1522 (cont.)
she would like to live in one of the
people who have.purchased property on
expected traffic because of progress.
Page 2
homes, and commented that the
Montalvo Road should have
John Constantine spoke in favor of the development, stating that the
new homes will increase the value of the other homes in the area.
Charles Aring, Hill and Mendelsohn, discussed the traffic and the
accidents in the area. He asked about the slope density. Commissioner
Crowther stated that directly adjacent to the higher part of this
proposed subdivision is HCRD zoning, and it would have to be developed
at a lower density. He questioned whether it is fair to require these
people to develop at a lower density and give this particular parcel
high density. He indicated that it may set a precedent which may
ultimately result in neighboring properties feeling that they should
be permitted to develop at the same density. He added that he feels
that this area should be developed at a lower.density consistent with
the hillside type of subdivision that it is. He also expressed concern
that most of the parcels directly adjacent to this area are all con -
siderably larger. Staff discussed the density if considered under the
HCRD formula.
f
James Cohen, 14920 Vickery Lane, stated that any increased value to
the neighborhood from the new homes would only be in dollars, and
would not improve the value of the environment.
Mrs. Samuel Smith, Hill Avenue, stated that she felt that the fact
has to be accepted that Villa Montalvo is there and all.decisions
made in that area should have that in mind. She described the beauty
of the area and commented that all-.of the neighbors are united in
keeping it the way it is.
Jack Christian, 20230 Bonnie Brae Way, appeared to represent a con-
cerned group of the Montalvo- Mendelsohn Homeowners Association. He
discussed the Lira extension and commented that they feel strongly
that the 1978 EIR on the 8- lot.subdivision is not adequate, primarily
because of the traffic. He suggested that the whole development as
a 14 -unit subdivision be reviewed and that a new EIR be prepared for
the entire subdivision. He stated that the issues of the amount of
concrete, water pressure, landslides, and fences for privacy also be
addressed.
Fred King, 15159 Montalvo Road, spoke in opposition to the proposal.
Harry Lalor, civil engineer, described the area and addressed the
issues of traffic and conformity with the General Plan and land use.
He also addressed the issues of runoff, water pressure and access of
the homes.
David Smith, attorney for the applicant, gave the history of the pro-
jects and referenced the economics experienced by the applicant.
Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
- 2 -
Planning Commission Page 3
Meeting Minutes 7/14/82
SD -1521 and SD -1522 (cont.)
Gerald Butler, the applicant, clarified that one of the tentative
maps previously approved showed Lira Drive going through to the
Young property and, as a condition of the previously completed 4 -lot
subdivision, he was to open up the emergency access when completing the
8 -lot subdivision now before the Commission. The density of the area
was discussed.
Commissioner Crowther commented that one of his major concerns is the
location of the road, in addition to the issues brought up by the public.
Commissioner Monia commented that the Commission should address (1) Is
increasing the traffic load by the estimated percentage appropriate
and (2) the whole area regarding traffic. He added that he felt traffic
should be addressed primarily at this :point as to what the Commission
feels is a maximum amount of vehicle trips per day for that road.
Commissioner Crowther commented that the General Plan essentially states
that the development density should be related to the issue of traffic,
and he feels that might be a factor in setting the density. He added
that one of the major reasons that there is a reluctance to move the
road is that it would eliminate a lot, and if the area was at a lower
density that probably would not be a. concern. He indicated that he
feels that the runoff issue is related to the amount of impervious
surface, which is also related to density.
Commissioner Bolger stated that, after visiting the site, he feels
that there would-be more than seven trees removed. He added that he
feels it is is inappropriate to have the road, across the swale because
of the necessary fill, and the logical place for the road would be
more on the Olavarri property. He indicated that he feels that removing
the grove and putting a road in a place that could potentially lead to
a long term maintenance and financial problems for the City is inappro-
priate.
Commissioner Crowther indicated that he personally would be willing
to approve SD -1522 with 5 lots, including the home already on it,
with 2 lots on a cul -de -sac and 2 getting access off of Montalvo. He
stated that he felt it should be a cul -de -.sac since there doesn't
appear to be a good plan for extending Lira Drive. He added that he
would like to see the two lots near Montalvo made larger so there is
space for a turnaround.
Commissioner Schaefer commented that she feels the idea of having one
less lot so the lots would be larger would be very appropriate. She
indicated that she would like to save the grove because of the wind
currents and noise factor in that area. She explained that she feels
that the extension should go through only because the City should not
landlock the Young property. She added that if both proposals were
reduced by one lot, she would like to see if the other problems could
be mitigated, and then perhaps look at the rest of the area for the
HCRD zoning.
Commissioner Monia asked about the restriction of impact if a minimum
access road was constructed from Lira Drive to the Young property.
- 3 -
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 7/14/82
SD -1521 and SD -1522 (cont.)
Page 4
Staff explained that under the standard conditions it would reduce the
number of lots to 4. Discussion followed on a possible emergency
access out to Lira along the route of the proposed extension, and
taking access off of Vickery. It was noted that that option was closed
off when Mr. Butler developed the 4 lots of the original part of the
Young property.
Commissioner King stated that he feels that the applicant has worked
through the process of the City for many.years and has reached a state
of approval, because in fact.he had received prior approval. He
suggested that, as a matter of courtesy, the Commission vote on the
proposed applications at this point before further discussing alterna-
tives. He moved to approve SD =1521, per the amended Staff Report dated
June 15, 1982. The motion failed.for lack of a second.
Commissioner Monia moved to deny. SD- 1.521. He indicated that he would
not move to deny without prejudice, because he feels there are some
real major concerns that need to be addressed on this application, such
as traffic and the number of lots. Commissioner Crowther seconded the
motion, which was carried, with Commissioners King and Schaefer dissent-
ing. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she feels that, with some
slight alterations, the project.could be approved. The 10 -day appeal
period was noted to the applicant.
Commissioner Crowther moved to deny the Negative Declaration on SD -1522.
Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried, with
Commissioners King and Schaefer dissenting.
Commissioner Monia moved to deny SD -1522 without prejudice,, stating that
he feels the basic plan as proposed is.suitable with the following
modification: reduction of 1 lot, keeping it a.cul -de -sac, and keeping
the 2 lots accessing onto Montalvo. He added that he feels the overall
traffic plan has to be addressed. He indicated that he would like to
see the Commission come up with a.formula.that is going to be acceptable
not only to the Butler development, but any additional developments in
the future. He stated that he feels that clear direction should be
given now that the Commission is concerned about the traffic pattern.
Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried, with
Commissioner King dissenting. The 10 -day appeal period was noted to
the applicant.
- 4 -
Planning Commission Page 6
Meeting Minutes 6/23/82 g
GP:1 32 -1 -E (cont.)
parcel and apparently does not intend to do so. He added that the City
can adopt whatever density they wish, as long as the owner is not totally
deprived; they do not have to necessarily adopt the density recommended
by Staff. He clarified that an Agricultural classification would be an
option. The history of the park was discussed.
Commissioner Crowther expressed concern regarding the setbacks from
Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, stating that he feels that the lot sizes adjacent
to that road should be somewhat larger. He added that he felt this should
be stated in the General Plan, rather than waiting until the site approval
stage.
Bob Peck, 14583 Big Basin Way, appeared, representing the applicant. He
requested that the R -1- 12,500 designation be contained in the proposal.
Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Monia
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner King moved to recommend Resolution GPA 82 -1 -E to the City
Council, recommending approval of the amendment of the General Plan desig-
nation from Proposed Park.-to R -1- 12,500. Commissioner King added that he
would prefer to deal with the size of the lots directly adjacent to Sara-
toga- Sunnyvale Road at the time of site approval, as has been previously
'done. After discussion.., Commissioner King amended his motion to include
the statement that the Commission strongly urges that the lots adjacent
to the Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road be considered as possibly larger lots to
help mitigate noise problems. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion,
which was carried unanimously.
The Deputy City Attorney pointed out to the applicant that this is a recom-
mendation to the City Council for an amendment to the 1974 General Plan
only, should the Commission," in connection with the review of the 1982 % General Plan, decide differently.
10. SD -1521 - Gerald Butler, Lira Drive (access from Lira Drive and emergency
access to Vickery Avenue), Request for Tentative Subdivision
Approval - 8 lots
lla.Negative Declaration - SD -1522 - Gerald Butler
`.l1b.SD -1522 - ,Gerald Butler, Lira Drive and Montalvo Road, Request for Tentative
Subdivision Approval - 6 lots:
It was reported that the above items will be continued to the meeting of
July 14, 1982 because of a requirement for a geology report.
The public hearing was opened at 10:25 p.m.
Harry Lalor, civil engineer, questioned the continuance on SD -1521, and
Staff clarified.that the Lira Drive extension affects both applications.
It was noted that there had been on--site visits. The correspondence
from the neighbors and their concerns were noted.
Freda Jeffs, 20500 Lomita Avenue, addressed the construction equipment
use, stating that she hopes Montalvo Road will be used rather than the
private lane. She also expressed concern about the emergency access gate.
Staff discussed the emergency access gate construction and requirement.
James Cohen, 14920 Vickery Lane, spoke in opposition to the project because
of loss of environment.
Donald Call, Montalvo Road and Hill, expressed concern about the access
of the project of 8 lots and-the traffic increase from both projects.
Commissioner Crowther requested a copy of the new map with contour lines
and also asked why construction was being permitted in this area because
of the ancient landslide. fie also requested an evaluation if the project
- 6 -
Planning Commission Page 7
`leet ing Ptinutes 6/23/82
SD -1S21 and SD -1522 (cont.)
were considered under the present HCRD slope density standards. It was
noted that a rezoning would be required to apply the HCRD standards.
It was determined that the whole area should be studied regarding the
traffic flow. It was directed that these items be continued to the meet-
ing on July 14, 1982, and the applicant was requested to supply the
geology as requested by the City Geologist.
12a.A -830 - S ott McGraw, Request for Design Review Approval and a Variance i
12b.V -S79 - to construct a single family dwelling on a hillside lot off Ten
Ac es Road in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district which will maintain
a
SN ft. rear yard setback where 60 ft. is required
Staff describ d the proposal, stating that they cannot make the findings
for the varian a and are recommending denial and approval of the design
review subject o the relocation of the nonconforming portion of the
structure.
The public hearin was opened at 10:50 p.m.
Maurice Camargo, r resenting the owner, gave a presentation on the project.
There was a consensu that`.the findings could not be made for the variance
and the home could be designed within the ordinances.
Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Monia
seconded the motion, whi h was carried unanimously.
ti Commissioner Schaefer com ented that this is an uniquely interesting 1
;j designed home, and noted t at all of the trees were to be saved.
Commissioner Monia moved to deny V -579 without prejudice, to allow the
applicant to come back with a revised design review plan that would
-..._ conform to the ordinances, ommissioner Crowther seconded the motion,
which was carried, with Comm ssioner Schaefer dissenting. It was directed
that A -830 will be continued o July 14, 1982.
13. V -580 - Robert Sprague, Reques for Variance Approval to construct a
garage addition which ill maintain a 21 ft. front yard setback
where 25 ft. is require at 13755 Calle Tacuba in the R -1- 10,000
zoning district
The proposed addition was descri ed by.,Staff, who stated that they were
unable to make all of the finding and were recommending denial.
The public hearing was opened at 1 :08 p.m.
Lynn Sprague, the applicant, gave a presentation on the addition, stating
that only one corner of the garage w uld be within the setback. She
noted that the neighbors are in favo of the proposal, and there are other
similar garage additions in th•e neigh orhood.
Commissioner King moved to close the D blic hearing.
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Monia
Commissioner King moved to approve V -58 making the findings. He added
that the finding can be made that there s a physical hardship with the
site. Commissioner Crowther seconded th motion, which was carried unani-
mougly.
MISCGLLANF.OUS
14. A -780 - Jackson /Woods, 12300 Saratoga -Sunn vale Road, Request for Modifi-
cation to Design Review A roval
The request for modification was explained y Staff.
Warren Jacobsen, representing the developers clarified that they have
located the 113AC unit in back, which is a co ling tower enclosed in a
masonr'. .gall area. Ile also noted that the se and story windows in the
structure will be removed.
Bill Benevento, Kirkdale Drive, noted his acce tance of the conditions
7 -
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDED .�/ `�a EXHIBIT "A"
i� DATE: 6/15/82
Commission Meeting: 6/23/82
SUBJECT: SD -1521 - Gerald Butler, Lira Drive, Tentative Subdivision
Approval - 8 Lots (Formerly SD- 1418& 1358)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
REQUEST: Grant of Tentative Subdivision Approval for 8 lots on a hillside parcel
located between Vickery Ave. and an extension of Lira Drive (off of Montalvo).
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Categorical Exemption - Final EIR previously certified
.by Planning Commission on October 25, 1978 as adequate.
PUBLIC NOTICING: Noticed by posting on site, advertising in newspaper and mailings
to property owners within 500'.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Very low density residential.
ZONING: R -1- 40,000
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single family residential, Sisters of Notre Dame to the
west, Toyon Lodge to the northeast and San Jose Water Works tanks to the east.
SITE SIZE: 12 Acres
SITE SLOPE: 24%
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Tentative Subdivision Approval
for 8 lots on a 12 acre parcel south of Vickery Avenue and east of Montalvo Road
on the Lira Drive extension in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district.
The site is a portion of the former Young property.
An EIR was certified for the 13 lot development originally proposed on the Young
site (SD- 1358). A later subdivision approval, SD -1418, unitized the site. The
first unit of 4 lots has been constructed. The approval for the second unit has
expired and the applicant is now requesting approval for the same map.
The City Geologist has reviewed the geotechnical report submitted on the site and
recommended that the Commission grant tentative approval with conditions to the site.
Report to Planning Commis /sion 6/16/82
SD -1521 - Gerald Butler Page 2
The proposed lots range from .92 to 2.8 acres in size with the required depths,
widths and frontages. The average slope of the property equals 24% which allows
7.9, rounded up to 8 lots on the site per the Hillside Subdivision Ordinance and
R -1- 40,000 zoning.
Access for the subdivision is proposed to be via an extension of Lira Drive(a 50' and
a 40' wide right -of -way with 26' of improvements) from Montalvo Road. Originally
Lira Drive was conditioned for a 50' right -of -way which is not necessary for the
present required width. The developer is conditioned to dedicate and improve
Lira Drive to Montalvo. An emergency access road to Vickery is proposed to be
provided through the San Jose Water Works and Olavarri lands via the existing
roadway to Lira Drive. In approving this map, the Planning Commission will also
be granting a design exception to the maximum cul -de -sac length of 400'.
The proposed subdivision roadway will remove 7 eucalyptus trees on the Water Works
property border. Any further tree removals due to house placement will be subject
to Design Review Approval.
Scenic easements are proposed on the hillside area of Lots 6 and 7.
STATUS: The Environmental Impact Report was certified by the Planning Commission
on October 25, 1978 as adequate. A Notice of Determination will be filed with
the County of Santa Clara-Recorder's Office when this project is approved.
FINDINGS: 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, except as delineated above and `approved by Planning Commission. 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. The Planning Commission is responsible for making the necessary
findings according to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act.
The Commission must make one or more of the following findings with Exhibit "D ",
in addition to previous findings.
(a) Changes or alternatives have been:required in, or incorporated into,
such project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental
effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact
report.
(b) Such changes or alternatives are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and such changes have been
adopted thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact
report.
(c) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible
the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report.
The Staff Report Ire commends approval of the tentative map for SD -1521 (Exh. "B -2"
filed 6/21/82) subject to the following conditions:,.
I. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
A. Comply with Standard Engineering Conditions dated 4/11/77.
Report to Planning Commission 6/16/82
SD -1521 - Gerald Butler Page 3
I. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, cont'd.
B. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final
Approval.
C. Submit Map to City for checking and recordation (Pay required
Checking & Recordation Fees).
D. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 25 ft.
Half- Street on Lira Dr. from Montalvo to Tract boundary.
E. Submit "Irrevocable Offer,,of Dedication" to provide 20 ft. half- street
for streets within tract.
F. Improve Lira Dr. and all interior streets to City Standards,
including the following:
1. Designed Structural Section 13 ft. centerline and flowline.
2. P.C. Concrete Curb and Gutter (R -36)
3 Undergrounding Existing Overhead Utilities.
G. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Drainage
Plan" and as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm
runoff to Street, Storm Sewer or Watercourse, including the following:
1. Storm Sewer Trunks with necessary manholes.
1 2. Storm sewer Laterals with necessary manholes.
3. Storm Drain Inlets, Outlets, Channels, etc.
H. Construct Emergency Access Road 18 ft. wide plus 1 ft. shoulders using
double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6 in. aggregate base from
Lira Dr. throuah lands of S.J.W.W. to Vickery Ave. gated at both ends.
Slope of access road shall not exceed 122% without adhering to the following:
1. Access roads having slopes between 122% and 15% shall be surfaced
using 22 in. Asphalt Concrete on 6 in. Aggregate Base.
2. Access roads having slopes between 15% and 172% shall be surfaced
using 4 in. of P.C. Concrete rough surfaced using 4 in. Aggregate
Base. Slopes in excess of 15% shall not exceed 50 ft. in length.
3. Access roads having slope in excess of 172% are not permitted.
Note: oThe minimum inside curve radius shall be 42 ft.
oThe minimum vertical clearance above road surface shall be 15 ft.
°Bridges and other roadway structures shall be designed to sustain
35,000 lbs. dynamic loading.
°Storm Runoff shall be controlled through the use of culverts and
roadside ditches.
I. Construct turnaround having 32 ft. radius or approved equal using
double seal coat oil and screenings or better.on 6 in. aggregate
base within 100 ft. of proposed dwelling.
I'
Report to Planning Commission 6/16/82
SD -1521 - Gerald Butler Page 4
J. Construct Standard Driveway Approach.
K. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard
or prevent flow.
L. Protective Planting required on roadside cuts and fills.
M. Obtain Encroachment Permit from the Dept. of Community Development
for driveway approaches or pipe crossings of City Street.
N. Engineered Improvement Plans required for:
1. Street Improvements
2. Storm Drain Construction
3: Access Road Construction
0. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement
Plans:
P. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be
completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval.
Q. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements.
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Geotechnical report required prior to final approval. Applicant's
geotechnical consultant should speak to all matters that may be
affected by or have affect on the proposed development.
B. Applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review all site, pool,
grading, drainage and foundation plans for the site and provide
a written statement to the City certifying he has done such a
review, and that the plan in question is consistent with the
recommendations of his report. Building permits will not be
issued until this statement is received.
C. A grading plan for each lot shall be submitted and approved prior
to building permit at time of Design Review. (This plan to be
prepared by a licensed engineer). This plan is to be accurate to
within + 0.5 foot and be of such scale and contain detail as to
allow accurate determination of slopes, cut and fill quantities
and limits of grading /excavation. Cross - sections and calculations
shall be submitted as appropriate. All grading shall be in accordance
with City grading ordinance and the applicable geotechnical report.
All grading is to be contoured.
D. All slopes either stripped during or created by construction shall be
treated adequately for erosion control. The grading plan shall contain
details of how this is to be accomplisehd. This work shall be completed
prior to final inspection /certificate of occupancy. No cuts and fills
are to be undertaken or left open at a time of year subject to signi-
ficant rainfall. Erosion control measures shall be installed when rainy
Report to Planning Commission.` 6/16/82
SD -1521, Gerald Butler Page 5
season or occupancy occurs, whichever comes first. Earthmoving
equipment to be fitted with noise reducing mufflers.
E. All engineering structures /components, foundations and retaining
walls over 3 feet in face height shall be designed by a registered
civil engineer.
F. All structural fill shall be keyed into side slopes, placed on
stable existing ground stripped of all organic /deleterious material,
and compacted to a minimum 90% relative compaction. Non - structural
fills shall be likewise placed except to a minimum 85% relative
compaction.
G. A drainage plan for each lot shall be submitted and approved prior to
building permits. This plan should address all potential runoff
reaching, created by and leaving the site (including water from
paved and roof areas). Plan shall show method of collecting, carrying
and disposing of all such water. Water shall not be directed onto
adjacent private property without proper authority (existing
natural water - course, private storm drain easement, etc.). Consi-
deration is to be given to subsurface water and drainage therefore
provided.
H. The applicant's geotechnical consultant is to observe construction
sufficiently to validate his report and to insure its recommendations
are followed. A letter stipulating this is required prior to final
inspection of any structures.
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS- SANTA CLARA COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4
A. Sanitary sewer to be provided and fees paid prior to Final Approval
in accordance with requirements of Sanitation District No. 4 as
outlined in letter dated June 4, 1982.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT
A. Property is located in a potentially- hazardous fire area. Prior to
issuance of building permit, remove combustive vegetation as specified.
Fire retardant roof covering and chimney spark arrestor details shall
be shown on the building plan. (City Ordinance 38.58 and Uniform Fire
Code, Appendix E).
B. Construct driveway 14 -feet minimum width, plus one -foot shoulders using
double seal coat oil and screening or better on 6 -inch aggregate base
from public street or access road to proposed dwelling. Slope driveway
shall not exceed 122% without adhering to the following:
1. Driveways having slopes between 122% to 15% shall be surfaced
using 22" of A.C. on 6 -inch aggregate base.
2. Driveways having slopes between 15% to 172% shall be surfaced
using 4" of P.C.C..concrete rough surfaced on 4 -inch aggregate
base and shall not exceed 50 feet in length.
Report to Planning Commission 6/16/82
SD -1521, Gerald Butler Page 6
3. Driveways with greater slopes or longer length will not be
accepted.
C. Construct a turnaround at proposed dwelling sites having a 32 foot
inside radius. Other approved type turnarounds must meet require-
ments of the Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on building plans.
D. Driveway shall have a minimum inside curve radius of 42 feet.
E. Provide a parking area for two (2) emergency vehicles at proposed
building site, or as required by the Fire Chief. Details shall be
shown on building plans.
F. Extension of existing water system adjacent to site is required for
fire protection. Plans to show location of water mains and fire
hydrants.
G. Fire hydrants in all hazardous fire areas as designed pursuant to
Section 6 -2.42 of the Saratoga City Code shall be located so that
no part of any residential structure shall be further than five
hundred feet from at least one hydrant and the fire protection
system shall be so designed and charged with water under pressure
so that each hydrant for residential fire protection shall deliver
no less than 1,000 gpm of water. Water storage or other availa-
bility shall be such that for any one hydrant of the system, the
1,000 gpm minimum shall be maintained for a sustained period of two
hours (Ordinance No. 60.4).
1
H. Provide 15 -foot clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to
building site. Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles.
I. Developer to install two (2).hydrants.that meet Saratoga Fire District's
specifications. Hydrant to be installed and accepted prior to issuance
of building permits.
J. All bridges and roadways shall be designed to sustain 35,000 lbs.
dynamic loading.
K. Emergency gate at Lira Drive and Olavarri driveway must have a
security system with a lock box. Plans to be approved by Fire
District prior to Final Approval.
V. 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 Santa Clara County Sanitation District No. 4. Prior to
final approval, an adequate bond shall be posted with said dis-
trict to assure completion of sewers.as planned.
B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works.
Report to Planning Commission 6/16/82
SD -1521, Gerald Butler Page 7
C. Existing septic tanks are to be pumped and backfilled. A $400.00
bond is to be posted with the City of Saratoga to insure completion
of work.
D. Any wells located on the property must be properly sealed and aban-
doned.
VI. 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 SCVWD
for review and certification.
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION
A. Design Review Approval required on structures and on -site lighting
prior to issuance of permits. Individual house design to be evaluated
on the basis of compatibility with the physical environment and com-
pliance with the Site Development Plan and potential for solar accessi-
bility. Complete plans for all on -site grading to be included in evalu-
ation. All grading to be contoured so as to form smooth transitions.
All grading to-be smooth transitions between natural and man -made slopes.
The developer shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive
or natural heating or cooling opportunities on /in the subdivision site.
B. Design Review Approval required on the emergency access road and barrier
prior to Final Subdivision Approval.
C. Prior to final approval, submit CC &R's which include:
1. "Recreational courts are allowed only through Use Permits
granted by the City of Saratoga."
2. "Residences require Design Review Approval. Individual
house design to be evaluated on the basis of compatibility
with the physical environment and compliance with Site
Development Plan. Complete plans for all on -site grading
and lighting to be included in evaluation. All grading to be
.contoured so as to form smooth transitions. All grading to
be smooth between natural and man -made slopes."
*3. Scenic easement restrictions shall be shown on the approved
Final Map.
4. Mitigation Measures as stated in Exhibit "D ".
*D. Enter into Scenic Easement Agreement with the City for the scenic
easements prior to Final Map Approval. Neither the CC &R's nor the
Scenic Easement Agreement are to be amended without the written
consent of the City of Saratoga and they are to be enforceable
by the City.
E. Any modifications to the Site Development Plan shall be subject to
Planning Commission Approval.
Report to Planning Commission 6/16/82
SD -1521, Gerald Butler Page 8
F. Tree removal on lots subject to Design Review with residences.
Trees near grading area to be fenced for protection during grading.
*G. Scenic easements to be shown on Final Map per the following written
statement:
We hereby reserve an easement for the use and benefit of property
owners of the tract for permanent open space on and over those
certain areas designed as "Scenic Easement" on the written map,
which are to be kept open and free from building and structures
and other improvements (including ornamental landscaping, fencing
and decks), but subject to the rights, limitations, powers and
obligations as set forth on that certain Scenic Easement Agreement
dated and which is being recorded concurrently
herewith. Public access is not implied or intended.
H. If any.evidence of potential archeological significance is found
during site grading operation, the work shall be halted until the
significance of the finding can be evaluated by a qualified archeo-
logist.
I. House design shall incorporate energy conserving features including
active /or passive solar design techniques.
J. Widening of remaining sections of Montalvo Road between Lira Drive and
Saratoga /Los Gatos Road to minimum standard 26 feet.
Approved:
Kathy Kerd
Associate Planner
KK /dsc
P.C. Agenda 6/23/82
April 11, 1977
CITY OF SARATOGA
STANDARD ENGINEERING CONDITIONS FOR SUBDIVISIONS
1. Complete improvement plans and specifications prepared by a profes-
sional engineer to be submitted and approved by the City Engineer
before recording of the final map. The street improvements shall
consist of concrete vertical curbs, gutters, driveway approaches,
22 inches minimum of plant mix on local streets, 4 inches minimum
on major collectors and a minimum of 6 inches of base material.
Additional section required as determined from soil tests, or as
specified by the City Engineer.
2. Design of the geometric sections and other construction of all
proposed and existing streets shall conform to the prevailing
standards of the Department of Public Works for street construction,
driveway design, lot grading, etc.
3. Submit lot grading plan for approval by the City Engineer, Planning
Director, and Chief Building Official. This plan must be approved
prior to approval of the final map. Not cuts or fill permitted on
` lots along boundaries adjacent to existing developments unless
specifically approved on the grading.plan to.provide for adequate
storm drainage.
4. Submit evidence that all lots'can be positively drained.
5. Provide two foot for title reservations, PUEs and relocate exist-
ing public and private utilities, as required by the City Engineer.
6. Public Utility and /or Public Service easements to be included at
the rear of the lots on the final map or as required by the City
Engineer.
7. Abandon all existing easements and rights -of -way as required by the
City Engineer.
8. Provide positive storm water, 'disposal including rights -of -way,
sewers, channels and appurtenarices as required by the City Engineer.
9. Watercourses shall be dedicated and improved as required by the Flood
Control District. The design of such improvements and all structures
affecting the watercourse or Flood Control rights -of -way must be
approved by the District. Deeds to the Flood Control District must
be prepared on District forms and submitted and accepted by the
District Board prior'to recording the final map -
10. Pay Storm Drainage Fee as required by Ordinance in effect at time of
recording of final map.
11. Provide fire hydrants as required by the Fire District.
12. Final map not to be recorded until a) adequate sanitary sewer bond
is posted b) plans and specifications for sanitary sewers are approved
by appropriate District, or another means of sewage disposal has been
approved.
13. Existing wells to be sealed to the satisfaction of the Health Depart-
ment prior to recording of final map.
7
STANDARD ENCINLERING CONDITIONS FOR SUBDIVISIONS - Continued
14. No occup
sanitary
approved
15. Existing
means of
ancy of otherwise completed houses permitted until a) usable
sewage disposal system is available b) public water system
by Health Department is available.
dwellings to be connected to sanitary sewer or other approved
sewage.
16. Septic tank systems to be pumped and filled as required by the Health
Department.
17. Comply with all other reasonable requirements of Health Department,
and Flood Control District.
18. Comply with all applicable Ordinances'of the City of Saratoga.
1�. Street names to be chosen from recommended list of Street -Name
Committee.
20. Variety, type, and number of trees planted on each lot or street
right -of -way to be selected from recommended tree list established
by resolution of the Planning Commission and in accord with Ordinance
60, Table III.
21; All utilities shall be underground.
22. File with City Clerk a certified copy of proposed Deed Restrictions
for this subdivision.
23. No grading permitted prior to issuance of Grading and Excavation
Permit by City.
24. Submit preliminary Soil Report before final approval.
25. Pay Park and Recreation Fee or otherwise comply with alternatives
in accord with Ordinance 60, Section 13.8.
26. Provide pedestrian walkways as required by the Director of Public
Works.
27. Comply with reasonable requirements of applicable Fire District.
28. Tree removal is prohibited unless in accord with ordinances.
29. Enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement and provide Performance
Bond to insure continued maintenance of all public and private com-
mon landscaped areas.
- 2 -
ti
lice rinnniug Cot:-mission is responsible for n:. -ikin,, the necossary findings according to
Section 2 108 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act. the Conznission must imake one
or more of the following findings
(a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
such project which mitigate or avoid the s,Enificant environmental
effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact
report.
Remove all organic materials from building sites.
perform grading and compaction operations as recommended in
the above mentioned report.
Perform utility trench excavation and backfill as recommended
in the above mentioned report.
Utilize pier and grade beam foundations for residences as
recommended in the above mentioned report, with special
consideration given to residences on hots 11 and 13 where
expansive soils exist.
• Construct concrete slabs on grade, retaining walls, and
roadways as recommended in the above mentioned report.
• Grading should be designed to prevent ponding and to
direct surface water away from building foundations, slabs,
edges of pavements, tops of slopes, and toward suitable
collection and discharge facilities.
No grading or drainage is shown on the Tentative 1-lap, although
proposed slopes are indicated on the roadway, on driveways, and
on building site areas. The following mitigations (not included
in the Geologic Report) are added to insure protection against
possible erosion or grading problems.
• All excavation and grading should comply with the Grading
Ordinance, particularly the requirements set forth in
Section 3- 40.14, "Grading Criteria."
• Grading should be limited to areas under or immediately
adjacent to roadways, driveways, or houses. Slopes should
not exceed 2:1 in steepness.
• Surface runoff from roofs and driveways should be dispersed
in several directions so as to avoid concentration at one
point. Grading around houses should employ swales to divert
runoff.
• Discharge from existing springs should be directed to swales
or storm drains. Roadways and houses should not be located
near springs or areas with excessive groundwater.
All disturbed areas not otherwise covered should be replanted
vithin it reasonable time ti.-ith suitable ground cover.
Perforated pine foundation drains should be placed Behind 111
retaining walls, and on the uphill side of all below grade
building %IalJ.:;.
Conservation of water resources, e.g., install low -flow
toilets, shewoncpad, and tams, to reduce gallons /per day/
per unit by 25 percent.
Conservation of water resources, by installing low -flow
toilets, showerheads arid taps.
All those listed on thti Saratoga Fire Department Building
Site .Approval Checks List for the proposed project (File
No. SDR 1353), including the installation of 3 hydrants.
(See appendix.)
Design and approval of adequate turnaround for Lot 5.
review of final site plan by representative of 5aratoga.Fire
Department.
Roads, driveways and dwellings should be designed to minimize
cut and fill.
Trees 12" diameter and over should be preserved,where possible.
Building materials and colors should be chosen that are
compatible with the natural landscape.
Completion of Lira Drive.
Installation of a stop sign on Lira Drive at Montalvo Road.
Improvement of Vickery Avenue and bridge south of Lomita
# Avenue to meet minimum standards of 2 lane, 18 foot wide
pavement.
Should archaeological remains ever be encountered
`i during construction, sugh activities in the general vicinity of
the find should be halted,.and a member of a representative
Native American Organization, and a qualified archaeologist.should
be consulted.
Trees maintaining the canopy along the stream corridor should
be protected. This may require a different lot pat. tern and
shifting some building sites. See page.43, Alternatives 1) and 2).
Restrict alteration of habitat along the stream bed.
Previous mitigating measures regarding landscaping and Oaks,
as well as soil conservation on slopes also apply.
AlI existing Oaks should be protected and preserved. The
area under the tree canopy should be prot :cacted from corn -
paction, grading, surfacing, or other disturbance. Ail
exi -Stinq trees .should be protected from damage during con-
struction operations. See Page 48, Altc,Vn;.,t.i.ves 3) and 4) .
utivc anu avala ulsUirbanco to. tl;c rip.uion woo(Iland.
All disturbed arean not othctwise covered should bi rr.plantr•A.
preferably with native plant materials.
Widening of remaining sections of Montalvo Road to mini-
mum standard of 26 feet.
Redesign Lot 12 with the building site area on the lower por-
tion of the lot.
(c) S)wclfic econ,nalc, social, or other eonsideratiuua make infeasible Lite
mitiratlon mea::urca or project nitcrnatives identified in Lite envirutimcntal
Impact report.
Use quieter than normal or "new technology" equipment.
Operate fewer pieces of equipment at a time.
Schedule noisy construction operations for the daytime
hours to avoid the more sensitive early morning and evening
hours.
To minimize disruption of adjacent school activities, schedules
should be coordinated between the project and the school.
Ornamental landscaping, especially lawns and high water use
plants should be restricted from areas around Oaks, specif-
ically from the area within the tree's drip line.
Utilize low water demand plants in landscaping schemes where
possible. Encourage the possible use of drought resistant
natives to compliment the Oak Woodland setting.
Soil conservation measures should be instituted, including
erosion control planting in. all disturbed areas and partic-
ularly on steep slopes.
Utilize drought resistant plants and drip irrigation in
landscaped areas to reduce comsumpti.on.
Construction of Lira Drive should include informal, preferably
native, landscaping.
Insulate exterior walls and ceilings, and use thermal glass
in windows.
Design individual residences with largest amount of glass on
south, cast, or west walls.'
Utilize landscaping to screen surf during summer afternoons,
and to screen prevailing (westerly) winter winds.
In split or multi -level homes locate windows so as to utilize
natural air circulation (cool air rises) for summer cooling.
Maximize water conservation in design of plumbing system;: (so
as to decrease need for water heating.)
Utilize solar hot water heating where feasible, particularly
for swimming pools.
=:sue
CO`AMISSION MlN11` :z OF 7..23 -77
,, l0
A. SDR -1271 - i)a niel Stuart - Cont'd
Commissioner Mar,hall moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Planning Conuais-
sion grai,t tentative building site approval to application SDR -1271 per Exhibit "A"
filed October 7, 1976 and subject to the Staff Report crated February 22, 1977, as amended.
The motion was carried unanimously.
B. SD -1293 - Osterlund Enterprises, Allendale Avenue, Tentative Subdivision Approval -
26 Lots
A brief status report was given relative to this application. Note was made that the
applicant had submitted an alternative plan (Alternative B) to Staff in response to com-
ments made by the Subdivision Coru :iittee at its meeting of February 22, 1977. Specifi-
cally, Alternative B.proposed a cul -de -sac located west of Chester Avenue, breaking to
the right in an easterly direction. Also, this proposal reflected only one drivea:ay
accessing onto Allendale Avenue. At this point Chairman Belanger directed that appli-
cation SD -1293 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 9, 1977, and
referred same to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report.
SD -1296 - Gerald Butler, Mor.talvo Road, Tentative Subdivision Approval - 7 Lots
Staff recommended this matter be continued pending resolution of access problems.
Chairman Belanger directed that application SD -1296 be continued to the Planning Commis-
sion meeting of March 9, 1977, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and
Staff. for further review and report.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. UP -318 - Grand Lodge of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows (IOOF), 14500 Fruitvale
Avenue, Review of Final Environmental Impact Report (E -4) on Request for Use
Permit in Accordance with the Provisions of Article 16 of Zoning Ordinance NS -3
to Allow for the Expansion of the IOOF Lodge to Provide for 150 Units of Senior
Citizen Housing; Continued from, January 26, 1977
Note was made that the FIR consultant had prepared an addendum to the Draft FIR in
response to comments and questions raised at the Planning Coro ission meeting of
January 26, 1977. Staff recommended that the Commission certify said Draft and addendum
as being complete.
Chairman Belanger reopened the public hearing on F. -4 at 7:55 p.m. As there were no
comments, Commissioner Marshall moved, seconnded by Comnissioner Martin, that the public
hearing on E -4 be closed. The motion was..carried unanimously, and the public hearing
was closed at 7:56 p.m.
As there were no further comments, Commissioner Marshnll moved, seconded by Commissioner
Laden, that the Planning Conuaission make the finding that the Draft EIR and its addendum
be certified as complete. The motion was carried unanimously.
Chairman Belanger directed that application UP -318 be continued to the Planning Commis-
sion meeting of March 9, 1977, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee
and Staff for further review and report.
B. V -462 - 'Jan Apker for Saratoga Oaks Homeowners Associatian, 1022 IV. Redding, San Jose,
Request for X'ari.ance to Allow an Increase in the Height Limitation for a
Television Reception Antenna Tower to be Located North of Stoneridge Drive in
"R- 1- 40,000" (Very Low Density, Single- Family Resie..ence) one from 55 Feet to
100 Feet (Zo -ning Ordinance NS -3, Section 14.9); C ?ntinued from Jan. 26, 1977
Chairman Belanger reopened the public hearing on V -462 at 7:59 p.m.
Note was made of the following items of correspondence rezeived on this matter:
(1) Letter dated February 23, 1977 from Henry I. Smith, 21029 Band: Mill Lane, expres-
sing the opinion that a 75 -SO' high antenna system would provide. the desired reception.
(2) Letter dated February 23, 1977 from Phil Jacklin, 14436 Esterlee Drive, objecting
to the variance.
�O
CONr•1ISSTON; ri!a TF.S (':, 3- -f) -77
III. SD -1296 - Gerald Butler, Montalvo Road, Tentative Subdivision Approval - 7 Lots; Con-
tinued from February 23, 1977
Note was made that a letter granting an extension of this matter had been received.
Chairman Belanger directed that application SD -1296 be continued to the Planning Commis-
sion meeting of March 23, 1977, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee
for further review and report.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. UP -318 - Grand Lodge of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows (IOOF), 14500 F•'ruitvale
Avenue, Request for Use Permit in Accordance with the Provisions of Article 16
of Zoning Ordinance NS-3 to Allow for the Expansion of the IOOF Lodge to Pro-
vide for 150 Units of-Senior Citizen Housing; Continued from February 23, 1977
Note was made that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval of this appli-
cation. It was also noted that this matter would be required to receive final Design
Review Approval, as well as building site approval. Additionally, the Secretary re -.
minded the Commission that if a conditional use permit were granted, the Commissicn
at any time in the future had the power to reopen this matter for further consideration.
Chairman Belanger reopened the public hearing on UP -318 at 7:55 p.m.
• Clark Bassett, 19401 Crisp Avenue, requested that the residents in the area be
notified of any future hearings on this matter. Although it was noted that future
review of this matter would not require public hearin .es, Chairman Belanger requested
Staff to notify Mr. Bassett of Design Review and Subdivision Committee meetings
held to review this project.
• Commissioner. Marshall recommended that the second sentence under Condition (F) be
modified as follows: "Should the City in the future determine that the planned and
improved parking facilities are inadequate to service the project needs, the appli-
cant shall be required to improve, within a reasonable period, the reserve parking
area."
• Commissioner Callon asked whether the Staff in its report had considered the Senior
Citizen Housing Task Force Report in. its review of this project. The Secretary noted
that the project's density and other similar criteria had been considered, and had
been found consistent with the Task Force Report. She also asked if mitigation
measures recommended in the EIR had been pursued. The Secretary noted that the EIR
had recommended that the grading plans be reviewed by the Subdivision Committee, and
Chairman Marshall pointed out that the tentative map _ubmitted by the applicant had
reflected the location of trees recommendeyd for preservation by the EIR. Additionally
Commissioner Callon asked how the senior citizen preference list would be handled,
and Staff explained that this would be resolved through the Commission at a later
date.
At this time, Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Ccm,-.9issioner Lustig, that the
public hearing on UP -318 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner "•tars.in, that the Planning Commis-
sion grant approval to UP -318 per Exhibit "A -1" and the Staff Report dated February 28,
1977, as amended. The motion was carried unanimously.
B. V -463 - Li Chi and Shou -Ui Hsu, 13442 Holiday Court, Reqtrrst for Variance to Allow a
15 -Foot Frontyard Setbacl: in Lieu of the Required 25 -Foot Setback for Residence
to be Constructed on Canyon View Drive (Ordinance N'S-3, Section 3.7 -1); Con-
tinued from February 23. 1977
Chairman Belanger reopened the public hearing on V -463 at 8:12 p.m., noting that this
matter was recommended by Staff to be continued.
• Mr. Raines, Canyon View Drive and adjacent neighbor, vas present and reiterated his
opposition to this variance.
e Note was made that this matter was recommended to be csentinued in order to allow
additional time for the applicant and his adjacent neighbor, Mr. Picard, to resolve
-3-
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CO�IDIISSION
MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, March 23, 1977 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California
'TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Belanger, Cal n, Laden, Lustig, Williams a ambett'
Absent: Commissioner Marshal
B. MINUTES
Comm issioner Callon moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the reading of the
Planning Commission meeting minutes of March 9, 1977 be waived, and that they be
approved as distributed to the Commission. The motion was carried; Commissioner Lustig
abstained.
C. WELCOME TO NEW COMMISSIONER
Chairman Belanger welcomed Shelley Williams as the new member of the Planning Commis-
sion. She informed those present that Mr. Williams had been a resident of the City for
18 years, and was a local realtor. Additionally, she pointed out that he held a degree
in education from the University of South Carolina, as well as a master's degree in
education from Stanford University. She made note of the following community activities
with which Mr. Williams was associated: member of the General Plan Committee of 1974
1 and 1975; member of the Los Gatos - Saratoga Board of Realtors; member of the Westbrook
Homeowners Association; member of the Redwood School Advisory Committee; and member
of the 1975 Friends of the Library Financial Committee. Chairman Belanger noted that
Mr. Williams has expressed a desire to maintain the rural character of the community
and to make Saratoga a better place in which to live; additionally, she noted his keen
interest in senior citizen housing.
II. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Composition of Consent Calendar
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Laden, that the Planning Commission
approve the Consent Calendar of March 23, 1977. As note was made that a member of the
audience wished to address the Commission on item A -559 of the Consent Calendar,
Commissioners Lustig and Laden withdrew their motion. Commissioner Callon moved,
seconded by Commissioner Laden,.that Item B -1 (A -559) be removed from approval of the
Consent Calendar. The motion was carried unanimously.
B. Items of Consent Calendar
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commis-
sion grant approval to the following applications:,
1. Design Review
A -560 - James W. Day Construction Company, Taos Drive, Final Design Review Approval
1 Lot (SDR -1164) - Per Exhibit "A" and the Staff Report dated March 18,1977
A -563 - James W. Day Construction Company, Chester Avenue, Final Design Review
Approval - 2 Lots (Tract X5923) - Per Exhibits "A" and "B" and the Staff
Report dated March 18, 1977
The motion was carried unanimously.
0
II. CONSENT CALENDAR - Cont'd
Discussion followed on application A -559 - Iacomini Construction Company, Carnelian Glen
Court, Final Design Review Approval for 1 Lot in Tract #5575. Mr. Terry Rose explained
that lie was the owner of a lot 2 houses from this site. lie pointed out that when he pur-
chased this site from Dividend.Industries, he was assured that residents in this subdivi-
sion would have the opportunity to review plans of new homes within the subdivision. lie
pointed out that he had not been notified that these plans were being reviewed by the City,
and lie objected to the design of the residence or. the basis that it was not in keeping with
the character of the neighborhood. He requested that this matter be continued to allow
him an opportunity to further review the plans.
It was explained that the Planning Commission did not have the authority to enforce private
agreements for subdivision architectural review. The point was made that the Design Review
Committee had reviewed and endorsed these plans on the basis of City design review criteria.
The City Attorney advised Mr. Rose that if this plan was found to be unacceptable by the
homeowner's architectural review.committee, the committee could seek an injunction against i
the property owner to prohibit building..
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission k
grant final design review approval to application A -5S9 per Exhibits "A" and "B" and the 7
Staff Report dated March 18, 1977. The motion was carried unanimously.
III. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISIONS
3.�.3. ??
IV
A. SD -129 - Osterlund Enterprises, Allendale Avenue, Tentative Subdivision Approval -
26 Lots; Continued from March 9, 1977
Although it was pointed out that a Staff Report had been prepared on this application,
Staff suggested that this be continued. It was noted that the rezoning request by
the applicant relative to a portion of this site had not as yet been approved by the
City Council, and Staff expressed the opinion that continuance of this item would not
cause an additional delay to the applicant inasmuch as the rezoning would not go into
effect until 30 days after Council approvai.'.
Jim Harper, representative of.the applicant, requested that action be taken on this
matter this evening. Additionally, with regards to Condition VIII -A(1) of the Staff
Report, lie asked whether it was the City's intent to require landscaping and irrigation
within the required emergency access road easement. Staff explained that it was the
intent of the City to have landscaping surrounding this easement, allowing enough space
for emergency vehicles. Staff suggested that this condition not be altered, but rather,
be interpreted as part of improvements for private lots abutting this easement at the
time of individual design review approval.
Because the rezoning matter relative to this subdivision had not been approved by the
City Council, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to continue application.
SD -1293 to the Planning Commission meeting of April 13, 1977.
OB. SD -1296 - Gerald Butler, Montalvo Road, Tentative Subdivision Approval - 7 Lots;
Continued from March 9, •.1977
Staff requested that this matter be continued pending further review. Chairman Belanger
directed that application SD -1296 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of
April 7, 1977, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for further review.
PUBLIC BEARINGS
A. V -463 - Li Chi and Shou -Yi Hsu, 13442 Holiday Court, Request for Variance to Allow a
15 -Foot Frontyard Setback in Lieu of the Required 25 -Foot Setback for Residence -
to be Constructed on Canyon View Drive (Ordinance NS -3, Section 3.7 -1); Con -
tinued from March 9, 1977
Chairman Belanger reopened the public hearing on V -463 at 8:05 p.m. As there were no
comments, Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the public .
hearing on V -463 be closed. The motion,was carried unanimously, and the public hearing
.was closed at 8:06 p.m.
-2-
III. A. SD -1293 - Osterlund Enterprises - Cont'd
After Conditions II -G and VII -A were clarified for Mr. Jim Harper, representative of
the applicant, Commissioner �Larshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the
Planning Commission grant tentative subdivision approval to application SD -1293 per
Exhibit "A -3" and the Staff Report dated March 23, 1977. The motion was carried
unanimously.
SD -1296 - Gerald Butler, Montalvo Road, Tentative Subdivision Approval - 7 Lots;
Continued from March 23. 1977
As Staff requested this matter be continued pending further review, Chairman Belanger
77 directed that SD -1296 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 27, 1977.
C. SD -1302 - Clayton Thomas, Allendale Avenue /Chester Avenue, Subdivision Approval- 5 Lots
As Staff requested this matter be 'continued pending further review, Chairman Belanger
directed that SD -1302 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 27, 1977.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. .GP -77.1 - City of Saratoga, 1974 General Plan Amendment of Slope Conservation Zone to
Include that 35 -Acre Parcel Generally Located between Bohlman Road and Norton
Road (APN 517- 013 -013)
Staff explained that a Staff Report had been prepared supporting the adjacent citi-
zens' request that this area be included in the General Plan's Slope Conservation Zone.
in order that development of this site would comply with HCRD standards. It was noted
that in order to have this site placed in such zoning, the General Plan must be amended
extending the Slope Conservation Zone and the Zoning Ordinance must be amended to com-
ply with the General Plan. Staff explained that this property was geographically
divided into 3 areas and that it had consistenly been zoned as R -1- 40,000.
However, in the 1974 General Plan the entire site was designated C -S, Community
Services because it was part of the Sisters.,of Notre Dame property. Additionally,
it was noted that this site was included in the County Bohlman Road Study Area. Staff
further noted that there u-as presently before the Land Development Committee an appli-
cation for a single lot development of this 35 -acre site. It was pointed out that al-
though the site had a potential development of�5 -7 sites, the cost of improvements for
water, sewer and roads would preclude such an extensive development.
Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on GP -77.1 at 7:45 p.m.
Dr. Gregory Fox stated that he was the applicant requesting development of this parcel.
He expressed concern that -the new zoning would restrict development of this one lot
because: (1) his proposed access road would exceed the 1500 sq. ft. requirement for
impervious coverage; and (2) fencing his proposed swimming pool would exceed the 4000
sq. ft. fencing requirement. Dr. Fox also indicated that he proposed to place the ex-
cess land that he did not use in this one -lot development into Williamson Act Contract
"to take the pressure . off of subdividing." Additionally, he indicated that the only
feasible building sites on the site were located on the ridgeline.
It was explained that the HCRD Ordinance provided that if the site development plan
required for such a project was acceptable to.the City, the Commission could grant
extra square footage for impervious coverage and excess fencing "if it is done in
good t2ste and with enough landscaping." Additionally, it was noted that HCRD require-
ments were developed with average -sized lots in mind.
As there were no further public comments, Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by
Commissioner Lustig, that the public hearing be closed. The motion was carried
unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 7:55 p.m.
The following Commission comments were made:
• After reviewing the City zoning map, Commissioner Callon stated that she felt .
this piece of property geographically fit well into the HCRD zone, noting that
it was consistent with adjacent HCRD properties.
-2-
MI NUJTS
DATE: Wednesday, April 27, 1977 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Belanger, Callon, Laden, Lustig, Marshall, Williams $ Zambetti
Absent: None
B.
MINUTES
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CCINViSSION
MI NUJTS
DATE: Wednesday, April 27, 1977 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Belanger, Callon, Laden, Lustig, Marshall, Williams $ Zambetti
Absent: None
B.
MINUTES
The minutes of the April 13, 1977 Commission meeting were not prepared.
Ii. CONSENT CALENDAR
• A.
Composition of Consent Calendar
It was requested by Staff that application A -576 (Los Gatos Associates, Carnelian Glen,
Final Design Review Approval for 1 Lot) be taken off of the Consent Calendar and con -
tinued. Chairman Belanger directed that application A -S76 be continued to the Planning
Commission meeting of May 11, 1977 pending further review.
B.
Items of Consent Calendar
Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the Planning Commis-
sion grant Final Design Review Approval to application A -5S1 (Henry Fallek, Pike Road,
1 Lot) per Exhibit "A" and the Staff Report dated April 21, 1977. The motion was
carried unanimously.
III. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISIONS
OSD
-1296 - Gerald Butler, Montalvo Road, Tentative Subdivision Approval - 7 Lots; Con-
tinued from April 13, 1977
Note was made that 2 reports had been prepared on this matter: a Staff Report dated
April 21, 1977 providing the necessary conditions by which Lxhibit "A -2," reflecting
a cul -de -sac circulation pattern, could be approved; and a Staff Memorandum dated
April 21, 1977 outlining problems associated with the proposed circulation system
represented on Exhibit "A -2 ", along with specific recommendations for alternative -
solutions. Staff recommended in its memorandum that this application be denied without
prejudice in order to allow• the applicant the opportunity to submit revised plans re-
L4 '``
fleeting an alternate circulation plan which would more effectively allow development
of the adjacent Young property. Denial without prejudice, it was explained, would
allow the applicant to submit revised plans within a year's time without additional
filing fees. It was Staff's opinion that after a thorough review of this application
with regard to development of adjacent properties, extension of Lira Drive to the
westerly boundary of the site would be essential in order to provide eventual public
.
access to the Young property which would otherwise not have such access.
Don Beardsley, representative of the 18 -acre Young property, urged the Ca..-mrission to
accept the proposed plan providing for a cul -de -sac with an emergency connection
through the San Jose Water Works site. He requested the Commission to give him indi-
cation, if this plan was approved, as to whether a maintenan ce district for Vickery
Avenue could be pursued with regards to development of the Young property. Ile stated
that in his opinion development of the existing right-of-way to Lomita should be pur-
sued to allow for develoirnent of a "full subdivision street" with a maintcnance.dis-
trict formed for the potential 11 -12 lot dcvclopmrnt of the Young property. It was
explained that the Ccrirnission did not hive the authority to take action on such a
request.
III. A. SD -1296 - Gerald Butler - Cont'd
After additional discussion of the circulation problems, Commissioner nLirshall moved,
seconded by C011nissioner Lustig, that the Plannir� Comnission deny SD -1296 without
prejudice per the findings made in the Staff Momorindurn dated April 21, 1977. The
motion was carried; Commissioners Callon and Zambetti voted no because they wished
this matter to be continued pending receipt of a letter granting an extension to a sub-
Sequent Comnission meeting.
Staff was directed to agendize the issue of the area circulation pattern for a future
Committee -of- the -Whole meeting, and to so notify the applicant and Mr. Beardsley. '
B. SD -1302 - Clayton Thomas, Allendale Avenue /Chester Avenue, Tentative Subdivision
Approval - 5 Lots; Continued from April 13, 1977
Staff requested this matter be continued pending review of Santa Clara Valley Water
District comments. Chairman Belanger directed that SD -1302 be continued to the Plan-
ning Commission meeting of-May 11, 1977.
IV. PUBLIC iEkRINGS
A. V -464 - John and Mary Della Monica, 20590 Manor Drive, Request for Variance to Allow
for Reduction of Required Sideyard Setback for Corner Lot (Streetside) from
25 Feet to 14 Feet for Accommodation of Existing Shed (Ord. NS -3 Sec. 3.7)
Note was made that a Staff Report had been prepared. recommending denial on the basis
that the necessary findings for approval of a variance have not been made. •It was
explained that per a complaint received by the Code Enforcement Officer regarding the
existing structure, it was discovered that the shed had been placed within setbacks
illegally, and consequently, a variance was required. Staff pointed out that a peti-
tion had been submitted containing signatures of 23 neighboring property owners stating
no opposition to this variance.
Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on V -464 at 8:15 p.m.
• The applicant's son explained that due to a misunderstanding regarding setback
requirements, this shed had been constructed 3 years ago within the sideyard
setbacks. It was pointed out that a building permit had not been requested by the
applicant at the time of shed construction.
• Sally Truax, 12401 Greenmeadow Lane, stated that she could hardly see the shed
because of existing trees. She pointed out that although the shed i,as illegal,
"it isn't bothering anyone and it has been up there for 3 years."
approval of the variance. She urged
• Fred Tater, resident across the street from the applicant, stated that he felt
the structure blended well with the rest of the neighborhood, and he urged
approval of the variance.
As there were no additional comments:, Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by
Commissioner Lustig, that the public hearing on V -464 be closed. The motion was
carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 8:23 p.m.
Commissioners Marshall and 2ambetti expressed the opinion that granting this variance
would constitute a special privilege. Commissioner Marshall noted that findings neces-
sary for the granting of a variance had not been made, and he pointed out that the
present situation was a result of choosing to erect a structure illegally.
Commissioner Callon expressed the opinion that ordinances were written to protect
homeowners' rights. She stated that since there was nothing on record against the
granting of this variance, she would vote in favor of V -464. Commissioner Williams
agreed, pointing out that since the shed had been existing for 3 years, there had
been ample time for complaints to have been issued prior to this time. '
t
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Com-
mission deny application V -464 per the Staff Report dated April 21, 1977. The motion
failed, Commissioners Belanger, Callon, Lustig and Williams voted no.
-2-
CITY OF.SARATOGA PLANNING M\MISSION
M 11 ",'UI'ES
DATE: Tuesday, ?,Lay 31, 1977 - 4:30 p.m.
PLACE: Crisp Conference Room, 13777 F niitvale Avenue, Saratoga, Ca.
TYPE: Regular Adjourned Meeting from COmlmi.ssion Meeting of May 25, 1977
ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
Chairman Belanger opened the regular adjourned meeting at 4:30 p.m., and noted that
a quorum was present (Corunissioners Marshall and h'illivus were absent).
II. AGENDA IT111
SD -1296 - Gerald Rutler,.Montalvo Road - Tentative Subdivision Approval - 6 Lots
Note was made that this item was being considered under a regular adjourned meeting
at the request of the applicant. It was pointed out that an earlier application
for 6 lots had been denied by the Commission without prejudice on the basis of inade-
quate area -wide circulation.
The applicant was present and explained that he had been trying to comply with the
current property owner's (Mr. Arata) wishes of providing a cul -de -sac for this sub-
division insomuch as Mr. Arata did not want a through street to run in front of his
existing house. He noted, however, that per Staff's review of the area relative to
future development, a more proper circulation plan called for Lira Drive being a
through street. Consequently, note was made by Staff that the revised tentative map
(Ftihibit A -3) had been submitted reflecting a 6 -lot subdivision with Lira Drive being
a through street. It was pointed out that a Staff Report had been prepared reco ;7.„cnd-
ing approval of Exhibit A -3.
Commissioner Lustig pointed out that the applicant, at a previous Commission meeting,
had stated that he did not have sufficient square footage for 5 lots if Lira Drive,
was extended. fie noted that the present revised map showed said extension, and he
contended that there was a conflict in the applicant's testimony. Staff pointed out
that the applicant's engineer had verified the area sizes for all lots, and had de-
termined that all were legal an& conforming with City ordinances.
Discussion followed on development of adjacent properties, and the point was made
that the present circulation plan would' allow for the proper development of the abut-
ting Young property. Concern was expressed over Mr. Arata's objection to a through
street, and it was noted that Mr. Arata could appeal same if he so desired. Miles '
Rankin, representative of \1r. Arata, was present and noted this option.
Commissioner Lustig moved that the Planning Commission deny application SD -1296. The
motion failed for lack of a second.
Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner Laden, that the Planning
Co;uenission approve application SD -1296 per Exhibit A -3 and the Staff Report dated
May 27, 1977. The motion carried; Commissioner Lustig voted no. Commissioner
Zambetti explained that he voted in favor of this application because the circulation
and access irq)rovcments.were in accordance with the latest Staff concepts relative to
traffic circulation in the area. Corissioner Lustig voted no because of the appli-
cant's conflict in testimony.
III. ADJOUR,,�,U�7
Coren.issioner Lustig moved, seconded
adjourned meeting of Aav 31, 1977 be
and the meeting was adjourned.
by Conr-�issioner Zambetti, that the regular
adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously,
Alarty Van Duyn, heecrrutary
V
Planning Commission Meeting page 2 C
Minutes of 9 27 78
E -9.78 - YgAler EIR (cont.
rental Impact Report only, and the public hearing will be opened,
ie testimony taken, and the hearing will be continued so that the EIR
ultant will have a chance to answer all of the ccranents made tonight.
The public hearing has opened at 7:45 P.M.
Mrs. Alma Arata, 20400 Hill Avenue, addressed the Commission, in reference
to the topography and the acoustics. She stated that the property has slopes
on either side and the acoustics build up. She added that it is a low valley
and the acoustics are amplified, which is detrimental to the noise factor.
Mrs. Arata also stated that there would be beautiful giun and redwood trees
and an existing vineyard destroyed if this project takes place as proposed.
Bill McDonnal, 15201 Montalvo Road, read a letter into the record, regarding
the concerns of the 45 residents in the area which met regarding this EIR.
He stated that they are concerned about existing traffic and the traffic
impact of the proposed subdivision and Lira Drive extension. The letter
listed the following concerns: (1) The EIR only covers traffic from 11 of the
Butler property sites on Montalvo Road; the actual impact will include other
sites, totaling 17 instead of 11, as covered; (2) Any traffic impact on Montalvo
Road also impacts the other streets whenever residents are headed to or from
Los Gatos; (3) The Draft EIR does not provide an adequate traffic analysis for
the whole Montalvo area; it is reasonable to expect traffic growth at Villa
Montalvo. Mr. McDonnal urged the City to undertake the following with respect
to the proposed Lira Drive extension and subdivision: (1) Conduct a thorough
traffic study in the Montalvo area, including all affected streets; (2) develop
(with the developer) an access alternative to the Lira Drive extension, includ-
ing plans, required actions, comparative cost, etc.
Mrs. Margaret Dennis, 20201 Hill Avenue, presented a letter to the Carmission
and read it into the record. She stated that there are two important effects
omitted from the EIR: (1) increased traffic on Hill Avenue; and (2) there are
a lot of deer; collision with fast cars is inevitable. Mrs. Dennis added that
she would like the Planning Co, mission to give the widest consideration to the
effects of this application on long established residents who have invested many
years of work and expense preserving the environment that has been the charac-
teristic pride of the City of Saratoga.
Leonard Liccardo, 20045 Mendelsohn, stated that he has concerned with the
increase in traffic. He added that property otirers have paid a substantial
premium in anticipation of an existence with a general understanding that this
property would be secured and protected from such an influx of increased
traffic and population. Mr. Liccardo added that the EIR appears to be very
lacking as far as an indepth study of further options, and he feels that an
economic study should be added, as to what it mild cost to have some other
type of access made available. He stated that I-- also feels the report is
misleading as far as the deer in the area; there are much more than stated,
Joseph Montgomery, Vickery Lane, stated that he and private owners along
Vickery Lane strongly object to the idea of hav3ag Vickery Lane turned into
a public street as an alternate route. Mr. Monzgonery added that opening up
this lane would create noise, pollution and safety problens, as well as des-
troying the aesthetics of the area and duninishing the value of the real estate.
Mr. Montgomery stated he was also concerned about the wildlife, and the visual
and noise impact from the subdivision. lie stated that he felt a reduced number
of lots on the property would be appropriate and reduce the ertvironriental impact.
Cor issioner Marshall stated that the real traMc problem occurs at the time
?•Sontalvo has its major events. He stated that lZ would like the EIR Con-
sultant to either collect data from Villa Montalvo or other sources, or, if
necessary, wait and collect current traffic data from Montalvo when it is in
its busiest season. Cormissioner Marshall statsf that perhaps the amount of
business that Montalvo has should be reduced as an alternative. lie added that
the public at the time of the 1974 General Plan review endorsed the concept of
this land being used for houses when they endorsed the zoning; however, houses
denote traffic.
Commissioner Zambetti stated that possibly the oamsultant could look into two
- 2 -
Planning Conmission Meeting Page 3
Minutes of 9/27/78
L_ t-9.�78 - Bu er F.IR (cant.)
e�s going into the area, and another alternative regarding access.
Mrs. Marino, owner of the property adjoining the Arata property, stated that
she had thought they were always going to have a self - contained cul -de -sac
on the Arata property. She added that she believes the traffic to Villa
Montalvo is year - round. Mrs. Marino stated that Villa Montalvo has been there
since 1912, and she did not think their activities should be curtailed. She
stated that the subdivision can be reduced in the number of home sites so the
traffic flow r,-ill be diminished. Mrs. Marino stated that her objection, and
that of her neighbors, is the 2,000 ft. cul -de -sac being built onto their road.
Ninb Milo, 15102 Montalvo Road, stated that he felt the traffic is heavy only
when Montalvo has an event. Ile added that people should have realized there
would be an impact when the land was zoned for houses, and lie will be returning
to the Commission with a petition.
Jack Christian, 20230 Bonnie Brae Way, asked about more than four houses accessing
onto a private road. Commissioner Marshall explained that policy dictates that
there not be more than four houses on a private access road, and the CoiTUnission
does not normally approve a fifth home on a private road; however, there are
existing situations where there are more than four. He added that if someone
today were to ask to create a new lot and build on it, and it was the fifth lot
accessed by'a private road, the City would ask that it be dedicated as a public
street. It was explained to Mr. Christian that there is a 50 ft. right -of -way
across from the property on Lira Drive; therefore, it meets all of the policies
of the.City.
A history of the Lira Drive extension was given by Commissioner Marshall and
Don Beardsley, architect and engineer for the applicant. Mr. Beardsley reviewed
the history of this property, and stated that the Lira Drive extension is an
issue that has previously been discussed and decided by the City Council.
It was directed that the public hearing be continued to October 25, 1978, and
Staff asked that comments be to the Planning Department by October 4, 1978.
B. C -192 Saratoga Associates, Saratoga- S;urzyvale Road and Cox Avenue, Request
for Rezoning from "C -N' to "C -V' of the rear portion (2.25 acres) of
APN 391 -3 -282
Staff reported that the applicant had indicated a desire to place condominiums
on the rear portion of this lot, and,in order to do this, it would be necessary
to rezone from C -N to C -V. They added that the proposed rezoning is consistent
with the General Plan, and would allow the cmdcminium use with a use permit.
The public hearing was opened at 8:44 p.m.
John Holmes, Pierce Road, discussed the access- regarding Pierce. It was
explained to DIr. Holmes that Pierce would not be a arough street for commercial
use..
Mr. Lamb, Pierce Road, addressed the Ccrmussicn. Staff pointed out that this
rezoning would allow condominiums and no other use. Mr. Lamb stated he was
concerned about privacy if second -story condcminiu1s were built. Vice- Chairman
Laden stated that there would be a public hearing on this use when an applica-
tion was submitted.
Councilwoman Corr stated that there have been discussions of joining the hack
rear portion of the City property with this lzimd for possible senior citizen
housing, and she wanted to clarify that this possibility was still being con-
sidered. Staff stated that Stan Carnekie, Cit-lo representative, is meeting with
IM to determine if the City -oumed site is appropriate for senior citizens, and
if it is determined to be an appropriate site„ then the City could start negoti-
ating with the owners of this parcel.
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Cocm%_-;sioner Zambetti, to close the
public hearing. The motion was carried unanimusly. Commissioner Zambetti
moved to approve Resolution C -192 for reccrr.ien3ing proposed a„endments to
Ordinance NS -3, and fonrard it to the City Cor -rCil. Commissioner Kirshall
- 3 -
Minutes of Planning Page 4
Commission Me =eting 10/11/78
SIP -337 - Jmmanuel Lutheran Church (coat
report. The motion was carried unanimously.
C. V -496 - LawTence and 11- irgaret Guy, 21427 Saratoga lulls Road, Request for a
Variance to allow the installation of one (1) new prn;er pole for
I)urposes of relocating existing overhead electrical transmission lines
The public hearing was opened at 9:40 p.m. Since no one appeared, Commissioner
Marshall moved, seconded hy Commissioner Zambetti, to close the public hearing,.
The motion was carried unanimously.
It was noted that the variance was granted in 1976 and the applicant allowed it
to lapse. Coirnissioner I•Larshall ncA.Td to approve V -496 per the Staff Report
dated October 5, 1978, with the addition of Condition 1 in the Staff Report for
V -460, dated October 8; 1976; specifically, that "tine existing overhead telephone
line which also presently crosses over the applicant's s1-;inning pcol is to be
relocated to the proposed PG&E line route as shon,n on Exhibit "A ". Completion
Of this condition shall be required wit}:in ten (10) days of relocation of the
subject PG&E lines ", and that the applicant be notified that the intent of the
Conunission is that this variance not be extended beyond the one year authorized.
COnnlissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, and it was carried unanimously.
V. MISCELIANTOUS
A. Modification of Subdivision Ordinance as it relates to single_bui.lding site
Staff stated that the C=Qission is to cormient on the modification and forward
their cwnments to the City Council.:. it was the eorLsensus of the Co:anission that
this mod.ificati;;n till. not only streamline the procedure, but ma}es it more reasona-
ble and flexible for the applicant. Co nissioner Pillia s stated that he had con-
cern regarding the fee stricture on the one lot; specifically, those of flood con -
trol, storni and parks and recreation. It '%us pointed out that there are two docu-
ments to be adopted; the ordinance and tie Resolution of Criteria, :�hich will be
used by the Committee to determine the fees. Chairman Belanger stated that the
fact should be called to the Council's attention that when you increase the use
of the lot by 50z, more people are being imported onto that lot, and there may be
in fact more impact on the parks system azid, possibly other syste ms.
Commissioner Marshall moved that the Ca:L•nission endorse the Resolution and Ordinance
No. 60.5 and fon�•ard the recorniendati.on 'to the City COiLICil. Connissioner Zambetti
seconded the motion, and it was carried unanimously.
VI. COi�f M�7GITJONS
( A. ItiRITTITI =SD-129,6 Gerald Butler, Mortalvo Road, Request for One -fear Extension
~ °• -David Arita— rcpre.son', ing the owners of the property, :addressed the Commission
and requested that this extension be denied. fie stated that there is litigation
presently existing on the subject property which has not been resolved. -Mr. Arata
stated t)nat the owners of the property were under the impression that the street
pattern would be a cul -de -sac pattern, and now possibly chat may not be the ultimate
pattern. lie stated that they are requesting the opportunity to have the matter
reheard, and the owners be given the opportunity to present views cn t)lc subject
property and street pattern. Mr. Arata requested that the extension be denied
or continued for 30 days, since they ]aid been inforned that their engineers would
not be able to represent the=n in this matter,
property. and they have not yet fad an oppor-
tunity to get new engineers. Discussion folloaed on t9ic ownrrslnip of the subject
Mr. Jack Christian, 20230 Bornic P,rae, appeared, representing the Montalvo-Mende]-
Sohn Homeowners Assoc i.ati.on. fie PIese;ite-d a letter, r"lucsting the following:
(1) that the one year extensicn be denic\}, since the Ilo.mcm%mers Association
were just ianforried of it;
(2) if, the (:omission does not deny the ext<rnsicn, tluau any action be deferred
for 30 drys so they could prepare an answer.
.. A
Minutes of Planning
ConYlission D}ecting__10 /11/78 Page 5
E
LSD -1.296 - Gerald"Butler (cont.)
eonard Liccardo, 20045 Mendelsohn Lrre, stated that the property owrer
presently is not only against the extension at this time, but the real question
is that the tentative snap was approval without foresight at that time of the
access problems, and especially that of the Young property. Mr. Liccardo stated
that he felt the Coln issio.1 should see whn t ca,merts will be forthcoming from
the EIR consultant regarding the accessibility of Norton Road, a1:d this might
result in a new tentative map on the Arata property. Mr. Liccardo requested a
continuance of 30 days.
David Smith, attorney for Mr. Butler, stated that the Lira Drive extension through
the Arata property to provide access to the Young property w:rs adopted, and a
map was presented and approves}. Ile stated that the lati ;suit
Mr. Arata's contention that the property would not hav is OIL the issue of e to be sold unless there
that be a cul -de -sac street pattern, Mr. Smith stated that the court has rejected
that contention, and the extension will give bfr. Butler tiune to conform to the
conditions of the tentative map,
to either party. which the court has stated he is entitled to do.
He added that this extension will give status quo to the matter, without prejudice
Discussion followed on the relationship of t}v.s property to the Young property.
The City Attorney stated that if the COIISnission is dissatisfied with the plan
that was approved 18 r.:onths ago in this matter and would like to evaluate it, then
the extension should be denied. However, he added, if the Commission is satisfied
with the plan, -then there is no reason to deny the request for extension. COnmis-
sioner Marshall stated he felt that to deny the extension would be inconsistent,
since nothing has changed since the tentative crap eras approved, and the developer
should have a chance to develop it. Cone�,issioner Siegfried pointed out that the
neighbors will have a chance to be heard when the public hearing on the Young
(Butler) property is held,
3 Commissioner Marshall moved that the request for extension for one year be granted,
from November 30, 1975, in the matter of SD -1296. Ca-Missioner Siegfried seconded
the notion, and it was carried unanimously.
B. ORAL - Cit Crn moil Re ort Comrissioner Williams gave a brief report on the '
its oiurci meeting held or. October 4, 1978. A copy of the minutes of
this meeting are on file in the City Administration Office.
Chairman Belanger thanked Councilman Matteoni for attending the meeting, and also
the Good Government Group for attending and serving coffee. VII. ADJOJW,,%n;T
C"Missioner Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to adjourn the
meeting. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 10:42 p.m.
ktsinson' r.
Secretary
RSR:ed
Planning Com:ussion Page 2
Minutes - Meeting 10/25/78
SD -1354 (cont.)
Cornissioncr �4irshall move: to deny this item, subiect to a letter of extension. '
Conmrissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was tarried, with Chainian
Belanger abstaining.
It was directed that, upon receipt of the letter of extension, the item mould be
continued to the Committee -of- the- h'hole on Nova^ber 14th at 4:30 p.m., and continued
to the regular meeting on November 22, 1978. Staff was directed to notify the
Ca:'yon View Homeowners Association that there will be a discussion on the subject
of Canyon View as a possible access at the meeting on November 14, 197S.
J6. SD -1358 - Cerald Butler, Vickery Avenue, 13 Lots - Tentative :•:rap Approval
The LIR on this project was discussed prior to the discussion of the Tentative Map.
Access and circulation of this project were discussed. Cormiissiener Williams
asked the Citv Atton:ey to Took into the procedure of getting the offer of dedica-
tion to be made at this time in order to widen Vickery.
The following concerns were discussed by-the Cornrdssion:
Lots 4 and 5 ( possible elimination)
Reduction of structures and protection of riparian uoodland
Lot 10 (where it meets the landslide area and regarding access)
Lot 11 (regarding access and the ridgeline location of the-house)
Lot 12 (regarding access, ridgeline location of the house, and setbacks
to. the Olavarri home)
Don Beardsley, representing the applicant, stated that the home site being proposed
on lot 12 is set back from the property line because there is heavy vegetation and
does r,ot impact existing residences. He added that, regarding lots 4 and 5, the
tentative map does show a scenic easement proposed to be created which would pre-
serve the riparian woodlands.
Commissioner Marshall moved to deny SD -1358, subject to receipt of a letter of
extension. Co:rnissioner Zambetti seconded', and the notion was carried, with
Connissioner Belanger abstaining. It was directed that, upon receipt of this letter,
an on -site inspection will be held on Novamber T* 1978 at 3:30, and the item will
be discussed at a Cornittee -of- the - }whole meeting on November 21, 1978. . It was
directed that the item be continued to the regular :meeting on November 22, 1978.
7. SD -1391 - Marko Gera, Sobev Foad, 5 lots - Tentative Dar. Approval
Staff stated that they were reconnnending 'that this item be continued, in order to
give Staff time to review the new may submitted by the applicant. Commissioner
Dtirshall moved to denv SD -1391, subject to a letter of extension. Co-:^issioner Laden
seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously. Upon receipt of the letter, the
item! is to be agendizcd for t1le November 8, 1978 meeting.
I'lil)LIC HEARINGS
8. E -9.78 - G old Butler, Vickery Avenue, Review of Draft Er,vircmiental Impact Report
n a Proposal for Subdivision of 13 Single - Family Residential Units;
Continued from Se;,tu::ber 27, 1978
Staff reported that the public l:e;�ring on this item hod been ccntinued for one month,
to give the consultant sufficient time to respond to the cements received at the
last meeting.
The public hearing was opened at 7:55 p.m.
Mr. Paul Fenner, the EIR consultant, addressed the four significant issues that were
ea- zrented on at the last meeting: (1) traffic ii-pacts, (Z) noise, (3) wildlife,
and (4) views and scenic quality and loss of oipen s, ace. fie stated that the responses
to these comments u-ould be rode a part of the f final ELR.
Fir. 1,ecnard Li.ccardo, 20045 rieadelschn, addressed, the Cc-:nis ;ion. He svited that he
felt that several itcr:s have beer overlooked or ignored in the MR; the first of
these 1,eing the Possibility of Norton Road, through Eohir..an, as a t Tc of access.
- 2 -
Planning Ca,`mission Page 3
Minutes - Meeting 10/25/78
E -9.78 (cont.)
lie added that the EIR is incomplete and inconsistent regarding the soil and
removal of trees. Mr. Liccardo sulrtitted a list of Indian artifact and materials
which had been found in the access area going into the Butler property. Vice -
Chairman Laden pointed out that there is a mitigation measure listed in the EIR
for all Mork to be halted if archeological artifacts are found on the site.
Mr. Ramon Rieayes, 20400 Hill Road, stated that lie had found the motar bowl in
the Arata garden in front of their house when he first came to work for them,
approximately 16 years ago.
Airs. Alma Arata, 20400 Hill Avenue, stated that she would like to ensure that
the engineers consider the blind curves of Montalvo Road and the present hazards.
Discussion of the Villa Montalvo events followed. Mrs. Arata stated that the
board has been very cooperative and worked out the problems adequately for trans-
portation.
Air. Ralph Metcalf, a member of the Montalvo Executive Committee, stated that the
EIR had omitted the fact that during the large events of Villa Montalvo, Montalvo
Road essentially becomes a one -tray street to the Villa. Mr. Metcalf stated he
felt it illogical for the City to further compound the problem of the spurts of
traffic during these events by putting extra traffic in that area, when there is
an access over an existing street, which is Vickery.
Mrs. James Marino, 20553 Montalvo Lane, stated. that Villa Montalvo has solved the
parking problem with busing. She added that Villa Montalvo owns enough property
to be entitled to a traffic flow of 1200 to 1500 cars.
James Robertson, representing the traffic engineering consultant who prepared the
traffic portion of the EIR, stated that he felt that Montalvo Road is adequately
constructed and designed, and there is relatively good sight distance at all points.
lie stated that they felt it is adequate in width and that there will be no sig-
nificant change in additional traffic. Discussion followed on a possible access
to the property from Vickery Lane. Mr. Robertson pointed out that Vickery is not
constructed to City standards, and would have to be improved, widened and connected
through to serve as an access. It was also pointed out by the Conrdssion that
trickery is a private road.
Commissioner Marshall moved to close the public hearing. Corriissioner Siegfried
seconded the motion, which was carried,.with Co-mmissioner Belanger abstainig.
Commissioner Marshall moved that in the matter of E -9.78, the ccr� rents of the
n
preparer be incorporated; that it be considered as the Final EIR; that the Final
EIR be certified as complete and adequate, and that the proposed development will
have a significant impact upon the environment. Commissioner Siegfried seconded
the motion, which was carried, with C= issioner Belanger. abstaining.
Recess
8:45 p.m. - 9:05 p.m.
E -6.78 - McBain 4 Gibbs, Inc., Congress Springs & Tollgate Road, Review of Draft
Environmental Impact Report on a Proposal for Subdivision: of 20 lots;
Continued from October 11, 1978
Staff reported that this item gas continued to give the EIR consultant time to
proride additional alternatives, as requested by the Commission. They added that,
in addition to the addendum from the consultant,
addendum to the EIR, listing Staff has also submitted an
number of lots. suggested alternatives regarding access and the
Mfrs. Caldwell, 21196 Tollgate Road, addressed the CoMMission, regarding traffic
and the accidents on Tollgate at the entrance to Big Fasin Pray. She stated that
she felt there should be another entrance to the property.
It wns the consensus of the Corznission that the EIR was not well done; however, the
fact that the report states the alternative of a new subdivision flan and the
Staff addendum was added to the report, makes it possible for the EIR to be
certified as adequate and complete : +t this time. Staff stated that the EIR report
does identify the impact and it does present mitigation measures.
Commissioner Marshall moved that the EIR for MCpain G Gibbs, E -6.78, with the
three addenda comments and the Staff addendum, be certified as being complete
- 3 -
Page 2 ��1��•
plmuling Conmis�•J11/22/78
Miawtes - Mecting
J
�;..•
SD-1354 (coat.) •
Sn alternate plan. tifiich the applicant had submitted, was disctssed, shoe; g a
different road configuration corulecting Tollgate to Pierce Road, rather than
Canyon View. It was explained that this alternative essentially bTadesin a e
unstable soil area and might slog down through traffic. The 151 g rade is the
section of the road vas discussed- It was pointed out that a 151 g
maxinatn allowed by 'ordinance. A condition in the Staff Report was requested by by
• the Co=ission, to state to the effect that hazardous to will responsibility
the Iliblic Works Department, and, where necessary ,
of the applicant to erect barriers. Staff pointed out that it was the suddethe
transition fret one grade to mother, rather thm the constant l5. grade
road, that might prove to be hazardous. They stated that in the engineering
plancheck they will ensure that there are no vertical curves.
shotN, -as the curprove-
sensus of the Connission that the road pattern, P added that
ment over what was presented at the last Conn that lies Offsite . They
additional inforriation is needed on the area that lies offthe anact of therconnec-
codutection, and that they would like to see sc]icmaticallY the imp
tion of the Parnas property and the hookbacktoBig Basin �'ay' lots come off of
also
requested a schematic showing he Parnas property and how many
Big Basin Way.
The applicant stated that he would have his engineer run a center line on Coins d out
View so that they will }now what the gradients are on that road. It was P
that there were two potential routes through the Parnas property that could be
accerrplished, and these routes were discussed. Dir. McBain added that Staff previously
had asked them to Put together a circulation plan in relation to thithadjacent property, ,
showing how the road would connect, and he would discuss the map the
engineer for Parnas, as a potential alternative. It h°as the concensus of the Comnis-
sion that they would like to have that alternative discussed in more detail, since it
is an alternative that meets some of theroblt�ia that has been set by the Cormission
and solves some of the Parnas property P
E on View Homeowners Associations of
Staff vas directed to notify the Tollgate and�Vew since the City did previously
the discussion of through connection on Canyon
make a c cr=it�nent that access onto Canyon View could be. limited; however, in view
of the geological problems that have arisen, this possibility should be e� plored.
Coninissioner Marshall moved to deny this matter, subject to a letroi extension.
on
Caau ssioner Zxrbetti seconded the motion, which was carried unan Y•
• receipt of the letter, the matter will be continued to the Comnittee -of- the- }~hole
�— -- meeting ` on – December S, 1978 and the regular meeting of December'-130 1978.
/ 3. SD -1358 Gera - 13 lots, Tentative Map Approval;
ld Butler, Vickery Avenue
Continued
C_' nrtnhvr 25. 1978
The Car."ission stated that they had requested an alternate map at the Committee-of-
the- lehole meeting; however, the applicant stated that he was proceeding with the
13 -lot map submitted to than at that time, with the circulation shown.
Don Beardsley, representing the applicant, stated that there were two issues of,
concern by the Ccrnission, mentioned at the Cornittee -of- the -hhole meeting: (1)- the
elimination of one or more lots from the proposed map, with the intention that the
total number of lots which would take their access from Liras to w�ser•etthiscarea.
15; and (2) the elimination of lot S in the riparian wood
15; applicant vas now
Mr. Beardsley stated that, after much discussicn and thought,
PP
asking the Co-mission to approve &.c Qap as submitted.
Mr. Beardsley stated that the access road which traverseana thatlthe road5followsated
a considerable distance away from that top of the bank,
that of an existing service read that is on the site. He added that no omd cu tscaodslills
rill be TC°U1TCd to provide that road; no oak trees need be rov
explained that the homes on those two sit asking be esC�issi n to reconsider ltheir
removed, and, therefore, the applicant g
decision to elinirate lot S. It was pointed out to Mr. Beardsley that that the miti-
gation ss driverc�savoid lots 4
should be
riparian woodland so as to shorten the
access
Belanger stated that the Co niss�tn was
Beardsley followed one the rCira lation
regarding these two lots. Discussion by o aim• He pointed out
of the project and the justification of allowing lot 5 to r
Plaiuiing Commission
Minutes - Aieeting 11/22/78
SD -1358 (cont.)
Page 3
that the present proposal eliminates the Butler residence and the Gatehouse resi-
dence from accessing to Vickery, and replaces those two with, lots 4 and 5. He
explained that the two existing and the third potential Olavarri homes will now take
their access to Lira, and out lira to Montalvo. The Commission stated that by that
action Lira would be overloaded.
e.
Mr. Beardsley stated that they are suggesting that the Co:mission reconsider the
retaining of lot 5 for the following reasons: (1) that the riparian woodlands are
not being interrupted; no canopy vegetation or tree cover will be removed; and
(2) Vickery will not be overburdened, and, in fact, they are actually lessening the
number of dwelling units that exit out to Vickery.
The Vickery Avenue Circulation Study, prepared by Staff in 1977, was discussed. Mr.
Beardsley pointed out that this report states that "secondary (emergency) access"
to the end of the new public street could be derived through a short extension of
Vickery. Ile added that a loa-ed gate would be used to prevent any through traffic.
ConQnission Marshall stated that it was previously pointed out to Mr. Beardsley that
the total yield of the former Young property could be as low as one lot. He stated
that at one time Mr. Butler had a very well known position of having a landlocked
piece of property with W. Butler's house on it as the only piece of property that
could be developed.
Mr. Beardsley stated that the Vickery Avenue Circulation Study was developed and
presented to the Planning Commission and City Council to ensure the orderly develop-
ment of all the vacant parcels in the area. It was pointed out to Mr. Beardsley that
it was just a circulation plan and not a tentative map approval, and there is now a
total of 17 lots which would access out to Mbntalvo, which is 2 too many, according
to City.policy. Mr. Beardsley stated that the applicant believes that they have met
all the mitigation measures that have been suggested. •
Mr. David Smith, attorney for the applicant, addressed the Commission. Mr. Smith
discussed the project regarding aesthetics and access. Ile stated that the wording
of the City's policy, which is a policy and not a mandate, regarding a subdivision
not having an excess of 15 lots on a cul -de -sac, is in terms of means of secondary
access. He stated that, according to the circulation plan proposed for this area,
it would appear that emergency and secondary are in fact synonymous. Mr. Smith
stated that it was the applicant's position that he is meeting the policy because
he has provided a means of secondary access. Ile pointed out that two things should
be considered: (1) the fact that the applicant is somewhat artificially increasing
the maximum, but even if that may be true, (2) the maximum is absolutely 17.
Commissioner Marshall stated that the term of emergency access has been overused
by developers as a substitution for secondary access. Ile explained that the emer-
gency access was first conceived for a piece of property which was totally landlocked
and in which the only solution was a means of egress over somebody else's property.
Cormissioner Marshall stated that if the applicant could submit a plan which shows
the maxiumun yield on Lira, including all potential development, to be no more than
15, then they would he conTpliant with the City's policy.
Chainran Belanger stated that there was concern regarding the ownership of the other
end of Lira, which has not yet been determined. She stated that she felt that there
should be no more use of Vickery to bring in heavy equipment to service this property
until the ownership is determined. Staff was directed to include a condition in the
Staff Report to ensure that there be no more improvement done until this was deter-
mined. Carnissioner Marshall stated that he would like the condition to state that
no nbre improvcnent be done, and also that no grading can be done until that sub-
division has a connection to a public street. It was pointed out that the conditions
on the project, if granted tentative approval, must be fulfilled before final approval
is granted. If the applicant cannot bring the road into fruition, including the
connection to Montalvo, before his 18 months is up and with a possible extension of
one year, then he loses his tentative map. Commissioner Lustig stated his concern
that there be no interpretation that the City has approved something that cannot be
completed, and have it used as a tool in the present litigation.
Mr. Butler, the applicant, stated that he would be in favor of not increasing the
number of lots accessing onto Vickery, which would also cmply with the cul -de -sac
configuration for Lira Drive. lie added tIvit they would coapromise and eliminate
lot 11. At this time the Commission pointed out to Mr. Butler that the ru tigation
measures listed by the Staff must be reflected on the map.
51
E
C
Minutes of Planning
Coiwnission Meeting 10/11/78
SD -1296 - Gerald' Butler (cont,)
M, ---j L '
Page S
a iccardo, 20045 Mep'delsohn Lane,
presently is not o stated that the property owner
nly against the extension at this time, but the real question
is that the tentative crap wa. approved without foresight at that time of the
access problems, and especi ly that of the Young property, Mr. Lice Io stayed
that he felt the Ccr:znission should see what corrients will be forth ng frmi
thi
result Rin asnewatentativel1 P On the Aratalproperty.rtMr.hLici ado requestedta
continuance of 30 days.
nalid Smith, attorney f�r Mr. Butler, Xwouldhave at the a Drive extension through
ata property to Provide access tng pr .erty hrs adopted, and a
p s presented and approved, He st t} ar;suit is on the issue of
Mr. to s contention that the properhave to he sold unless there
would a cul -de -sac street pattern, that co ntion, and / the extension will stated that the court tress rejected
condition f the tentative rrap, which t haslstatedcheoisoentitled to toedo.
He added this extension will give uo to the r,Iatter, without prejudice
to either pa
Discussion foll on the that ip of this property to the Young property,
The City Attorne athd that if e Of
is dissatisfied with the plan
that was sionol' :on en ago this matter and would like to evaluate it, then
the extension. s held deni However, he added, if the Commission is satisfied
with the plan, then th` is o reason to deny the request for extension. Connis-
sioner Marsha 1 stated h` t that to deny the extension would be inconsistent,
since nothin has change 'ice the tentative crap was approved, and the developer
should have chance to, eve•' it. Connissioner Siegfried pointed out that the
neighbors w'll have a ante t be heard when the public hearing on the Young
(Butler) p /r6perty i eld.
Commissioner Mar X11 moved that th
from Novrnber 3 % 1975 in the matter,equestlfor extension for one year be granted,
the motion, a pit was carried Una, *r ii . „ `�6• C�issioner Siegfried seconded
B. ORAL - Ci 'Council Report - ConaissioneN'illiams gave a brief report on the
Y ourrci meeting held or, October y 1978. A copy of the minutes of
S meetijrg are on file in the City A rustiation Office.
Chaff Belanger thanked Councilman Matteoni. for attendin the meeting, the Goverment Group for attending and serving co ee and also
VII. ADJC(1 fL- 7
RSR:cd
sioner Zambetti moved, seconded by Corstissioner Marshall, to hunt the
g. The motion Has carried unanimously, and the meeting was adj t7,Ihd at 10:42 p.m.
o inson, r,
Secretary
i •r
Planning Ccx'rrri (Slam
Dtinutes - Meeting 11/22/78
C Page 4
J
SD -1358 (cont.)
C
Urnissioner DLarshnll moved to approve "in concept" SD -1358, given the caveats
that access onto Vickery be maintained at no greater number than that which presently
exists, which is believed to be 14; that the number of lots accessi.rrg off of Lira be
set at a number which-, when corhined with all the other potential and existing lots
on Lira, would not exceed 15; that an c:ergency access road be constructed between
the term, ination, of Lira and Vickery to provide predominantly for 'the larger-number
• of lots on Vickery than would norrr -illy be approved, and subject to receipt of an
exhibit which co�plies with those requirements and also reflects the mitigation
measures requested by the City. Ccr=.issioner Zambetti seconded the motion.
Tim Nobriga addressed the Ca:caission, stating that he is the owner of the house
adjoining the Butler property and contiguous to lot 4. He stated that access to
both lot 4 and 5 would ccme up his driveway. Ile stated that he had submitted a
letter, outlining his concerns in this area, and that if lots 4 and 5 are permitted,
traffic would increase on the 100 yards of his driveway being used, by 200 %. He
added that he had been assured by Staff two years ago that the rural character of this
area would be maintained. Dtr. Nobriga stated that he had to widen part of Vickery
Lane to 18 ft. and had to put up a bond; he would like to see that requirement stated
for the applicant for that portion of his driveway which would have to be widened to
18 ft. lie stated that he would compromise on having one lot, but thought there
should not be two. W. Nobriga explained that there has a 6 ft. easement on his
property, but that it had been granted as access to the riparian area.
Chairman Belanger explained that the question regarding the easement is a legal one,
and the matter should be resoled by Mr. Nobriga and the applicant. Mr. Beardsley
explained that the easement had been established for mutual ingress and egress between
the adjacent property owners and for public utilities. He also stated that the appli-
cant would agree to a bond for that portion of Mr. Nobriga's driveway. Staff was
' directed to include that as an additional condition on the Staff Report. I
W. Christian, Vickery Lane, addressed the Commission and discissed the possible
C.. manner'in which the Commission could alleviate the existing problem on Vickery by
eliminating sane houses, and come closer to the City Code requirements for a private
• drive. His recarmendation was that the Commission strive to improve the situation
at this time, rather than maintaining the status quo. It ties explained to Dtr. Christian
that the situation is being mitigated by putting in an emergency access connection to
Lira, which is logical. Therefore, it was pointed out, the situation has not been
made any worse, and it has been improved to the extent that an emergency connection
W been added. Dtr. Christian stated that he felt that the matter should be studied
• furtJier, rather than taking a vote on it at this meeting. Chairman Belanger pointed
out that the motion is in principle only, and the numbers mentioned are nothing more
than a reiteration of what the Planning Commission considers to be consistent policy.
The vote was taken on the motion, and the motion was carried unanimously. Chairman
Belanger explained that the concepts expressed are passed, with submission of the
map and a resolution for tentative approval still•to follow.
Break - 9:50 p.m. - 10:05 p.m.
34ZLIC 1iFARnGS
4. V- 457'>•v,..Donald and Cale Sturdevant, 19222 Bountiful Acres, Request for-a_-'Variance
t�kYJuce the required rearyard setback of 15 ft. to 7 ft:'for the siting
1 of a�C� court in an R- 1- 40,000 zoning district—,�''`�
Staff reported that this ltv a, d been withdrawn,,anc an application will be
submitted in the near future •r6l`•a„Use Permit .to' cover this matter.
5. E -7.78 - H. Teerlink/A. DoMartini, ttt, 'tdej�„Road, Review of Draft Environmental
Impact Report on a Rr sal for Resid,emial Project - 42 lots
Chairman Belanger explained A at an Enviromental Imp t- Veport is an informational
document to give necesfary information in order to make an aJ6gkuge decision, and
�.:.' that remarks tYd s:e4ening should be on the EIR, rather than the teineitik:�map. It
wvs pointed out "that the consultant is present at this meeting to take co,�
from the,publie and respond to them, and that additional convents can be submitte'S
unti .Ndverber 29, 1978.
�fhe public hearing was opened at 10:10 p.m.
4 -
CITY OF SARATOGA PL4Y41NG CCt USS1ON
rnt�lrr�s
DATE: Wednesday, December 13, 1978 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACL: City Council Chambers, 13777 Frvitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California
T)TE: Regular Meeting
ROUTINE ORG4NI21ATION
Roll Call:
Present: Corrussiorers Laden, Marshall, Siegfried, Williams and Zwiibetti
Absent: Co missioners Belanger and Lustig
Minutes
With the correction that on page 4, the sixth sentence should read "....for the larger
number of lots on Vickery.... ", it was moved by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by
Cormissioner Zambetti, to waive the reading of the minutes of November 22, 1978 and
approve as distributed. The motion was carried, with Commissioner Siegfried abstaining,
since he was not present at the meeting.
CO?\'SLAT CkLENDAR
A -606, Galeb Properties, was removed for discussion. Commissioner Zambetti moved,
seconded by Co^missioner Williams, to approve the remaining following items on the
Consent Calendar. The motion was carried unanimously.
1. SDR -1382 - Gregg Moss, Franklin Avenue, 1 lot, Final Building Site Approval
3. A -640 - Gordon Fardal, Glenmont Drive, Single Family Residence, Final Design Review
Approval
4. A -641 - Lou and Sally Leardini, Kittredge Road, Single Family Residence, Final Design
Review Approval
Dismission was held on the following item:
2. A -606 - Galeb Properties, 12378 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, Final Design Review Approval
for Signs
Commissioner Zambetti stated that he was concerned about the design review of the signs
for these buildings and also the signs on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. Warren Heid, the
architect, stated that the signs were very similar to those for Azule Shopping Center;
however, they were smaller, approximately 6 ft. long. The concept of wooden signs was
discussed. It was the consensus of the Cormmission that they had no problem with match-
ing the design that is already there. Conmissioner Zambetti moved to approve A -606.
The motion was seconded by Cormissioner Williams and was carried unanirleusly.
SUBDIVISIONS/BUILDING SITES
S. SD -1354 - M--Bain $ Gibbs (Boisseranc), Tollgate Road - 20 Lots, Tentative Map Approval;
Continued from November 22, 1978
Staff reported that the applicants are pursuing the geology with the City Consultant.
They added that a letter of continuance has been received from the applicant. It was
direeteq that this ite3n be continued to the Jartiary 24, 1979 meeting.
6.." SD -1358 \ Gerald Butler, Vickery Avenue - 13 lots, Tentative Map Approval; Continued
/ from November 22, 1978
Staff reported that the major issues with this subdivision deal with: (1) the number of
lots taking access off of Lira without a secondary access; (2) no increase in the number
of lots taking access onto Vickery Lane; (3) lots 4 and 5; and (4) combination of lots
10, 11 and 12. Discussion of the potential lots on Lira Drive followed. It was the
consensus of the Commission that their requests regarding the maxir,:um number of lots
accessing off of lira and Vickery had not been met by the applicant. Ca missioner
Marshall stated that the applicant was entitled to less tl-kin the number of lots offered
at the last meeting, according to City policy which had been followed for years.
- 1 -
0
r�L
4. V-
t
Donald and Cale Sturdevant, 19222 Bountiful Acres, R
'f6k1 uce the required rearyard setback of 15 ft. to
of a-Tttmi5 court in an R- 1- 40,000 zoning districts:•
Staffi reportcd that this `rte
submitted in the near future
�M�_
est for..- etariance
ftr`for the siting
been w-ithdrawn, and an application. will be
_Use Permt,_,to"c%over this matter.
• S. E-7,�78 - H. TeerlinVA. DdMartini, AI.t,7Td oad, Review.of Draft rnvironmental
J
Impact Report on a Pr sal for Res5'4MZial Pro'eet - 42 lots
Chai in
rman Belanger explained -that an Envircmental Ir7�act'`Report is an informational
• document to give necessary information in order to make an adec{uakG decision, and
that remarks this,- evening should be on the EIR, rather than the ten'?tviikg� map. It
rvs pointed.out' that the consultant is present at this meeting to take ccrr',cFk�t
from the;peiblie and respond to them, and that additional easnents can be submittc�
anti overber 29, 1978.
lie hearing was opened at 10:10 p.m.
-4-
Pinning Cormiss —n Page 4
Minutes - I- Sccting 11/22/78
J
SD -1358 (cont.)
Ccrmissioner TLarshall moved to approve "in concept" SD -1358, given the caveats
that access onto Vickery be maintained at no greater number than that which presently
exists, which is believed to be 14; that the number of lots accessing off of Li a be
set at a number which-, when cmhined with all the other potential and existi lots
n Lira, would not exceed 15; that an azergency access road be constructed etween
termination of Lira and Vickery to provide predominantly for the la umber
•
of s on Vickery than would norm111y be approved, and subject to re ipt of an
exhib which ecnplies with those requirements and also reflects th mitigation
measure equested by the City. Cor.:missioner Zambetti seconded motion.
Tim NoUriga ressed the Cormission, stating that he is the er of the house
adjoining the ler property and contiguous to lot 4. He s ated that access to
both lot 4 and 5 uld cane up his driveway. IIe stated th he had submitted a
letter, outlining concerns in this area, and that if ots 4 and 5 are permitted,
traffic would increa on the 100 yards of his drivewa eing used, by 200%. He
added that he had been ssured by Staff two years ago that the rural character of this
area would be maintain W. Nobriga stated that had to widen part of Vickery
Lane to 18 ft. and had to t up a bond; he would ike to see that requirement stated
for the applicant for that rtion of his drivew which would have to be widened to
18 ft. lie stated that he w�o d campronise on ving one lot, but thought there
should not be two. W. Nobri explained tha there was a 6 ft. easement on his
property, but that it had been anted as a ess to the riparian area.
Chairman Belanger explained that t gues ion regarding the easement is a legal one,
and the matter should be resolved by 'obriga and the applicant. Mr. Beardsley
explained that the easement had been tablished for mutual ingress and egress between
the adjacent property owners and for is utilities. He also stated that the appli-
cant would agree to a bond for that rt of Air. Nobriga's driveway. Staff was
directed to include that as an additional ndition on the Staff Report.
W. Christian, Vickery Lane, ad essed the C ission and disaissed the possible
manner in which the Commission ould alleviat the existing problem on Vickery by
'
eliminating some houses, and cane closer to City Code requirements for a private.
drive. His recommendation s that the Comnissi strive to improve the situation
at this time, rather than intaining the status o. It was explained to Mr. Christian
that the situation is be' mitigated by putting i an emergency access connection to
Lira, which is logical. erefore, it was pointed t, the situation has not been
made any worse, and it s been improved to the ext that an emergency connection
has been added. W. istian stated that he felt t the matter should be studied
•
further, rather than along a vote on it at this meeti Chairman Belanger pointed
out that the motion- s in principle only, and the numbe mentioned are nothing more
than a reiteration f what the Planning Commission consi rs to be consistent policy.
The vote was tak n on the motion, and the motion was carri unaniriously. Chairman
Belanger explai ed that the concepts expressed are passed, zth submission of the
map and a reso tion for tentative approval still•to follow.
Break - 9:50 p.m/. - 10:05 p.m.
4. V-
t
Donald and Cale Sturdevant, 19222 Bountiful Acres, R
'f6k1 uce the required rearyard setback of 15 ft. to
of a-Tttmi5 court in an R- 1- 40,000 zoning districts:•
Staffi reportcd that this `rte
submitted in the near future
�M�_
est for..- etariance
ftr`for the siting
been w-ithdrawn, and an application. will be
_Use Permt,_,to"c%over this matter.
• S. E-7,�78 - H. TeerlinVA. DdMartini, AI.t,7Td oad, Review.of Draft rnvironmental
J
Impact Report on a Pr sal for Res5'4MZial Pro'eet - 42 lots
Chai in
rman Belanger explained -that an Envircmental Ir7�act'`Report is an informational
• document to give necessary information in order to make an adec{uakG decision, and
that remarks this,- evening should be on the EIR, rather than the ten'?tviikg� map. It
rvs pointed.out' that the consultant is present at this meeting to take ccrr',cFk�t
from the;peiblie and respond to them, and that additional easnents can be submittc�
anti overber 29, 1978.
lie hearing was opened at 10:10 p.m.
-4-
�f
P ;-inning Ccnunission (�' �� Page 2
Minutes - Mtg. 12/13/78'
SD -1358 - Gernld Butler (cont.)
The number of potential lots were discussed. Dfr. Beardsley, representing the
applicant, discussed the revised map that had been submitted. It was the consensus
of the Commission that they were also concerned with the quality of the lots. Mr.
Beardsley proposed to eliminate one lot which now takes its exit onto Lira and stated
that, in order to achieve this, they would carbine lots 10 and 11.
Arlene Nobriga addressed the Commission, asking about the use of their driveway to
access lots 4 and S. Comissioner Iaden stated that this was a legal matter between
the Nobrigas and Mr. Butler. It was clarified that there is a requirement in the
Staff Report that the construction be done under bonding.
The Cam. ission requested the applicant to submit a new map showing the new number of
lots and the access. It was directed that this matter be continued to an adjourned
regular meeting on December 19, 1978.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
t.
7. E -7.78 - H. Teerlink/A. DeMartini, Mt. Eden Road, Review of Draft Environmental Impact
Report on a Proposal for Residential Project - 4Z Lots; Continued from
November 22, 1978
Staff reported that they were satisfied that the DeMartini portion of the EIR is ade-
quate. However, they stated there are still sane questions regarding geology on the
Teerlink portion of the project. I•t was clarified by the City Attorney that the
Commission could act on the EIR as to each project in a separate fashion. 1'
Discussion followed on the definition of "acceptable risk ". Mr. Prendergast, the
applicant's geologist, stated that, with the mitigating measures being recommended, �.
that the risk had been decreased to a level that was acceptable. Mr. Wimberly, of
the Inspection Services Department, stated that the term "acceptable risk" is not
quantifiable, and in the ultimate sense the City's assurance of reasonable risk comes
from the review by the City Geologist. The setbacks listed in the EIR were also dis-
cussed with the applicant's geologist. :Mr. Swett, the EIR consultant, was requested
to 511l:r t two addenda covering these matters.
Mr. Teerlink, the applicant, stated that he felt the City Geologist's report should have
been received by this date, since so much time had elapsed since the beginning of the
project. Staff clarified that there is still some forthcoming material from Mr. Teerlink T s
geologist to be submitted. It has the consensus of the Ca mission that they were not
prepared to act on the Teerlink portion of the EIR until the City Geologist's report
is received.
Cccnissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that in the matter of
E -7.78, the final EIR for the DeMartini portion only, that the Staff Report dated
December 7, 1978 be approved to the extent that it covers only that portion; that the
certified EIR is complete subject to the receipt of the two addenda requested, and
that the Cauu scion make the findings that the project will have a significant_ impact
on the environment. The motion was carried unanimously. _
It was directed that the Teerlink portion of the EIR be continued to the January 10,
1979 meeting, since all the proper data has not bee submitted to make the findings.
Mr. Prendergast, the applicant's geologist, acs requested to submit all the needed
material to the City Geologist as soon as possible.
8. UP- 348Cb) - Kelly- Gordon Company, Request for a "Use Permit to allow a real estate office
to locate in Oak Creek Shopping Center, located at 12175 Saratoga - Sunnyvale
Road
Commissioner Williams abstained from the discussion and voting on this issue because
of a conflict of interest. The public hearing has opened at 9:02 p.m. Since no one
appeared to speak, Ca. issioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Siegfried, to
close the public hearing. The motion has carried.
Discussion followed on the possible limiting of employees or square footage of the
office. Caa°issiorer Zambetti moved to adopt UP- 348('0) for the Oak Creek Investment
Ca piny, to allow for a 3500 sq. ft. real estate office, per the Staff Report, deleting
Condition 1 related to the limitation of the size of the building. The motion was
carried.
- 2 -
a
CITY OF SARANGA PiA LNI.';G CLM%USS1QN
whims
DATE: Tuesday, December 19, 1978 - 4 :30 p.m.
PLACE: Crisp Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California
TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
Roll Call
r
Present:. Ccnonissioners Belanger, Laden, Lustig, Marshall, Siegfried, Williams
and Zambetti
Absent: None
S11BDI1'ISI0NS /B1ftLDING SITES
SD1358 - erald Butler, Vickery Avenue - 13 lots, Tentative Map Approval; Continued
from December 13, 1978
Staff reported that the applicant has redesigned the tentative rap, and the proposal
now has a complete redesign of six lots, and there are nrn,7 12 lots total in The sub-
division. They pointed out that there is a scenic easement located on the southern
most portion of the subdivision, over which the Ccr mission had indicated concern.
Staff stated that this had been incorporated into the final design, and the applicant
has met the intent of the Planning Co:nnission with these changes.
Co missioner Lustig stated that lie could not understand how the applicant, according
to the conditions of the staff report, could dedicate something, that he does not mm,
namely Lira Drive. Staff connented that the applicant does not have access to those
lots imtil such time as he acouires the rights to the property through which Lira Drive
is to extend. They added that he has 13 months*, if the tentative map is approved, to
settle the matter in court and meet the conditions of the tentative map. At that time,
they stated, if the conditions have not been met, the tentative map fails. It has pointed
out to the applicant that no building or develom,ent of any kind is allorwable on this
property until the access rights are acquired, including grading. ( *and possible 1 -yr extensioT)
The conditions of the Staff Report were discussed. The following changes were to be
made:
(1) The first sentence under Findings should read: "Said project complies with all
objectives of the 1974 General flan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Sub-
division Ordinances of the City of Saratoga, except as delineated above and
approved by the Planning Commission ".
(2) Condition I -D - The first sentence should read: "Provide cr;ergency access con-
structed to 'Tdinimrn Access Road" standards to Lcnita Avenue.
(3) Condition I -E - The first sentence should read: "Construct emergency access road
18 ft. wide plus 1 ft. shoulders using double seal coat oil and screening or better
on 6: Agg. Base from public street to approved turnaround."
(4) Condition IA% G - should read "the three hydrants ", instead of any three hydrants.
.(S) Cdnditi.on VII -C -3 should read: "Scenic easement restrictions shall be as shown
on the approved Final 1•1ap ".
(6) Condition VII -C -S sW l be deleted.
(7) Condition VII -D - The last sentence which reads" Agreement to be inclu3ed in the
recorded CCF,R's, amended only with the City pen,.ission and enforceable to City of
Saratoga" should be deleted. Sentence to be added which reads: "Neither the CCF,R's
nor the Scenic Eascr,ent Agreement are to be aviendcd without the written consent of
the City of Saratoga, and they are to be enforceable by the City."
(8) Condition VII -G - Sentence should be added: 'Ttiblic access is not implied or intended ".
Commissioner Marshall roved for adoption of the Staff Rmcrt -datod December 13, 1978 as
amended, including Exhibit "A" and 'D "; that the fijidings be made relative to the E•IR
MW
0
L
0
I 1
u
0.
1
•
1
rage
plannilig Conmis in r
Mijnwtes - Mecting 11/22/78
J
SD -1354 (cant.) •
An alternate plan, which the applicant had submitted, tics discussed, showing a
ficrent road configuration connecting Tollgate to tierce Foad, rather than
yon View. It was, explained that this alterative essentially bTade/in a e
un table soil area and might Slow
down through traffic. The 151 g race is the
see ion of the road was discussed. It was pointed out that a 15i g �
maxi n allowed by 'ordinance. A condition in the Staff Report was requested by by
the C ission, to state to the effect that hazardous turnsbe�thearesponsibility
the 1'iib is Works Department, and, where necessary, i
of th a licant to erect barriers. Staff pointed out that it U.
tradeuofethe
trans from one grade to pother, rather than the constant/ engineering
road, th .,ighwilrove to ha thdocsareTno vcrticaltcurves� It was the con -
planchcek pattern, resent /ly shown, is an improve -
sensus of th onnission that the road pattern, p
ment over what as presented at the last Committee -of -the-] Ole. they added that
additional info tion is needed on the area that lies of itc anact ofcroaodp�-
connection, and t they hould like to see sclionaticadl Way The Ccrmdssion also
lion of the Parna roperty and the hookback to Bian�as� many lots came off of
requested a schema showing the Parnas property
Big Basin Way. -
C ern
The applicant stated he would have his eng•, e run a center line on anY
what the adients r on that road. It was pointed out
View so that they will areas ro er that could be
that there were two pot ti 1 roeresdiscussed. eir. AscBain added that Staff previously
accomplished, and these t relation to the adjacent property,
had asked them to put toge he a circulations with Bill Heiss, the
showing how the road would one ct, and hew id discuss the map
engineer for Parnas, as a po ent 1 alte��na
�•e. It has the concensus of the Commis-
el-
like to ve hat alt alive discussed in morev, thelC�ission
Sion that the) s +ou
is an alterative that meets s
and solves some of the Parnas
Staff was directed to notify the
the discussion of through conne'
make a commitment that access o:
of the geological problems that
Commissioner }Marshall moved to/
criteria that has been set y
oblems.
and Canyon View Homeowners Associations of
anyon View, since the City did previously
View rmuld be limited; however, in view
19, this possibility should be explored.
ma
Co7au ssioner Zambetti seconded the motion
• receipt of the letter, the tier will be,
__-- (-etine-on-Decenber 5, 1978 and the regul
d Butler, iekery Avenue -
October 2 iJ 978
13. SD -1358
The Commission stated
the - ]Whole meeting; ha
13-lot map submitted
r
nesenting the applicant, stated that t
7: mentioned at the Cosruttee -of-
ission, ` w•it
e "or more lots from the proposed mtsp,
ots which would take their access from Li
limination of lot S in the riparian \,nodl
ted that, after much discussion and thoug
sion to approve the rap as submitted \
Don Beardsley, r
concern by the C
elimination of o
total number of
15; and (2) th
rir. Beardsley St
asking the _,M,i
subject to a letter of extension.
h has carried unanimously. Upon
nued to the Comnittee-of- the -Whole
g of December 13, 1978.
Xrts Tentative A1ap Approval; Continued
at they had requested 'aj
er, the applicant state
them at that time, with
\atu�a e map at th e Cormittee-of-
ths proceeding with the
he ation shown.
were two issues of,.
1Whole meeting: (1)' the
the intention that the
a Drive would not exceed
, to preserve this area.
t, the applicant was now
t�ir. Beards eye stated that the access road which traverses d thatlthe road 5follows
ated
a coBear able distance away fray that top of the bulk, �n
that of existing service read that is on the site. He added that no P&aordsleyls
rill b required to provide that road; no oak trees need be roved• that
expla' wand that the thetapplicant site
wassaskirg thesCccr..mi`sSion oto reconsider ltheir
remov
dcc' 1on to eli statcdlthat lots 4 and 5 should tbeoredesignedsso as to shorten ethetl-
g on measures
access drive and avoid disturbance to the riparian woodland.
Chairman Belanger stated that the Cc- mission was concerned with the circulation
regarding these two lot Discussion by Mr. bear of 5 tolra-ain� Hcepointed aoutn.
of the project and the justification of all
-2-
�< Planning Camnission . age 2
Meeting Minutes -
Adjourned Regular Mtg. 12/19/78
under (a) and (c) of the report, and further, that by making this approval, the
Cc Mission is accepting the deviation from the requirement for 4 lots accessing onto ,
a private street. Cormissioner Siegfried seconded the motion. The motion was carried,
with Ccrm issioner Lustig voting no.
OQ•M NICATIO\'S
• _Oral - A resolution was read into the record and presented to Lynn Belanger, along
with a gold - plated gavel, commending her for her outstanding service to the
Saratoga Planning Cormission.
ADJCURNNUNr
C07russ ioner. Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, to adjourn the meeting.
The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
o i1pson, r.
Secretary ,
RSR:cd
• r
U
I
�r
Planning Corunission Page 2
Minutes - Mtg. 12/13/78'
J
SD -1358 - Gernld Butler (cont.)
The number of potential lots were discussed. Mr. Beardsley, representing the
applicant, discussed the revised map that had been submitted. It was the consensus
of the Cam ssion that they were also concerned with the quality of the lots. Mr.
Beardsley posed to eliminate one lot which now takes its exit onto Lira and stated
that, in orde } }} to achieve this, they would carbine lots 10 and 11.
Arlene Nobriga ressed the Ccrmssion, asking about the use of their driveway to
access lots 4 a S. Commissioner Iaden stated that this was a legal matter between
the Nobrigas and A . Butler. It was clarified that there is a requirement in the
Staff Report that e construction be done under bonding.
The Cormission reques ed the applicant to submit a new map showing the new n per of 1
lots and the access. t was directed that this matter be continued to an a j rned
regular meeting on Dec er 19, 1978.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. E -7.78 - H. Teerlink/A. rtini, Mt. Eden Road, Review of Draft Envi onmental Impact
Report on a Pro 1 for Residential Project - 42 Lots; Cont ued from
November 22, 1978
Staff reported that they were tisfied that the DeMartini portion f the EIR is ade-
quate. However, they stated th e are still sane questions regar geology on the
Teerlink portion of the project. It was clarified by the City A rney that the
Commission could act on the EIR a to each project in a separat3r ashion.
Discussion followed on the definiti of "acceptable risk ". . Prendergast, the
applicant's geologist, stated that, w th the mitigating meas• s being recaumuended, �.
that the risk had been decreased to a evel that was accept e. 11r. Wimberly, of
the Inspection Services Departnent, staV that the term " eptable risk" is not
quantifiable, and in the ultimate sense e City's assur of reasonable risk comes
from the review by the City Geologist. setbacks li in the EIR were also dis-
cussed with the applicant's geologist. btr Swett, the consultant, was requested •
to sulnit two .2ddenda coverir_g these matte \
Mr. Teerlink, the applicant, stated that he fie ity Geologist's report should have
been received by this date, since so much time e apsed since the beginning of the
project. Staff clarified that there is still s orthcoming material from Dtr. Teerlink's
geologist to be submitted. It was the consens o the Camnission that they were not
prepared to act on the Teerlink portion of the P til the City Geologist's report
is received.
Carmissioner Marshall moved, seconded by C i sinner Z betti, that in the matter of
E -7.78, the final EIR for the Do'tartini ti•n only,`tha the Staff Report dated
December 7, 1978 be approved to the exte t tit covers my that portion; that the
certified EIR is crnrplete subject to th r eipt of the \tko addenda requested, and
that the Carmission make the findings at the project will \ave a significant impact
on the environment. The motion was rri unanimously.
It was directed that the Teerlink rti of the EIR be continukd to the January 10,
1979 meeting, since all the proper dat has not bee submitted to�nake the findings.
Mr. Prendergast, the applicant's eol ist, was requested to \su m t all the needed
material to the City Geologist so as possible. `�\
8. UP- 348(b) - Kelly- Gordon Cc
to locate in Oa
Road
t for a Use Permit to allow a\real estate office
ing Center, located at 13175 Saratoga - Sunnyvale
Commissioner Willi/nthc ired from the discussion and voting on this issue because
of a conflict of i The public hearing was opened at 9:02 p.m. Since no one
appeared to speak, oner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Siegfried, to
close the public hear* The motion was carried.
Discussion followe possible limiting of employees or square footage of the
office. Crn*.issioetti moved to adopt UP- 348(b) for the Oak Creek Investment •
Company, to allow for a 3500 sq. ft. real estate office, per the Staff Report, deleting
Condition 1 related to the limitation of the size of the building. The motion was
carried.
- 2 -
Planning Commiss -.,n - Page 2
Minutes 5/23/79
SD -1405 (cont.)
requested to submit a revised plan. They added that there is a possi-
bility that pony walls will be needed for the garages to keep the road
at on-site level.
Mr. Kirkeby, the engineer, stated that they were presently in the pro-
cess of raising the street approximaFely 2 feet, which will probably
necessitate raising the garages 2 feet also on lots 2 and 3. lie added
that there are three or four levels on both of the lots, and the slope
of the road will be slightly below grade.
Commissioner Marshall moved to deny SD -1405 subject to a letter of
extension. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried
unanimously.
6. SD -1416 Dividend Industries, Carnelian Glen, 6 Lots, Tentative Map
Approval
It was reported by .Staff that the Planning Commission recently denied
an application for a similar number of lots on this particular street,
due to the fact that it did not conform to one of the General Plan ob-
jectives - no more than 15 lots on a cul. -de -sac.
An option proposed by Staff, using the lands of Johns as a limited
access street, was discussed. Commissioner Marshall suggested that
the two realistic alternatives are those which have consistently been
allowed in the City: (1) a minimum access road, yith the possibility of
it being abandoned at a future date, and (2) waiting until the Lehman
Estate is developed and there is access.
Commissioner Laden stated that, since there is no indication at present
that the Lehman property will be developed and what the topography and
the possibility of connecting those properties will be, she f.clt that if
the subdivision is going to be approved it must be done with a public
street.
Commissioner Zambetti stated that he would have difficulty approving the
subdivision with a minimum access road.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that the proposed plans set a terrible
precedent, and he felt the best compromise would be to have 4 lots
accessing off a minimum access road, and the one additional lot access-
ing off of Carnelian Glen.
Larry Cohn, 14542 Carnelian Glen, commented that he preferred Staff's
option, since it will not come through Carnelian Glen.
s' Mr. Ed Backman, of Dividend Industries, stated that they would be pleased
to accept either of the plans before the Commission.
Discussion of the present proposal followed. It was the consensus of
the Commission that this item should be continued, in order that the
applicant can submit an alternative plan. Lot K6 was discussed and the
possibility of it be.inp eliminated or made larger and buildable by
moving the property line, and thereby eliminating an adjacent lot.
It was directed to continue this item to June 13, 1979.
7. SD -1413 Gerald Butler, Vickery and lira, 2 Units consisting of 12 lots,
Tentative Map Approval
rtnff —ro rted that the applicant had asked for a continuoncc of this
matter. It was the consensus of the Commission that this proposal
allows two additional homes to access onto Vickery, and they would not
approve that. No one appeared to address the Commission on this matter.
Commissioner Marshall moved to deny SD -1413 for subdivision modification.
Commissi.00cr Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
- 2 -
III. SUBDTVISTONS, BUILDING SITES,
SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES,
ZONING REQUESTS
\ .-QUESTS
A. APPEAL OF SDR-1290, HULS17 I
The City Manager reported that
(IRANY) 'IT. EDEN ROAD, TENTA-
per the Council's request,
TIVE BUILDING SITE APPROVAL,
Mr. Irany has met with the staff
2 LOTS, REQUEST FOR SECOND
and has no problems with the
1-YEAR EXTENSION (Cont'd.
modified conditions of tentative
9/19/79)
site approval.
M/ S: Corr/Callon to grant the
one-year extension, subject to
the added conditions of tentative
site approval. Carried unanimously.
B. REPORT FROM PLANNING DIP—ECTOR
The City Manager explained the
RE: EMERGENCY ACCESS REQUIRE-
reason for agendizing this item
MENT FOR SD-1418 (GERALD
is to consider whether or not
BUTLER, 15015 VICKERY AVE.)
the Council wishes to consider
Mr. Butler's request for modifi-
cation of requirement for an
emergency access road. Staff
has reported concerning this
issue, dated 10/12/79.
Councilman I-Tatteoni commented
that if th,e Council were to grant
this request, it would have to be
conditioned so that: 1) When the
other road is onened up thrcua-in
litigation, the two IoLS WOUld
take access off of that; 2) the
•
applicant would not be entitled
•
to another exception next year
for 4 more units.
The City Attorney pointed out that
in 1.961 when•the policy was adopted,
it was determined the Planning
Commission would be given discretion
to permit 4 or less lot subdivisions
to be on a minimum access road,
as opposed to a public street,
dependent upon the circumstances of
each case.
M/S: Kalb/Corr to approve consider-
ation of this request, and schedule
the item for the next regular
meeting of November 7, 1979.
Carried unanimously.
IV. PETITIONS, 011DINANICES, AND
PETTTIONS, ORDINANCES, AND
RFSOLUTIONS
0 N S
A. MINUTE RFSOLU'rio`i
The City Manager referred to the
RE: DENOiNSTP�%TION TRAIL AND
Parks and Recreation Commission
PATW-1AY P"10CPA"1 AS RI CON�21::NIDED
recommendation, dated 8/6/79. He
BY PARKS & RECREATION
indicated one issue cn,-Iie lip at Che
col"U'USSIOIN
previous Committee of the Whole
l e L tin,, relevant to a piece of the
1�
proposal which goes from the end
of Chester, paralleling, San 11arcos
on the Odd FL,11ows pronerty to
Fruitvale, and whether or not the
Odd Felloc•,s were supportive of
this piece of the recommendation.
ME
III. SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES, SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES,
ZONING REQUESTS Cont d. ZONING REQUESTS
A. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST M /S: Kalb /Callon to grant the
BY GERALD BUTLER, 15015 request, subject to all conditions
VICKERY AVE., FOR RECONSIDER- of the tentative map, particularly
ATION OF EMERGENCY-ACCESS with regard to improvements on
REQUIREMENT FOR SD -1418 Vickery Avenue, with the ultimate
(Cont'd) changeover to take access from
Lira Drive. Carried 3 to 2,
Councilpersons Corr and Kraus in
opposition.
B. CONSIDERATION OF REPORT FROM The City Manager reviewed the
PLANNING DIRECTOR RE: REZONING staff report, dated 11/1/79.
BACK PORTION OF PROPERTIES Mr. Zambetti has requested the
ALONG OAK STREET BETWEEN THIRD issue dealing with rezoning of
AND FIFTH (Cont'd. 10/17/79) property which fronts on Oak
Street at the base of the hill
be continued for discussion at
_._.._.:... the Committee of the Whole Meeting
on November 13th. This was agreeable
to the Council.
C. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST BY Mr. Robinson, Planning Director,:
TOM LAUER TO MODIFY CONDITIONS reviewed this request, along with
r IMPOSED ON MINOR 3 -LQT SUBDI- the staff report of 11/1/79. •
` VISION
M /S: Callon /Kalb to uphold the
Planning Director's interpretation
of the ordinance that the kitchen
facilities in this dwelling be
removed. Carried 3 to 2, Council-
persons Corr and Matteoni in
opposition.
D. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST BY Mr. Shook, Director of Public
ROBERT SNYDER, ALLENDALE AVE. Works, reviewed the staff report,
FOR PARTICIPATION IN BRIDGE dated 11/2/79. Council on 7/19/79
CONSTRUCTION (SDR -1334) requested Mr. Snyder have a design
prepared in order to obtain cost
•: - information regarding bridge widening
in connection with his tentative
building site approval on Allendale
Avenue.
It was the consensus of the Council
to refer this matter back to the
staff to obtain a participation
proposal for bridge widening costs.
This will be reported at the .
next retular meeting of the Council.
Mr. Snyder has further requested an
extension for completion of improve-
ments.
M /S: Matteoni /Kalb to approve a
12 -month extension of time on Tenta-
tive Site Approval for SDR -1334.
Carried unanimously. 0
5 - f
-
T .. .
II. COMMUNICATIONS (Cont'd.)
B. WRITTEN
16. Letters re: West Valley
Transportation Corridor
(Cont'd.):
Mr. Vernon J. Richey,
Deputy District Dir.,
Department of Trans-
portation, announcing
a public hearing on
the Corridor.
17. Judge and Mrs. John
McInerny, 19175 Monte
Vista Drive, re: inter-
sections of Saratoga -Los
Gatos Road and Horseshoe
Drive and Fruitvale and
Saratoga -Los Gatos Road.
18. Letters re: development
of "Teresi property ".
Anne Laura and Charles
Schnedler, 12611 Paseo
Cerro
Mr. Brett E. Cross,
12601 Paseo Cerro
19. Ms. Gail S. Call, 19684
Glen Brae Drive,exnressing
support re: new smoking
ordinance.
III. SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES,
ZONING REQUESTS
A. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST B7
GERALD BUTLER, 15015 VICKERY
AVE., FOR RECONSIDE:,ATION OF
EMERGENCY ACCESS REQUIREMENT
FOR SD -1418
A,)(.0UW-AA
C01II4UNICATIONS
Continued for discussion at
Committee of the Whole Meeting
on November 13, 1979.
Noted and filed.
Noted and filed.
SUBDIVISIONS, BUILDING SITES,
ZONING REQUESTS
Mr. Robinson, Planning Director,
indicated he has checked with
the City Attorney and with the
Planning Commission, and they
are in agreement with the inter-
pretation that this is a major
subdivision and should access onto
a public road.
M /S: Corr /Kraus to deny the re-
quest and uphold the original
conditions. The motion failed,
with Councilpersons Callon,
Matteoni, and Kalb voting in
opposition.
Q70RUW go O&M&ODO&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
TO: Planning Commission DATE: April 22, 1977
FROM: Planner I
SUBJECT: SD -1296, Gerald Butler, Tentative Subdivision Approval - 6 lots
Montalvo Road.
This report consists of an evaluation of the proposed Tentative
Map for the above project (Exhibit "A -2 "), relative to overall
planning concerns.for future development in the area. Included
are specific recommendations for action on SDR -1296.
SITE AND VICINITY DESCRIPTION (Refer to Fig. 1)-
Having an average slope of 60, this 11.95 acre site falls
w2thin the R- 1,40,000 zoning district. Access to this property.
is available from .three separate sources, all of which are fed by
Montalvo Road:
1. Hill Avenue. The existing Arata (property owner) house
takes access over this old county road, assumed by the City upon
incorporation.
2. Lira Drive. Presently unimproved, this public right -of -way
connects the body of the site with Montalvo Road.
3. Montalvo Road. The site has a total of 157 feet of
frontage on Montalvo Road at its extreme southerly end.
This property is situated directly to the west of Tract 4664 which
was split off of the Arata Estate several years ago. The Lira
Drive right -of -way passes between two of the lots in Tract 4664.
Boardering the southerly end of the site is a private minimum access
road which connects to Montalvo Road and presently serves 5 homes.
The Arata Estate has legal right of access over said right -of -way
(NOTE: Exhibit "A -2" as proposed is dependent upon access for lot
#2 coming from said minimum access road - - constituting utilization
by a 6th lot).
Westerly of the subject property are a two lot subdivision and the
San Jose Water Works Vickery Reservoir. These two lots (SDR -790)
are provided access indirectly to Lomita Avenue by way of
the private extension of Vickery Avenue which wraps around said
l
reservoir, Beyond the above noted contiguous properties, further
to the West, is an 18� acre parcel of land known as the "Young
Property ". These 18� acres'are the subject of the Planning
Departments long -range concerns in the coordination of incremental
development. Lying between the Young Property and the nearest
public street, Lomita Avenue, are seven pieces of property, all
having some fee title interest in the underlying right -of -way.
THE PLAN AS SUBMITTED
Exhibit "A -2" provides for a major subdivision of the
Arata Estate, creating 5 new 40,000 sq. ft. lots and leaving
the owner's home on a sixth lot of approximately 7 acres. Further
subdivison of said remaining estate lot would be possible under
this approval.
The plan maintains a access separation between the Arata home
(which was Hill Avenue) and all other lots. Given the parcel
configuration, only three of the new lots are able to access through
Lira Drive. The remainder, including Lot 412 as noted, take access
to the South. Also provided in Exhibit "A -2" is an emergency
access right -of -way easement designed to connect with the private
access road which winds around the Vickery Reservoir.
THE NEED FOR LONG-RANGE PLANNING
Exhibit "A -2" as conditioned in the Staff Report dated April
22, 1977 provides a plan which is well designed to address the
various on -site considerations. Further, this plan, as conditioned,
complies with all applicable zoning and subdivision criteria.
However, by virtue of its strict focus on immediate needs, this
plan fails to provide the essential access, necessary for development
of the Young Property,
The problem can be summed up as follows: Subdivision Ordinance
Section 13.3 -7 mandates that every major subdivision lot shall
front on an accepted (or offered) public street. Section 13.4 -2
l stipulates that every subdivision shall have direct (non- discontinuous)
access by no less than one public street (or street offered to
the public and improved as such) to the public streeti. system.
All this means that a subdivision of 5 lots or more may not be
approved on the Young Property unless or until a public street
connects to same. Since Vickery Avenue is entirely private,
from Lomita Avenue south, with no connecting offers of dedication
leading to the Young Property, it may not be considered a suitable
means of access to service any major subdivision of said 18� acre
site. Given the topographical setting and arrangement of properties
in this area, Lira Drive is, therefore, the only means of potential
public access to the Young Property.
Staff's investigation into the Lira Drive connection question
prompted discussions with representatives of the San Jose Water
Works Company, relative to access over that parcel lying between
Young and Arata. Area topographical maps, field investigations
and engineering analaysis collectively led us to the conclusion
that a public roadway link over the southerly end of the SJWW
reservoir site is not only feasible, but also relatively simple
(Fig. 1 shows the possible location of such a lint.). When asked
if the Water Works Company would be willing to consider offering
a 56 foot right -of -way, Directors responded favorably. Such
an offer would be possible, subject to reimbursement from Young
for the fair market value of the land area contained therein.
c.
-2-
If we do not provide for a public street extension of Lira
Drive to the westerly side of the Arata property (through
conditioning of SD- 1296), the resultant long -range alternatives
relative to development of the Young Property are four -fold:
1. Said 18� acre - parcel is limited to a maximum yield
of four lots, where the normal potential would be three times
as much (11 -12 lots).
2. The Commission provides a variance to the developer of
the Young Property, from the requirements of Section 13.3 -7 and
13.4 -2. Such action would be inconsistent with previous policy
and would further create various maintenance and access problems
for future residents and the respective agencies providing urban
services alike.
3. The city exercises its power of Eminent Domain to
acquire sufficient right -of -way along Vickery Avenue to
S provide for a public street. Saratoga has never used this power
before for such purposes.
4. The developer of the Young Property is eventually able
to purchase or otherwise privately acquire right -of -way to
offer to the Public for purposes of providng a public street.
This alternative involves a significant amount of risk. The
potential of this occuring, given prevelant attitudes toward
development, is unlikely.
RECOMMENDATIONS_
Section 13.3 -15 of the Subdivision. Ordinance - enables - -in
fact requires -- the Advisory Agency to deny street arrangements
and designs where it is determined that such arrangement or design
will cause "undue hardship to owners of adjoining property at
such time as such adjoining property may be subdivided or where
it is determined that said arrangements and designs to not "provide
adequate and convenient access to said adjoining property ". It
is staff's recommendation, after having considered the alternatives,
that Exhibit "A -2" be denied without prejudice because it's
street arrangement does not provide for the needs of the area.
Further, it is recommended that the applicant in this matter be
advised to consider a plan which provides for a street arrangement
and overall lot design in accord with this reports findings
(as represented in Figure 2).
Amendment of Exhibit "A -2" as herein suggested need not reduce
the applicant's yield or otherwise inflict any negative impacts
on said proposed subdivision. Assessment of these.proposed
modifications in light of the long -range development potential
of the area, leads to the question of traffic dispersal and
flow. As shown in Figure 1, the ultimate extension of Lira
Drive need not connect to Vickery and Lomita Avenues, except
for purposes of emergency ingrees /egress. Through traffic
down Montalvo Road or Hill Avenue /Mendelson Lane from the south -
village area would thus not result. Maximum load on Lira Drive
would increase from the three (3) lots shown in Exhibit. "A -2"
to 16 or 17, including Young and the two lots south of the
z• reservoir which now utilize Vickery.
Finally, should the Commission choose not to accept the
Staff's recommendation, then it would be adviseable that the
-3-
conditions outlined in the April 22, 1977 Staff Report
be made binding on Exhibit "A -2 ", and that the negative
declaration prepared by Staff be made by the Commission as
required by CEQA guidelines.
R c ew e, Jr.
RTL /lb
attachment
l
A
,HILL AVC.
KI
1 \ 11
� P
s � 1
L�
1
i
• r �•�t� '— uaa oeivc .i
Iq
0
I=
-� 73'
7�
Q[f.' �1
12 (4:2
f I
----------
T.
20
12 (4:2
f I
----------
20
/6 75
24'
t!ti13
I jN 1j1
+ m
- -�-- -J
/ t
/ 1
• CwR.i "r•N �C•:\C[! •\ `� \ \•Y /YO •__._r�.. \ -'.f' !/ r
ta,G -. IlM -•1 / � � 1 ' 11. 7 t 5 -; 1. C '\ . \
Z,- ! » \ L : r� ti All r S \
Y.\ ,IG p.•4.0 ; \;1 �.1. ! i_� �, '-i�',b:` % ^'r; ..-_ y:'i�e ��... � t_� ��,S,L, �y � 3a \ \�Y
•hl /// %y R:St[� f,: t"._ 6 ,; .. �.� a•\' \ �/ ��_. u� C ^-' c" �t'4 c�, \r �C 1 '� 7'� 4 �� 4
A�Q•. 8tr- n t .,,:._;f�'.r: v °5✓ : 1 /.' `u` \ �� rg. ;: D,c c'n. �.J SL �.` 'y; �3`�l S-
o! l I' .'11.� rlovo'c `.O V.? rA/..1;. ti' 't 2. 4. ,.., ..).•,� . t• J J.
/'l 'S •' .•l1 ( F'..2G 1.'. "= A'i�4.:
:: `
' III
• �.. ^�. LT �`r:` 1 r) .O ./ / ,�: L CC C\agS'o:R J \ y =�� �\ �o'\�e'a`� -• \�`s S
/r /• �, �r :� '(,'7 / : y,'C ACG6 _� �\ o �N J�J3 Wt7"1.'S. R;\tiOR�! 9 �.. \S 5 ` CJ �
I
{}'- ,;•l n \G `� / ' �,\ °�\ / / / -t .ice �„ I • L�
A[•.. ;-i ./,1 a•/ �' � \r �,y '\/ °. P,�1, i'-�� /(;, y: - -ca. /:. \�E AGA �c_n I �-,! ��
• _.�' '.'� ' Ste., i _ ', ' /�-\ �1 \ - .p 7. %'' .lam � (.•g :'.�u 5.:. v..c; \.- c. 3'a L � .,
_.9d •l � 'ii/ �
VINT % T ,r ''\ /a /. .\')fir. 'a��• _ '�G= "S Li:+'L"- G. °:•'.6t.T AL I \�• //l
::4' \ /• fie` \�: \"'�, �' , /�/ ,.V �'\ I
1 • • • -% \ >•- __ /� � +� E -00• Jr �c� 'Ailic.p• oXYARX,
;:�\ = .',L11' ���•. /I`��ct-' �.✓. � /J !`�'' .• //'_� -� i s� fA't'k;:,'•4ccA;;,N
S1 •,•,•�• \..'.V`. /'., t�,J . \�C.'J� }_:may_
�:• , 1 2:1\ 1� (a \of _,S�.f .: _' '� �( / / ^�Y1j //. � _ - � 11 1'Y'� `' I __ _.• � 'lr,: •
f `1 ♦ �� . . . \ j ( -{_ ' ' ' � \— ``h1 • . 1 . .�� 1. � f 1\ _ ,.
L.oAC1- =* l4 1"f i:'1 .•��I'.1 I�I�, ....:./;?1�/ 1,' Q� \}
+ 1 /, �! .- I J�A /\c: �, . .1 1. • �; � �, If f1i� �_r•�-I t; ��'•, �•� ,� �'pO �•,+. C
QW
\ ''' // `;I j �;,_.s,� .1= �,i•••� u_a:
Ow.
,fl +' ; %/ `fir'. , '� I: 1 1 � �•I',r'i•��•: � , , �•tr1 � -
\ j r •` �- ;'• ...` 11 i i , � ' � 4' '• \L �',� .;. • � � -
`�[ ••�'a\ \: ,` .��� '�\ ' ..'IY, '. / f 7RAC'T. 1:14' �l.Z r, /� r \�.A 0.r\•fJC.h NLiiL1.r .S
t.4ACICt:j •i - .�r-�" � �\ �� � /'' _. � -rt,r ,, \ ^t � •f 1, �
:..,.;:n:�� .'A',.,LC•c,za t a,, _ _ L,�', >. � ;': it L .,
i t..L •• i'i. .1 �'I,� "i74,rttav -' J� \ \\ 1',/r 't, V.._ -, '/, `� �// � \ \` , -1 r t
Planning Comni( in � 1 �' Pa Cc 2 � 1�
Minutes 5123119 \'\
SD -1405 coat.
requested to submit,a revised plan. 'Tlicy added that there is a possi- •
bility that °.p:on }'.: -walls will be needed for the garages to keep the road
at on -site level.
Mr. .Kirkeby, the:c•pgineer, stated that they were presently in the pro-
cess of raisins, the street approximately 2 feet, _which will probably
necessitate rai'ssing. the garages 2 feet also on lots 2 and 3, lie added
that there are three or four levels on both of the lots, and the slope
of the road will be slightly below grade.
Commissioner'-Marshall moved to deny SD -1405 subject to a letter of
extension. Commissioner Zambctti seconded the motion, which was carried
•
unanimously-
6. SD -1416 Dividend Industries, Carnelian Glen, 6 Lots, Tentative flap
Ansroval
It was reported by Staff that the Planning Commission recently denied
an application for a similar number of lots on this particular street,
due to the fact that it dial not conform to one of the General Plan ob-
jectives - no more than 15 lots on a cul-de-sac.
An option proposed by Staff, using the lands of Johns as a. limited
access street, was discussed. Commissioner Marshall suggested that
the two realistic alternatives are those which have consistently been
al.loa:ed in the City: (1) a minimum access road, with the possibility of
it being abandoned at a future date, and.(2) waiting until the Lehman
Estate is developed and there is access.
Commissioner Laden stated that, since there is no indication at present
that the Lehman property will be developed and what the topography and
the possibility of connecting those properties will be, she felt that if
the subdivision is going to be approved it roust be done with a public
street.
Commissioner Zambetti stated that he would have difficulty approving the
subdivision with a minimum access road.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that the proposed plans set a terrible
precedent, and he felt the best compromise would be to have 4 lots
accessing off a minimum access road, and the one additional lot access-
ing off of Carnelian Glen.
Larry Colin, 14542 Carnelian Glen, commented that he preferred Staff's
option, since it will not come through Carnelian Glen.
?.jr. Ed Backman, of Dividend Industries, stated that they would be pleased
to accept either of the plans before the Commission.
Discussion or the present proposal followed. It. was the consensus of
the Commission that this iterr should be COntirlUCd, in order that the
applicant, can submit an alternative plan. Lot P6 was discussed and the
possibility of it being eliminated or made larger and buildahie by
1 rnovin,, the property line, and thereby eliminatinl; an !djacent lot.
It was dll`ecl> to continue this item to June 13, 1979.
7. SD -141s - Gerrnid Butler, 1'ickery and lira, 2 Units eonsi.sting of 12 lots,
_ Tentative M:•rl) A1)p_ro%ra-1-------
� if— f=ujor *_ed that they applicant had asked for a continu, ^ncc of this
matter. It was the consensus of tiro Commission that thi: proposal
a] lov< two additional home.,; to access onto Vickery, au.l they would not
approve that. No oil,-, appeared to address the Commission on this ruatter. •
Commissioner Mar-:hall moved to deny SD-1418 for subdivision modification,
C.ommissiuncr Zamhett:i seconded the notion, which was carried unanirruuSiy.
2 -
RUTH, GOING AND CURTIS, INC. ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PLANNERS
Leo W. Ruth, Jr., C.E., M.E. 919 THE ALAMEDA P.O. BOX 26430 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95159 (408) 297 -8273
. E. Jackson Going, Jr., C.E.
William H. Bender, S.E.
ar Harry N. Later, C.E.
Norton S. Curtis, A.I.A.
June 5, 1979
The Honorable City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Job No. 15341 -200
Re: SD -1418, Gerald & Judith Butler, Vickery Ave. - 12 lots
Members of The Council:
On May 8, 1979, we submitted a request for an amendment to a
recently approved tentative subdivision map on the Lands of
Gerald Butler, et ux at the terminus of Vickery Avenue, which
would have allowed Mr. Butler to develop a subdivision in two units.
On May 21, 1979, we received the Planning Department's Staff Report
to the Planning Commission recommending a denial of our request.
Since we had not yet completed our negotiations for an additional
secondary access, nor did we have sufficient time to prepare a
response to the Staff's Report, we asked that our request for a
new map not be considered until the next Planning Commission meeting
of June 6, 1979. On May 23, the Planning Commission decided not
to grant us a continuance and denied our request for an amendment
without benefit of our testimony. On behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Butler,
please consider this letter as our appeal to you for a reconsider-
ation of this decision.
The purpose of the request for amendment was to allow the Butler
property to develop in two units. Unit No. 1 would consist of
Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6 taking their access to Vickery Avenue as shown
upon the original approved tentative subdivision map, and Unit No. 2,
consisting of the remaining lots, taking their access to Lira Drive.
As an interim measure, until the second unit is completed, we
propose to provide a secondary (emergency) access for the lots in
the first unit across Lot 4 and the adjacent Christian Science
Society's property to Lomita Avenue. The Planning Staff, in their
report to the Planning Commission, has stated that Vickery is "over-
burdened" per the City's policies of four units on a private street
and fifteen units on a cul -de -sac without secondary access. By
providing this secondary access to Lomita Avenue for the first
unit and existing homes on Vickery, we are alleviating this condi-
tion. Please also note that, with the exception of our proposal.
to develop the subdivision into two units and the addition of an
interim secondary (emergency) access for the first unit, the proposed
. "Amended" Subdivision Map is identical to the tentative subdivision
map as was originally approved in December of 1978.
The Honorable City Council Job No. 15341 -200 • Wda= City of Saratoga
E
June 5, 1979
Page 2
On behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Butler, we respectfully request your
favorable consideration of our appeal which would allow the
amended map.
DEB: pc
cc: Mr. & Mrs. Gerald Butler
David Smith, Esq.
DONALD E. BEARDSLEY
0
U717 __O&M
SiA �; Glt1 VL i
99 1,7iC12��' fi
REPOR T TO M-A-YOR AND
CITY COU -N.CI L
DATE : 7- 1" - 79
COUNCIL MEETING: 7-18-79
SU:A!ECT- Appeal of SD -1418 - Gerald Butler - Vickery Avenue
SUHMARY :
The Planning Commission decision to deny the tentative map
unitizing the earlier approved 12 -lot subdivision, located at
the ends of Vickery Avenue and an extension of Lira. Dri ire , is
• being appealed. The proposal would allow Mr. Butler to build
two residences at the end of Vickery Avenue, thus incr.easin.g
the number of units taking access onto Vickery.
RECOMMENDATION:
Uphold the Planning Commission decision to deny'the tentative
ma.p on the grounds that it is not consistent with the General
Plan, and that the exception for the allowance of subdivision
lots on a minimum access road cannot be made.
BACKGROUND:
After certifying an EIR, malting an on -site inspection and care-
fully reviewing the proposed 13 -lot subdivision, the Planning
Commission approved a 12 -lot subdivision for the subject site,
formerly the Young property. The hillside site, zoned R -1- 40,000,
i%ras planned to be accessed by an extension of Lira Drive in 1977.
Th.e major issue of the subdivision became hoia the site would be.
accessed. The eventual. solution involved two major points - -the
number of units taking access onto Vickery was to remain the same
as presently exists, and the potential number of lots on Lira
Drive (including an earlier Butler tentative map, the Arata and
Olavarri properties) was limited to 15, thereby reducing the Butler
subdivision to 8 lots on the proposed Lira Drive extension. In
• doing this', the Planning Commission granted an exception to the
Subdivision Ordinance by allo�iing two subdivision lots to access
on a mininaim access road from Vickery. This exception was granted
since the traffic on Vickery was not being increased, and the
subdivision would also benefit: Vickery by providing an cmergcncy
ccess road.
Appeal of SD -1413 -
Gerald Butler
BODY OF REPORT:
July 13, 1979
Page 2
0
The map presently being appealed would have the four lots deriving
access from Vickery in the first unit and the eight lots deriving
public access from Lira Drive in the second unit. By unitizing the
project, the applicant could receive Final Approval for each unit
separately. The ability of the applicant to extend Lira Drive is
presently being reviewed by the courts. Thus, the applicant wishes
to unitize.the project and build on the first unit. Allowing the
applicant to build on the first unit would allow an increase in
the number of units on Vickery by two, since the two Olavarri
residences (presently accessing to Vickery) would not be switching
their access to Lira Drive as resolved in the approval of the
original tentative map, SD -1353. Presently two Olavarri residences,
the Toyon Lodge, as well as units from at least four other lots,
take access onto the private portion of Vickery Avenue off of Lomita.
Thus, Vickery is "over- burdened" per the City's policies of four lots
on a private street and fifteen housing units on a cul -de -sac without
secondary access.
.Submitted by �
Robert F. B-y r R. S. I r:
binso, Jr„/
City Manager Planning Director
Date: July 13, 1979
Preparation Cost:
1? Manhours
$13.00 Total Cost
RSR /KK:cd
Attachments
•
REPORT
1
CB s4 Qq
TO � MAYOR ' AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 7 -26 -79
COUNCIL MEETING: 8-01-79
SUBJECT: Appeal of SDR -1418 - Gerald Butler - 12 Lots
Tentative Building Site Approval
SUMMARY:
In a recent meeting on Monday, July 23, 1979, between the Mayor,
the applicant and the Planning Director, Staff was directed to
prepare a report summarizing the history of what has transpired
with this particular piece of property from the time the applica-
tion was made in January 1977 to the present time.
BACKGROUND:
In January 1977 Mr. Butler applied for a 7 -lot subdivision on the
Arata property near Montalvo Road. The item was heard by the
Subdivision Committee and continued by the Planning Commission
several times "pending resolution of the access problems ".
The Subdivision Committee considered maps showing the cul- de- sacing
of Lira Drive (Exhibits "A -1" and "A -211). On April 22, 1977 the
Planner I wrote a memo to the Planning Commission evaluating
Exhibit "A -2" and recommending that Lira Drive be put through to
the Young property. After discussion the Planning Commission denied
the application (SD -1296) without prejudice, in order to allow the
applicant the opportunity to submit revised plans reflecting an
alternate circulation plan which would more effectively allow develop-
ment of the adjacent Young property. In May 1977 the applicant sub-
mitted a revised plan (Exhibit "A -311) reflecting a six -lot sub-
division with Lira Drive being a through street. At their regular
adjourned meeting of May 31, 1977, the Planning Commission approved
this 6 -lot tentative map. In October 1978, the Commission granted
a one -year extension of this map, SDR -1296, from November 30, 1978,
after taking public testimony and discussing the matter with the
City Attorney.
. In February 1978, Gerald Butler applied for a 13 -lot subdivision on
the Young property. An EIR was required and heard by the Planning
Commission in September 1978. Eight people from the Montalvo and
Vickery areas, as well as the Planning Commission, commented on the
I
Appeal of SDR -1418
Gerald Butler - 12 Lots
Tentative Building Site" Approval
July 26, 1979
Page 2
EIR and more wrote in c'om'ments for the Final EIR. In October the
Commission certified the EIR as complete and adequate, noting that
the proposed development would have a'significant impact upon the
environment. They then�_expressed concerns on the proposed tenta-
tive map for 13 lots, including 1) whether to approve the proposed
Lots 4 and 5 which- ,access via a minimum access road in the riparian
woodland area, and. -2), the potential number of lots to access on
Vickery.
After lengthy discussions on November 22, 1978 the Commission
approved (in concept) a 12 -lot subdivision for the Young site
"given the caveats that access-onto Vickery be maintained at no
greater number than that which presently exists...; that the number
of lots accessing off of Lira be set at a number which, when com-
bined with all the other potential and existing lots on Lira, would
not exceed 15; (and) that an emergency access road be constructed,
between the termination of Lira and Vickery to provide predominantly
for the larger number of lots on Vickery than would normally be
approved...". In December 1978 at an adjourned regular meeting, the
Planning Commission approved a 12 -lot tentative map as redesigned
to meet the conceptual approval conditions.
Attached for your review are the minutes of the meetings mentioned
in this memo (no minutes were taken.at the Subdivision Committee
meetings) and_the April 22, 1977 memo.
Date: July 26, 1979
Preparation Cost:
RSR /KK:cd
Attachments
Submitted by
R. S. obinso , it.
Planning Director
5 Manhours
$55.00 Total Cost
0
•
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
August 3, 1979
Mr. Donald E. Beardsley
Ruth, Going and Curtis, Inc.
919 The Alameda
P. 0. Box 26430
San Jose, CA 95159
Dear Mr. Beardsley:
As you know, the Saratoga City Council at its regular Meeting
on august 1, 1979, again considered your appeal on behalf of
7erald and Judith Butler re: SD -1418. The City Council, after
further consideration, on a four to one vote, approved granting
Sthe appeal subject to the two following conditions:
1. That there be ?.n emergency access road for this subdivisi.o-n
until such time as the second unit of the tentative map
which has been approved is completed,
'ihe two existing lots currently accessing onto Vickery
-Xould access on the Lira Drive when the total subdivision
is developed.
These conditions will be added to your approved tentative map_
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not
hesitate to contact Rob Bobinson, Planning Director, or Bob Shook,
Director of Public Works.
Very truly yours,
oi,�rt
F. Beyer
City ilanager
F,0 / ck
Director of .Public ?forks
• Planning Director
REPORT
R ,W
TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 10 -12 -79
COUNCIL MEETING: 10 -17 -79
SUBJECT' SD -1418, Gerald Butler, Tentative Map Approval, 12 Lots
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY:
This report responds to the Council request to assess the accuracy
of the list of private streets with more than 4-or 15 housing
units, as submitted by Mr. Butler, and encloses previous reports
and minutes on the subject subdivision.
RECOMMENDATION: 0
Uphold the Council's original decision to require an emergency
access per the General Plan.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant received Tentative Map Approval for 12 lots on the
former Young property at the end of Vickery in the R -1- 40,000.
zoning district from the Planning Commission in December 1978
(SD- 1358). The applicant later applied to unitize the project
into 2 units; one unit of 4 lots was proposed to access by
Vickery Avenue and the other unit of 8 lots was proposed to access
through Lira Drive. The Planning Commission denied the unitized
subdivision since it would increase the traffic on Vickery which
had been a part of the final compromise reached after hearing
from the Vickery and Montalvo residents. On appeal, the City
Council approved the 2 units subject to the two following conditions:
1. That there be an emergency access road for this subdivision
until such time as the second unit of the tentative map
which has been approved is completed.
2. The two existing lots currently accessing onto Vickery
would access onto Lira Drive when the total subdivision •
is developed.
Report to City Council
RE: SD -1418 - Gerald Butler
BODY OF REPORT:
October 12, 1979
Page 2 .
Planning Staff has reviewed the history of the City policy con-
cerning 15 lots on a cul -de -sac and 4 lots on a private street.
Prior to 1975 the City had evolved an unwritten policy of allow-
ing 13 lots on a cul -de -sac for a subdivision. At the same time,
parcels on private streets were allowed to divide into 4 or less
lots. Then in 1975, the Subdivision Ordinance was rewritten and
stated:
Sec. 13.3 -7. Public street access to lots. "Every lot shall
either front on an accepted public street or on a street offered
for dedication to the public and improved as in this ordinance
set forth, except that the advisory agency may allow the follow-
ing:
A subdivision of four or less lots to front on a minimum access
street which is improved to the standards therefor and which
need not be dedicated or offered for dedication to the public."
Sec. 16. Statement of Policy. "Not as a mandate, but as a
statement of future policy on all matters concerning the design
and improvement of sites and subdivisions, the following shall
generally not be approved:
(c) Cul -de -sac, dead -end, or other street not having a
means of secondary access, where such street services
more than fifteen lots or building sites."
In checking the list of private streets submitted by Mr. Butler,
Staff finds that most of the streets were made up of record lots
that were created before September 1975, These lots are allowed
to develop under present policy by obtaining building site approval
and complying with the approval conditions as long as no lot lines
are adjusted.
However, Live Oak Lane, Vessing Road and Marion Road require further
explanation. Parcels on Live Oak Lane and Vessing Road, both
private roads, have been allowed to split since 1975. These splits
have resulted in more than 15 lots on Vessing and more than 4 lots
on Live Oak Lane. Staff can find no discussion in the files about
the numbers of lots. However, concerning the 4 lots, the City
Attorney has stated that the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 13.3 -7
allows any parcel on a minimum access street to be divided into
4 or less lots. Thus many divisions of 4 or less lots could result.
However, any subdivision lot (5 or more lots) must front on a
"public street or on a street offered for dedication to the public ".
On Marion Road a five -lot subdivision was granted by.the Planning •
Commission (Tract 5676) in March 1975. At that time the applicant
was required to build the public street in front of the five lots,
but the rest of the street remains as a 20 ft. minimum access road.
C
SDR -1418 - Gerald Butler November 1, 1979
. Page 2
made for a major subdivision of twelve (12) lots, and not a minor
subdivision of less than four (4) lots. Therefore, all lots must
access onto a public street per Section 13.3 -7. The Commission
granted an exception to allow four (4) lots to access onto Vickery
Lane. The unitization does not alleviate the applicant of the
responsibility to conform to the provisions of the Subdivision
Ordinance mentioned above.
One of the purposes of the Subdivision Map Act is to prevent parcel
by parcel development which can circumvent master planning. Con-
sidering this as a 4 -lot development without recognizing the remain-
ing contiguous parcels would not only circumvent the City's General
Plan but circumvents the public hearing process and the resulting
compromise.
—�--- Submitted by'
Ro ert F. Beyer A. S.IRO inson, Jr.
City Manager Planning Director
Date: November 1, 1979
Preparation Cost:
RSR:cd
E
2 Staff Hours
$25.00 Total Cost
I
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
N I W.
ATE 1 1
DATE: 11-1-79
COUNCIL MEETING: 11-7-79
SUBJECT: SDR -1418 - Gerald Butler, Vickery Lane (continued from 10- 17 -79)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
SUMMARY:
This item was continued from the last City Council meeting. In
reviewing the matter with Staff and the Planning Commission, there
were several points which should be clarified before the Council
makes a final decision on this matter.
RECOMMENDATION:
Option #1:
Deny the request and uphold the original conditions.
Option #2:
Direct the applicant to reapply for a four -lot subdivision.
Staff is recommending that the City Council uphold their original
conditionsto require a secondary access.
BACKGROUND OF THE REPORT:
The Planning Commission denied the request of Mr. Butler to
unitize the subdivision on the basis that two (2) extra units
would be accessing onto Vickery Lane. This point regarding the
extra units on Vickery Lane was discussed at great length before
numerous people at the Planning Commission level when SD -1358 was
discussed. The Council heard the appeal of SD -1418 and approved
the unitization of the subdivision, subject to two conditions which
Mr. Butler could not meet. The item was discussed and continued to
this particular meeting.
BODY OF THE REPORT:
The most important fact to remember is that an application was
CJ
Report to City Council October 12, 1979
• RE: SD -1418 - Gerald Butler Page 3
Additionally, a two -lot subdivision was denied by the LDC on
Marion. Road this year. The Council, on appeal, granted the
lot split since no possibility for secondary access existed for
the subject parcel. At this point, a proposed 3 -lot subdivision
on Maude Avenue has been continued by the LDC and referred to the
Planning Commission for consideration of over 15 lots on the cul-
de -sac. No possibility for secondary access exists for this parcel.
This applicant's project involves a subdivision. When the Planning
Commission granted the tentative map, they also granted an excep-
tion to Section 13.3 -7 of the Subdivision Ordinance, allowing 4 lots
to be served by a minimum access road. This exception was granted,
in part, because of the emergency access road, being offered, to
improve the Vickery Avenue safety situation.
Submitted by
Robert F. S. Rb inson, r.
City Manager Planning-Director
Date: October 12, 1979
Preparation Cost:
RSR /KK:cd
Attachments
E
6 Manhours
$65.00 Total Cost
MEMORANDt 1� -1
0
0MEW @9 O&UMEX(DOZ
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Kathy Kerdus
SUBJECT: SD -1521 & SD -1522 - Gerald Butler
DATE: 7/9/82
At your meeting on June 23, 1982, the Planning Commission requested 1.) a slope -
density calculation of the site under present HC -RD standards; 2.) an evaluation
of the total traffic potential on Montalvo Rd., including potential lots, and
3.) an estimate of the total traffic to Villa Montalvo.
If the sites were zoned HC -RD, the following maximum numbers of lots would be
allowed:
SD -11521 - with
12 acres at
24% slope =
3.72 or 4
lots
SD -1522 - with
11.95 acres
at 7% slope =
5.3 or 5
lots
- with
5.3 acres at
5% slope =
2.44 or 2
lots
An estimate of the potential additional lots using Montalvo Road would be:
Montalvo Lane -
Montalvo (Arata)
Montalvo - Lira
Montalvo at Hill
Montalvo.at Hill
Montalvo - Beck
2
2
15
(Arata) - 5
(Rivoir & Smith) - 7
site - 1
TOTAL = 32
Staff suspects that a number of these lots would be difficult to split to create
this projected yeild due to site configuration, slope geology or access require-
ments. However, given these numbers, this would cause an additional 384 trips
per day at 12 trips per houshold. The FEIR for the Young site lists the 1974
average daily traffic as 460. —�
In the George S. Nolte & Assoc. report to the City for the Specific Plan Circulation,
the consultant states:
"An important criterion for evaluating traffic volume is effect on residential
life -style or "environmental capacity." This is a highly subjective matter
and difficult to quantify. An example of planning guidelines are the traffic
volume "goals" used by the City'of San Jose. They consider a volume of up
to 1,000 vpd satisfactory for a local residential street, and a volume of up
to 3,000 vpd satisfactory for a residential collector stree . T n Jose
�
Memo to Plannina Commission 7/9/82
SD -1521 & 1522 - Gerald Butler Page 2
guidelines may be somewhat high for Saratoga hillsides........."
(October 1, 1980).
Villa Montalvo estimates that they have 50 -60 vehicles per day using their
facility or 18,000 - 20,000 trips annually. They have 150 parking spaces on
site.
Cam•
Kathy kerdusI
Planner
KK /dsc
P.C. Agenda 7/14/82
I
-*y
July 26, 1982
Saratoga City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Q ej vi
JUL 2 71982
RE: SD -1521, SD -1422, Butler Tentative Subdivision
Approval and Extension of Lira Avenue
Dear City Council Member:
I am an urban, regional and environmental planner with several years
experience in the preparation of general plans, traffic studies and
environmental impact reports. On behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Davad Arata
and other concerned residents of the Montalvo area, I would like to
submit the following comments for your consideration on the proposed
Butler Tentative Subdivision Maps.
I have attached for your review my recent letter to the Planning
Commission on this subject which I will make reference to in my
remarks below.
Project Impacts
The major concerns with respect to project impacts consist of traffic
generation and distribution and community disruption. It is my pro-
fessional opinion that traffic impacts of the Butler projects have
been underestimated in the 1978 Environmental Impact Report. This is
based on the use of textbook assumptions about household trip genera-
tion rates, rather than empirical evidence based on household surveys
and field observations. My estimate is that the actual trip generation
potential of the projects could be 1.2 to 2 times greater than what is
estimated in the 1978 EIR. My rationale for this is discussed on pages
one and two of the attachment.
Secondly, the 1978 EIR is inadequate in its discussion of cumulative
impacts of the proposed project. Specifically, peak hour traffic from
Villa Montalvo has not been estimated for Montalvo Road. And Hill
Avenue traffic is not discussed at all. Furthermore, there is no
discussion of impacts of total development potential in the project
area, which has been estimated to be 32 homes in addition to the
proposed Butler projects. The California Environmental Quality Act
requires that all cumulative impacts of a project be addressed.
Further discussion of these issues is presented on page three and
five of the attachment.
Saratoga City Council Member
July 26, 1982
Page Two
General Plan Consistenc
While the density of the project conforms to your existing general plan
designation for the si.te, two possible conflicts may exist which deserve
careful deliberation. These issues are summarized below and discussed
in detail on pages four and five of the attachment.
First, several of the policies currently under consideration in the
revision of your general plan emphasize the need to 1) preserve the
existing character of your community, and 2) understand the cumulative
impacts of new development, especially on existing traffic corridors,
before making decisions on singular parcels. It is my contention that
approval of the Butler subdivisions at this time may conflict with both
of these policies.
Secondly, State Planning Law mandates that all elements of a city's
general plan be in conformance with Planning Law requirements, and that
all elements be internally consistent with each other. Section 65586
of the Government Code is quite specific about the need for the Housing
Element to be in conformance with the law by October 1, 1981. However,
it is my understanding that you are currently working on a revision to
your Housing Element, which has not yet been adopted. If this is so,
there may be some question as to whether you can legally approve a pro-
ject subdivision when all of your elements are not yet up -to -date.
Significance of Planning Commission Decision
Before deciding on the appeal to the Planning Commission decision on the
Butler subdivision projects, I think it is important to consider seriously
the significance of their decision. In my viewpoint, as a professional
planner, the Planning Commission denial of the projects signifies the
following:
• A very real concern that the project is out of character with
the existing environment, both in terms of density and the
impacts which that density may cause.
• An understanding of the need to consider cumulative impacts of
all projects in an area, especially on traffic, as the basis
for deciding on individual parcels.
Saratoga City Council Member
July 26, 1982
Page Three
• An understanding that although the projects may conform to the
existing general plan designations for the sites, that approval
of these projects as currently designed may conflict with gen-
eral plan policies regarding the need to maintain established
neighborhood character.
• In effect, an understanding of the need to balance an indi-
vidual's objectives to develop his private property for
profitable purposes against the need to reflect the general
health, safety, and welfare of the community in decisions
on individual parcels of land.
In summary, the Planning Commission decision on the Butler projects
reflects the general wishes of the majority of residents in the
Montalvo area who stand to be affected most by the development. This
consensus is not intended to deny an individual his right to develop
his property. Rather, it is intended as a means to consider other
measures which might be incorporated in the design of the project and
the area-circulation system to soften potential projecte.d-impacts.
Such measures may include a reduction in density of both parcels,
perhaps to Hillside Residential Zoning district standards, which
would reduce the development potential of SD 1521 from eight to four
lots and SD 1522 from five to two lots. Another measure may include
re- designation of Montalvo Road from a collector street to a local
street.in your general plan. This step could be taken in recognition
that the traffic impacts of a collector street, when considered in
the sense of the cumulative development potential of the area which
the street could accommodate, may be significantly detrimental to
the existing and future character of the Montalvo area neighborhood.
In conclusion, I urge you to sustain the Planning Commission decision
so that a better project can eventually be approved which conforms
more closely to your community development policies and preserves the
character of a valued residential neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Gwae c
William S. 'ebron
Enclosure
WSZ /DKS
Saratoga City Council Member
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
L Z� �
The deteriorating road in front of
the ever - increasing traffic and the
keep up with needed (and reported)
Q`sC�C�DMf�D
„v 1. 2 91982
20201 Hill Avenue
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
July 29, 1982
R6 Gerald Butler's
two appeals, Lira Dr.
and Montalvo Rd.
our home is evidence of
inability of the city to
repairs.
Despite the sharp U turn on a blind curve at Mendelsohn Lane
and Hill Avenue, even very large, heavy construction trucks
grind up Hill Avenue and bump and sail down. More accidents
than are recorded have occurred at this curve.
All traffic ( passenger, service, repair, construction, etc.)
to and from Los Gatos and Highway 17 and up Montalvo Road
uses Hill Avenue. The ever - increasing noise, speeding,
air pollution and road damage is obvious. On week -ends partic-
ularly there are many tourists using Hill Avenue going to
Montalvo. On a recent Sunday Montalvo's parking area was again
inadequate. Hill Avenue was again a parking lot, and again
at least one car was parked partly across one neighbor's
driveway . Even buses carrying passengers from the West Valley
College parking lots to Montalvo have come up Hill Avenue. And
when Montalvo has special events, police officers are stationed
at Montalvo Road and Hill Avenue to direct down Hill Avenue
all traffic not intending to attend the event. It's a STREAM.
I hope you agree it is not wise to increase these problems.
Respectfully yours,
Margaret Dennis
A T T A C H M E N T
Ms. Louise Schaefer
Chairperson
Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Reference: SD -1521, SD -1422, Butler Tentative
Subdivision Approval and Extension of Lira Drive
Dear Ms. Schaefer:
On behalf of Mr. and Mrs. David Arata and other concerned resi-
dents of the Montalvo area, I would- like to comment on the pro-
posed Butler Tentative Subdivision Maps currently under your
consideration. I am an urban, regional and environmental plan-
ning consultant with several years experience in the preparation
of general plans, transportation studies, and environmental im-
pact reports for small and large scale residential and commercial
projects.
My comments are based on a thorough review of the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the earlier Butler proposal,
which included Tracts 6732 and 6731; an assessment of.background
reports on geology, soils, traffic and other studies; a review of
your city's current general plan; discussions with Saratoga city
planning staff, ,Mr. and Mrs. Arata and other concerned citizens,
and a brief site visit.
Before going further, I wish to state that none of my following
remarks are intended to challenge the work of Ruth and Going,
whose professional excellence in site planning and sub - division
design is undisputed.
My comments on the project center around the issues of project
impacts and general plan consistency.
Project Impacts
1. The 1978 Environmental Impact Report uses a 1970 Caltrans
document entitled Trip Ends Generation Research Counts as the
reference to establish a trip generation rate for the proposed
residential units. This publication is now considered to be'out-
of -date, and a more recent publication by the Institute of
Traffic Engineers entitled Trip Generation Manual, (2nd Edition),
published in 1979, is-now considered the standard source
document for estimating traffic generated by new housing
developments. In general, the more recent publication does not
differ significantly from the earlier Caltrans study in its
assumptions regarding traffic generation. In fact, the more.
recent publication recommends use of an average daily trip rate
of 10 vehicle trips per dwelling unit, which would result in a
lower overall rate of traffic generation for the Butler
Subdivision than that predicted in the 1978 EIR, which used the
earlier Caltrans assumption of 12 trips per dwelling unit.
However, in my experience, neither the Caltrans nor the Institute
of Traffic Engineers documents are adequate as the the basis for
estimating traffic impacts from the Butler Subdivision. It is my
judgement that the use of assumptions from these reports could
seriously underestimate traffic generation from the Butler
Subdivision for the following.reasons:
o Trip generation figures from the publications are based
on sample surveys of single - family home subdivisions
with distinctively different. socioeconomic
characteristics than the Butler Subdivision
neighborhood area. The average size subdivision in
these surveys contained 506 dwelling units located
primarily in middle class susburban areas throughout
the United States. The average development density was
3.5 units per acre, and the average automobile
ownership was 1.6 vehicles per unit. In the Butler
Subdivision area, development density ranges from 1
dwelling unit per acre to 1 per 6 acres. Automobile
ownership, based on discussions with some landowners,
could range from 2 to 5 cars per unit. Also, although
it has not yet been verified, it is felt that the ITE
and Caltrans' assumptions are based on areas with a
higher percentage of transit use than the area in
question.
o If revised assumptions regarding automobile
availability are applied to the Butler subdivision,
trip -generation estimates from the projects may be
significantly greater, perhaps by a factor of 1.5 to 2.
This is based on the application of an average daily
trip rate of 6.5 trips per vehicle' to 3 vehicles per
unit, which is nearly 20 trips per dwelling unit per
day.
o Based on my preliminary review of the EIR traffic
study, it is my opinion that the only way to accurately
predict traffic generation from the project is to
conduct an independent household transportation survey,
rather than depend on studies that are representative
of a typical American suburb, but not of Saratoga.
2. Past traffic studies used for measuring traffic generated by
2
the project are inadequate in their discussions of traffic flow
on Montalvo Road and Hill Avenue. The major flaw is a lack of
quantification of current peak hour traffic on either road.
Page 22 of the 1978 EIR states that peak hour flow on Montalvo
Road between Hill Avenue and Saratoga -Los Gatos Road is 46
vehicles, which seems to be based on the simple assumption of
peak hour flow being equal to 10% of the total daily volume of
460 vehicles. However, at the end of the same paragraph, it is'
stated that traffic on Montalvo Road "may increase considerably
when public events are held in the Park." Yet there is no
estimate of how much traffic increases, and what kind of traffic
conditions will result when the Butler subdivision traffic is
added to Montalvo Park traffic during the peak hour.
Discussions with local residents who have been associated with
the Montalvo Service Group for many years indicate that the 145
car parking lot at Montalvo is never adequate for large events,
and that many classes, theatre events and other activities are
ongoing throughout the year, in addition to the annual Yule
Festival which can attract 3,000 people over a 3 day period.
Other discussions with neighborhood residents indicate that Hill
Avenue is used quite frequently as a major route of access to
Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. Yet the traffic studies I have seen do
not quantify Hill Avenue traffic, and as a result, there is no
firm basis from which to make an assessment of possible traffic
impacts from the project.
Based on the factors discussed above, my judgment is that both
traffic generation and distribution characteristics of this
project are not clearly understood. The only method for achieving
such an understanding is to conduct an independent traffic study
which assesses and quantifies existing and project induced
traffic based on household surveys and field observation, rather
than textbook assumptions that only depict the "average" case.
3. Finally, with regard to project impacts, I am satisfied that
the necessary steps are being taken by the City, through your
geological consultant, the developer and concerned neighbors
through their own independent studies, to clarify any
uncertainties regarding the geological and soils impacts of the
project. However, I would request that you be absolutely
certain regarding all geological questions, especially the status
of the ancient landslide and possible impacts of Lira Drive on the
adjoining Arata property, before deciding on this project.
General Plan Consistency
On the face of it, it would appear that the project as proposed
is consistent with your current general plan. The proposed
project calls for lot sizes ranging from .9 to 2..5 acres per
unit, which conforms to the very low residential density designa-
tion for the site. Upon closer examination,two possible con-
flicts may exist which deserve careful deliberation.
1. Through my experience, a test of the adequacy of a general
plan is that it be definitive enough.to establish decision - making
guidelines for development in a community, while being flexible
enough to reflect new community values, conditions and needs.
Also, the manner in which you implement the plan is the real test
of your commitment to the goals, objectives, policies and pro-
grams of the plan, not_the mere adoption of the plan itself.
With regard to the proposed Butler Subdivision, I request that
you think carefully about how you will implement the following
goals and policies proposed for adoption in the amendment to your
1974 general plan, which is on the agenda for your discussion
later tonight:
• Further residential development in Saratoga shall, through
site plan requirements, respect open space as much as
possible.
• The City shall use the design review process to assure
that new construction and major additions thereto are
compatible with the site and adjacent surroundings.
• Control the density of development in the hill areas,
including the Sphere of Influence, to protect the aes-
thetic qualities of the City.
• Preserve the low density and natural character of Sara-
toga by the inclusion of permanent open space and land-
scaping within the City.
• Insure the quality of the natural environment and the
character of the City through appropriate regulation,of
site development.
• Maintain and enhance the character, quality and liveabili-
ty of the,City's residential neighborhoods.
• Relate new development and its land uses to existing
street capacities.
• The capacity of existing streets shall be recognized in
advance of construction of any project. Design criteria
for new development shall be used to minimize disruption
to the area caused by through or heavy traffic.
o The`cumulative impact of new development shall be con-
sidered prior to land use decisions on individual parcels.
4
In summary, the goals and policies speak to the very significant
issues of preserving open space, preserving the existing
character of your community and seeking to understand the
cumulative impact of new development, especially on existing
traffic corridors, before making decisions on singular parcels.
I would like to commend you on considering such policies,which
are designed to maintain and enhance the Saratoga environment.
However, I "would like to caution you that approval of the Butler
subdivision at this time may conflict with many of these
policies, especially the ones designed to understand cumulative
impacts of development proposals.
Has the cumulative impact of the Butler subdivision really been
considered? Statements contained in recent letters to the
Planning Commission and discussions with local residents indicate
the development potential of the immediate area to be at least 20
units, in addition to the proposed project. To my knowledge the
cumulative effects of this development have not been examined.
2. A final point deals with the overall internal consistency of
your existing general plan. The State Planning Law mandates that
all elements of a city's general plan be in conformance with
Planning Law requirements, and that all elements be internally
consistent with each other. This is especially important with
regard to the housing element, which was mandated to be in con-
formance with State Planning Law by October 1, 1981, as required
by Section 65586 of the Government Code.
It is my understanding that the current revision of your general
plan includes your housing element, which has not yet been adopt-
ed. Since all land use approvals, including tentative subdivi-
sions, must conform to your general plan, there may be some
question as to whether you can legally approve a project when all
elements of your general plan are not yet up -to -date.
In closing, I urge you to follow through
plan policies. You should delay a deci S
vision until a comprehensive study of
especially on traffic, of the proposed
development surrounding the project, is
be commissioned by those residents who
tial to be affected by the project.
Sincerely,
1
William S. iebron
5
on your proposed general
ion on the Butler subdi-
the cumulative impacts,
subdivision and future
made. Such a study could
have the greatest poten-
20020 Scotland Drive
Saratoga, Calif. 95070
July 29, 1982
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, Calif. 95070
To whom it may concern:
viEE, DO
JUL 3 01982
It has been brought to my attention that Gerald D. Butler
has applied to you for approval to build on Lira Drive in Saratoga and that there
are 8 lots involved.
I really approve of building these superior distinctive
homes and I believe they would be an asset to our Saratoga community. I sincerely
support this subdivision in conformance to:
A. 1977 Vickery /Montalvo Traffic circulation plan.
B. Saratoga General Plan of 1974 with Montalvo as a local collector
street.
Sincerely,
i
Harriet Rosenberger
SCS.
Almost identical letters received from:
Sylvia C. Smith, 20552 Ashley
Ellie Kiewel, 13634 Howen Drive
Arly Jepson, 20000 Charters Ct.
Helena Fancher, 18265 Purdue Drive
RUTH AND GOING, INC ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING
919 THE ALAMEDA P.O. BOX 26430 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95159 (408) 297 -8273
July 20, 1982
The honorable City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 F ruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Council Members:
-CE WE Do
JUL 2 11982
Leo W. Ruth, Jr., C.E., M.E.
E. Jackson Going, Jr., C.E.
William H. Bender, S.E.
Harry N. Lalor, C.E.
Donald C. Landberg, C.E.
Albert W. Ostoff. A.I.A.
15341-300
1.5341 -600
It is my understanding that the City Clerk has set August 4, 1982
as the date for the City Council to consider the appeal of
the Planning Commission in denying subject tentative sub- division
maps, SD 1521 and SD 1522.
Should the Council members desire to preview the properties
involved, I will be available at your convenience to walk the
properties and describe the proposed development.
1 can be reached at 297 -8273 and I am available in the evenings
at 289- -8007.
Very truly,
." q IF ------
Harr T. Lalor
cb
cc: Gerry Butler
Kathy Kerdus
Mayor Linda Callon
Martha Clevenger
Jack Mallory
Virginia Laden Fanelli
David Moyles
RUTH AND GOING, INC ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING
919 THE ALAMEDA P.O. BOX 26430 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95159 (408) 297 -8273
July 19, 1982
The Honorable City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: SD 1522
Dear Council Members:
Leo W. Ruth, Jr., C.E., M.E.
E. Jackson Going, Jr., C.E.
William H. Bender, S.E.
Harry N. Lalor, C.E.
Donald C. Landberg, C.E.
Albert W. Ostoff, A.I.A.
1,5341 -300
JUL 2 11982
:4
This letter is written on behalf of Gerry Butler to supplement
his appeal of July 16, 1982 based on the Planning Commission's
denial of subject tentative map..
Since the report of the Planning Commission's actions is not yet
available, this supplement reflects my understanding of the
denial and is based as a participant and observer of the
hearing on July 14. We respectfully request the right to address
additional items should the actual repot of the Planning
Commission express concerns not contained in this appeal.
it is our opinion that the a:tion of the Planning Commission
was arbitrary and not based upon an analysis of the proposed
development's conformity to the zoning ordinance, general and
specific plans for this property and the immediate surroundings
nor acknowledge the mitigation measures proposed as part of
project development in accordance with the finally adopted
environmental impact report.
The following is a summary of the concerns expressed by the
Planning Commission in their denial:
1. Increased traffic on Montalvo Road.
2. Removal of trees.
3. Lack of privacy extended to the King
and McDonnal properties necessitated
by the extension of Lira Drive,
The following is a more detailed analysis of the above concerns:
The Honorable City Council 15341 -300
July 19, 1982
Page 2
1. TRAFFIC
In evaluating traffic circulation and roadway
alignment, the Planning Commission considered
both tentative maps SD 1521 and SD 1522. Both
maps were filed by Mr. Butler and the impacts
considered accumatively. Traffic from both
tentative maps would increase traffic on Montalvo
Road by approximately 32_ %. The Planning
Commission determined that if all un- developed
properties within the Montalvo tributary area
were developed, Montalvo Road traffic would
increase by 83 ± %. This increase in traffic was
considered untenable.
Grounds for Appeal
Montalvo Road is designated on the General Plan as
a residential collector. Such roadways are
anticipated to carry an average daily traffic (ADT)
of 1,000 - 3,000 trips per day. Development of
SD 1521 and SD 1522 and the remaining un-developed
properties within this vicinity would not exceed
ADT of 1,000. Even if the impact of traffic
were twice than that anticipated within the
Environmental Impact Report, it would still be
well within the capability of the roadway capacity
envisioned by the General Plan.
In 1977, SD 1296, a five -lot sub - division of a
portion of the lands of Arata, was denied by
the Planning Commission in that it did not provide
for the extension of Lira Drive to service the
Butler property (SD1521). This map was subsequently
redrawn to provide for the extension of Lira Drive
and was ultimately approved by the City Council on
July 6, 1977. Prior to Council approval, the
Planning Commission adopted the "Vickery -Lira Drive
Circulation Plan," a specific area plan decreeing the
access and circulation proposed by SD 1521 and SD 1522.
The Planning Commission's action in denying this current
tentative map is neither in conformance with the
specific area circulation plan or the General Plan
designation using Montalvo Road as a residential
collector.
2.
The Honorable City Council 15341 -300
July 19, 1982
Page 3
REMOVAL OF TREES
The extension of Lira Drive through the
San Jose Water Works parcel will remove a
cluster of mature eucalyptus trees. The stand
of trees within the right -of -way is approximately
forty feet by thirty feet and contains seven
significant trees and lesser saplings. This
alignment and subsequent tree removal is
unavoidable as right -of -way for an alternate
alignment is not controlled by Mr. Butler.
While the loss of trees is a short term
environmental degradation, the eucalyptus is
not native to this area. The project proposes
a re- planting program to mitigate the long
term impact.
3. LACK OF PRIVACY
Lira Drive was designated as a public street
upon recording of Tract 4646 and offered for
dedication to the City of Saratoga in 1967.
As far as the King and McDonnall residences
are concerned, Lira Drive is an "existing
street."
This same tentative sub - division map was previously approved by
the Saratoga City Council on appeal in July 1977. A final
sub - division map would have been filed and the improvements
constructed were it not for a private lawsuit filed by
Mr. and Mrs. David Arata, Jr. objecting to the extension of Lira
Drive. The Planning Commission has subsequently granted two
extensions to that tentative map approval, the last of which
expired in January 1981. A new sub - division map was not filed
until such time as Mr. Arata had lost his lawsuit and Mr. Butler
was able to re -file the tentative sub-division map.
We respectfully request your favorable consideration and re- affirmation
of three prior approvals by over - ruling the action of the
Planning Commission and approving tentative sub - division map SD 1522.,
Very truly,
Harry N. Lalor
c
cc: Gerry Butler Mayor Linda Callon Jack Mallory
Kathy Kerdus Martha Clevenger Virginia Laden Fanelli
David Moyles
RUTH AND GOING, INC ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING
.r9
919 THE ALAMEDA P.O. BOX 26430 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95159 (408) 297 -8273
July 19, 1982
The Honorable City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga; CA 95070
RE: SD 1521
Dear Council Members:
JUL 2 11982
Leo W. Ruth, Jr., C.E., M.E.
E. Jackson Going, Jr., C.E.
William H. Bender, S.E.
Harry N. Lalor, C.E.
Donald C. Landberg, C.E.
Albert W. Ostoff, A.I.A.
15341 -600
This letter is written on behalf of Gerry Butler co supplement
his appeal of July 16, 1982 based on the Planning Commission's
denial of subject tentative map.
Since the report of the Planning Commission's actions is not yet
available; this supplement reflects my understanding of the
denial and is based as a participant and observer of the
hearing on July 14. We respectfully request the right to address
additional items should the actual report of the Planning
Commission exprss concerns not contained in this appeal.
It is our opinion that the action of the Planning Commission
was arbitrary and not based upon an analysis of the proposed
development's conformity to the zoning ordinance, general and
specific plans for this pro-per-ty and the immediate surroundings
nor acknowledge the mitigation measures proposed as part of
project development in accordance with the finally adopted
environmental impact report.
The following is a summary of the concerns expressed by the
Planning Commission in their denial.
1. Increased traffic on Montalvo Road..
2, increased water run --off and erosion.
3. Geological concerns.
4. Removal of wind and sound break.
5. Density of development.
The following is a more detailed analysis of the above concerns:
The Honorable
July 19, 1982
Page 2
1. TRAFFIC
City Council
15341 -600
In evaluating traffic circulation and roadway
alignment, the Planning Commission considered
both tentative maps SD 1521 and SD 1522. Both
maps were filed by Mr. Butler and the impacts
considered accumatively. Traffic from both
tentative maps would increase traffic on Montalvo
Road by approximately 32_ %. The Planning
Commission determied that if all un- developed
properties within the Montalvo tributary area were
developed, Montalvo Road -traffic would increase
by 83±%. This increase in traffic was considered
untenable.
Grounds for Appeal
Montalvo Road is designated on the General Plan as
a residential collector. Such roadways are
anticipated to carry an average daily traffic (ADT)
of 1,000 - 3,000 trips per day. Development of
SD 1521 and SD 1522 and the remaining un-- developed
properties within this vicinity would not exceed
ADT of 1,000. Even if the impact of traffic
were twice than that anticipated within the
Environmental Impact Report, it would still be
well within the capability of the roadway capacity
envisioned by the General Plan.
In 1977, SD 1296, a five-lot sub - division of a portion
of the lands of Arata, was denied by the Planning
Commission in that it did not provide for the
extension of Lira Drive to service the Butler
property (SD 1521). This map was subsequently
redrawn to provide for the extension of Lira Drive
and was ultimately approved by the City Council on
July 6, 1977. Prior to Council approval, the
Planning Commission adopted the "Vickery -Lira Drive
Circulation Plan," a specific area plan decreeing the
access and circulation proposed by SD 1521 and SD 1522.
The Planning Commission's action in denying this current
tentative map is neither in conformance with the
specific area circulation plan or the General Plan
designation using Montalvo Road as a residential
collector.
The Honorable City Council 15341 -600
July 19, 1982
Page 3
2. STORMWATER RUN -OFF AND EROSION
Concern was expressed that development would
cause an increase in erodable materials to be
deposited downstream which would aggravate
the flooding condition experienced in the
Winter of 1982.
Grounds for Appeal
The Butler property (SD 1521) is not tributary
to the area of concern expressed by project
opponents. The "Creek" providing stormwater
drainage to the Young property is of sufficient
capacity to accommodate project flows. Project
development and the production of "permanent
landscape" would reduce the impact of erosion on
the present plowed field. Present City policy
limits the grading operation to non -rainy months,
thus providing for construction mitigation.
3. GEOLOGY
The Planning Commission expressed concern that
a portion of the Young property comprised an "ancient
landslide." In addition, soils testing for the
extension of Lira Drive from Montalvo Road to the
Butler property was not previously undertaken.
Grounds for Appeal
Subsequent to the Planning Commission's meeting
on July 14, 1982, Terratech, Inc. performed field
testing of the Lira Drive extension and testified
at the hearing that there were no geotechnical
limitations which would preclude that roadway's
development. On two occasions, the City's
consultant geotechnical advisor, William Cotton, has
reviewed the project maps and reports and has
recommended approval of the tentative map with
standard conditions.
4.
The Honorable
July 19, 1982
Page 4
TREES
City Council
15341 -600
The extension of Lira Drive through the
San Jose Water Works parcel will remove a
cluster of mature eucalyptus trees. The stand
of trees within the right-of-way is approximately
forty feet by thirty feet and contains seven
significant trees and lesser saplings. This
alignment and subsequent tree removal is
unavoidable as right -of-way for an alternate
alignment is not controlled by Mr. Butler.
While the loss of trees is a short term
environmental degradation, the eucalyptus is
not native to this area. The project proposes
a re- planting program to mitigate the long
term impact.
5. DEVELOPMENT DENSITY
The Planning Commission pointed out that even
though the present General Plan designation is
very low density residential with zoning of
R -1- 40,000, the surrounding properties have
developed at a much larger lot configuration thus
warranting a reduction in the numbers of lots .
of the proposed sub - division. In addition, it was
suggested that since the properties adjacent to
SD 1521 are designated HCRD, Mr. Butler's property
should be considered for re- zoning to that
designation or developed within the spirit of that
designation.
Grounds for Appeal
All properties surrounding SD 1521 which contain a
residential designation indicate a very low density.
Designation for slope conservation extends to
those properties southwesterly of Kitteridge Road..
The property immediately southerly of SD 1521 is
a portion of Tract 462, Saratoga Height., containing
13.4 acres and eight developed lots. HCRD would
allow this property to develop four building
sites.
The Honorable City Council
July 19, 1982
Page 5
15341 -600
The property southeasterly of SD 1521 contains
approximately 17 acres and comprises the
residence of Hardy, Dorsa, Moreno, Miller, Follmer
and the two Oliveras. With the exception of
the one additional lot potentially developable on
the remaining Olivera property, this area is
developed.
HCRD applied to this property would provide for
four building sites. HCRD applied to SR 1418,
the original 18 1/2 acre sub - division originally
approved for the Butlers, would allow six building
Thus, Mr. Butler's sub - division is consistent
with the densities of the existing surrounding
development. SD 1418, as originally proposed in
1978, requested approval for thirteen lots. The
Environmental Impact Report recommended that the
three lots then proposed for the steeper portions
of the property be reduced to two. The reduction
of one lot wasultimately accomplished and thus a
reduction in density has already been achieved.
Lots 6 and 7 which comprise the steepest portions
of the property each contain an excess of two and
one -half acres and provide open space easements
to ensure hillside preservation.
sites.
In February 1978, the terminations of conformity and acceptability
were made when tentative sub - division map SD 1358 was approved.
A final sub - division map for the entire twelve lots would be
recorded today were it not for Mr. and Mrs. Arata's private
lawsuit concerning the extension of Lira Drive. This lawsuit
was not resolved nor was Mr. Butler able to control the right -of -way
for the Lira Drive extension until this month. In November 1979,
the Saratoga City Council approved the development of SD 1358
into two units. A final sub - division map for the four parcels
with approved access to Vickery Lane was recorded. The remaining
eight lots with access stipulated to Montalvo Road via the
extension of Lira Drive was not able to proceed due to the lawsuit.
Based on instructions from the Council in November 1979, Mr. Butler
did not pursue extensions of that tentative sub - division map
until the access problem had been resolved.
The Honorable City Council 15341 -600
July 19, 1982
Page 6
We respectfully request the Council's favorable consideration
and re- affirmation of the two previous development approvals
by overruling the recommendation of the Planning Commission
and by approving tentative sub - division map SD 1521.
Very truly,
Harry N. Lalor
cb
CC. Gerry Butler
Kathy Kerdus
City Council Members: Mayor Linda Callon
Martha Clevenger
Jack Mallory
Virginia Laden Fanelli
David Moyles
_fVWilliam Cot;% -fin
and Associates
TO: Kathy Kerdus
Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Butler (SDR -1521)
RE: Landslide Evaluation
GEOTECHNICAL COka=; _TANTS
314 Tait Avenue, Los Gatos, California 95030
(408) 354 -5542
July 7, 1982
RECEIVED
JUL 8 1982
PERMIT REVIEW
At your request, we have evaluated the landslide conditions of the Butler
properties in relation to those of the Parker Ranch project. It is our understand-
ing that the Planning Commission has raised a concern regarding the apparent incon-
sistency between our recommendation for development within "landslide" areas on
the Butler parcels and on the Parker Ranch property. We clearly appreciate the
reason for the.concern, however, we believe that the landslide on the Parker Ranch
is quite different from the landslide mass that has been mapped on the Butler
parcels. The Parker Ranch landslide is actively being eroded along the canyon
area located at the toe of the mass. Therefore, it was our recommendation that
no development,be permitted on the landslide unless a detailed geotechnical
analysis could demonstrate that the landslide possessed a high degree of stability.
The developer of the Parker Ranch and his consultants made the decision not to
undertake the necessary analyses and to leave the landslide terrane undeveloped.
It should be understood that the Parker Ranch landslide may indeed have a high
degree of stability, but the developer made a business decision not to invest
the time and expense to analyze the mass. '
In contrast, the landslide deposit within the Bu_tler parcels is not presently
being actively. eroded by any stream'nor does the deposit exhibit steep topography.
This landslide is considered to be an old landslide deposit that has been stable
for a long period of the geologic past. The surface expression of the landslide
clearly indicates that the landslide has not moved for possibly thousands of years.
Additionally, we concur with the applicant's consultants regarding the very low
potential for future movements of the mass.
In conclusion, we believe that the Parker. '.Ranch landslide "appears" to have
a much higher degree of instability than the landslide mass within the Butler
parcels because of the erosional activity at its toe. However, because the
developer of the Parker Ranch chose not to determine its stability, it does not
necessarily mean that this conclusion i.s true. In our opinion, when the land-
slide mass located within the Butler.pa'rcels is judged by the geotechnical data
completed to date, it has a very low probability for failure.
Sincerely yours,
WILLIAM COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
William R. Cotton
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES • FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
William Cott n
-)ry
and Associates
GEOTECHNICAL C0N`zf'_-:TANTS
314 Tait Avenue, Los Gatos, California 95030
(408) 354 -5542
June 21, 1982
T0: Kathy Kerdus, Associate Planner
City of Saratoga
SUBJECT: Butler SD -1521
We have completed a geologic review of the subject application using the
Tentative Map (100- scale) prepared by Ruth and Going, Inc. dated May 5, 1982.
In addition, we have reviewed a number of pertinent documents from our files.
DISCUSSION
We have previously reviewed the subject property using the Geologic and Geo-
technical Investigation (report) prepared by Terratech, Inc.-and-dated June
1978. Upon completion of.that review, we recommended a conditioned approval
of the Tentative Map.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
Since there are no significant changes on the Tentative Map (from a geotech-
nical viewpoint), we recommend approval with the conditions outlined in our
previous review (July 21, 1978), and below:
1) Geotechnical Plan Review - The project geotechnical consultants
should review and approve the geotechnical aspects of the develop-
ment plans (i.e. grading, drainage, 'foundation, retaining wall,
etc.). Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the
results of these reviews and the,approved plans should be submit-
ted to the City to be approved by the City Engineer and Geologist.
2) Geotechnical Field Inspection - The project geotechnical consult-
ants should inspect an •approve all site preparation and grading,
excavations for foundations, retaining walls and drainage improve-
ments, utility trench backfilling and placement of capillary
breaks for slabs -on- grade. Prior to final approval, a summary
describing the results of these inspections and the as -built con-
ditions of the project should be submitted to the City.
CIC,' Gctiatc�Gti 7 a
�1� -1i-z
Respectfully submitted,
v %11r�
William R. Cotton
City Geologist
CEG 882
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES • FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
4i
RitCI;IVED
JUL 14 1982
PERMIT REVIEW July 13, 1982
Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
Saratoga., Ca, 95070
Rye, Butler subdivision map
For good planning, the traffic from the property
(tract 6732)_ west of the San Jose Water Works property
should flow through the street close.by rather than
through Lira Drive.
We share the concern of our neighbours about the traffic
and safety hazard if Lira Dr. is extended beyond the
Sar. Jose Water Works property.
Very truly-yours,
N. A, Billawala
20252 Hill Ave.
# Saratoga, Ca. 95070
VMS, SAW
1
EIVEU:.tl( It
vl�l (21 JUL 1 A 1982
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
t't��C�.. -�- � ,�-- �C�-�' . - �s� -�-- 1��c�C� �r-z+ �.► roc- .� -�'.:
11Ce
17-
i 7t%
'o�'Z.._- e��-- E�'_ ---
tR le,
`-- ,
ts
ce
-C-7—c,
AL"t
Alic
AW/ -
-17 Yl
T7t/ AF0, -L�-L
" tl�
lzv�
,,9 o
�
�
-
`~. .
�.
11
July 8, 1982
The Honorable Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: SD -1418, Gerald and Judith Butler
Extension of Tentative Map Approval
Dear Planning Commissioners:
15341 -200
Tentative sub- division map SD -1358 approved by the Planning
Commission in December 1978 provided the first approval for
Mr: Butler ;s.development of the lands formerly of Young.
This approval provided for four lots to have access off Vickery.
Avenue and the remaining eight lots to have access off the
extension of Lira Drive, through the lands of Arata and San
Jose4Water Works. The extension.of Lira Drive was contested
by Mr. Arata and the subject of litigation not resolved until
1982.
The tentative sub - division map SD -1418 approved by the City
Council in November 1979 acknowledged the inability to develop
those eight lots requiring access to Lira Drive and granted
the first unit of development approval to those four lots
.which had access to Vickery Avenue.
At that time, Mr. Butler was advised by the Council that furhher
consideration of the eight lots would necessitate resolution of
the Lira Drive extension. Th.is•matter will be finally resolved
on July 23, 1982 and Mr. Butler will be in a position at that
time to convey to the City of Saratoga all rights -of -way necessary
for the extension of Lira Drive.
On behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Butler it is reppect-fully requested that
the period within which a final sub- division map for the remaining
eight lots be filed be extended for a period of two years in
aco.ordance with the provisions of Section 18.2 of the Sub- Division
Ordi nonce .
The Honorable Planning Commission 15341 -200
July 8, 1982
Page 2
If extended, a final sub - division map would have to be filed
prior to May 7, 1983.
As you are aware, we have filed tentative sub - division map
SD -1521 which is the eight lot portion of SD -1418. The Planning
Commission may find it less cumbersome to extend the original
conditions of approval than proceding with an entirely new
map. We request your consideration of this approach.
4
REC: WED
JUN 2 3 1982
June 23, 198G
COMM UNILLY D"c41 'MoP
TO C:i�y c;ounci o aratoga
FROM Robin & Freda Jeffs
20500 Lomita Avenue, Saratoga.
RE Lira Drive Development
There are several points I should like the City Council to consider con-
cerning the Lira Drive development.
Firstly, the City Council stipulated in November 1978 that although the
private portion of Vickery Avenue (often referred to as Vickery Lane) has
more houses on it than allowed by City Ordinance, permission would be
given for two new houses to be built as part of the Lira Drive subdivision,
with access on to Vickery Lane. This concession was granted provided that
the two original houses on the parcel, both of which also had access on to
Vickery Lane, would have their access moved permanently on.to Lira Drive
as soon'as it was built. Since the two additional houses have now been
built and occupied, I should like to request a reassurance that this
stipulation will be met.
Secondly, I should likd some reassurance that Lira Drive will be built
and usable before any house construction begins, to avoid unnecessary use
of the Lane for heavy trucks and equipment. Mr. Butler agreed to this
at an earlier Planning Commission meeting.
The third point I should like to stress is that once Lira Drive is built,
there seems to be no reason why the Lane needs to be used for "emergency"
access when the route up Montalvo Road on ,to Lira Drive (the new public
street) would be much better and easier. fora fire truck or ambulance.
There is no satisfactory or certain way.of ensuring that any "emergency"
access up Vickery Lane granted to this-subdivision, would not become
public access, other than by construction of a permanent barrier. It is
a great concern of all residents I have spoken to along Vickery Lane that
no through access be provided.
Such a barrier,built just above the entrance to the reservoir, would allow
the Water Company to continue to use the same entrance, and have full access
to its facility. Also, any concession to one homeowner to have a key to a
gate which would allow him alone to use the Lane, would in the future
undoubtedly bause major problems with the residents of the new development,
who would naturally expect the same privileges.
These are my immediate concerns, and I should welcome reassurances on these
points from the City Council and from the developer of the subdivision.
itruly,
RUTH AND GOING, INC ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING
919 THE ALAMEDA P.O. BOX 26430 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95159 (408) 297 -8273 Leo W. Ruth, Jr., C.E., M.E.
E. Jackson Going, Jr., C.E.
William H. Bender, S.E.
Harry N. Lalor, C.E.
Donald C. Landberg, C.E.
Albert W. Ostolf, A.I.A.
June 21, 1982 .SUN 21 X982 15341 .
PERMIT REVIEW
Ms. Kathy Kerdus
Planning Department
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Tentative Maps SD -1521 and.SD -1522
Dear Kathy:
Based on Comments made by interested parties during the
Planning Commission tour of the properties of subject tentative
maps, it was apparent that modifications or adjustments would
be in order to provide clarity and obtain greater public
acceptance.
Attached are ten (10) copies of the revised maps or, which.we
have made the following adjustments:
I
1. We have added a public street turnaround
to the Montalvo Road terminus.
2. Addition of a stop sign on Lira Drive at
Montalvo Road.
3. Provisions for a windbreak screen to be
provided along the southerly side of Lira
Drive to mitigate. the removal of the
existing eucalyptus trees.
4. Better delineation of the five foot contours
on tentative map SD -1521.
It would be appreciated if these maps are presented to the
Commission on June 23, 1982.
Very truly,
tarry Lalor
cb
enclosures
^ 1
JAMES V. MARINO, D.D.S., INC.
516 WEST REMINGTON DR.
SUITE 4 -A
SUNNYVALE, CALIFORNIA 94087
TELEPHONE 739 -1383
June 21, 1982
Ms. Kathy Kerdus
Planning Department
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Kathy:
RECEIVED
JUN 21 log;,
PERMIT REVIEW
I received my copy of the Ruth and Going response letter prepared by
Harry N. Lalor on behalf of Gerald Butler's proposed developments
SD 1521 and SD 1522. May I say that the report is as fine a job as any
client could possibly expect from an engineering firm. There is, however,
more to the issue than is set forth in this seven page report. May I
direct your attention to the following items:
Item 5. "Sewer and water services are not adequate to serve the Arata.property.11
Response: The Dorsa property is the most noteworthy example of long-
standing water pressure problems. There have been periods of unexplained
pressure loss for the past 15 years. Mrs. Metz and Mrs. Fulde also complain
of poor water pressure on Montalvo Road. Water Department records should
bear -ouyt these facts regarding pressure. Also, the Lalor Report may not
reflect the overall truth of the matter since many incidents of pressure
loss.were not reported.
Item 6. "The acreages shown on the tentative map indicate lot sizes less
than 70,000 sq.ft."
Response. An evaluation of the size of the properties adjacent to the
proposed development on the Montalvo Road side indicate the following
acreages:
Name Acres Name Acres
Dorsa 2.00 Parsons 1.208
Marino 1.91 King 1.019
• Miller 2.02
Hardy 1.0 Source: Office of County
Follmar 3.67 Assessor Book 517 Page 18
Olavarri 6.38
It is inappropriate to survey SD 1521 and SD 1522 for maximum usage because
it is not in keeping with the area. It may be legal on paper, but it is
not ma.ral to destroy the beauty of Saratoga on paper. The value of these
proposed sites as well as the value of the established properties is directly
related to the presence of trees, birds, deer, squirrels, red fox and
chipmunks, etc., not to mention the lack of noise. It is a unique area
remaining within the city limits of Saratoga.
JAMES V. MARINO, D.D.S., INC.
Sib WEST REMINGTON DR.
SUITE 4 -A
SUNNYVALE, CALIFORNIA 94087
Page 2 TELEPHONE 739 -1383
Surgical textbooks do not list fees for life saving procedures. Engineering
reports do not list asking prices for building sites. Planning Commissions,
however, are asked to judge what is best for the future of a community. If
the bottom linen is a reduction in the number of building sites and a
change in the direction of the road to save a little more of the environment,
then it must be considered part of the responsibility of community planners.
Item 9. "Lira Drive extension across the San Jose Water Works property will
require removal of mature eucalyptus trees providing a wind break for the
Arata residence."
Response: If the Arata family knew this road was to be constructed in the
proposed extended form they would never have sold the property. The removal
of seven or more mature trees would destroy a wind break and increase sound
conduction not only for the Arata residence but for the entire canyon.
There is no way to predict the noise level change that will be caused by the
removal of these trees. There is also a similar grove of eucalyptus trees
on the site adjacent to the Montalvo gate, not mentioned in the report but
probably also in jeapordy of removal in the future.
Item 10. "The extension of Lira Drive should be extended'southerly onto the
Olavarri property rather than through the eucalyptus grove."
Response: The Planning Commission and the City Council have it within their
power to grant a variance to the Olavarri's to permit a future building site
on the remaining property in exchange for granting permission to cross the
lower part of their land.
1
Item 11. "Other properties within the immediate area have the potential to
develop nineteen additional lots. The impact of these developments should
be considered at this time."
Response: It may very well not be the duty of Mr. Butler to bear the
expense of future studies but it is the duty of the Planning Commission to
examine these facts. It is exactly this kind of (lack of) thinking that
permitted the Christian Science Church to be built in such a way that the
Young Property became landlocked in the first place.
In conclusion we request a reduction in the number of building sites in the
SD 1521 and SD 1522 development. We also request a change in the location
of the Lira Drive extension so as to prevent the removal of any of the
eucalyptus grove.
Respectfully submitted,
Dr. and Mrs. James V. Marino
20553 Ylontalvo Lane
Saratoga, CA 95070
William Cot-
and Associates
TO: Kathy Kerdus, Associate Planner
City of Saratoga
SUBJECT: Butler, SD -1522
GEOTECHNICAL CONS:
be restricted to site preparation and grading, site drainage and design
parameters for residential foundations and retaining walls. In addition,
the investigation should include a description and evaluation of the region-
al and local geologic setting as well as a detailed engineering geologic
evaluation, including map(s) and cross section(s), of the proposed access
road alignment.
Prior to issuance of grading
tigation should be submitted
Engineer and Geologist.
and /or building permits, the results of this inves-
to the City to be reviewed and approved by the City
Respectfully submitted,
William R. Cotton
City Geologist
CEG 882
William Cotton and Associates
-_1 J U IN 1911 1982
c
MMUNITfq� E! OPMEI ;
(i v`
Ft-
. ...... ..
IL A
it c t l > : , �v,� -r— E,•�,� �-
;.,� jam, jr / •�
fVw.•. J,T —_:'s :_•_
.. /
• Z>
RECEIVED
JUN 21 1W June 20, 1902
PERMIT REVIEW
To whom it nay concern:
I have enclosed the words to a son- I wrote about 3arato;;a. I airs se.ndin,j
it as m^,; contribution to the
we all love. Let's face it,
anyone would :-T;:nt to �-jr i to a
toga to r�1ke sure it reruns
involved, 'out 1 ho-oc -U-le rror
el "ort bein;; made to _)rotect the beautiful city
1 J ,
:iarato a is one o:� �1i�' 1GL•T places le:--t about tiniic_7
song. It's up to you and to the citizens o 0arv.._
such a place. I art not one t0 become politically
Is o" this sonz trill sp oak for ne.
I 1'? Vv near t:? ' ^rOpOSed - V;ler subdivision and, of course, I an concern --d ..
a')out its dew .lop -meat. I .-risk Uhat the property could remain :�n its natural stF.te.
I '.-no-,T '2,is is not _DOSiible. let, I truly* believe that One's man desire to
'.lrotect his nei ;hborhood shot_tld be -riven as rnzch consideration as another P-an's
desire to nkalte a pro :it. Therefore, I ask you to listen to the ci tisens whose
environment is bein-; threatened and -to lower the density of this development.
Let as little daria:;e as possible be done to these beautiful hills. Icy son;;
says it better. "Let's stand .ward with the oak t -rees, so our children will
?now /—his same Sarato a, crown of the valley below."
Thank you,
Anita Yontgomery
1
,F
SARAT 01.'1
Nora Paul i ,lsson s :vinery to �i; :�asin : -h r
=tom i- ,rcc to ;lest 'f al cy, Quito to Mont.alvo,
;lherever you are, it's a good place to -o,
;lhcn you're in Sarato a, crown of the valley below.
Look at those mountains, covered t -rith trees.
Stand on tho -foothills, °gel the soft breezes blo:rin.
Walk throuf ;h the viila�;e, peo_Dle sr!li n hello,
And you're in Sarato ;a, crown of the valley below.
The world's -;Teen all around you where the wild toyon ;rows.
And down from the mountains, ,11ildrood Creek comes flowin ,-.
A thousand old oak trees stand ;ward over 7rou
`,Then you're in Sarato -,a, ;fie-re the old world's still new.
.,
All of the beauty only nature can brim;
Birds still come nest here,listen to their sweet sin,dxk-,.
And dozen From the'mountains, deer still make their way
Here in aarato a, wl-:ere there's beauty all day.
The world's chanted all around us; here there's much that's the same.
If we lose what we have no:,t, :we'll bear the shame forever.
Let's stand guard with the oak trees, so our children will kno:•r
This same Sarato7a, croi -m of the valley below.
:From Paul Yasson's :dinery to Yi,; -3asin May,
From fierce to :lest Valley, Quito to i`ontalvo,
Jherever you are, it's a ood place to ;;o
.Ohen you're in Sarato: ;a, croon of the valley below.
CO" 1972 ., ^ndta font rompry
REGFivE:D
JUN 21 19W
PERMIT Rr�,IEVI
June 20, 1982
Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
"r—cEIV ED
JUN 2 J' 1982
PERMIT REVIEW
Reference: SD1521, SD1522, Butler Tentative Subdivision
Approval and Extension of Lira Drive
A number of concerns were verbally expressed at the Planning
Committee of the whole meeting of 15 June and on site meetings
of 16 and 17 June. Some of these concerns have been answered
by Mr. Lalor, of Ruth and Going, Incorporated, Mr. Butler's
Engineering Representative.
I would like to document these concerns to insure consideration
by the Planning Commission.
1) Update the Environmental Impact Report for Tract
6732, which included Tract 6731 at the time of
report, and require an Environmental Report on
Tract 6532 because the tracts have the proposed
Lira Drive in common and in reality are a 14
unit subdivision.
2) Traffic - The 1978 Draft Environmental Impact
Report uses a 1970 Caltrans document as re-
ference to estimate increased traffic on
Montalvo Road. The EIR does not address in-
creased traffic on Hill Avenue, Bonnie Brae
Way and Mendelson. This document and the EIR
Report ignore the demographics of the Montalvo-
Mendelson area where the majority of the residents
have 2 - 5 vehicles with eligible drivers.
The 1978 draft EIR states that traffic on Montalvo would increase
by 33.9 percent. We believe that this figure is grossly under-
estimated.
Montalvo Road narrows to 16 feet just north of Hill Avenue and
while additional traffic increases the danger to walkers and
school children in all the Montalvo- Mendelson area, this particular
section becomes extremely dangerous.
3) Location of Lira Drive - The proposed Lira Drive extension
would require removal of a group of Eucalyptus trees that
serve as a wind break for the homes to the East and a noise
barrier for the homes to the South. The proposed road also
(2)
crosses two potential unstable areas per the 1978 EIR.
The removal of the trees can be circumvented by moving
the road South to skirt the grove but this requires use
of Mr. Olavarri's land which may reduce potential develop-
ment by one lot. Previous planning commissions have set a
precedent for this when the land of the Parson's residence
was reduced from 2 acres to 1.66 acres to accommodate a
future widening of Hill Avenue.
4) Watershed - The 1978 draft EIR alluded to precautions to be
taken relative to runoff. This matter should be studied in
light of last season's overflow conditions on the properties
downhill from the proposed tracts. Consideration should be
made for additional run off due to tennis courts and swimm-
ing pools.
5) Lot Size - The homeowners of Montalvo- Mendelson have advocated
larger lot size requirements since the 1974 General Plan
Adoption. The lots bordering Tract 6532 on three sides are
all in excess of 1 full acre. Consideration should be given
to increasing Tract 6532 from minimum allowable .92 acre to a
size that is compatible to those lots to the South and West
of the tract.
6) Cost to Taxpayers'-7 Assuming that the development is such that
property taxes are $10,000 per year, Saratoga will recoup $.035
per dollar or $350 per developed lot, This will amount to
$4900 per year for the 14 lots. Ignoring that 30% of this
revenue is for police protection, this dollar amount will not
pay for maintenance of Lira Drive plus additional maintenance
required for Montalvo and adjacent streets. The 1978 draft
EIR states that up to 2000 gallons or 4 tons of solid waste
whould be generated per week which must be transported down
Montalvo Road. This, plus the potential slide damage to Lira
Drive and flooding of lower Montalvo Road, is not a reasonable
cost that Saratoga taxpayers should have to bear.
7) Water Source - Water pressure in the Montalvo- Mendelson area is
45 -55 pounds while the majority of Saratoga is 80 -100 pounds.
Additional development utilizing this source will cause further
deterioration of the situation.
8) Provision should be considered to protect the privacy of two lots,
adjacent to the Lira Drive right of way, which were developed with
the impression that Lira Drive was a cul -de -sac. The King
residence pool is a beer can throw from the Lira Drive right of
way and should be protected with a natural barrier.
(3)
9) Future Planning - The problem we are discussing is a
result of lack of proper future planning. The comments
on the 1974 General Plan map for area "I" are two terse
comments versus up to 20 paragraphs for other areas.
This suggests that minimum thought was expended for a
large amount of undeveloped land. The Christian Science
Church and development of Tract 6731 led directly to this
problem we are discussing. We encourage the Planning
Commission to consider development. of at least 20 units,
in addition to those under consideration, and the impact
that this future development will have compounding the
problems generated by the proposed development.
The majority of the homeowners in the Montalvo- Mendelson area are
here because of it's relaxed rural atmosphere. Please do not help
to contaminate the area with urban sprawl and busy streets.
Regards,
T
67Jack Christian
20230 Bonnie Brae Way
I Saratoga, CA 95070
JC:nab
RUTH AND GOING, INC ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING
919 THE ALAMEDA P.O. BOX 26430 SAN JOSE. CALIFORNIA 95159 (408) 297 -8273 Leo W. Ruth, Jr., C.E., M.E.
E. Jackson Going, Jr., C.E.
William H. Bender, S.E.
Harry N. Lalor, C.E.
Donald C. Landberg, C.E.
c(('''� yr'r yy--�� Albert W. Ostolf, A.I.A.
k~"� Lrj V GIB)
June 21, 1982 . JUN 21 1982 15341
11411T REVIEW
Ms. Kathy Kerdus
Planning Department
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Tentative Maps SD -1521 and SD -1522
Dear Kathy:
Based on comments made by interested parties during the
Planning Commission tour of the properties of subject tentative
maps, it was apparent that modifications or adjustments wculd
be in order to provide clarity and obtain greater public
acceptance.
Attached are ten (10) copies of the revised maps on which we
have made the following adjustments:
1. We have added a public street turnaround
to the Montalvo Road terminus.
2. Addition
Montalvo
3. Provisiol
provided
Drive to
existing
of a stop sign on Lira Drive at
Road.
as for a windbreak screen to be
along the southerly side of Lira
mitigate the removal of the
eucalyptus trees.
4. Better delineation o.f the five foot contours
on tentative map SD -1521.
It would be appreciated if these maps are presented to the
Commission on June 23, 1982.
Very truly,
%Ea4rry Lalor
cb
enclosures
RUTH AND GOING, INC ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING
919 THE ALAMEDA P.O. BOX 26430 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95159 '4081297-11271 Leo W. Ruth, Jr., C.E., M.E.
ar,M,,,E. Jackson Going, Jr., C.E.
William H. Bender, S.E.
Harry N. Lalor, C.E.
Donald C. Landberg, C.E.
Albert W. Ostolf, A.I.A.
June 18, 1982 15341
Ms. Kathy Kerdus
Planning Department
City of.Saratoga .
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Kathy:
At the Saratoga Planning Commission Committee -of -the Whole
meeting on Juie 15, 1982, various questions were raised
concerning SD -1521 and SD -1522 tentative sub - division maps
for the " Arata and Young Properties." .
My notes indicate that comments were made by Mrs, Audrey Smith,
Mr. Fred King, Mr. Jack Christian, Mrs. Alma Arata,
Dr. James Marino and Mr. Geno Costello.- While these comments
were directed to the Planning Commission, I.wish to take the
opportunity to respond to their concerns on behalf of
Mr. emerald Butler, the owner and developer.
Since several statements were repetitive, icy comments will speak
to the general concerns rather than to specific statements.
1. An environmental impact report should be
required.for the " Arata sub-division" as
a negative declaration is inappropriate
and a new environmental impact report should
be required for the "Young Property" as
the 1978 report does not speak to current
traffic impacts or the effects of erosion
which were made apparent by the recent
rains. In addition, the original soils
report was prepared after a two year drought
and did not assess the impact of ground water..
Response: The negative declaration granted
for the " Arata Property" emanated from the
fact that the sub- -division contained fewer
than ten lots,was consistent with the General
Plan and no significant impacts were identified
in the initial study. The environmental impact
Ms. Kathy Kerdus
June 18, 1982
Page 2
15341
report prepared in July, 1978 for the "Young
Property" acknowledged that the "Arata
Property" development had been approved and
impacts for the "Young Property" were
accumulative to the existing approvals. To
our knowledge, no additional developments have
been approved in the vicinity which would
change the impacts identified at that time.
Thus, no new trips have been added to
Montalvo Road as a result of project approvals.
It has been our experience that with the
exception of the period of immediate construction,
development of agricultural lands are less
subject to erosional forces than the existing
condition. At present, both the "Arata and
Young Properties" are either cultivated or
disked for fire abatement leaving the top soil
in a loose and erodable condition. Site
improvements would create impervious surfaces
and generally tend to provide permanent ground
cover and /or landscaping which reduces erosion.
With proper mitigation.during construction,
a condition of tentative map approval, this
concern does not appear warranted.
The time of year during which soil samples
are obtained does not invalidate the testing
of soil stability. The presence or absence of
ground water in test borings does not invalidate
the testing procedure or the ultimate
recommendations. Both the soils investigation
and reports for the "Arata and Young Properties"
indicate that the site soil conditions are
suitable for the proposed residential developments.
2. The trees within the Lira.Drive right -of -way will
be removed as a result of street construction.
Response: None of the existing trees within the
public right -of -way need be removed to accommodate
the twenty -six foot paved roadway section. It is
anticipated that a shift of the roadway within the
right -of -way would be required in order to preserve
the twelve inch oak tree at the Montalvo Road
intersection.
Ms. Kathy Kerdus 15341
L9 June-18, 1982
Page 3
3. The Lira Road right -of -way was never intended
to be a public street and was only set aside
to provide tractor access to the residual lands
of Arata .
Response: The 1968 sub - division of the Arata
property fronting on Montalvo Road provided for
the dedication of this strip of land as a
public street. The tentative sub - division map
identified the property to be sub - divided into
four lots exiting on to Lira Drive and two
additional lots with access to Montalvo Road
as shown on the present map. A "deed of trust"
was recorded against the undeveloped portion of
the " Arata Property" to ensure construction of
Lira Drive through Tract 4646, the original
six -lot sub - division.
4. Will the development cost for the extension of
Lira Drive be borne by the adjoining property
owners?
Response: Two lots adjoin the extension of.Lira
Drive from Montalvo Road to the " Arata Property."
Neither the King property nor the McDonnal property
will bear any cost or expense in the development
of the public thoroughfare. This response would
not be applicable to any encroachments or
unauthorized improvements constructed by the
adjoiners, should they exist.
5. Sewer and water services are not adequate to serve
the " Arata Property."
Response: Investigations performed in conjunction
with the previous tentative sub- division map
approval of the " Arata Property" did not disclose
any.inability to provide adequate water or sewer
services. Most recently, we have again checked
with the San Jose Water Works and Sanitation
District 4 and have reaffirmed the serviceability
of this property.
Ms. Kathy Kerdus 15341
June 18, 1982
Page 4
6. The acreages shown on the tentative map would
indicate lot sizes less than 40,000 square feet.
Response: All lots within the "Arata and
Young sub- divisions" contain a minimum of 40,000
square feet. The tentative sub - division map is
being corrected to reflect the actual acreage
and will be on file with the Planning Department
prior to June 23.
7. Portions of Lira Drive extension cross a slide
area..
Response: The 1978 geotechnical report prepared
by Terratech identified a large portion of
the "Young Property" including lots and street
to be an ancient land slide mass. This report
was part of the original environmental assessment
and review.by the City's consultant geologist
determined that the existence of this formation
condition did not affect the developability of
the site.
�8. Since the road crosses a landslide and is unstable,
the developer should post a twenty -five year
maintenance bond to eliminate the maintenance
cost from the public obligation.
Response: The roadway basement materials are
not. unstable and are not subject to any more
severe maintenance requirements than.other public
roads within the City. To the contrary, a new
road requires little or-no maintenance for the
initial term and thus property taxes collected
from the new assessments will exceed maintenance
demands.
9. Lira Drive extension across to the San Jose Water
Works property will require removal of mature
eucalyptus trees providing a wind break for the
Arata residence.
Response: Roadway extension will indeed remove
a cluster of seven± eucalyptus trees.
NOWNshk
Ms. Kathy Kerdus 15341
June 18, 1982
Page 5
10. The extension of Lira Drive should be extended
southerly onto the Olivera property rather
than through the eucalyptus grove.
Response: Right -of -way is not available from
the Olivera property for roadway construction.
The area required for a roadway shift to avoid
the eucalyptus trees would reduce the area
available within the Olivera property for future
development and eliminate the potential one
additional building site identified on that
property in the 1978 environmental impact
report. In addition, a southerly shift of the
.roadway alignment woul.d.reduce the amount of
land available southerly of the Lira Road
extension and eliminate one of the six "Arata
Property" lots.
11. Other properties within the immediate area have
the potential to develop nineteen additional
lots. The impact of these potential developments
should be considered at this time.
Response: There is considerable expense involved
in evaluating the development potential of
properties that may or may not desire to be
developed. It is the responsibility of,a
project proponent to address his development's
impact on the existing environment and to
mitigate those impacts. It would be inappropriate
for Mr. Butler to assess the developability of
other properties and suggest mitigation for their
impact.
12. Montalvo Road adjacent to the Smith property is
only sixteen feet wide and is inadequate to
carry traffic generated for this project.
Response: The 1978 environmental impact report
assessed this condition and found "the projected
volumes on local streets are within the
capacities of the existing or planned street
sections."
Ms. Kathy Kerdus 15341
OEM June 18, 1982
Page 6
13. Access should be provided to Montalvo Road
or Vickery Avenue rather than Montalvo Road.
Response: Both the Montalvo Road and
Vickery Avenue alternatives were considered
in 1978 as part of the original "Young Property"
tentative sub - division map approval. After
extensive public debate and significant opposition
from the residents on Vickery Avenue, it was
determined it would be in the greater public
interest for development access to be to
Montalvo Road. It should be pointed out that
the original tentative sub - division map
submitted by Mr. Butler on the "Young Property"
.proposed to take all access to Vickery Avenue.
In addition, the original tentative sub - division
map for the "Arata Property" suggested a-
termination of Lira Drive within the "Arata
Property" and only emergency vehicle access
extending through to the "Young Property."
After extensive public debate, the "Young
Property" tentative sub - division map was
approved limiting access to Vickery Avenue
to four dwelling units.
The remainder of project traffic (eight lots)
was directed through the "Arata Property ".
sub - division via an extension of Lira Drive to
Montalvo• Road. Subsequent to that time,
Tract 6731 has been recorded which created the
four lots with approved access onto Lomita
Avenue. Residences exist on all four of these
lots and public street.access is no longer
possible to Vickery Avenue.
14. The 24% average slope of the "Young Property" is
too steep to support eight lots. The number
of lots should be reduced.
Response: The original "Young Property" tentative
sub - division map requested approval for thirteen
lots. This proposal was in conformance with the
General Plan and slope density allowances for
the property. During environmental review, it
was suggested that in order to reduce the impact
�l
Ms. Kathy Kerdus
L9 June 18, 1982
Page 7
15341
of development, one of the three then proposed
southerly hillside lots be eliminated. This
recommendation was accepted by the Planning
Commission and the tentative map was approved
to provide only twelve lots. The average
slope of the twelve lot parcel was 21% with
a majority of the gentle property contained
within the first four lots of Tract 6731.
Thus, when evaluating the intensity of the
development, the original property size and
configuration should be taken into account.
The present tentative sub - division map has
been redesigned in accordance with the alternative
recommendations contained in the 1978
environmental impact report. Those lots.on
the steeper portion of the property each
contain an excess of two and one -half acres
and contain building sites on the lower
portions of the property.
Very truly,
Harr. N.' Lalor
cb
cc: Edward Bolger
Russell Crowther
Alan King
Victor Monia
Louise Schaefer
Attendees of Planning Commission
Committee -of- the -Whole Meeting
of June 15, 1982
'YY)onra o Center for tie Arrs
June 28, 1982
P.O. Box 158, Saratoga, California 95070 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Telephone (408) 867 -3421 Patricia Oakes
ta.�.
s.:,
:.. E iVCI D
j U 1`1 3, 0 1982
COMMUNITY. DEVELOPMENT
Planning Commission.
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California
Re: SDR- 1521 and 1522 - Gerald Butler
Honorable Chairman and Members of the. Planning Commission:
This letter is sent in response to information received with
regards to the subject application.and to express the opinions
of the Board of Trustees of the Montalvo Association.
Our main concern is the impact of SDR -1522 with regards to our
entrance on Montalvo Road. It is our understanding that there
is a request from the City that the applicant provide a standard
cul -de -sac at the end of Montalvo Road.. We wish, through this
letter, that it be known that this cal -de -sac be constructed
entirely on the existing right- of- way;and the property of the
applicant. No land will be available from Montalvo due to
topographic problems. We also request that no trees be removed
on the applicant's property for this work unless absolutely
necessary, particularly the major trees at the road.
One other concern is added traffic on Montalvo Road, particularly
at Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. If Vickery is suggested as an alter-
nate access to the property, especially SDR -1521, we feel that
it would be more detrimental to the area at Montalvo Road and
Saratoga -Los Gatos Road.
MONTALVO ASSOCIATION BOARD OF TRUSTEES
PRESIDENT
FIRST VICE PRESIDENT SECOND VICE PRESIDENT SECRETARY
TREASURER
James R. Compton
Milburn Wright
Mrs. Robert M. Davies John S. Langwill
David Arata
Hubert B. Allen
William Dusel
Thomas B. Inglis, Jr.
William C. Randal
Michael Antonacci
Mrs. Ephraim Dyer, Jr.
Mrs. Charles B. Kuhn
Britton Saterlee
Bernard Brawner
Capt. Otis C. Ferrell, USN Ret.
David Meeker
Bernard M. Sims
Judson Cross
Warren B. Heid
R. Adm. Ralph M. Metcalf. USN Ret.
Mrs. Evans Speer
i
Planning Commission
2 June 28, 1982
We also request that if Lots #3 and #4 remain as planned after
the cul -de -sac is included, driveways for these lots be from
the cul -de -sac.
Thank you, for the opportunity of presenting our comments.
/Very truly your /sue,,
James R. Compton, resident '
Montalvo Association
r
a,
DIPLOMATS AMERICAN
BOARD OR INTERNAL MEDICINE
JAMES R. COHEN, M.D.. F.A.C.P.
ONCOLOGY AND INTERNAL MEDICINE
2410 SAMARITAN DRIVE. SUITE 202
SAN JOSE. CALIFORNIA 95124
TELEPHONE 371 -6262
June 28, 1982
MS Louise Schaefer
Chairperson, City Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Road
Saratoga, California 95070
JUL 0 11982
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Re: Gerald Butler's Development Plan - SD -1521 & SD -1522
Dear Ms. Schaefer:
Thank you for allowing me to speak at your meeting of 23 June 1982.
As I mentioned at that time, I had just recently become aware of the
planned development in the Vickery Lane - Montalvo Avenue area, and,
other than the general philosophy I stated at your meeting, I had not
had time to formulate fully my thoughts on the matter. I thought I
would take a minute to set some of these down in writing, and trust
you will share them with the rest of the Commission.
As stated by a number of citizens at the meeting, many of us moved
to Saratoga and pay the high costs of living here to escape the noise
and people pollution of San Jose. Once Saratoga looks like downtown
San Jose it will be too late to undo the damage. What will mean
large profits for a few developers will be an irreplaceable loss
for many.
Although I have no reason to doubt the.excellence of the engineering
reports for the proposed construction,-we personally had a retaining
wall and drainage system constructed on our property after being
designed by a licensed civil engineer and approved by the City of
Saratoga. Last winter we had two slides on our property and the
engineers for the insurance company say it was due to heavy rain and
poor engineering. I cannot believe that cutting down trees and replacing
foliage with concrete will improve the surface water problems in our
neighborhood!
It was mentioned by one of the commissioners at the hearing that traffic
would be a potential problem. I already consider the intersections
of Vickery and Lomita; Aloha and Lomita; Aloha and Komina all potentially
extremely hazardous. Increasing the number of cars whipping around those
corners by increasing the population in that area will only increase
the business at Los Gatos Community Hospital's emergency room.
Louise Schaefer
Re: Gerald Butler
June 28, 1982
_Z) Page 2
I have all the respect in the world for Mr. Butler's skill and energies
as a contractor. When the Vickery Lane bridge was destroyed 2 years
ago, Mr. Butler worked late into the evening and through every weekend
until the bridge had been rebuilt. Mr. Butler has been quoted as
having said he intends -to build one house a year for the next fifteen years.
The specter of fifteen years of heavy contruction equipment noise late
into the evening and through every weekend is truly frightening!
Vickery Lane is a private road.
cost of maintaining the road, i
the above mentioned bridge. To
for the benefit of one citizen,
other neighbors and against all
democratic.
The residents have faithfully paid the
icluding the entire cost of rebuilding
allow the traffic to be grossly increased
Mr. Butler, to the detriment of all the
their wishes does not seem particularly
I do plan to attempt to attend your commission hearing on July 14 but,
should I be unable to do so, I would appreciate it if these comments
could become part of the public record and be taken into account in
the process of your decision making.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
mes R. Cohen, M.D.
14920 Vickery Lane
Saratoga, California 95070
Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Gentlemen;
r
15055 MoI salvo Road
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
June 23rd, 1982
X '/� /h`�b� Corn�issro�
PC, C14
Re: SD1521 & SD1522
Butler Subdivision
Montalvo Road
As a resident on Montalvo Road adjacent to the above referenced tentative
subdivision, I wish to express several concerns for your consideration:
1. The recent heavy rains pointed out vividly the extent to which storm
water run -off from the Arata property impacts the houses on Abntalvo
Road. We experienced several weeks of river flow conditions through
our property from the Arata lands above us. It is the responsibility
of the developer's engineers and public works staff to ensure that
this situation is corrected as a condition of subdivision.
2. The constricted width of Montalvo Road just North of the Hill Avenue
intersection makes concurrent passage of cars and bicycles or pedes-
trians extremely hazardous. The heavy visitor traffic to the Montalvo
Arboretum along with the neighbors daily trips, means the addition of
14 new homes and their additional daily trips will have a significant
impact on the area.
Actually, from Hill Lane to the Arboretum entrance, there are approx-
imately 20 homes which use Montalvo Rd. daily. The Butler subdivision
of 14 homes will almost double the neighborhood traffic on Montalvo Rd.
since Butler's subdivision has no other access road except Montalvo.
This traffic impact can only be mitigated by decreasing the number of
proposed lots or making Lira Drive a through street to the Aloha Avenue
area.
Please consider these concerns in your actions on this development.
'n erely,
Alan & Toni Pinn
Kr -CEIV ED
JUN 2
PERMIT REVIEW
• �� June 23 19z
,
TO City Council of Saratoga
FROM Robin & Freda Jeffs
20500 Lomita Avenue, Saratoga.
RE Lira Drive Development
There are several points I should like the City Council to consider con-
cerning the Lira Drive development.
Firstly, the City Council stipulated in November 1978 that although the
private portion of Vickery Avenue (often referred to as Vickery Lane) has
more houses on it than allowed by City Ordinance, permission would be
given for two new houses to be built as part of the Lira Drive subdivision,
with access on to Vickery Lane. This concession, was granted provided that
the two original houses on the parcel, both of which also had access on to
Vickery Lane, would have their access moved permanently on.to Lira Drive
as soon-,as it was built. Since the two additional houses have now been
built and occupied, I should like to request a reassurance that this
stipulation will be met.
Secondly, I should like some reassurance that Lira Drive will be built
and usable before any house construction begins, to avoid unnecessary use
of the Lane for heavy trucks and equipment. Mr: Butler agreed to this
at an earlier Planning Commission meeting.
The third point I should like to stress is that once Lira Drive is built,
there seems to be no reason why the Lane needs to be used for "emergency"
access when the route up Montalvo Road on to Lira Drive (the new public
street) would be much better and easier fo.r a fire truck or ambulance.
There is no satisfactory or certain way,.of_ ensuring that any "emergency"
access up Vickery Lane granted to this subdivision, would not become
public access, other than by construction of a permanent barrier. It is
a great concern of all residents I have spoken to along Vickery Lane that
no through access be provided.
Such a barrier,built just above the entrance to the reservoir, would allow
the Water Company to continue to use the same entrance, and have full access
to its facility. Also, any concession to one homeowner to have a key to a
gate which would allow him alone to use the Lane, would in the future
undoubtedly Cause major problems with the residents of the new development,
who would naturally expect the same privileges.
These are my immediate concerns, and I should welcome reassurances on these
points from the City Council and from the developer of the subdivision.
urs truly,
15055 11ontalvo Road
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
June 23rd, 1932
Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Re: SD1521 & SDI-522
Butler Subdivision
T,,bntalvo Road
Gentlemen;
As a resident on Abntalvo Road adjacent to the above referenced tentative
subdivision, I wish to express several concerns for your consideration:
1. The recent heavy rains pointed out vividly the extent to which storm
water run -off from the Arata property impacts the houses on Montalvo
Road. We experienced several weeks of river flow conditions through
our property from the Arata lands above us. It is the responsibility
of the developer's engineers and public works staff to ensure that
this situation is corrected as a condition of subdivision.
2. The constricted width of Montalvo Road just North of the Hill Avenue
intersection makes concurrent passage of cars-and bicycles or pedes-
trians extremely hazardous. The heavy visitor traffic to the Montalvo
Arboretum along with the neighbors daily trips, means the addition of
14 new homes and their additional daily trips.will have a significant
impact on the area.
Actually, from Hill Lane to the Arboretum lentrance, there are approx-
imately 20 homes which use Montalvo Rd., daily. The Butler subdivision
of 14 homes will almost double the neighborhood traffic on Montalvo Rd.
since Butler's subdivision has no other access road except Abntalvo.
This traffic impact can only be mitigated by decreasing the number of
proposed lots or making Lira Drive a through street to the Aloha Avenue
area.
Please consider these concerns in your actions on this development.
' n ' erely, 1.
1. ti
Alan & Toni Pinn
RECEIVED
JUN 2 1982
PERMIT REVIEW
A�
JAMES V. MARINO, D.D.S., INC
516 WEST REMINGTON DR.
SUITE 4 -A
SUNNYVALE, CALIFORNIA 94087
TELEPHONE 739 -1383
June 14, 1982
City of Saratoga Planning Commission Re: SD 1521
13777 Fruitvale Avenue SD 1522
Saratoga, CA 95070
Attention Planning Commission, City of Saratoga:
RECE—w -o
JUN 1 «1982
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
In 1962 I purchased the property at 20553 Montalvo Lane (1.91 acres)
and was informed by real estate agents and by Admiral Crisp himself that
my site was a one dwelling site because the Montalvo area above Hill Ave.
was zoned as strict one acre minimum.: for building approval. As a matter
of fact, I .purchased the property from Mary Ellen Allinger because she
had applied,to the Planning Commission in 1961 for permission to split
the site into two sites and was refused.
I now find twenty years later that three of the five sites directly
adjacent to my property are.surveyed as .9 acre sites and that one_of'.the
sites from the Vickery side of the Butler project is also a .9 acre site.
I am also to understand that the emergency access road to Vickery Ave.
will always remain just that, and will never be widened and paved as a
permanent road access to Vickery Lane. I think not.. In twenty short
years what Admiral Crisp told us Is no longer true. I realize the
definition of a true acre and builders acre 'differ as to square footage,
but even this definition change has come into existence during the passage
of time.
If you still fail to recognize the logic of these arguments, then I
also suggest that turn about is fair play and "that if I should request a
.9 acre building site on my 1.91 acre parcel; and.that Dr. Follmar
(formerly Manardi property) should also request a site approval on his
parcel, and Mr. Olivarri should request site approvals from his parcel,
that there would be the potential of four or five more building sites to
add to the ecological impact of this total development.
If all of this is too much to digest in one hearing, I would hope
the commission would re- examine the entire project with special attention
to the past heavy winter and its errosion and water run -off patterns.
Please note the trees to be removed, and the traffic increase and anticipate
a petition for a stop - signal on the highway adjacent to the Montalvo Road
entrance.
In light of these considerations, I would respectfully request that
you conform to the strict one -acre..minimum zone position once held by the
City of Saratoga and that more specifically you reduce the sites from
five to four on the properties directly adjacent to the Montalvo gate
entrance. The traffic flow into Montalvo should be a major consideration
r �
JAMES V. MARINO, D.D.S., INC.
516 WEST REMINGTON DR.
SUITE 4 -A
SUNNYVALE, CALIFORNIA 94087
TELEPHONE 739 -1383
in reviewing lots and 4. A great number of auto turn - grounds is caused
by the iron gates to the Villa being closed at 5p.m. The entrance to
Villa Montalvo and the start of Montalvo Lane can be a fire and emergency
access disaster on many occasions due to the traffic stopage when these
gates are closed.
Please consider these factors in the review of this development.
T you
r
ames V. Marino, DDS f ✓
7
SJA034(0955)(1- 094580G169)PD 06/18/82 0952
ICS IPMIIHA IISS
RECEIVED 33
IISS FM WUI 18 0952
PMS SARATOGA CA JUN 2'J 1982 �
UW A 184 8 DP 711 10 182 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMERI
UWNX CO DPST 036
SINDELFINGEN /5 36/34 18 1510 g� =----
CITY OF PLANING COMMISSION •13777 FRUITVALE AV ti
SA RA TOGA CA LI FO Rb Ir
WE O�VN THE PROPERTY AT. 15201 MONTALVO ROAD AND RESTATE OUR
OPPOSITION TO DEVELOPING LIRA DRIVE INTO THE PROPOSED ROAD
VILLIAM T AND MARIANNE M DONNAL
COL 1,3777 15.201:
NNN
NN
SF (R6.69)
�F
w,
I
I
MEMORANDUaM
y.
i -\Df
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE' S.,%RATOGA• CALIVOItNIA U3070
(100) 007 - 3.1313
TO: Don Wimberly, Director of Inspection
FROM: William Cotton, City Geologists
SUBJECT. Butler (SD- 1358).
DATE: July 21, 1978
We have completed a review of the Geologic and Gcotechnical Investigation report
prepared by Terratech, Inc. dated June, 1978.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
We recommend approval with the following; conditions.
Technical Plan Review - the geotechnical consultants should review
and approve grading, foundation and retaining wall plans.
2) Technical- Field Review - the geotechnical consultants should inspect
and approve all grading operations (ie stripping, cut slopes, fill
placement etc.), excavations for foundations and retaining walls,
utility trench back filling and the placement of capillary breaks and
vapor barriers for slab -on- grade.
The results of this work should be summarized and the City should be provided
with a written copy of the sununary.
Respectfully submitted
William R. Cotton
CEG882 C j
WRC /lb
Dear Resident:
Below is a notice of two public hearings in which you may be interested because,
according to our records, you own property within 500' of the site. Agendas for
the meeting will be available at the City Hall by Friday, July 30.
NOTICE OF HEARING
Before City Council
NCTICL IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Deputy City Clerk of the Saratoga City Council,
State of California, has set the hour of 8:00 p.m., on Wednesday ,
the 4th day of August , 1982, in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale
Avenue, Saratoga, California, as the time and place for public hearing on:
Appeal of Denial of Tentative Subdivision Approval - 8 lots - Lira Drive (access
from Lira Dr. and emergency access to Vickery Ave) (Gerald Butler, appellant /applicant,
SD 1521)
Appeal of denial of Negative Declaration and Tentative Subdivision Approval - 6
lots - Lisa Dr. and Montalvo Rd. (Gerald Butler, appellant /applicant, SD 1522)
A copy of which I • material is on file at the office of the
Saratoga City Council at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California.
All interested persons may appear and be heard at said time and place.
Written ccnu=ications should be filed on or before July 29
CITY OF SARA7bGA CITY COUNC C Nf(S D
JUL 2 61982
Grace E. Cory
Deputy City Clerk
July 22, 1982
Linda Callon, Mayor
City Council Members
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mayor Callon and Council Members:
Donald R. McCormack
P. O. Box 2234
Saratoga, CA 95070
JUL 2 61982
I am writing to you regarding the appeal of Mr. Gerald
Butler from the Planning Commission's denial of his proposed
developments numbered SD -1521 and SD -1522. It is my under-
standing that you are to hear the appeals on August 4, 1982
Mrs. McCormack and I have been residents of the City of
Saratoga for over 30 years. At the present time, we reside
at 20634 Vickery Avenue which borders the property which Mr.
Butler is seeking approval to develop.
I have toured the property which is the subject of this
matter and was pleasantly surprised to find that the land
seemed well suited for the development such as Mr. Butler
has proposed. The number of homes proposed would appear
to be in harmony with the existing neighborhood.
Given the time and energy which Mr. Butler has obviously
expended on this project and the continuing problems in
his industry, it would seem manifestly unfair to deny him
the opportunity to proceed with this development. My wife
and I both feel that Mr. Butler's development conforms with
the 1977 Vickery /Montalvo Traffic Circulation Plan, as well
as the Saratoga General Plan of 1974.
We urge you to grant the appeal of Mr. Butler and allow him
to proceed with the project.
truly you
DONALD R. McCORMACK
AC
HARDWARE
SARATOGA HARDWARE ,i m- 2 61982
IN THE VILLAGE
14445 Big Basin Way • Saratoga, CA 95070 • 408- 867 -3157 — — — --- — — — —
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
I am writing this letter in support of Gerald butler,
and his efforts to have SD -1521 and SD -1522, approved.
at your meeting of August 4, 1982. The SDs were
approved in April 1977•
Mr. Butler's development will be an asset to the
community, because they will add approximatly 13
families to the community. The ecology of the land
will not be damaged, because I am sure the people
that purchase the homes will have the means to improve
the country side.
The City will benefit from building tax income,
plus the additional property tax the homes will
generate. As it is now Mr. Butler is spending
money on attorneys and other admisistrative costs
instead of buying building permits.
I strongly urge approval on the above site developments
for the good of the community.
Thank you for taking time to read this letter.
Sinc /erely4
Charlie Mc Fall
July 23, 1982
T0: Members of the City Council
City of Saratoga, California
Q C� Le 0
JUL 2 61982
As a resident of Saratoga, I am writing to show my support of Gerald
Butler's subdivision SD -1521 and SD -1522 in conformance to;
a. 1977 Vickery /Montalvo traffic circulation plan.
b. Saratoga General Plan of 1974 with Montalvo as a local
collector street.
There is always resistance to change from existing neighbors when a
new area is developed; however, as a resident in two new subdivisions
in Saratoga in the last nine years, I know that these feeling subside
after the homes are built.
Sincerely,
I,& - -4
Betty Seefurth
�P-
'01w, .C2� �g�L�OMf�D
ky'; y�P� ,� �s-u� D� 1 � z s ,see ,
U
�4 -� �t � U � Sr�J - ✓l�G
Dot cif G�`-
aur,�S ,0
go
Oil
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Dear City Council Members:
On Monday August 2, 1982,
Saratoga Community Center
from the Montalvo area.
AUG 4 1982
PERMIT, REVIEW.
15015 Vickery Ave.
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
9 a.m., a meeting was held at the
with a group of concerned citizens
The following concessions or mitigations were discussed as
followss
1) Move building site off0ill near Olavari's to the lower level
portion of lot #7 therefore,all building site 10% or less.
2) Move road to Olavari's property to save trees
a. will only remove 3 Eucalyptus trees but will-save the tallest
60„ diameter tree.
b. will save the two oak trees on Olavari's property.
c. will plant 20 Eucalyptus as a mitigation adjacent to the
existing grove.
3) Provide footpathfrom Lira Drive to Vickery Ave., (Oak St)
per Kathy Kerdus.
4) Trim brush and slope enbankment at corner before Montalvo
gates for a safe traffic pattern_.
5) Install a.-privacy wall at Lira Drive entrance adjacent to
McDonald and King property.
6) Add a turn around at the Montalvo.gate and Montalvo Lane
large enough-..to allow Montalvo Lane traffic flow uninterrupted
and also accomodate the driveways of lot 3 and 4.
7) Install stopsign at Montalvo Road and Lira Drive intersection
per Mr. Shortino' request.
Butler and the residents in attendence agreed on the above and
Butler in return was to receive support on SD -1521 and SD -1522•
Please note the submitted tenative maps SD -1521 and SD -1522 are
identical.to the previously approved maps.
Sincerely,
Gerald D. Butler
JOSEPH BROZOA, M.D., F.A.C.S.
DIPLOMATE OF THE AMERICAN BOARD OF SURGERY
GENERAL SURGERY
25 NORTH FOURTEENTH STREET. SUITE 480
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95112
TELEPHONE: 287 -7494
Aa�
Y4
June 20, 1982
Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Reference: SD1521, SD1522, Butler Tentative Subdivision
Approval and Extension of Lira Drive
A number of concerns were verbally expressed at the Planning
Committee of the whole meeting of 15 June and on site meetings
of 16 and 17 June. Some of these concerns have been answered
by Mr. Lalor, of Ruth and Going, Incorporated, Mr. Butler's
Engineering Representative.
I would like to document these concerns to insure consideration
by the Planning Commission.
1) Update the Environmental Impact Report for Tract
6732, which included Tract 6731 at the time of
report, and require an Environmental Report on
Tract 6532 because the tracts have the proposed
Lira Drive in common and in reality are a 14
unit subdivision.
2) Traffic - The 1978 Draft Environmental Impact
Report uses a 1970 Caltrans document as re-
rference to estimate increased traffic on
` Montalvo Road. The EIR does not address in -j
creased traffic on Hill Avenue, Bonnie Brae
Way and Mendelson_. This document and the EIR
Report ignore the demographics of the Montalvo -
Mendelson area where the majority of the residents
have 2 - 5 vehicles with eligible drivers.
The 1978 draft EIR states that traffic on Montalvo would increase
by 33.9 percent. We believe that this figure is grossly under-
estimated.
Montalvo Road narrows to 16 feet just north of Hill Avenue and
while additional traffic increases the danger to walkers and
school children in all the Montalvo- Mendelson area, this particular
section becomes extremely dangerous.
3) Location of Lira Drive - The proposed Lira Drive extension
would require removal of a group of Eucalyptus trees that
serve as a wind break for the homes to the East and a noise
barrier for the homes to the South. The proposed road also
(2)
crosses two potential unstable areas per the 1978 EIR.
The removal of the trees can be circumvented by moving
the road South to skirt the grove but this requires use
of Mr. Olavarri's land which may reduce potential develop-
ment by one lot. Previous planning commissions have set a
precedent for this when the land of the Parson's residence
was reduced from 2 acres to 1.66 acres to accommodate a
future widening of Hill Avenue.
4) Watershed - The 1978 draft EIR alluded to precautions to be
taken relative to runoff. This matter should be studied in
light of last season's overflow conditions on the properties
downhill from the proposed tracts. Consideration should be
made for additional run off due to tennis courts and swimm-
ing pools.
5) Lot Size - The homeowners of Montalvo- Mendelson have advocated
larger lot size requirements since the 1974 General Plan
Adoption. The lots bordering Tract 6532 on three sides are
all in excess of 1 full acre. Consideration should be given
to increasing Tract 6532 from minimum allowable .92 acre to a
size that is compatible to those lots to the South and West
of the tract.
6) Cost to Taxpayers - Assuming that the development is such that
property taxes are $10,000 per year, Saratoga will recoup $.035
per dollar or $350 per developed lot. This will amount to
$4900 per year for the 14 lots. Ignoring that 30% of this
revenue is for police protection, this dollar amount will not
pay for maintenance of Lira Drive plus additional maintenance
required for Montalvo and adjacent streets. The 1978 draft
EIR states that up to 2000 gallons or 4 tons of solid waste
whould be generated per week which must be transported down
Montalvo Road. This, plus the potential slide damage to Lira
Drive and flooding of lower Montalvo Road, is not a reasonable
cost that Saratoga taxpayers should have to bear.
7) Water Source - Water pressure in the Montalvo - Mendelson area is
45 -55 pounds while the majority of Saratoga is 80 -100 pounds.
Additional development utilizing this source will cause further
deterioration of the situation.
8) Provision should be considered to protect the privacy of two lots,
adjacent to the Lira Drive right of way, which were developed with
the impression that Lira Drive was a cul -de -sac. The King
residence pool is a beer can throw from the Lira Drive right of
way and should be protected with a natural barrier.
.6
(3)
9) Future Planning - The problem we are discussing is a
result of lack of proper future planning. The comments
on the 1974 General Plan map for area "I" are two terse
comments versus up to 20 paragraphs for other areas.
This suggests that minimum thought was expended for a
large amount of undeveloped land. The Christian Science
Church and development of Tract 6731 led directly to this
problem we are discussing. We encourage the Planning
Commission to consider development of at least 20 units,
in addition to those under consideration, and the impact
that this future development will have compounding the
problems generated by the proposed development.
The majority of the homeowners in the Montalvo- Mendelson area are
here because of it's relaxed rural atmosphere. Please do not help
to contaminate the area with urban sprawl and busy streets.
Re ards,
Jack Christian
20230 Bonnie Brae Way
Saratoga, CA 95070
JC:nab
11
.0d ik Butler
0527 Twin Crneks Rd.
Mont; Serenn, CA 95030
City of Saratoga.
1377 Fr uijv4lo Ave.
Saratog&' CA 95070
R& SD - 1206
i
Dear Or. Van Juyn,
the
yeaslan maoe by the suhdivisi& connittee an Februiry 15,
1977U,havu Lira brive be a through. strees is economicaly preventing
•••the continuance of My'application. 'Mr. Arata who currently lives on `b het - prPPP rty
:01%jC'rtt. to - the sixth lot; adjnqqnt'VA his residence
�.4W till definitely 06tQ060to ykjppropnsal!
IVQoQ!QPprP0A!e-it.if you 'QIddook, 1,11-6!thil matter to acc-
A Omodate h!cul-d.Vsac.Jefore:I enteredyint purchase agreement, I
consulb dnwithqhk planning 0epartmont and also public works- at.whicV
time"plUparties agreud on to cul-de-sac as suh• itted to you on app�
lication.
. I it qppears' that ,th&thr6uQh street m1pht Q he the best approach,
at this 'tide since nd agreemeht officially has NO made between you
and San MeXter Works pertainipg to right of way on purchase pricc,
and justification of purchase. Also there seems to be many unsolled
prcblqms,in tNe Vickary Lane.area abdut riqht Qf way on this privatc-
road and -also secoadaryjaccass.
The apprpnimately 18 acres on the Young pro porty appears to be
too expensive to subdivide thro"gh thb San Jose Witar Works, thyrofore
the logical accoss Would be through Vckcvy Lvn2 with oncondary access
through the church property.
1 have conlacted Q. D. Bear Jisley of and GGing as well as
krs. Yung, Ve.property owner. They do nnt,obn=t to a cul-de-
sac
Oi} 'tiro Arata prcperty.
Ace tim; is.of the essence please give this matter your imm-
qdIate attention. i have tKad to talk to you parsonally F,v save
fWTVA-have not been successful for,you to rQturn my message.
. eo.
Gerald U. Butler
pc: Ruth & Going c/o Dqn Bedrdsky
Daye Argty
Miles Rankin
Mrs. A. Young
July 30, 1932
To the members of the Saratoga City Council:
JUL, 3 0 1982 t.
k
We urge you to retain Broot vieiw School as an educational and
recreational facili-L�r. Both the Girls' Soccer Club— Saratoga and the
boys' United ioccer Association use the field at Brookview for -regular
soccer play (practices, Eames, and tournaments) from August through
April of each year.
As you knew, soccer reaches the broadest spectrum of children and
offers them wholesome e:,: ^eri-ences. However, it's impossible to carry,;
on such a program without large fields such as the one at Brochviev.
The nurber of soccer fields available to Saratoga children is quite
liiuted. Our clubs work closely with :aaratoga AYSO and the organizations
of neighboring co::,,a.unities to oaximize the use of all suitable fields.
To lose the fine facilities at Brookvi ew would be a trer:,endous loss to
soccer in the area.
We hope that you will consider our concerns when determining
the future of Brookview School. Thant, you.
Yours truly,
Dallas Denery
United Soccer Association; Saratoga Soccer League
10
Ethel and J. Bruce Bauer
Girls Soccer Club — Saratoga; Saratoga
Soccer League
Paula and Jim Ocnnin
Girls "occer Club— Saxato7a; United Soccer
Association
Janot Harris
Girls Soccer Club — Saratoga,; Saratoga
Soccer League
-� — RECEIVE®
� o.,.�,.1►� dq `_Jor�ti11 S� o,�
AUG 0 �s 1982
i" Q-or�l
t.t{t�R'�SO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TO
v1 aii 4y�t� O✓AL �,S �� �Z --F ( tV 1 OvSL�
`�1 v,sl O�J of 8
L-ot , - ►� ZI P -
`��
Z� DSTE,.r1' VJ r-r-K i -I- �jA�,� -�
J4 -T 4A r \J It s.` tom! 1 lT
GoM >ul I �+ o� t�l 1 I ►.� 0IJ
J L) Mlvav 2 0E-
�►�q�) �Sj ' j� �1 �v�'�I �l� �D�J �l oT Oi E. 7�:CCZ-4-ckI
GOVI�� J�S� I t�i._L_J T2�1r.�1 CLJ-t` Ali CT �L�pULt`� 1JOT
`VECLOt� , GOS1 1 C�� S C -S� Gam,. FiZS
ZOv� l
��� I►�(Q Goal � �j �.1°T ��r'�I�—. �� ► ��q `fiK� MotifT-A �..vv
►-WT
4E G21✓A
l ouS
�I ►Z . IAA I-- c�IZ , -F—ra 1 f �-T K d- lG'j C71 J6nj C ►� 1 U� fi_> 1AcT
-}� -1t t-Ae: > 177 1�-,> Gv A- e- T--kAT
I -�- i rJ
— o
--rtAE GO T✓1 N) I E=�j Oi 0-le -L-Z -E AN,
�� �'C�► V � �:� Chi..+ � `� d u-T- .
VC > AtM �v t= l u A, cZ \.,l tT�-1 yokZ
►�-> 1►.i �ou2 - �.`�i.(. - \L--c -+you qtA
Gv►J►� F� t of vJ r,-W 1.�liz . - �'c..�ZS �-�� -�.� �u � —
v� 7o �- �--� -C- r/1 A�I,Jt✓TZ -�
J
-fF
21982
a�
Dear Fellow Residents of Saratoga:
15015 Vickery Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
408 867 -7280
July 15, 1982
I am the owner and applicant of SD -1521 and SD -1522 currently
being appealed and scheduled on the August 4, 1982 City Council
Meeting Agenda for tentative map approval. Both subdivisions are
connected to Montalvo Road with 11 lots taking access via Lira
Drive which right of way was established in 1969 during the Tract
No. 4646 development and approval by the City of Saratoga.
Through a litigation and having no control over time to perform,
my approval of tentative maps SD -1296 and SD -1418 expired. Upon
settlement of this timely ligation I immediately refiled for the
same exact approval and was assigned the new numbers of SD -1521
and SD -1522 by the City. My requested approval was unfairly denied
at the July 14, 1982 Planning Commission Meeting.
During the past six years we have attended scores of City meetings
at all levels and adhered precisely to each requirement, therefore,
obeying all City Codes, zoning and policies at a tremendous expense
to me any my family. At this time, I appeal for your assistance
and understanding to support me by writing a letter to the Saratoga
City Council, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 stating
that you support my subdivision in conformance to:
a. 1977 Vickery /Montalvo traffic circulation plan.
b. Saratoga General Plan of 1974 with Montalvo as a local
collector street.
Sincerely,
Gerald D. Butler
GDB /lg
r
July 30, 1982
City of Saratoga
City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Ca 95070
re; Gerald D Butler
subdivisions applications # SD -1521 & SD -1522
scheduled for meeting of August 4, 1982
LO � Q
A 21982
Dear Council Members,
As a resident of Saratoga for the past ten years and of
Santa Clara County for almost thirty years I am in favor
of moderate growth and quality custom homes in our city.
know Gerald Butler to be a developer of quality homes.
As representatives of my city, I urge that you support
the approval of his applications at your next metting.
Respectfully;
l
r
William B Bean
21388 Sarahills Drive
Saratoga, Ca.
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: 50 -1521 and 1522
Dear Honorable City Council:
15017 Vickery Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
July 29, 1982
A � J r 21982 S.
The Planning Meeting of July 14, 1982 was a "Kangaroo Court"
tactic which appeared very dishonest and non - consistent with our
Saratoga government. A select group of Montalvo people created
diversion problems that were not factually true to these two tracts.
Mr. Crowther and Monia were definitely programmed. I understand
they owed political favors from their unsuccessful campaign for
City Council.
The EIR report clearly shows the slight impact on traffic, etc.,
however, the Planning Commission completely ignored this professional
and accurate study and instead played a "numbers game" completely
unreasonable to Mr. Butler and his professional representatives.
Please do not allow this unethical scheme to take place.
I fully support these two subdivisions and urge you to vote YES
on August 4 since these tracts fully conform to the 1977 Montalvo/
Vickery Traffic Circulation Plan of 1977 and the General Plan as
well as R1- 40,000.
Sincerely yours,
a
Gregory Fowler
GF/ lk
CIVIL ENGINEERING
ED KIRK
Ed Kirk Construction Co.
15766 APOLLO HEIGHTS CT., SARATOGA, CA 95070
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Dear Honorable City Council,
LAND DEVELOPMENT BUILDING
_
A! ! r 219�EGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
LICENSE 371895
I am a concerned resident of Saratoga.
I- , _ _ _ I 408/867 -4482
It has been brought to my attention that SD -1521 and SD -1522 are currently being
appealed and being rescheduled for August 4, 1982. It is my understanding that they
have both been approved in 1977. I would like to inquire about the unreasonable denial
of SD -1521 and SD -1522. Can the city council members please send me a reply in reguards
to this matter.
Respectfully,
Z/W/Y/6% /
Amy L. irk
Limi d Partner, Ed Kirk Const.
July 28, 1982
Saratoga Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Proposed Improvement of SD -1521 and SD -1522
owned by Gerald and Judith Butler
Dear Planning Commission:
2 1982
I am a resident of Saratoga, and reside at 20628 Vickery Avenue. Adjacent to my property
is the land which Gerald and Judith Butler are requesting approval on from the City of
Saratoga to subdivide and construct private residences. I support the proposed subdivision
and development of the referenced properties. In my opinion this residential development
will not distract from nor have a negative impact on the surrounding environment or
community.
It is also my understanding that the subject request for subdivision approval conforms to
both the:
a. 1977 Vickery /Montalvo traffic circulation plan, and
b. Saratoga General Plan of 1974 with Montalvo as a local collector street.
My residence on Vickery Avenue was constructed by Gerald Butler. Therefore, I can speak
from a knowledgeable position when I say that the workmanship and materials used by Mr.
Butler in the homes he builds are of the highest quality and standards. In addition, the
homes which he designs are planned such that they have a minimal impact on the
environment and surrounding geographical terrain.
I encourage you to authorize tentative map approval for subdivisions SD -1521 and SD -1522
at your August 4, 1982 City Council meeting, and permit Gerald Butler to construct the
private residences planned for this land.
If I can be of additional assistance in this matter, please feel free to contact me at 867-
6004. Thank you for your prompt attention to this request.
Sincerely your ,
�u;cx
David W. Pidwell
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale ''Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Council Members:
18620 Vessing Rd.
Saratoga, CA 95070
A"' GG 21982
We are residents of Saratoga and ask that you provide tentative
map approval of SD -1521 and SD -1522 which we understand are on
the Council agenda for 4 August, 1982. .
We are not acquainted with the applicant but believe that the
building of nice homes on the acreage in question is a fitting
and proper use of the land, and that it will benefit Saratoga
through an increased tax base while providing; homes for
additional citizen families.
Further, we believe this land was acquired by the applicant
with the rightful expectation from the then existing zoning,
that the land could be developed for residential use. To
now deny the owner this development is, in effect, an expropriation
of the value of his property. For such an act the applicant
should be awarded just compensation and Saratoga certainly does
not have the resources to purchase the land.
To reiterate, we feel that tentative map approval should be
granted for SD -1521 and SD -1522.
Sincerely yours,
Mr. & Mrs. Clinton Lindseth
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Members of the Council:
18661 Woodbank Way
Saratoga, CA 95070
July 29, 1982
FE
A Ul G 21982
The denial of Mr. Butler's SD 1521 and 1522 at the 7/14/82 Planning
Meeting was absolutely unreasonable since these two identical tracts
were approved during 1977 or later.
It is a fact that city codes, general plan, and other laws have not
changed since and are still current. There is no question that
Montalvo is a collector street by general plan definition and is
more than adequate to accomodate Lira Drive.
Mr. Butler's tract will definitely improve the area and be a big
asset to our city. I feel he has the right to develop this land
as submitted to you and is not asking for high density condos or
apartments.
Please approve this project on August 4, 1982, since it has dragged
on for six years thru no fault of Mr. Butler.
Thank you,
Peter Bo ert
PB /sg /- �-�`—
J w
�+ •fir
i
July 28, 1982
i
Dear Saratoga City Council:.`
After attending the Planning Commission r
meeting in July I felt it necessary to write
this letter.
9
Concerning Mr. Butler's subdivision, I
am in favor of this.. The fact that it had
already been approved and Mr. Butler has adhered
to each requirement justifies my approval.
I believe that time is of the essence with
Mr. Butler and it would appear to me that the i
objections raised against this subdivision are
people's opinions and not based on fact. Facts
that I felt were overlooked and that the Planning
Commission should have terminated further dis-
cussion and not allowed the session to deviate
from the issue at hand, thus making the whole
issue confusing. Fact, Montalvo is a collector
street.
Thank you,
Brenda Elliott
A� r,. 2192
17950 Vineland Avenue
Monte Sereno, Ca. _ =_
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear City Council:
14673 Quito Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
July 29, 1982
LArr= .LUG 9MCED
21982
As a citizen of Saratoga, I cannot see any reason why Mr. Butler's
subdivions SD -1521 and SD -1522 were turned down on July 14, 1982.
These two identical tracts were approved prior by the same city
with the same laws.
You should have the courtesy and the ultimate responsibility to
deliver to Mr. Butler what he had when his hands were tied by a
lengthy litigation. Mr. Butler won the court case and should be
allowed to resume his rights. Mr. Butler did not lose.
I request that you do not drag on the approval past August 4, 1982
with silly studies or delaying tactics. All studies were performed
with the prior approvals!
I support your approval that Montalvo R ad is more than adequate
for access to Lira Drive.
� J
P. S. Snyder
PSS /lg J
si,�9az
9
A'Ai 21982
Edmund I Porter
14790 Butanno Terrace
Sarato8a, California 95070
August 1, 1982
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Dear Council Members:
Q�C�C�D�C�D
AUG 0 3 1982
We respectfully request that you grant Gerald D. Butler approval
for SD -1521 and SD -1522 subdivisions at your meeting on August
4, 1982.
We support Mr. Butler's subdivisions in conformance to:
a. 1977 Vickery /Montalvo traffic circulation plan.
b. Saratoga General Plan of 1974 with Montalvo as a local col-
lector street.
We feel that Mr. Butler's requested approval was unfairly denied
at the July 14, 1982 Planning Commission Meeting.
Please vote in favor of Mr. Butler's request on August 4, 1982.
Yours sincerely,
Mr. and Mrs. Edmund K. Porter
14790 Butano Terrace
Saratoga, California 95070
st
R � FIVED
AUG 031982
I (aU4
,
Aaoi
AA
J-
1,&Oj
Irz
i
of
Milos,
JAAAL
0.
' !I
i
Awe
:ZAM4:
Sk��h�r
4 o ^X7 -- /ro �.
0
Np,c. 5amuea. Norton Smith.
20301 HM Avenue
Saratoga, CCaWornia 95070
J"-Ir X 1 0 t7 ��
'" 21962
ek �.e�.
c�
l�
A �
ta
• 1.
C*
e
July 27, 1982
Leo M. Shortino and
Peggy M. Shortino
15252 Montalvo Road
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Linda Callon
12598 Fredericksburg Dr.
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Dear Mayor Callon,
Approximately, 3 years ago we built our home on Montalvo Road,
and were aware of the proposed road 'Lira Drive', which was
to be a Cul de sac. This proposed Cul de sac was to have 6
homes built on it.
Now we are.informed, Lira Drrve is to be made a through street,
with more than 6 homes. We are very concerned for many reasons.
One, the dangers from the traffic pose a very serious problem.
In addition, we understand that there will not be a stop sign
at the end of Lira Drive. We are sure that you must be aware
that there is a blind curve just before you reach Lira Drive,
from the top of Montalvo Road. We need not tell you the dangers
of that situation.
Any thinking person can obviously see the danger of no stop sign
at the end of Lira Drive. Should a driver fail to execute a
turn onto Montalvo Road from Lira Drive they would crash
directly into our mailbox, onto our walkway, which will destroy
the fence to our house. Not to mention any innocent person
taking a daily walk.
With the many varied events that go on at Villa Montalvo, and
the traffic already existing on Montalvo Road, the extention
of Lira Drive would compound the problem.
The traffic situation on Montalvo Road is already dangerous enough.
We hateto think of coping with through traffic from Lira Drive.
We,as property owners,strongly appose the through street,.Lira
Drive,and urge you to vote NO on this proposed development.
Respectfully
eo Mh 6 rot ino
46
w
JOSEPH BROZDA. M.D.. F.A.C.S.
DIPLOMATE OF THE AMERICAN BOARD OF SURGERY
GENERAL SURGERY
25 NORTH FOURTEENTH STREET. SUITE 460
SAN .LOSE. CALIFORNIA 95112
TELEPHONE: 287 -7434
¢s. C 04n c7q. LEnag
20261 All df,,E. U L 2 91982
csaaato9a, L7aLi f owia 95070
a- C-.
a Ct S k
V
�- C_
����
.�
�_1
I 1
l c�- -c--�� O-Z -c..,�
.�
��
w
DO
J J L 2 91982
A, g �,, mf2
/
U
August 4, 1982
Mr. Paul Smith
City Attorney
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Revision to Letter Submitted July 28, 1982 on
Subdivision Map Act Requirements
Dear Mr. Smith:
This letter is to correct a typographical error on Page 2 of my
July 28, 1982 letter to you pertaining to Subdivision Map Act
Requirements. The error is contained in the second sentence of
the second paragraph. The word "inconsistency" should be changed
to "consistency ".
I have attached a copy of the letter with the typographical error
crossed out in pen.
/Siincerely,
Ww 6-w S, ,
William S. Ziebron
Enclosure
WSZ /DKS
. V ,.
REVISED 8/4/82
July 28, 1982
Paul Smith
City Attorney
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA. 95070
RE: Subdivision Map Act Requirements pertaining to
Butler Tentative Subdivision Maps SD -1521 and SD -1522
Dear Mr. Smith:
Pursuant to the City'Council consideration of the appeal of the recent
(July 14, 1982) Planning Commission decision on the Butler Tentative
Subdivision Maps SD -1521 and SD -1522, it is timely to consider the
grounds for denial of tentative subdivisions as mandated by Section
66474 of the Subdivision Map Act. Section 66474 is set forth below:
66474. A legislative body of a city or county shall deny
approval of a final or tentative map if it makes any of the
following findings:
(a) That the proposed map is not consistent with appli-
cable general and specific plans.
(b) That the design or improvement of the proposed sub-
division is not consistent with applicable general
and specific plans.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type
of development.
(d) That the site is not physically suitable for the pro-
posed density of development.
(e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements are likely to cause substantial environ-
mental damage or substantially and avoidably injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of
improvements is likely to cause serious public health
problems.
(g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of
improvements will conflict with easements, acquired
by the public at large, for access through or use of,
property within the proposed subdivision. In this
connection, the governing body may approve a map if
Paul Smith
City Attorney
July 28, 1982
Page Two
it finds that alternate easements, for access or for
use, will be provided, and that these will be substan-
tially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the
public. This subsection shall apply only to easements
of record or to easements established by judgment of a
court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is
hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that
the public at large has acquired easements for access
through or use of property within the proposed sub -
division.
(Amended by Stats. 1975, Ch. 24.)
Based on my review of the proposed Butler Tentative Subdivision Maps,
and an assessment of the 1978 EIR, geology reports, traffic reports,
your current general plan.and other background reports, it appears
that findings a, b, c, d, and a listed above could be made about the
projects. Findings c, d, and a pertain to issues of density and
impacts. My rationale for making these findings is documented in
my letter to the Planning Commission (undated) submitted at the
July 14, 1982 hearing, and in my July 26, 1981 letter to the City
Council. I will not repeat this assessment but would rather like
to focus my following remarks on conditions which require a finding
of inconsistency with the general plan.
Based on discussions with members of the City of Saratoga Planning
staff, it is my understanding that the City of Saratoga has not yet
adopted a housing element to conform with Section 65583 of the
Government Code, and that according to Government Code Section 65586,
the housing element was to be in conformance with State Planning Law
by October 1, 1982. Therefore, since all elements of your general
plan have not been adopted, a finding of internal Xconsistency can-
not be made. And without a complete general plan, a finding of con-
sistency with the general plan required for approval of a tentative
subdivision map is not possible. Based on these grounds, the City
Council would be required to deny approval of the Butler Tentative
Subdivision Maps until the general plan is completed.
A substantial amount of recent case law exists that verifies the legal
requirements of legislative bodies pertaining to the issue of subdivi-
sion consistency with general plans as discussed in this letter. Rele-
vant cases are cited below:
Paul Smi th
City Attorney
July 28, 1982
Page Three
Camp v. Mendocino County 123 Cal. App. 3d 334 (1981)
Save E1 Toro Association v. Days 74 Cal. App. 3d 64 (1977)
Friends of B Street v. City of Hayward 106 Cal. App. 3d 988 (1980)
Sierra Club v..Kern County 126 Cal. App. 3d 698 (1980)
I would appreciate your serious consideration of the matters raised in
this letter.
Sincerely,
,
r',
V /A&01 � .
William S, ebron
Urban and Regional Planning Consultant
cc: Saratoga City Council
Howard A. Sharek
1112 Sutherland Lane, #3
Capitola, CA 95010
August 4, 1982
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Gentlemen,
My name is Howard Allen Sharek, a California citizen since
1938 living in San Francisco and San Jose, an alumni of the
University of California with four children all attending
or alumni of the University of California; two of which
were National Merit Scholars at Saratoga High School. I
have worked in this. state most of my life as a lifeguard,
as a surveyor and for the last 15 years in sales management
in various electronic companies securing over $100,000,000
in business to enhance and increase our great state product- -
and I consider myself a true. California citizen.
Mr. Gerald Butler, a reliable, honorable, good family man,
a graduate engineer and a reserve naval officer has been
dealt unjustly by the Saratoga Planning Commission. Since
1969 he has,.after approval by the City of Saratoga to
build extremely gorgeous expensive homes, which would enhance
the area of the Saratoga Hills, been denied his right to
enrich this area.
It doesn't make sense to me nor many other people that you
should give and then take away his right to build on his
property for other people who desire to live in these lovely
surrounding hills.
We lived on Malcolm Avenue for ten years and there was a
great deal of underdeveloped land in this area - -we did not
try to impare the development of this land; we did not worry
about additional congestion or traffic and our children
were extremely young at that time.
In fact, gentlemen, if I should go back to my early days in
San Jose (1938 -1939 timeframe), when Rt. 101 was a two lane
highway, I do not recall any instance of my parents or
friends keeping any fine families from moving into the
area, nor in the last 30 years in Saratoga have I seen such
insensitive feelings towards such an extremely simple problem
of building a few additional homes in the Montalvo area.
/ , t
Saratoga City Council
August 4, 1982
page 2
I may want Mr. Butler to build a home-for my family, and
I would be denied re -entry into my old hometown.
The. average people that purchase these homes will be
extremely wealthy. Most of them will not have any small
children. They would not bring a great deal of congestion.
The Montalvo area isn't anymore sacrosanct than any other
area of this valley.
Sincerely,
15 WCU 0 czov
Howard A. harek L_",,
20000 Charters Court
Saratoga, Calif. 95070
July 29, 1982
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Calif. 95070
To whom it may concern:
QSC,C��MC�D
J J L 3 01982
Mr. Gerald D. Butler has informed me that he has applied to you for
approval to build on eight lots located on Lira Drive in Saratoga.
As I am very familar with Mr. Butler's construction of distinctive
homes I feel that the type of quality home he plans to build on Lira Drive would
be appreciated by everyone in the Saratoga community, therefore I support this
subdivision in donformance with:
A� 1977 Vickery / Montalvo traffic circulation plan.
B. Saratoga General Plan of 1974 with Montalvo as a local collector street.
Sincerely; J ps
SCS.
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Calif. 95070
To whom it may concern:
20552 Ashley Way
Saratoga, Calif. 95070
July 29, 1982 -
JUL 3 01982
I understand from Mr. Gerald D. Butler that he has applied
to you for approval to build on 8 lots on Lira Drive in Saratoga.
Being very familar with Mr. Butler's design and construction
I believe that the type of homes he plans to build on Lira Drive would be highly
comendable and a great asset to the Saratoga community.
I wholeheartedly support this subdivision in conformance to:
A. 1977 Vickery / Montalvo traffic circulation plan.
B� Saratoga General Plan of 1974 with Montalvo as a local collector street.
Si.nFerely, �(
Sylvia C. Smith
SCS.
13634 Howen Drive
Saratoga, Calif. 95070
July 29, 1982
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, Calif. 95070
To whom it may concern:
I understand that Gerald D. Butler has applied to you
for approval to build on Lira Drive in Saratoga and that there are eight
lots involved.
My feelings are that these homes would be an asset
to our Saratoga Community. I believe they would all be individually designed
and therefore I support this subdivision In conformance to:
A. 1977 Vickery /Montalvo traffic circulation plan.
B. Saratoga General Plan of 1974 with Montalvo
as a local collector street.
Sincerely, ,
Ellie Kiewel
SCS.
A�C�L�OMf�D
J ! 1 L 3 01982
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, Calif. 95070
To whom it may concern:
18265 Purdue Drice
Saratoga, Calif. 95070
July, 29, 1982
It is my understanding that Gerald D. Butler has applied
to you for approval to build on eight (8) lots on Lira Drive in Saratoga.
I believe these homes would be an asset to our
community as Mr. Butler builds a quality home with individual designs, therefore,
I support this subdivision in conformance to:
A. 1977 Vickery / Montalvo Traffic circulation plan.
B. Saratoga General Plan of 1974 with Montalvo as a
local collector street.
%Sincerely, Q
�`.�FCxQitc�Ca —+a �Cit.J
Helena Fancher
SCS.
On behalf of the Saratoga City Council, thank you very
0
AGENDA BILL NO: 3 OS
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
Dept. Head:
DATE: August 4, 1982 City Atty
DEPARTMENT: Maintenance Services City Mgr
SUBJECT: Teledyne MEC - Foot Race
Issue Summary
Teledyne MEC has requested that the City allow them to have a small Foot Race along
City streets. This is a very small event to be run in conjunction with their company's
annual picnic. They expect to have fewer than 20 runners enter the race. The race
will start in Cupertino and end in Saratoga. They propose to end the race in Wildwood
Park and then transport the participants to the County park on Congress Springs Road,
where the picnic is being held. Since the entrance to Wildwood Park is in disrepair,
I suggest that we allow this function only if the ending place is in the Parking District
Lot on Fourth Street.
Recommendation
Allow this very small race to be run along City streets with the following provisions:
1. Maximum of 25 runners permitted without police service.
2. Ending to be changed from Wildwood Park to Fourth Street Parking Lot.
j Teledyne MEC will be responsible for after race clean -up.
LI. The City will notify_Cal-.Trans, Sheriff's Department -and Fire Departments.
5. Teledyne must also obtain permission from other agencies and property owners involved.
Fiscal Impact
None.
Exhibits /Attachments
Letter of Request.
Council Action
8/4: Clevenger /Fanelli moved approval. Passed 5 -0.
July 14, 1982
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA. 95070
Dear Sir:
%i TELEDYNE MM
/+ 3165 PORTER DRIVE
PALO ALTO. CALIFORNIA 94304
(415) 493 -1770 TWX (910) 373 -1746
JUL 161982
This letter is in regard to obtaining a permit or permission for a running
race that will finish in Saratoga. In a recent telephone conversation with
Dan Trinidad of the Streets Department,,concerning this race, I agreed to
send in the following information:
Sponsor Teledyne.MEC
3165 Porter Drive
Palo Alto, CA. 94304
Date Sunday - August 8,'1982
Time 8 :00 am - 9:30 am
i
Number of People: 15 - 20
Route Starts at the entrance to the south parking lot of
De Anza College on McClellan, go west on McClellan,
turn left at the SP rail road tracks, follow the
tracks to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, turn right, follow
Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road to Big Basin Way, turn right,
at 4th Street turn right and turn right into Wildwood
Park for the finish.
The race is one of several events that are scheduled to take place at our
company picnic that day. We will be able to provide several people to help
along the race route and plan to put up signs that read: CAUTION RUNNERS ON
ROADWAY.
Last year we ran a similar event in the city of Cupertino and had no problems
- so we are experienced at organizing and managing this type of event.
Sincerely,
Za4'Ve
Dave Bruce
DB:khl
1
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO: 30
Initial:
Dept. Head:_ -,�
DATE: August
4, 1982
City
Atty
DEPARTMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance Services
City
Mgr
- - - - --
SUBJECT: Community Footrace and Seventeenth Annual Fall Parade
Issue Summary
The City has been contacted by the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce and the sponsors of
the Community Footrace requesting permission to hold the Seventeenth Annual Fall Parade
and Community Footrace on Sunday, September 19, 1982. The Footrace will be held between
9:00 and 10:00 a.m. and will involve a temporary closing of Big Basin Way at the start
of the race. The Parade will be held between 1:30 and 3:30 p.m. and will cause the
closure of Big Basin Way and the closure of Big Basin Way and Saratoga Sunnyvale Road
intersection while the Parade passes through. The City Council has authority to close
City streets for the Parade but must request permission from the State of California
Transportation Department and the California Highway Patrol to close Big Basin Way
(State Highway 9) and the intersection of Big Basih Way with State Highway 85.
Recommendation
1. Authorize the closure of Allendale Avenue, Fruitvale Avenue, and Saratoga Avenue
as necessary for the Parade route between 1:30 and 3:30 p.m.
2. Approve the route of the Footrace.
3. Approve Resolution No. requesting the State Department of Transporation to
allow closure of State Highway 9 temporarily between 9 and 10:00 a.m. for the
Community Footrace and between 1:30 and 3:30 p.m. for the Parade as well as the
closure of the intersection of Highway 9 and Highway 85 for the Parade to pass through.
Staff will follow through to notify the California Highway Patrol, Caltrans, Sheriff's
Department and the Fire Department.
Fiscal Impact
None. The Saratoga Chamber of Commerce and the sponsors of the Saratoga Community
Footrace will cover all charges for additional reserve deputies to handle the traffic
control.
Exhibits /Attachments
Resolution No. 2-005
Map of Community Footrace.
Map of Parade route.
Map showing traffic detour route.
Council Action
8/4: Clev?Zger /Fanelli moved approval. Passed 5 -0.
City Clerk
•,:Yti�rr„.d,'.xiArt'�;::r�ehj
RESOLUTION NO
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
REQUESTING PERMISSION FOR TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF STATE HIGHWAY ON SEPTEMBER 19, 1982
- -. -• : -_:• -•
WHEREAS, the Saratoga Festival and Parade Committee has yearly sponsored
the Annual Fall Community Race and Parade in the City of Saratoga; and
WHEREAS, the Community Footrace has been scheduled for Saturday,
"
September 19, 1982, between 0,:00 and 10:00 a.m.; and
WHEREAS, the Seventeenth Annual Fall Parade has been scheduled for
Saturday, September 19, 1982, between 1:30 and 3:30 p.m.; and
WHEREAS,..the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office has been advised
of the race and parade route and is planning to take the proper traffic control
measures to insure the safety and expeditious movement to the traffic and oversee
the safety of the participants in the Parade; and
'
WHEREAS, the City Council has annually endorsed the Fall Footrace and
Parade and is aware of the precautionary measures that have been undertaken and
does sanction the Seventeenth Annual Fall Footrace and Parade;
^°
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Saratoga does hereby request permission of the State Department of Transportation
� ,��c.
?.�t'r
to allow Big Basin Way (State Highway 9) to be closed and traffic to be detoured
on September 19, 1982 as needed between 9:400 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. and again between
- - -
1:30 p.m. and 3 :30 p.m. between the junction of Highway 85 and Fourth Street and
to permit closure of Highway 85 at Highway 9 as the Parade passes through this
intersection.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City
Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on day of
1982 by the following vote:
AYES:
.
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
•,:Yti�rr„.d,'.xiArt'�;::r�ehj
C
SARATOGA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
P.O. BOX 161 a 20460 SARATOGA -LOS GATOS ROAD • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -0753
July 8,1982
Miss Barbara Sampson
Maintenance Services Director
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Barbara:
Just a reminder that our ANNUAL PARADE is September 19,1982,
so that you can get the necessary resolution adopted by
the City Council.
It will start at 2:00 P.M. at Fruitvale Avenue at Redwood
School, to Saratoga Avenue, on to Big Basin Way. The roads
should be closed at 1:30 to 3:30 P.M.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
DOROTHY DAY
DD:jw Executive Director
CT
�vA / tU+�R4 0.`t,OZ, r ASS Q,`�goo�e..,VprONICAUYUByABRO KHAN OCKTOnz LN1 `�'/ ( Wr E 4
PC `�'' - ao. S ? KANECTP l�`q ` m ? VEMDURA ERCt �`�'- w%r AVE'O
+ E 0 v �/ `� ~ � WY bX x W0 aA &J ON LN
° > x z : •_OR AV ''�i o'l V.: gjiJ �Yy�
CORT �vI Z ta�� i 8�°' az -I °I�ouc Q GARNEfTCT l z = - °o�X t.f
Ep c< / �pP r ii %n W z -=-: .
�.✓ "RCiIEILO � q m .lye > sr' a ` IERCE RDg��� W j o BrdG < E . C
I C; r_DR7
J\ CHAT "� pI �°° fU1TLELEAOUEwc,FlEtO} \� �!'�v+ by�c 1 zr W A•s
y 0 C 0 EAU ° ?i �► BLYT CT r °� ° m
i c� oz °c✓�+° } ; z °OqW" — siJUNIPfpQ +�HAVILLAN �DARR�'PO
�MAL RY TPALERMO #k PAX ,♦ ? ,No
"Elk SrTON > 0� W\ %TER LN z 1ACCARANDA a =NNQf \ O�
\ Q ~ IA REAL t fy
Z r m i, gRGO%�O HATEAUO ,z, VIA ES VELA CT' - �(�O� °�` (yOQ"d
�O� V(
- z AROavAUT DR�pf S \
v
APOLLO 3 HICK RY HILL WA), a <� _ F7 q<
CZ WAY N l Jp; O 1c J CT i\A_GRANDE DR a OP �Q IAUw WINERY
W N D
WQC J`_ ;d L EPP f+ A ST.GNNz� E TVIAry
TC j ,ECENTE J,�p 0
ICEO� KI BR/ ; DR CO. °° RSV n VI
R DR O /$ S _a MADRONAS
a R C0T T,ARRI 9>
y MILD_ VICN DR A BR'
i
co
Cl GdW o �KNP�elrl r ,..: � , ! CT NARD F GLAg EDINBURGH DR = Q ``,✓,. D BBIE N �0 9NOA >,en rae r- PRK N V �"�,P J' ��I Cj
CT W ii �'m T ELMA Y z' o ON C� �iC, l� @1 ✓. KGB �l; !i� !� c\ <
b LN mi AV BRAEMAR P� \ /�\O!
s -c m ° �. C%. O ..L
SEV1LlA DO ADD 3 FRANKLIN AV ° ; z �i/l P OJ
zOG VIS A T "' r F- & t� l��(/ \°JP:'IiARWNER ---A
rll NORTICUL URAL W� - - \S \� HALE �' aSARA� < « y� -' "f /r.��i �� S � p _CT
33 ' (((///
FOUNDATION T > L O Z LD
/, RDE'VISTA ° ~" C '� O i r v ~
\ �1 /{ Oo s LN f M RRICK R' E �0 t P z ° TWAIN CTQ <
�l . J o YCE OODWARD� w m z �f 0
R CT °z �+ x `=' G W sl PJos C. `�`� csi <I � ALC
j z W
`?s W CI1 (•y. ALLENCALE A
,(�A �F > a SEQ �-PAAR d roman a� LA y�� P mNAtc ALLENDA�E r `
IL ° a c EOOTNnL >DEERPA o, �� .i 850OW ..
SAAATOGA /� �0,QADROOD West Valle ° °z s
U W
df "WlTRINITY gV = W �p -( (,e 5� �bNr <N Community, ` a
�Wi ��<` WILLI _S O��ON oDko- GARDN�C College
NE \0 P' _N e/ yADOW ° o °� 9 o PO
/Od•P%JrF Ty °` •
- AYf�bTCN S w W 000 WAY
R�„�oa• 4 nGy
/ AV E P�pN M ly 90 LOVELP 00 �pJ o z >
c M UIRR E� ( O% X7.1 q G H doyf Kit
RKSD LE CPff 9cr� ...CTS,,' ac y/i
iL4' cep °m p DUM
°o di
o s oy ��i�► / T ONNA LN o z �
NT z LN sD
Ro�fi�t r _ m b
OA ,� W
ANAER. PO l V y'�
° 9 C° Y V SAILL S
^'�hl Bps\ 09 °� �'' � o e o
WY �- z BURG O.F. HOME Syr
R TOLLS a c� i NABUS C7 a
�sDo 6 �.+p�' TCN y Ogt!t9 WcS �`'r p�" CFA
F- S.Y••'= ,Q� / SARATO 71 l\�' S�
d W% \��—y!y0 %WPAl A! c�EOjQ4�G��P Op OO- S !i o w \ESN Y1�NFP
cj NADRON/A - NETERY �E`�/y �' �' d I Cr
ek wwweeeeee 99 Ai0 Qq 14e FARWELL o ��f1 y
Hallorie & yr9�GFBONNIE S i! W z`ONIS (� ARBO
j°
ON NOTRE /DANE NOVITIATE y BRAE WAY in e@r RAN
H L AV �N N THREE OAKS ! > c� QO �O! CJ
n h Q �, -W Q SPERRY LN
l Fad �� NONTfuDRi > \wI N RD _ PARKDR " � ° \py r OS
I m LRA «' y� L
D �o Greek s S PARK DR < CRA
i p �p m LN
SIG L DR VO �� GPE�'� R/ IN �WY " ` J pZ PANOR ; y� c
ilt d IJTTR10
an LARK WY <hVf
a DR
a OLEN'UNA *ONTE +'
VILLA o6 I SUNSET•DR OPQ Y S� Q SUNNYSIDE DR
MONTALV
I ARBORE UM / DES Pv o
\LL
'se P o NO
l o _ ti `y` 2 y COUNTY �EDN/ nor 00ER N�OOEy Q„ W�,� W ,�•l�0
1 PARK
NON OR �p rp OR �N�000, a
1 1man
tuart Camp ` a , / o ° KoH 'e
° l o
S ( k %VA GENE
Alfrk Antuml
'6araw'4a �ommutuw foorraq
SPONSORED BY PACIFIC VALLEY BANK
DATE: Sunday, September 19,1982 - - -- Starts 9:00 A.M.
COURSE: 6.2 miles, (10,000 meters). Start in middle of Saratoga Village--- -
finish at ':!ildwood Park, Saratoga. Two tough hills of paved course.
ENTRY FEE: $6.00 must be submitted by September 12,1982 and you will receive an
attractive T -shirt on race day,
-OR-
$3.00- Race Day Registration- No shirt
All entries have chance at all awards listed below.
MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: Saratoga Community Footrace....... (.Tax Deductible donation to
West Valley College Track Team)
SEND ENTRIES TO: Heather Uightman Ge01i6L u,�GhhtVAN
14701 Vickery Ave
Saratoga, Calif 95070 IS9'�e
S"
QUESTIONS ?: Call Heather Wightman: 867 4327
AWARDS- PRIZES:
1. Plaques to 1st male finisher, 1st female finisher and lst male and female
Saratoga residents.
2. Free drink.
3. Attractive Historical Certificate
4. Eligible for 1 of 30, $5.00- $10.00 gift certificates. ( to be awarded
by a drawing after the race. Winners Must Be Present).
TIMES: Top 200 will be posted on master finish board. All others will be called
out at finish line.
DIRECTOR: George Wightman
ENTRY
In consideration of the acceptance of my entry in the Saratoga Community Footrace, I,
for myself, my executors, administrators, and assignees do here -by release and discharge
the City of Saratoga, Saratoga Chamber of Commerce, Pacific Valley Bank, and George
Wightman, of damages, demands, actions whatsoever, in any manner arising, or growing,
out of my participating in said athletic event. I attest and verify that I have full know-
ledge of the risk ii,volved in this event and I am physically fit, and sufficiently trained,
to participate in this event.
SIGNATURE
paFt'icipant)
PRINT name:
STREET:
T -Shirt Size (,circle one) S
Parents signature, if under 18
AGE
CITY ZIP
M L XL
;2 t-M ES - CaCf--Urate- MCggure. -o 7 ,
1 f:
ST�.zr�F1�r1Su
IN SARAToG,f
VII-LA4E
a
%
0
r