Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-19-1989 CITY COUNCIL AGENDASARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. /61,3 AGENDA ITEM:—S-1 SCI MEETING DATE: April 19, 1989 ORIGINATING DEPT.: planni7l,} CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Letter from Santa Clara County Transportation Agency regarding commuter services study. Recommended Motion: Authorize sending of draft reply. Report Summary: The City has been requested to provide input to the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency on a commute services study they are conducting. Planning staff has prepared a draft -reply for Mayor Anderson's signature. Fiscal Impacts: None T }i- - 4-.. _ 1) Draft reply Z) Letter from Transportation Agency Motion and Vote: () I,- a • . n ®gc� 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95 )7 (408) 867 -3438 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger David Moyles Donald Peterson Francis Stutzman April 20, 1989 James E. Reading, Director Santa Clara County Transportation Agency 1570 Old Oakland Road, Suite 202 San Jose, CA 95131 Dear Mr. Reading: Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the Transportation Agency's commuter services study. The City Council enthusiastically supports the study because we feel the City is • currently underserved by County transit services and the commuter programs would fulfill a definite need in our community. We are currently expanding the Circulation /Transportation Element of our General Plan and the results of your study will be important to our own analysis of Saratoga's transit needs. In addition to those items outlined in your letter, we recommend the study include the following: 1) Because Highway 85, which will be constructed through Saratoga and completed in 1994, will have an HOV lane, the study should analyze methods to enhance the attractiveness and convenience of this commute service to Saratoga residents. 2) Saratoga is on the periphery of the commute pattern to major employment centers; therefore,, ridership figures for boardings and debarkation may not accurately reflect the total number of riders traversing the city, nor the actual need for expanded services. The study should therefore focus on the special needs of communities on the suburban fringe. 3) Saratoga is willing to assist in the promotion of commute services through our own. newsletter and outreach programs. However, our support is predicated on measurable improvements and benefits to Saratoga's residents. • • u James E. Reading April 20, 1989 Page two Saratoga has a commitment implementation of the T2000 your study when completed. provide our comments at this Sincerely, Karen Anderson Mayor to continued participation in the program and looks forward to receiving Thank you again for the opportunity to time. County of Santa Clara n-ansportation Agency 1 570 Old Oakland Road, Suite 202 San Aosc, California 9513 1 skdG a i!�1E DD WIAR 2 0 1989 (408) 299-3 14 1 CITY OF SARATOGA CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE March 15, 1989 Harry Peacock City Manager City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Peacock: The Board of Supervisors adopted a comprehensive, countywide transportation plan, called Transportation 2000, in May 1987. The T2000 Plan included significant recommendations for the bus system with top priorities given to grid and commuter services. The Transportation Agency started implementing bus system improvements through the Comprehensive Operations Analysis conducted by ATE Management Inc. The purpose of the ATE study was to identify ways to restructure the bus system making it more direct, streamlined and efficient. In the last few months, your city has been involved in reviewing the ATE recommendations for a basic grid route network. ATE also made a cursory review of our existing commute services and produced general recommendations for improvements. To build on ATE's work and develop specific commute service recommendations, the Agency is conducting a Commute Service Study. This study will examine express, bonus bus and rail shuttle services. Attached is a brief description of the study. Suggestions solicited from the cities, the general public, major employers, our riders and our own operations staff will be an integral part of the study. We would appreciate receiving any comments or suggestions you may have regarding commute service by April 14, 1989. If you have any questions about the study or would like to arrange a meeting to discuss your city's particular needs or interests, please call Dawn Cameron at (408) 299 -3141. 0 Si e ely, A ES R 4 D'rector JER /DSC:vh.0 Enclosure cc: Valerie Young Board of Supervisors: Susanne Wilson, Zoe. Lofgren, Thomas L. Legan, Rod Diridon, Dianne McKenna County Executive: Sally R. Reed County of Santa Clara California COMMUTE SERVICE STUDY BACKGROUND Transportation Agency 1555 Berger Drive San Jose, California 95112 The Transportation 2000 Final Plan identified improving the grid and commute services as top priorities for the bus system. Implementation of the improvements began with the Comprehensive Operations Analysis of our entire bus route network performed by ATE Management Inc. Although the ATE study concentrated on the basic grid route network, ATE did make a cursory review of County Transit's commute services. As a result, ATE produced the following general recommendations for these services: • Emphasize more direct, express -like alignments with fewer neighborhood stops and improved identity compared to nearby local routes. • Explore the possible use of a premium -type coach for premium - type express service as a means of enticing commuters from the private auto. These recommendations will be addressed and expanded upon in the Commute Service Study conducted by Transportation Agency staff. The objective of the Commute Service Study is to develop recommendations for a package of commuter services which will identify efficiencies and improve performance. The commute service elements included in the package are express, bonus bus and rail shuttles. The study will also address the needs for supporting facilities such as Park - and -Ride lots. COMMUTE STUDY ISSUES Some of the key issues the study will address are: • The current effectiveness of the express service is low due to relatively high costs and low ridership. What can we do to improve performance and lower costs? • Possible cost - effectiveness improvements utilizing different service concepts need to be developed such as: - Reallocate existing service. - Privatize all or part of the service. - Provide a highly customized service. - Develop alternative route designs and vehicles. • Corridor studies currently underway are examining the potential for using express routes to build ridership for rail. What are our needs in these corridors and how can we meet them? ® An Equal Opportunity Employer $ 1 • New Commuter Lanes are opening. Which Commuter Lanes are conducive to express routes and how can we take full advantage of the time - savings the Commuter Lanes offer? • During the ATE study requests were received for commute service to new areas. What is the current and future market potential for commute service to these new areas? 0 Express service needs certain support facilities (e.g., Park - and -Ride lots and special marketing efforts). What can we do to meet these needs? • Are there any other creative new service concepts or new markets which will improve service performance? COMMUTE STUDY TIMELINE Complete data collection Identify and analyze operating options Prepare draft recommendations Conduct public review process Transportation Commission review Board of Supervisors approval Begin implementation of recommendations QUESTIONS /COMMENTS - April 1989 - June 1989 - August 1989 - September 1989 - October 1989 - November 1989 - April 1990 If you have any questions or comments regarding the Commute Service Study, please call or write: (3/9/89) Dawn S. Cameron Santa Clara County Transportation Agency. 1570 Old Oakland Road, Suite 202 San Jose, CA 95131 (408) 299 -3141 2 i t �� of SA R9�0 y w �:�T� -: 9 CITY � � • April 20, 1989 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: James E. Reading, Director Santa Clara County Transportation Agency 1570 Old Oakland Road, Suite 202 San Jose, CA 95131 Dear Mr. Reading: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger David Moyles Donald Peterson Francis Stutzman Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the Transportation Agency's commuter services study. The City Council enthusiastically supports the study because we feel the City is currently underserved by County transit services and the commuter programs would fulfill a definite need in our community. We are currently expanding the Circulation /Transportation Element of our General Plan and the results of your study will be important to our own analysis of Saratoga's transit needs. In addition to those items outlined in your letter, we recommend the study include the following: 1) Because Highway 85, which will be constructed through Saratoga and completed in 1994, will have an HOV lane, the study should analyze methods to enhance the attractiveness and convenience of this commute service to Saratoga residents. 2) Saratoga is on the periphery of the commute pattern to major employment centers; therefore, ridership figures for boardings and debarkation may not accurately reflect the total number of riders traversing the city, nor the actual need for expanded services. The study should therefore focus on the special needs of communities on the suburban fringe. 3) Saratoga is willing to assist in the promotion of commute services through our own newsletter and outreach programs. However, our support is predicated on measurable improvements and benefits to Saratoga's residents. James E. Reading April 20, 1989 Page two Saratoga has a; commitment implementation of the T2000 your study when completed. provide our comments at this Sincerely, Karen Anderson Mayor to continued participation in the program and looks forward to receiving Thank you again for the opportunity to time. I. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECTIVE SUMMARY NO. �` AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: 4/19/89 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planning CITY MGR. APPROVAL)(/-/-11 SUBJECT: Appeal of SDR- 1356.1: A driveway relocation on Lot #1 of TRACT 7761 extension of Quarry Road and relocation of emergency gate. Location: Mt. Eden Estates Subdivision; Applicant: Harbor Builders, Inc. Appellant: Willem and Sandy Kohler --------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Recommended Motion: Receive testimony from interested parties; discuss Council concerns and questions; and affirm the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the site modification and deny the appeal. Report Summary: The Planning Commission discussed the relocation of the approved driveway access to Lot #1 of the Mt. Eden Estates Subdivision and considered several factors: 1) the reduction of grading and necessary retaining walls; 2) the geotechnical concerns of the appellant; 3) and the impact of the Ad Hoc Trails Committee plan for a major connecting trail through the subdivision. In light of these factors the majority of the Planning Commission concluded that the relocated driveway resulted in reducing topographic and landscape impacts and that erosion and soils stability concerns could be addressed by subsequent review of a geotechnical report by the Commission. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: 1. Minutes, March 8, 1989 2. Resolution No. 1356.1 3. Appeal and Correspondence 4. Staff Report and Previous Resolution 5. Exhibits Motion and Vote r f,C. A:agenbill 09`9` @rT O&ME1900Z 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council DATE: 4/19/89 FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director SUBJECT: Appeal of SDR- 1356.1: A driveway relocation on Lot #1 of TRACT 7761 and relocation of emergency gate. Location: Mt. Eden Estates Subdivision Applicant: Harbor Builders, Inc. Appellant: Willem and Sandy - :Kohler --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Recommended Motion Receive testimony from interested parties; discuss Council concerns and questions; and affirm the discussion of the Planning Commission to approve the site modification and deny the appeal. Overview The applicants are currently in the process of completing subdivision improvements for a 23 lot single family development, Mt. Eden Estates. The applicants have constructed a driveway access to lot #1 which is not in the location as approved in the initial development in 1979. The developers constructed the driveway without required Planning Commmission review and approval and are therefore requesting legalization of the driveway as graded. Background The original approved subdivision plan located driveway access to all lots. The approved access to Lot #1 is depicted on the exhibited and shows that driveway from across the adjacent lot. The initially approved driveway extended from Quarry Road across Lot #2 by way of an access easement and then traversed the slope bank on Lot #1 ending at the building site at the rear of the lot. The applicants are requesting relocation of the driveway so that Lot #1 access is directly from Quarry Road. The initial subdivision plans called for Quarry Road improvements to end at Lot #1 and an unimproved access road extending beyond for emergency purposes. The relocation of the driveway requires an extension of Quarry Road improvements by 50 feet. Other than 50 feet of increased pavement and the relocation of the emergency access gate, no changes are required. 0 The applicants proposed the legalization of the driveway in order to create an access to the designated building area on Lot #1 without excessive grading and retaining walls. The applicants maintain that the subdivision conditions require that no retaining wall exceed 5 feet in height and driveway slopes not exceed 17 1/2%. Given these conditions, the applicants are concerned that it is not possible to conform with these standards if the driveway were constructed as approved. The appellant is the neighbor to Lot #1 who is adjacent to a scenic easement area within the subdivision. Primary concerns raised by the appellant relate to the closeness of the relocated driveway to the scenic easement. As noted in the appellants correspondence, the scenic easement is an area of extremely steep slopes because this area was formerly excavated as a quarry. The concern is that the relocated driveway will cause increased run -off into the scenic easement which would effect the stability of the easement and neighboring properties. Analysis and Findings The Planning Commission received the written and oral testimony from both the applicant and appellant. The Planning Commission found that the revised location of the driveway resulted in significantly less grading and disruption to natural environment. Because the revised location conformed to the natural contours of the lot, extensive grading and retaining walls are not necessary in order to gain access to this approved lot. Further, the Planning Commission found that the initial plan required the driveway to cross a very steep slope which would result in increased amount of grading which will be visible from adjacent areas. Although the Planning Commmission concluded that relocated driveway results in reduced grading and vegetation loss, the geotechnical concerns raised by the appellant were significant as well. The Planning Commission addressed the concern by requiring that the applicants submit geology reports which would be reviewed by the Planning Commission (and City Geologist) prior to issuance of grading permits to complete the driveway construction. The Planning Commission considered the alternative of deferring action on the driveway relocation until a specific house plan was submitted since geotechnical reports will also be necessary to complete the design review process. The Planning Commission concluded that submission of geotechnical reports to the Planning Commission independent of the house plans for review and approval will provide sufficient control of geology and erosion concerns. The Planning Commission also noted that the Ad Hoc Trail Committee and the Parks and Recreation Commission were working on locating a connecting trail through this subdivision. Staff reported that the revised driveway location proposed by the applicants facilitates trail access identified by the Trails Committee. Subsequent to the Planning Commission action on the driveway, the Parks and Recreation Commission adopted trails plan which would benefit by the revised location. As the attached exhibit indicates, the approved trail location coincides with the relocated driveway. Conclusion The sensitivity of the relocated driveway to the topography and landscape was apparent to the majority of the Planning Commission. However, the concerns of the adjacent homeowner were equally of concern. With the added condition for subsequent geotechnical reports to be subject to Planning Commission review and approval, the concerns raised by the appellant would be addressed. `7i�z6�c. StephenfEmsli Planning Dire for Attachments A:sdr - 1536.1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8 MARCH 8, 1989 P \Donalurphy, GS Continued Marthy, 20231 Merrick Dr., Saratoga, reviewed his letter /1,89. Mhy, 20211 Merrick Dr., Saratoga, reviewed his letter of Mha, 13685 EI Camino Rico, Saratoga, noted health benefiiet. M1 82 Saratoga Vista Ave., Saratoga, reviewed his letter Mr. Herb LaMotte, 137 %ig acuba, Saratoga, reviewed the letter February 21, 1989. Mr. Heiss suggested cos matter to a Stud y Sessio;A�RING nsideration of alternatives. SIEGFRIED/HARRIS O CLOSE THE PUBLIC AT 10:06 P.M. Passed 6 -0. Commissioner Siegfried noted that re were only two I of record; he felt the request could not be approved. The question was wheth an house uld be built at all; because of the unusual lot shape and its size, he did Ane the was an acc table plan for more than the existing home. Commissioner Burger concdue tot t imony heard and her concerns about privacy impacts and drainage problee could not ote in favor of the Application. A Study Session would not help since she felt ere was so tion other than denial of the request. Commissioner Tappan noted ficul since the licant had two lots of record and had come before the Commission to ethe ossibility of a ng another lot. In a sense, the Applicant would be denied a property ust have felt hew ld have when he purchased the site. He questioned whether there wobjections to the noise om some of the neighbors when the existing farm house were rd; everyone would have be reasonable when the structure were remodelled and enhanc Commissioner Kolstad sAted there was no way he could approve wo new houses for this site in addition to the renovat' n of the farm house; minimum setbacks to th historic structure would not do it justice. Regard ss of testimony given, he felt the request could no \ainage ed. Commissioner s concurred with the other Commissioners; howeveage system would be improved th the proposed development. Non etheless, the Applicanot bee approved and the imp is to the Wilsons from the proposed cul -de -sac were very uChairpe on Guch noted that there were not three lots of record; she couf he creation of such. he was concerned about the site access since such would be ind ighborhood co rns about traffic on Merrick Dr. were justified. A Study Session wlp. 13. Mt. Eden Estates Lot 1, Tract 7761, Quarry Road, request for modification to approved plans to allow relocation of an access driveway to the lot located in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. Commissioner Siegfried reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Emslie presented the Memorandum of March 3, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:20 P.M. Mr. Tom Burke, Home owner in the subdivision, commented as follows: - Comments had been received that the driveway shown on the original engineer drawings did not make sense; Applicants concurred with this assessment - Questioned whether the driveway as proposed with 5 ft. retaining walls, could be done - In addition, a fire access road was to be provided as required by the Tentative Map - Applicants proposed to extend the paved area about 50 ft. and install a crash gate - With respect to Mr. Kohler's letter, he disputed the facts stated in the letter Mr. Bill Pretti, 13485 Old Oak Way, Saratoga, felt the relocation of the driveway placed it on a precipitous area of the lot; in addition, the northern slope was considered unstable. The new location would be more visible than the formerly approved one. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 9 MARCH 8, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Willem Kohler, Via Regina, Saratoga, commented as follows: - Objected to the relocation of the driveway prior to receiving permission - The driveway cut was very close to the quarry site - Reviewed and clarified letters exchanged and discussed the history of the project - Pictures of the area were presented - Residents in the area did not wish the driveway relocated BURGER /SIEDFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:30 P.M. Passed 6 -0 Commissioner Siegfried felt that the relocation of the driveway was logical; he would approve the request of the Applicant. Commissioner Harris questioned the intent of the original location of the driveway; Planning Director Emslie responded that a review of the files did not clarify this issue; one could only assume that an attempt was being made to minimize the cut and the amount of impervious coverage. The Commissioner questioned whether the original driveway was located as shown on the map to screen it from the viewshed and residents in an adjacent area. Commissioner Siegfried responded that he did not think the relocated driveway was visible to adjacent residents; there was vegetation all along the cliff. The issue was to insure that the new driveway location was geologically stable. Commissioner Kolstad felt the relocated driveway was more aesthetically pleasing; the original location would have required a straight cut. Chairperson Guch concurred that the relocation proposed was logical; the original cut would have required significant retaining walls. Planning Director Emslie suggested the addition of a Condition that satisfactory geological reports be reviewed by the City Engineer and approved by the Planning Commission if geological problems arose. 'SLtGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR LOT 1, TRACT 7 DEN ESTATES, PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION WITH THE MODIFICATION T SATI CT( RY GEOLOGICAL REPORTS TO BE REVIEWED BY THE CITY E INEER AND OVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IF GEOLOGICAL OBLEMS AROSE. Pa d 5 -1, Commissioner Harris dissenting. Commissioner Har ' opposed the Application on the grounds that the ject was in a very sensitive area; she did feel qualified to make a judgement on the issu She concurred that the relocation of the driveway quired a geological review. 14. DR -88 -096 Casabon 14435 Big Basin Way, requ for design review approval for a 816+/-s . ft. ddition to an existing all store located in the central com- mercial zone pe hapter 15 of th ity Code. ----------------------------------- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- --------------------------------------------------- Planning Director Emslie presented the Repo o t Planning Commission, dated March 8, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:44 P. . Mr. Warren Heid, Architect, presente rawings of the a 'tion. Applicants felt that the proposed renovation was in keeping with the illage; various building atments in the Village were noted. Commissioner Harris revie the considerations of Village Task orce which felt strongly that the use of the existing ma ials was not acceptable. SIEGFRIEDBUR R MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING A 0:53 P.M. Passed 6 -0 Commission Siegfried was reluctant to vote against the Task Force's opini • however, a replacem of the existing stone frontage might not result in a significant change in ap arance. Co issioner Burger noted that only a 14 ft. section to an existing building was being consi red; e existing building was not unpleasant looking. Site Modification File No. SDR- 1356.1 RESOLUTION NO. SDR- 1356.1 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga has received an application for site modification approval of plans to relocate the driveway on lot #1, Tract 7761, and relocation of the emergency gate subdivision. to the WHEREAS, the Planning hearing at which time all Commission held a interested duly noticed public opportunity to parties be heard and to present evidence, were given a full and; WHEREAS, support said the applicant application, has met the burden and the following of proof required to determined: findings have been 1. The proposed modification, its design and improvement are consistent with the general plan; 2. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; 3. The proposed improvements are unlikely to cause substantial environmental damage, or serious public health and safety problems; 4. The design of the building site and type of improvements pro- posed will not conflict with any public easements; and S. The proposal causes no impact on Williamson Act parcels, nor will it result in a significant discharge of waste which would violate requirements of the State Regional Water Quality Board; NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Mt. Eden Estates for site modification approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: Amendments to Resolution SDR -1356 are as follows: 1. The driveway to lot #1, Tract 7761 shall be relocated, easterly, per Exhibit A, dated 3/31/89. 2. The emergency gate to the subdivision shall be relocated beyond the entrance to the driveway of lot #1, per Exhibit A, dated 3/31/89. 3. The applicant shall submit geotechnical reports prior to issuance of a grading permit which addresses the affect the, relocated driveway will have on adjoining properties for review 3 SDR- 1356.1, Tract 7761, Lot #1 by the City Geologist and approval by the Planning Commission. Section 2. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. Section 3. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 4. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 5. The applicant shall affix a copy of this resolution to each set of construction plans which will be submitted to the Building Division when applying for a building permit. Section 6. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California on this 8rd day of March, 1989 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Guch, Siegfried, Burger, Kolstad and Tappan NOES: Commissioner Harris ABSENT: Commissioner Tucker , rlanning robiMnission The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted: Signature of Applicant Date 4 F" O ffl T� -71 0911Yff oo 0&ia&UQ)(5& 13777 FRUITY, -\LE AVENUE • SARAT0G, -\. C,\LIFORNI,'\ 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger March 17, 1989 David Moyles Donald Peterson Mr. Willem Kohler Francis Stutzman 21842 Via Regina Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mr. Kohler: We have received your application for an appeal of the Planning Commission's March 8 approval of request for modification to approved plans to allow relocation of an access driveway at Lot 1, Tract 7761. We have also received your check in the amount of $100.00 for the appeal and noticing requirements. This matter has been set for the City Council meeting of April 19, 1989. Please be advised that the City Council will allow ten minutes for your presentation on this appeal. The hearing is "de novo," which means that any relevant issue for or against your appeal may be considered, whether or not it was considered by the Planning Commission and regardless of whether the Planning Commission approved the application. If you have substantive questions on your appeal, please contact the Planning Department; for procedural questions, you may contact me after the week of March 20. Enclosed are the forms you need to fill out to make your appeal official. Sincerely, ol, Grace E. Cory J Deputy City Clerk cc: Planning Department . r L(�; P I �y To: Saratoga City Councel Subject: Amendment to Site Development Plan for Lot #1, Tract 7761 Mt Eden Estates Date: 3 -16 -89 I hereby appeal the decision of Planning Commission to grant a revised driveway on subject lot #1 of Mount Eden Estates for the following reasons: 1. As fully explained in my letter to the Commission (see attached) the new driveway comes very close to the steep quarry slope behind my home. With the increased construction and plant removal I fear my home's stability will be unnecessarily endangered. 2. When the commissioners inspected the property, nobody considered the original site of the driveway, since the requested driveway was already, illegally cut out of the hill. The developer pointed towards the steep slope on neighboring lot #2, and declared that the original driveway would be too steep. 'In the hearing he declared that the original driveway would be, "impossible to construct" without discussing why. As a matter of fact, nobody discussed the originally planned driveway during the hearing, fully focussing on the new, proposed driveway. To better understand the original plan I studied the maps at the planning office and found that in reality the original drive would not be going along the very steep slope on lot #2, and would only be slightly steeper than the driveway already trenched into the hill. To clarify I am drawing a rough sketch (please check with the maps for 1 ZI Y exact scale!) of the situation. - Qt, 4-2k r `?- AP . Lo C ScEvrc tN- 7' LOT I 7- A �2 $ Q � Q k,4,Pe6r St-oPcS tF h� z Pro P e S eaE 4cnl'tEve Va" L o Ti-9 0 N 1. `r fr LT : WV7t Tl ✓c 2'E� A L,eCSS /�G S!CFP S� aPC Originally proposed driveway A does not go over steep slope on lot 2, but is shorter , more direct to the site. Newly proposed and already trenched driveway is longer, consisting of much more impervious surface to be constructed, and also coming very close to the steep vertical slopes behind my home. 3. In the planning office I also saw a trail map, indicating proposed horse trails. I have a trail on my property, which I keep open for horse riders. I have no problems with keeping this open for horseriders. However I have a problem with the horse trail drawn on the map. (See my sketch) As it is drawn now, (proposed trail marked H) this trail would cross the steep quarry site behind my property. This too would be very detrimental for this fragile slope. I propose that the trail should go like H' , staying away from the fragile hill site. ALL THIS, ACCORDING TO STAFF CAN BE DISCUSSED AT FINAL BUILDING PERMIT. HOWEVER I STRONGLY DISAGREE. ONCE TENTATIVE MAP IS APPROVED I I /,.� THE NEW OWNER WILL START PLANNING HIS DRIVEWAY AND HOMESITE, AND WILL BE VERY RELUCTANT WHEN HE FINDS OUT THAT A HORSE TRAIL WILL SHARE HIS DRIVE WAY. THIS HAS TO BE DECIDED NOW. I DONT WANT TO SEE THE DRIVEWAY OR HORSETRAIL CLOSE TO THE STEEP SLOPES. I REQUEST THAT YOU STICK WITH THE OLD PLAN. THE DEVELOPER RECEIVED THE HIGHER DENSITY (23 LOTS) AND RECEIVED DISPENSATION FROM THE HILLSITE ORDi NANCE (12 LOTS). AT LEAST NOW HE SHOULD OBSERVE THE ORIGINAL HEALTHY PLAN TO STAY AWAY FROM THE FRAGILE STEEP SLOPES. Planning commission conditioned the developer to study the slope site of the new driveway. In that case I would prefer an independent geologist to do thework. But why would we have to spend the time and money if we can avoid any sliding by sticking to the original plan? Any construction near these slopes can only increase the slide danger' 4. All the neighboring homeowners signed my letter opposing the new driveway. (see attached, signatures were not on my original letter.) When I mentioned this in the public hearing and added that the present neighbors deserve more consideration than the future ones (i.e. that the buyer of lot #1 would have to share a small part of the driveway of lot #2 in the original plan) I was strongly criticized for this after the closing of the hearing by commissioner Burger, who found my remarks egoistic. I take issue with this, and still maintain that the present homeowners should have first consideration from our planners. We all have larger lots than any of the new lots in this development and like to see the development keep the same standards in keeping safe distance from unstable areas. 5. The vote for the extended drive way was not unanimous. Commissioner Harris, who herself lives near a hillside development, recognized the slide danger and voted against the change. Please hold the developer to the original, sound plan, since it was designed to avoid possible slide dangers. Willem and Sandy Kohler 21842 Via Regina Saratoga, CA 95070. 867 -4250. + i i t4 (-R ti e-Al rS . P y)r -1740 MtW7-s -LO To To: Saratoga Planning Commission. Saratoga, 2 -27 -89 Subject: Public Hearing on Modification lot 1, tract 7761, Mount Eden Estates - Quarry Road. Dear Commissioners, The proposed request for modification will have a great impact on my property on 21842 Via Regina for the following reasons: 1) Compared to what was approved in the final map plan a considerable increase in noise and exhaust pollution would impact my home, since the driveway change in request would be directly adjacent and below my property (about 50 feet as the crow flies). 2) The most important reason to my objection is that this new driveway will directly border the steep slopes behind my house, slopes that are mostly part of the scenic easement of this lot. This steep part of this property behind my house is on the map as scenic easement (open space). The reason is that at one time (about 20 years ago) the original owner used this site as a Quarry site. The slope is so steep that any disturbance here would bring the stabilty of my house in direct danger. The steep (even showing a negative slope locally) terrain adjacent to the eastern end of proposed driveway is part of this scenic easement, (see attachment 1, photograph 1) while on the southern side, closest to my house it is close to the extension of this quarry site, not brought in this easement area. The drive way would come as close as 15 feet to this steep area. (see attachementl, photograph 2) In April 1979 I submitted a letter to the Planning Commision, warning about the same hazard. (see attachment 2). At the time I was very relieved that most of this slope was declared a scenic easement, and that the driveway for this lot in question was to be partially entered over lot q2, to stay away from this fragile area. In summary, if you would approve this driveway so close to steep unstable land this would become a grave concern for me and would threaten the the safety of my home. Please hold the developer to the original, sound plan, since it was designed .lust to avoid these dangers. Another problem I have is that the developer already has trenched a dirt road where he wants the requested driveway. (see attachment 1, photographS3�H When this happened in July 1988 I complained to Bob Shook, who put a halt to this work.,;after the dirt road was completed ) . Please see a copy of Bob's note in attachement I resent that the developer does not follow the agreed -upon plans, and flagrantly disregards the maps, while Cit; does nothing to un,ic these violations. Please not only dissapprove this modification, but have the developer fill the illegally trenched dirt road and have him replant it to avoid further so,l erosion. Sincerely Yours, f' W;ltem A. Kohler 2 18 42, ',!ia Regina 2 / 4QS II.rl Saratoga , CAS 7507 w6a , G 4 S`b 7D w. q3 z- E P B S y, -L-- 7T sIq uS ak,����, s Wrl y • -r i y c. ,.� Y. � 1:C ..v, -. ^�• -• �- - - ,�-�^ {ma{�yy �.yM���rr__' _ -;�, VIP ' •'yak ' �`. _. _ 4:tin �! �•` �� g�yy�pp • ..,.•'- • •�eq °`' �" . ": 4 f April 27, 1979 To: Saratoga Planning Commission Subject: E- 10 -78, A. Chadwick,/A. Cocciardi (Mt. Eden Estates), On April 25, 19 79 at the Planning Commissions public hearing re E -10 -78 (Mt. Eden Estates), Mrs. Laden requested to submit all comments in writing.? The comments I brought up on behalf of a group of Via Regina home owners regarding the EIR are summarized as follows: 1) General concern that many lots are of minimum size (1.1 ac) and still consist of steep terrain. The average lot size of Mt. Eden Estates is proposed to be 1.8 ac, a figure derived from b lots of several acres each, all-of extremely-sloped terrain, and 19 lots of only 1.1 acre + each and still steep lots. 2) General- concern over very long driveways, too many homes, steep terrain, and the dangerous asjects of Pierce Road, the result being that it would take too long a time for a fire truck to reach an eventual fire. We strongly request the Planning Commission to follow mitigation on page 33 of the EIR and make it mandatory.to establish a new fire station before further development takes place. 3) We request layout and commitment of horse trails in the lots mentioned on page 27 before lots are sold. 4) It is beyond my capability to judge the EIR on all its merits. . However, I certainly can show that the EIR is incomplete concerning Lot *1, directly adjacent to my property. The EIR only acknowledges (page 8) the existence of "the near vertical cliff on this site ", ignoring the fact that this cliff takes approximately 80% of the lot, showing a "negative" slope in the form of a cave one third of the way down the cloff. The EIR also ignores the origin of this cliff, i.e. a, man -made result of quarrying the hillside. The mere presence of animals or children on these slopes will result in erosion and slides. Habitation near this cliff would be 0 2 irresponsible, and I request that this site is not to be developed. Other steep cliffs caused by quarrying can be observed on Lot #2 and also lots on the other side of the proposed Cocciardi road. (It is hard to determine which lots because they are not yet staked out). In light of the above dangers, we respectfully request you to consider the alternative of page 44 of the EIR of reduced density development, and to reject the present map. Sincerely, ' `c��tl Willem A. Kohler Sandra R. Kohler 21842 Via Regina Saratoga Connie Lawrence Thomas Lawrence Clark Davis Heinrich Hunsiker i� from the desk of V mil. Bob Shook 0 �� • { _ rA-, VT �- -5 - w c 1 ,0 '460 Oj vguy�o0 O&M& o 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission DATE: March 3, 1989 FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Site Development Plan for Lot #1, Tract 7761 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The applicant requests an amendment to the site development plan of lot #1, Tract 7761, subject to condition VIII D of the Resolution SDR -1356 dated 2/7/80: "Site development plan for each lot to be reviewed for conformance to tentative map and approved by Planning Commission prior to issuance of building permit. Any modifications shall be subject to Planning Commission approval." The amendment requested is for relocation of the access driveway to lot #1 and relocation of the gate to the subdivision to include the entrance to the lot within the fenced area of the subdivision. The proposed new location of the driveway is at a portion of the parcel which is less steep and will reduce the amounts of grading, required for the driveway, by about 25 %. The Planning staff reviewed written concerns from the adjoining property owner, Willem Kohler which indicates concern regarding the closenes of the driveway to the steep land in the adjacent scenic easement. Specific concern relates to the potential for instability of this driveway location to the adjoining residence. While staff has noted that the revised project will reduce grading, because the original alternation crosses steep slopes, the Planning Commission has the option of retaining the original plan until geology concerns raised by the adjoining property owner are resolved. Additionally, the Planning Commission can retain the original plan until such time as house plans are developed and a design review application is made and further geotechnical analysis occurs at that time. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Department recommends the Planning Commission consider the requested amendment in the attached resolution. Alternately, the Planning Commission may wish to defer granting the modification until a design review application is submitted for this lot. �t Stephen mslie, Tanning Director SE /TA /kah 2 O&MZ 200 C� �ar,y pia REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City of Saratoga Draft Written 1/3/80 rev. 1/9/80 ** APPROVED 4Y : -1� rev. 1/18/80 DATE: * ** /3' v rev. DATE: 2/7/80 * * ** (NITIE.LS: Commission Meeting: 2/13/80 rev. 2/13/80 * * * ** SUBJECT: SD -1356 Anthony Cocciardi, Mt. Eden Road, * ** Tentative Map Approval - 23 Lots. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PP =CT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting tentative map approval for a 43.19 acre parcel in the HC -RD zoning district. Generally the site is characterized by steep hillside topography with an average slope of 238. Numerous landslide deposits are present as geologic conditions which constrain the development of the property: 1) orientation and inclination of the bedrock; and 2) potential slope instability. The City Geologist has approved the map for Commission Tentative Map Approval. Access for the site as proposed is to be a loop public road system frog Mt. Eden Road with a cul -de -sac of quarry Road at the eastern end of the property and with an extension into Lands of Thomas which may eventually connect with Via Regina. A 50' right -of -way to the lands to the north is offered on the Tentative Map and is conditioned for improvement. The quarry Road cul -de -sac will require an exception frors the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 13.3 -4, since it is over 400 feet in length. * ** Geological features, details of corrective grading and open space easements are now shown on the Tentative Map. The proposed lots range from 1.0 to 5.2 acres in size with the required depths, widths, and frontages. PROJECT STATUS: An Environmental Impact Report was certified by the Planning Commission as adequate on June 13, 1979. A Notice of Determination will be filed with the County of ;:'anti Clara Record- er's Office when this project is approved. * ** FINDINGS: Said project complies with all objectives of the 1.974 General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. 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 alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such project which mitigate of avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. (b) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and such changes have been adopted by such other agency, or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Report to Planning Cc ,ion SD -1356 Cocciardi 2/7/80 Page 2 (c) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation and measures of project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. * ** The Staff Report will recommend approval of the tentative map for SD -1356 (Exhibit "B -8" filed February 7, 1980) subject to the following conditions: I. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS A. Standard Engineering Conditions dated April 11, 1977. * ** B. Street improvements on 50 -foot right -of -way to be 26 feet. (Improvements may be altered per approval of the Planning Commission prior to Final Map Approval.) * ** C. Improve Quarry Road to "Minimum Access Road" standard from proposed turn around at Lot 1 to Pierce Road. (Note: At present Quarry Road from Vaquero Court to Pierce Road meets this condition.) D. Improve secondary access road from Cocciardi Ct. to Mt. Eden Road to Minimum Access Road (developer is to enter into "Deferred Improvement Agreement" to pay pro rata share of the cost of improving this road to "City Street Standards "). * ** E. 50' right -of -way through Lot 19 is to be improved to "City Street Standards ". Submit an offer of dedication for an easement for a minimum access road running from public street on Lot 19 to northerly boundary. F. Provide adequate sight distance at all driveway and street inter- sections as approved by the Director of Public Works. G. The "Structural Section" of the roadbed of all streets is to be 125% of the "Gravel Equivalent" as determined by standard design practice. All requirements of Exhibit "D" are to be followed as they apply to roadway design and construction operations and pro- cedures. H. Construct storm line as per Master Drainage Plan and as directed by the Director of Public Works. I. Comply with all storm drainage, siltation, and erosion control measures required in Exhibit "D" including but not limited to the provisions for energy dissipaters and siltation basins. II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTION SERVICES A. A final geotechnical report for the subdivision shall be submitted and approved prior to final map approval. Report shall include pavement design parameters. All conditions of the City Geologist shall be met. B. Soil and foundation reports required for each lot. Soils engineer shall review plans for all proposed on -site work and structures for siting, grading, drainage, foundation structures and erosion control. Any geotechnical corrective measures for lots shall be addressed. Letter from soils engineer certifying he has done this review and that the plans are consistent with the geotechnical report is required prior to issuance of building /grading permits. * ** C. Surface drainage on plan as shown is not approved. Detailed on- site improvement plans required for each lot prior to issue of building /grading permits. Plan shall include: 1. Grading (limits of cuts and fills; slope rates; cross - sections; existing and proposed elevations; and earthwork quantities). Report to Planning L ._ai ion SD -1356 Cocciardi 2/7/80 Page 3 2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall location, etc., Subsurface drainage shall be considered). Private storm drain easements may be required prior to final map approval. 3. Retaining structures (by licensed designer). 4. Erosion control measures. D. Soils engineer shall inspect and approve all excavation and grading operations. A written report of that is to be submitted to the City prior to final inspection of all structures. Report shall include accurate "as- built" information including foundation soil types/ locations and dimensions of foundation structures. E. No grading shall be undertaken after September 30 and before May 1. Excavations shall be winterized prior to November 1. F. All grading is to be sloped and contoured to match existing terrain. Cut and fill slopes shall be no steeper than 3:1 except as specifi- cally approved by City. G. Single Family Dwellings to be equipped with security and fire detection devices required by City. H. All existing structures, debris and improper grading shall be corrected or removed. I. Abandoned quarry is to be reclaimed as necessary to provide slope stability, runoff and erosion control as approved by City. J. Private utility structures to be constructed so as not to be a detriment to slope stability. k* K. Construction traffic required for subdivision and lot improvements shall not use Quarry Road. If used it shall be repaired to condition as it existed prior to construction. '* L. CC &R's and Open Space Maintenance Agreement shall contain require- ments for Homeowners Maintenance Association to preserve and maintain open space, emergency gate, and off -site minimum access road in good condition to prevent and correct erosion, runoff and/ or slope stability problems. III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with requirements of Cupertino Sanitary District as outlined in letter dated February 21, 1978. B. Annex property to Cupertino Sanitary District prior to Final Approval. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DEPARTMENT 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 Unifcrm Fire Ccde, - ccendie Fl - B Construct driveway 14 feet minimum width, plus one -foot shoulders using double seal coat oil and screening or better on 6 inch aggre- gate base from public street or access road to proposed dwelling. Slope driveway shall not exceed 12h8 withoug adhering to the following: Report to Planning Cc ,J ion SD -1356 Cocciardi 2/7/80 Page 4 1. Driveways having slopes between 12�% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2�" of A.C. on 6 inch aggregate base. 2. Driveways having slopes between 158 to 17�% 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 greater slopes or longer length will not be accepted. C. Construct a turnaround at the proposed dwelling site having a 32' inside radius. Other approved type turnaround must meet requirements 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 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. Proposed dwelling must have a minimum recognized water supply capable of delivering 1,000 gallons per minute for 2 hours. This is based upon the Insurance Service Office grade for determining a required Fire Flow to maintain a Grade Five (5) rating. Minimum required fire flow for the subject facility shall be 1,000 gallons per minute from any three hydrants flowing with 20 psi residual. 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 7 hydrants that meet Saratoga Fire District's specifications and deposit $1,365.00 to cover hydrant rental for a period of five (5) years. Hydrants to be installed and accepted prior to issuance of building permits. J. Developer to deposit a fee of $10.00 per hydrant for a total of $70.00 prior to issuance of building permits. t ** K. Provide emergency access gate(s) as required by Saratoga Fire Department prior to issuance of building permit. t ** L. Driveways to be reviewed and approved by Saratoga Fire Department prior to Final Map 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 Cupertino Sanitary District. Prior to final approval, an ade- quate bond shall be posted with said district to assure completion of sewers as planned. B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. 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 Santa Clara Valley Water District for review and approval. VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COMMUNITY SERVICES 4 ** A. Dedicate 15' trail easement and improve as approved by Parks and Recreation Commission (in conjunction with public right -of -way where possible). Report to Planning Cr, _iF on 2/7/80 SD -1356 Cocciardi Page 5 B. Trail grading to be done by developer prior to issuance of building permit per requirements of Parks and Recreation Commission. Pathway to be comparatively level from side to side and unobstructed. * C. Prior to issuance of building permits comply with criteria for the keeping of horses (to be established by the Planning Commission prior to Final Approval). VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PLANNING DEPARTMENT A. Prior to final approval, submit CC &R's which state: 1. No recreational courts are allowed. 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 to be included in evaluation. All grading to be contoured so as to form smooth transitions. All grading to be smooth transitions between natural and man -made slopes. 3. Fences, walls and hedges are allowed only per City of Saratoga's HC -RD Zoning District regulations - "proximate to the principal structure and in no event to enclose or encompass an area in excess of 4,000 square feet." * 4. Pools on lots to be placed on slopes of thirty (30) percent or less and are subject to Staff Design Review to insure reasonable placement in relation to the site's physical characteristics and City planning criteria. Decisions of Staff may be appealed to the Planning Commission through the Design Review Process. °* 5. No pool is to be placed on Lot 15 unless and except it is reviewed and approved by Planning Commission prior to issuance of building permits. t* 6. Equestrian Trails are placed on Lots 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, & 25. These CC &R's are not to be amended without written consent of the City of Saratoga and are enforceable by the City. B. Design Review Approval of all structures and landscaping required prior to issuance of permits, per HC -RD ordinance. C. Design Review Approval for the following is required prior to Final Subdivision Approval: 1. Treatment of trail easement. 2. Design of any retaining walls over 3 feet in height. ** 3. Landscaping for graded areas, with slopes of 2.5:1 or flatter and exceeding 20 feet in height (toe to top) or with slopes steeper than 3:1 and exceeding 10 feet in height (toe to top), and landscaping for areas in which combustive vegetation is required to be removed. ** 4. Treatment of emergency access gate(s). ** D. Site Development Plan for each lot to be reviewed for conformance to Tentative Map and approved by Planning Commission prior to issuance of building permit. Any modifications shall be subject to Planning Commission approval. E. Comply with special architectural mitigation measures for the residences as previously approved by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of building permits. F. All cut and fill slopes shall be of such material as to fully sup- port landscaping. • Report to Planning C( ..is 'on 2/7/80 SD -1356 Cocciardi Page 6 G. No single retaining wall to be more than 5 feet in exposed face height. H. Cuts for driveways, visible from viewshed, shall be hidden behind houses and /or screened. I. Applicant shall comply with Mitigation Measures attached and included on Tentative Map (Exhibit "D ", section (a). These Mitigation Measures are to be shown or stated on the improvement plans or Final Map prior to Final Map Approval. J. Scenic easements to be shown on Final Map per the following written statement: We hereby dedicate to the City of Saratoga easements for permanent open space on and over those certain areas designated 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. K. 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. L. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances. M. All street names to be checked and approved by County Communications prior to Final Map Approval. k N. No access onto "Quarry Road" from Lots 12, 15, & 16. it Approved: (1' Kat y Ker s, J Assistant Planner KK /clh P. C. Agenda: 2/13/80 William H. and Kathleen M. Peretti 13485 Old Oak Way Saratoga, CA. 95070 Telephone: 408 -867 -6723 Members of the City Council: Meeting - April 19,1989 What I have to say is very simple. No more deviations, changes, or approvals should be made to Mt. Eden Estates, Chadwick Place or the other contiguous developments by these developers until they have completed the Quarry Creek drainage system. This was the keystone project which allowed the other developments to take place. This project is in our backyard. Our backyard is now in its third year as an incomplete construction site. The developer has committed to preparing a mitigation plan, to mitigate environmental damage already done to their and surrounding properties. There is no progress. There has been no progress. We want them to complete the promised work of providing: 1. a suitable top drain, 2. plantings of grass, shrubbery and trees, 3. oil and screenings on the emergency access road through our property to serve the developments, and 4. a gated steel fence to restrict passage, allowing only emergency vehicles. All of these commitments were made over two years ago. Upon completion of these items, we want the developers and construction people off our property, out of our backyard. At that time we can once again support their right to develop their property within the limits of the laws and regulations. The limits, of course, provide for approval before the work is done, not after, as has been the consistent practice of the developer. It is again the case for this driveway under review. As best we understand, the City of Saratoga and /or the developers have liability for the through traffic, the use of our backyard as a dump and a bathroom, and any damage or loss of life that occurs. Four wheel drive vehicles use our yard as a test track, driving up and down the slopes, the length of the drainage system, and at times driving directly at the house. The tire tracks are there to see. _ Otherwise, what must we do to get your and the developer's attention? kA A, SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECTIVE SUMMARY NO. I, MEETING DATE: 4/19/89 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planning AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Appeal of UP -89 -002: A use permit to allow a dog and cat hospital. Location: 12840 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road; Applicant: Shannon - Wieser; Appellant: Jerome Kocir --------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council accept public comment, review the Planning Commission findings and move to uphold the use permit and deny the appeal. Report Summary: The Planning Commission was divided on the issuance of this use permit; however, a majority of the Planning Commission concluded that the permit, as conditioned would not result in adverse impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods. The appellants provided testimony at the public hearing indicating concerns regarding noise and general degradation of the area resulting from the use permit. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: 1. Memo from Planning Department dated 4/19/89 2. Staff Analysis 3. Resolution UP -89 -002 4. Minutes of 2/22/89 Planning Commission public hearing 5. Correspondence Motion and Vote A:agenbill 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council DATE: 4/19/89 FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director SUBJECT: Appeal of UP -89 -002: A use permit to allow a Dog and Cat Veterinary Hospital; Location: 12840 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road Applicant: Shannon - Weiser; Appellant: Jerome Kocir --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Recommended Motion Staff recommends that the City Council accept public comment, review the Planning Commission findings and move to uphold the use permit and deny the appeal. (warvi ow The Planning Commission conducted two public hearings at which time the neighbors and Commission concerns were raised. The first hearing resulted in a deadlock and the applicant requested a public hearing at the next meeting pursuant to Planning Commission procedures. At the following meeting, public testimony was again solicited and the deadlock was broken with the Planning Commission voting 4 to 2 in favor of granting the permit. Background The applicants are requesting a use permit to establish a dog and cat hospital in the recently constructed Saratoga Oaks Center at Pierce Road and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. The applicants proposed to lease a vacant storefront at the extreme southerly end of the retail center, adjacent to the Argonaut Center. The applicants indicate that the hospital will house animals overnight for veterinary purposes only and that no commercial boarding will occur. The maximum number of animals that can be housed overnight is approximately twenty -five. The neighbors who provided input to the Commission cited several concerns with the proposed use. Staff noted that it was the neighborhood consensus that the proposed veterinary hospital was inappropriate for a rural residential community such as Saratoga. Specific objections cited increased traffic, overnight noise, degradation of the surrounding community and the need for a disposal system for chemicals used. Staff reported that the veterinary use was an appropriate use for this site because the proposed location was adjacent to a neighboring parking area at the Argonaut Center. Staff also found that a veterinary hospital would generate no more traffic or demand for parking than other retail uses currently permitted in this zone district. Staff concluded that many retail uses could create more traffic than the hospital because of a reliance on more foot traffic to generate sales. For example, a video tape rental establishment requires considerably more customers per day to return the same profit margin. Staff further concluded that without the potential for noise impact, the proposed use is very similar in intensity as a medical office or clinic. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the use permit subject to certain conditions. While the applicant and developer provided assurance that adequate sound proofing would result in no noticable noise, staff suggested that the use permit be issued for only one year. After the first 12 months of operation, the Planning Commission would review the permit to consider its extension. Further, staff recommended that conditions require only animals under veterinary care be permitted to remain overnight. Analysis and Findings As indicated by the split vote, the Planning Commission.debated a variety of issues and findings. Several Commissioners found that the veterinary hospital was a use capable of impacting the surrounding community including the commercial and residential neighborhoods. The effect of the veterinary hospital would cause the City to receive chronic complaints regarding noise and cumulative traffic increases. Additionally, the Commission indicated concern about the non - retail nature of the proposed use. Several Commissioners felt that the City's limited commercial areas should contribute to the City's revenue base by generating retail sales and not be devoted to service oriented uses. The Planning Commission discussion concluded with the following findings: 1. The use permit would be issued for a one year period after which time the use permit may be discontinued or additional conditions be added to address future impacts. 2. The veterinary hospital would be located in an area of least impact on the extreme southern boundary adjacent to another commercial use. 3. The veterinary hospital was no more objectionable than other veterinary hospitals currently in operation in Saratoga with regard to noise and traffic. 4. The use permit prohibits commercial boarding so that only animals receiving treatment would remain overnight. 5. The maximum capacity for animals housed overnight is 25. The