The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-12-1996 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA.L� e SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. a 1 41 AGENDA ITEM: (Da MEETING DATE: June 12, 1996 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: C mm �ty Development CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: SUBJECT: SD 95 -010; NAVICO INC., 15041 &.15072 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. Applicants are appealing the Planning Commission's denial of their Tentative Subdivision Map request to subdivide two parcels of land totalling 6.94 acres into fifteen single - family lots. Recommended Motion: Staff. recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision and deny the appeal without prejudice. The applicants could then file a new map incorporating a modified internal circulation plan for further Planning Commission review. Project Description: Request for Tentative Subdivision Map approval to subdivide two parcels of land into fifteen single - family lots. The existing residence, pool, tennis court, accessory. structures and remnant orchard would be removed and a new cul -de -sac would access the development off Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. opposite Herriman Ave. No vehicular access is proposed through the adjoining neighborhoods. The proposed lots range in size from 15,000 to 20,900 sq. ft. and would permit 4, 000 to 4, 500 sq. ft. homes (including garages) . The property is located in an R- 1- 12,500 zoning district. Background: The Planning Commission first heard this proposal at the March 27, 1996 public hearing. Upon finding that the map met basic General Plan and Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements with regard to the type and density of development, the Commission focused . their discussion on the issues outlined in the succeeding pages. 1 SD 95 -010; NAVICO INC. Page Two • Circulation Plan The cul -de -sac plan submitted meets minimum City requirements and eliminates any potential of increased traffic through the adjoining neighborhoods. However, this type of plan does isolate the development from the existing homes. Extensions of the dead -end streets with cul -de -sacs would allow them to be finished with turnarounds and would also tie the new homes in with the existing neighborhoods. While noting these alternatives, staff did recommend approval of the plan in this particular case given the unique location of the property - directly opposite a signalized intersection and adjacent to Foothill Elementary School with its inherent morning and afternoon traffic. • Pedestrian Connection At staff's request, the applicant had included a pedestrian walkway connection between the new court and Seaton Ave. to allow a more direct pedestrian route to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. Staff felt the plan as submitted resulted in a corridor that was too long and narrow - prohibiting a clear view from one end to the other. The applicant has since resubmitted an improved plan that staff feels is adequate. • Building Height and Story Restrictions The existing homes to the north and west are almost entirely single story structures. With the exception of a row of two - story homes along Lynde Ave., the.homes to the south are predominantly single story also. Staff recommended that initial home construction be limited to a mix of one and two -story structures. • Perimeter Landscaping and Wall Design- At staff's request, the applicant has also prepared a perime- ter landscaping and wall plan for the area along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. The original plan included an undulating 7 ft. tall brick wall incorporating an arched entry element. Staff encouraged the applicant to pursue a more residential type of plan and used the new Heritage Oaks five -lot subdivision on Saratoga Ave. as an example. f' 1 SD 95 -010; NAVICO INC. Page Three • Bus Stop Shelter The applicant has incorporated a bus stop along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. as requested by the Transportation Agency. The Agency's policy is that they only provide shelters along their major routes, and then only a specific type of shelter that allows for advertising space. Staff recommended that the developer be required to design and construct a simple wood post and roof shelter with seating. Once the subdivision was accepted, the City would be responsible for the maintenance of the shelter. At the hearing, the Commission concurred with the recommendations in the staff report with the exception of the circulation plan. Some of the Commissioners felt that a better design would be to incorporate the project into existing neighborhoods by extending one or more of the dead -end streets with cul -de -sacs terminating into the project site. The item was continued to the.April..24th public hearing and the applicants were encouraged to meet, with neighbors and present alternative plans at the April 10th Commission Work Session. At the April 10th Work Session, the applicants presented several design alternatives to the preferred plan. An evaluation of the pros and cons were presented for each alternative. Several neighbors spoke in favor of the original submittal. At the April 24th hearing the majority of the Planning Commission still felt that the single access off Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. would create an "enclave" type of development that would be isolated from the adjoining neighborhoods. Since the applicants were unwilling to proceed with any of the alternative circulation plans, a motion was made and passed 4 -3 (Commissioners Asfour, Kaplan, Patrick, Pierce FOR and Abshire, Murakami, Siegfried OPPOSED) to deny the subdivision request. Environmental Determination: An environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared and noticed for this project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: A notice of this item was mailed to property owners within a 500 ft. radius of the subject property and published in the Saratoga News. ,+ SD 95 -010; NAVICO INC. Page Four Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The Planning Commission denial would be overturned and the Tentative Subdivision Map would be approved. Follow -up Action: An appropriate Resolution will be placed on the next City Council agenda reflecting Council action on this appeal. Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Denial Resolution SD 95 -010 2. Planning Commission minutes dated March 27 & April 24, 1996 3. Neighborhood Correspondence 4. Staff Report dated March 27, 1996 5. Appellants' Report /Correspondence 6. Tentative Subdivision Map, Exhibit "A" james \exesurm \navico I RESOLUTION NO. SD -95 -010 RESOLUTION OF THE SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP OF Navico Inc. /Byron Navid, 15041 & 15072 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for Tentative Subdivision Map approval to subdivide .two parcels of record into 15 individual lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD- 95 -010 of this City; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted noticed public hearings on March 27, April 10 & April 24, 1996 at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is not consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and. land use is incompatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan; and WHEREAS, upon closing the public hearing at the April 24 meeting, the Planning Commission deliberated and a majority of the Commission moved to deny the request. The motion passed 4 -3 (Commissioners Asfour, Kaplan, Patrick, Pierce FOR and Abshire, Murakami, Siegfried OPPOSED) to direct staff to prepare a Denial Resolution for adoption at the May 8, 1996 meeting based upon the following findings: • The proposed subdivision would access all 15 new lots directly- onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. via a primary cul -de -sac terminating with three courts. This configuration would cause this new development to be physically and visually separated from the adjoining established neighborhoods. The majority of the Planning Commission felt that this was a poor land use configuration and that the development should be integrated as part of the existing neighborhoods. • The lack of a vehicular connection through the proposed subdivision to Verde Vista Ln. (via Prune Blossom Dr.) failed to take advantage of an opportunity to improve ingress and egress onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. from Verde Vista Ln. A through connection would enable traffic to access Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. at the signalized intersection at Herriman Dr. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the. City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: WA I File No. SD -95 -010; Navico Inc./ Byron Navid Section 1. After careful consideration of the Tentative Subdivision Map for the proposed subdivision, which map is dated April 18, 1996 and is marked Exhibit "A" in the hereinabove referred file and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Navico Inc. /Byron Navid for Tentative Parcel Map approval be and the same is hereby denied. Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant.to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 8th day of May 1996 by the following vote: AYES: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami, Pierce & Siegfried NOES: None ABSENT: Patrick / ZLI "Chairperson, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secr tary, Plan ing Commission Planning Commission Minutes dated March 27 & April 24, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 5 - COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. LL -95 -002 CONTINGENT UPON CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSENT. 5. SD -95 -010 - NAVICO INC./BYRON NAVID; 15041 & 15072 SARATOGA- SUNNYVALERD.; Request for Tentative Subdivision Map approval to subdivide two parcels of land totalling 6.94 acres into 15 single - family lots. The existing residence,. pool, tennis court and accessory structures would be removed and a new cul -de -sac would access the development -off Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. opposite Herriman Ave. - there is no vehicular access proposed through the adjoining neighborhoods. The proposed lots range in size from 15,000 to 21,600 sq. ft. and would permit 4,000 to 4,500 sq. ft. homes (including garages). The property is located in an R- 1- 12,500 zoning district. An environmental initial study and subsequent Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California . Environmental Quality Act. -------------- — --------- — ----------------- -- ------- ---------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that it could not take formal action on the application this evening as the project requires an extended review period to satisfy the requirements of CEQA. This application has been scheduled to allow the Commission to review the comments as outlined in the staff report, take public testimony and requested that the Commission include any additional comments that it may have. The comments received this evening would be addressed at the next available meeting. He identified the following issues: 1) The circulation plan tends to isolate the 15 new homes from the existing neighborhood. 2) It is recommended that the pedestrian connection be either .widened or shortened or both without affecting either of the adjoining lots in order to avoid a long, narrow tunnel affect. 3) It is recommended that construction be limited to single story homes of not more than 22 feet in height. 4) The perimeter landscaping has been found to be suitable for this portion of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road with the recommendation that the applicant provide a more residential wall plan similar to the Saratoga Oaks subdivision on Saratoga Avenue (the use of redwood and used brick columns versus a solid brick wall). 5) Staff also recommends that the developer be required to build a simple post and roof type of bus stop shelter to be maintained by the City in the future. He indicated that the wall plans submitted to the Commission this evening were submitted early this week as an amendment to the original wall plan. He informed the Commission that the original wall plan was proposed to be solid brick which included an arched- entryway over the new court. The new wall plan proposes to use an alternating brick and stucco design, eliminating the arched entryway. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she read the letter from the superintendent of the elementary school. She asked if there was a conflict between the hazardous substance report that came from the County and that of the soil sample? Planner Walgren responded that a conflict did not exist, noting that the County Environmental Health Department was PLANNING COMMISSIW4 MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 6 - referring to things such as abandoned vehicles and fuel in storage containers (above ground contaminants) that are routinely required to be cleaned up as a condition of project approval. The soils sampling analysis talks about the testing of soils for contamination. One report addresses surface evaluation and the other studies soil seepage. Commissioner Kaplan felt that the traffic report seemed low to her. She felt that the calculations presented made assumptions and that the traffic count would be dependent upon the number of middle school aged children who would reside in the development. She had questions regarding density and circulation. She felt that the project should form a relationship with that of the community and that it could be modeled after the Kerwin Ranch subdivision. She inquired if the environmental traffic analysis would change if the circulation configuration was modified. Planner Walgren responded that he did not believe that from an environmental impact stand point that modification to the circulation plan would change the conclusions made. The environmental review would consider the level of service of the local road and that of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. If the circulation plan was amended, it would add additional traffic to the neighborhood. Commissioner Asfour expressed concern with the number of dead end streets proposed and felt that the area should be opened. He asked if there would be any impacts if the roads were opened. Planner Walgren responded that an alternative plan would not generate an increase in traffic, but that it would be a different project than what was before the Commission. He felt that the only proposal that would cause a great alteration to traffic movement would be to have Seaton connect all the way through -to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. This would be a significant change in circulation and traffic in the neighborhood. Chairman Murakami asked if it would be possible to address pre and post Route 85 affects on circulation to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road? Planner Walgren responded that the traffic analysis was taken on post -85 counts and that they were taken at the time that Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road was upgraded from a Level of Service (LOS) C to B and than to A at this particular intersection. The pre -85 counts would have reflected an LOS C which is an acceptable level of service. The conclusion of the report was that the 15 lot subdivision would not affect the existing LOS A. Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing at 8:13 p.m. Bijon Armandour, project architect, addressed two issues of concerns: 1) access from Saratoga /Sunnyvale Road versus the use of the existing residential collector streets. He indicated that the main reason that access from Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road was used was due to the fact that there would not be an increase in traffic counts nor impacts to the neighborhood. If access is to be from the existing neighborhood, it was his belief that there would be an increase in traffic count to the neighborhood. He disagreed with staff's opinion that the proposed circulation pattern would isolate the project from the rest of the neighborhood. 2) Regarding the design of the wall, it is proposed to break up the wall and that earth tone colors would be used. He requested that the Commission approve the wall concept as presented. He noted that the project proposes a density less than the maximum PLANNING COMMISSIW4 MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 7 - allowed for this area. Commissioner Abshire asked if the proposed wall along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road would vary 18 -20 feet from the curb with perimeter landscaping being installed within this area. He asked what type of fencing would be proposed on the other two sides of the development? Mr. Armandour concurred that the wall along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road would be between 18 -20 feet from the curb with perimeter landscaping being installed. He indicated that a masonry sound wall is proposed as a barrier to mitigate noise where a wood fence would not provide that sound mitigation. He noted that a masonry wall was an effective sound wall and would be easier to maintain. Commissioner Patrick inquired if a landscape maintenance district would be responsible for the maintenance of the wall? Mr. Armandour clarified that the side walls belonged to three property owners and that the landscaping would be maintained by a landscape and lighting district. Planner Walgren indicated that the wall and landscaping within the right -of -way area located along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road would be maintained by a lighting and landscaping maintenance district and that the landscaping for the pedestrian and side yard private fences would be maintained by the three property owners if that was the preference of the developer and acceptable to the City. Commissioner Asfour asked staff who would be responsible for maintaining the landscaping once the state turns over Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road to the City? Planner Walgren responded that the City would be responsible for maintaining the landscaping which are not maintained by a lighting and landscape maintenance district. Commissioner Pierce asked if the proposed sound wall was to be a solid wall (was the brick and masonry wall to be connected or was there to be a gap)? Mr. Armandour clarified that there is to be an eight inch gap between the brick and the masonry wall. Commissioner Pierce stated that he was concerned that any gaps in the sound wall would not mitigate noise as sound would travel through the wall, noting that a solid sound wall would provide for better noise attenuation. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the wall details depict lighting and other details that would need to be maintained. Max Rasmussen, 20650 Woodward Court, informed the Commission that he was speaking for the 17 individuals who attended the Sunday March 24 neighborhood meeting. He indicated that the neighbors did not object to the proposed development as long as it met the guidelines of the General Plan and that consideration was given to the existing residential development. The residents were pleased to see that no other road would be opened as through streets, specifically Prune Blossom and Seaton. He read into the record the eight concerns identified by the existing residents as follows: PLANNING COMNIISSIUA MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 8 - 1) Only single story houses shall be placed upon lots backing up to exiting homes on the northern and western boundaries of the subdivision. 2) The building pads of those houses which back up to the northern and western boundaries of the subdivision shall be kept at, or near the existing grade level. The intent of this provision is to maintain the height of the homes as low as possible. 3) Adequate drainage catch basins connected to an underground sewer shall be provided along the northern boundary of the subdivision to prevent drainage onto the adjacent properties. 4) The end of Seaton and Prune Blossom streets shall be properly terminated, completed and landscaped. 5) A landscaping and lighting district shall be established to maintain proper appearance and upkeep of the landscaping along the Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road, at the ends of Prune Blossom and Seaton Streets, the subdivision walkway to Seaton, and along -the road leading from Seaton to Foothill School. 6) Protection to the root structure of the 300 year old live Oak Tree on the Martin property shall be provided at least out to the tree drip line. 7) The existing retaining wall along the western boundary of the subdivision shall be inspected and repaired or modified as necessary to assure compliance with building codes. 8) Careful consideration shall be given to extending the eastern wall of the subdivision (with consistent landscaping) to Verde Vista to assure aesthetic harmony along Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road. Note that the existing owners of the two homes between the end of the project and Verde Vista have recently installed new fences in this area. Thus they must not be charged for the wall extension. Mr. Rasmussen requested that these items and any other items which the Commission deemed appropriate be placed in writing with NAVICO before commencement of construction. He informed the Commission that the residents do not want to see Lynde Avenue opened up. He informed the Commission that the following individuals were not in attendance at the March 24 meeting but have indicated support of the area residents recommendations: Mr. and Mrs. Ted Smith, Matthew Vandion, and Mr. Blowe. Chairman Murakami thanked Mr. Rasmussen for speaking on behalf of the area residents. Commissioner Pierce requested clarification regarding condition 4 pertaining to PLANNING COMMISSIUA MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 9 - improvements to Seaton and Prune Blossom streets. Mr. Rasmussen clarified that there are no curbs installed. It is being requested that the area be improved, including the installation of landscaping and fencing. Raymond Nesmith informed the Commission that he handled the land transaction. He indicated that he attended a meeting this week with the homeowner association president and that he was pleased to see that the builder was open to every suggestion made by the existing homeowners. Regarding the perimeter fencing, the developer would agree to replace the existing fence with a wood fence. It was suggested by the homeowners association that the cul -de -sac be completed with the installation of a curb with a planting area behind it. Consideration was also given to Mrs. Martin's backyard in relationship to the existing oak tree (tree to be fenced off). He addressed drainage problems being experienced on Prune Blossom and indicated that catch basin would be installed to address the drainage problem. He felt that the proposed development would be of a benefit to the area and to the city. Monte Boisen, 13896 Lynde Avenue, stated his support of the plan. However, he did not support the opening of Lynde Avenue as a through street due to the safety of the children. Cindy Ruby, Saratoga Union School District Board of Trustee, informed the Commission that there are currently 475 students enrolled in the adjacent Foothill School and that the school is slated to grow as soon as students from "Greenbriar" move into their new homes. She indicated that she has not had the opportunity to review the proposed plans and requested the opportunity to review the plans. A concern being that - there would be a blind spot attributed to the installation of walls along Seaton, to the rear of the school property. She requested that safety measures be included so that the safety of the children is ensured during construction. She also requested that a bike /pedestrian access not be required along the school parking lot because of the desire to keep students in a specific area. Commissioner Kaplan asked if a traffic controller could be hired if it was determined that one was needed during construction (safety concern)? Community Development Director Curtis responded that a traffic controller could be hired, if needed. Commissioner Patrick asked where Ms. Ruby would like to see pedestrian traffic flow? Ms. Ruby responded that she did not want to see traffic empty into the entrance of the parking lot and that she would like to discuss this issue with the site administrator for his input (allow school to be part of the process). Jitka Cymbal, project engineer, addressed the alternate layout and access as addressed by the neighbors. She informed the Commission that several lot layout designs were reviewed and that it was concluded that no matter how many units were proposed, it would impact the existing neighborhood. She indicated that none of the streets are proposed to empty directly into collector streets. In two instances, streets would go by the school, bringing additional vehicles into an area where children are walking or being dropped off. Another street would empty into Prune Blossom which goes onto Verde Vista. Verde Vista could be considered as a collector street. However, there is no signal at the intersection with PLANNING COMMISSIUN MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 10 - Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. Based on these reasons, the design team redesigned the plan to reflect single cul -de -sacs. She addressed the pedestrian walkways and indicated that the pedestrian walkway appeared long because of the depth of the lots. She indicated that the front portion would be landscaped. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the Commission was handed a document that depicts a pedestrian walkway and that you would be able to see the front yard setback on the curb of lots 5 and 6 and that the walkway fencing would begin in the back of the front yard setback, creating a tunnel affect. This detail would need to be resolved depending upon the final configuration of the streets. Commissioner Asfour recommended that the Commission provide its comments for the benefit of the applicant and the neighbors. Commissioner Kaplan felt that a study session could have been held to discuss alternatives to the plan and to discuss the alternatives with the applicant and the neighbors before it came before the Commission as a public hearing. Commissioner Patrick listed three areas of concern as follows: 1) she was not pleased with the proposed circulation and its relationship to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road because she sees this area to be a hazard and that she would rather see the circulation utilize one of the feeder streets. 2) She did not like the pedestrian walkway as it appears to be a long narrow pathway. 3) She did not like the proposed sound wall. She indicated that she would prefer to see the use of a wood fence because the use of a brick wall would not be in keeping with the rural character of Saratoga. She did not believe that the way that the wall was configured with the eight inch gap would reduce sound levels. She felt that the project would need to start from scratch. Commissioner Pierce stated that he was concerned with the lot layout. One alternative would be to utilize the existing streets, extending the cul-de -sacs. Commissioner Kaplan informed the public that she and Commissioner Asfour reside in the area. She stated that she was troubled by the strangely shaped lots. She felt that the homes could be built right up to the edges, giving the development a Greenbriar effect (row house effect). She indicated that the Commission was trying to make the end product look attractive. She was not suggesting that there be made a through -way through Lynde. She felt that the Kerwin Ranch subdivision was a model in the community that provides access from local interior streets so that all the traffic does not flow in and out of the subdivision from the same place. She recommended that this item return to the Commission in a study session. Chairman Murakami concurred with the comments expressed by his fellow Commissioners regarding the traffic patterns. He indicated that the neighbors provided him with enough input as far as what is perceived for the future. The configuration, as presented, was visually unusual. He was concerned with traffic patterns along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 11 - whether it could handle additional traffic. Since the opening of Highway 85, it seems that the main thoroughfare is less hectic and could handle the traffic from this development. He agreed that work sessions would need to be conducted to allow the neighbors, the applicant and the Commission to review alternatives. Commissioner Abshire concurred with comments of his fellow Commissioners Commissioner Asfour thanked Mr. Rasmussen for representing the neighborhood. He indicated that he did not have any objections to the eight conditions as proposed by the neighbors with the exception of condition 4. He stated that he would like to see the developer and the residents get together and develop at least one more connector street. He did not have a problem with opening up Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road to egress /ingress to the property. He indicated that he was not appointed to the Commission to look at just the neighbors' needs but that he was appointed to review issues for the good of the City as a whole. He stated his preference for a brick wall instead of a wood wall. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that in the past, she has heard that there were a group of neighbors that have come before the City and stated what they wanted to see develop. After development, other citizens then came before the City asking why a project was allowed to be built. She agreed that the Commission serves the City and that the decisions . made would need to be made for the best interest of the community. James Ousley, 20707 Seaton Avenue, asked if planning staff would be involved in the study session? Commissioner Asfour responded that staff would be present at the work session. Mr. Rasmussen informed the Commission that he would be out of town on April 24 but that Mr. Ousley and Mr. Boisen would be in attendance should this item be continued to that date. Mr. Armandour requested that the application be continued to the Commission's April 10 meeting. The Commission recessed at 9:12 p.m. to allow the applicant and the neighbors to discuss a date that would be mutually agreeable to conduct a work session. The Commission reconvened at 9:23 p.m. Byron Navid, applicant, indicated that he was trying to make this a beautiful custom home development. It was his intention to make this an acceptable project to the neighbors. He indicated that he would be willing to modify the fence to address the Commission's concerns. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION CONTINUED THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPLICATION SD- 95-010 TO 5:00 P.M., APRIL 10, 1996, ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 1996 PAGE - 2 - PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 1. V -96 -001 - DIAMOND; 18406 MONTPERE WAY; Request for Variance approval to allow the construction of a 272 sq. ft. first story addition to an existing 2,688 sq. ft. single story residence. The addition would encroach 1.2 ft. into the required side yard setback of 7.2 ft. The subject property is 8,220 sq. ft. in area and is located within an R- 1- 10,000 zoning district (applicant is requesting continuance to 5/8/96; City review deadline is 9/12/96). -------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 (COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSENT). Commissioner Siegfried entered and was seated. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. SD -95 -010 - NAVICO INC./BYRON NAVID; 15041 & 15072 SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE RD.; Request for Tentative Subdivision Map approval to subdivide two parcels of land totalling 6.94 acres into 15 single - family lots. The existing residence, pool, tennis court and accessory structures would be removed and a new cul -de -sac would access the development off Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. opposite Herriman Ave. - there is no vehicular access proposed - through the adjoining neighborhoods. The proposed lots range in size from 15,000 to 21,600 sq. ft. and would permit 4,000 to 4,500 sq. ft. homes (including garages). The property is located in an R- 1- 12,500 zoning district. An environmental initial study and subsequent Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project pursuant to the terms and requirements of the _California Environmental Quality Act (cont. from 4/10/96 regular adjourned meeting). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Community Development Director Curtis presented the staff report. He indicated that there were still issues to be resolved prior to approval as follows: pedestrian access; circulation alternatives; Saratoga - Sunnyvale wall; one story versus two story homes; and the bus stop shelter. Staff requested Commission discussion and that it provide the applicant and staff with direction regarding the issues listed above or any other issues that it may have. Should the Commission approve the project, a resolution of approval would be prepared for this application and that it would be .placed on the consent calendar for its next meeting. Chairwoman Kaplan noted that the public hearing remained open (7:40 p.m.) Ray Nesmith indicated that he did not have anything further to state other than the comments that were stated at the work session. He agreed to answer any other questions which the Commission may have. He stated that he was in agreement with the conditions PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 1996 PAGE - 3 - contained in the letter presented to him. Jim Ousley, 20707 Seaton Avenue, informed the Commission that he was representing the homeowners to the north and west of the project. He indicated that the homeowners presented a petition at the first hearing on this item, noting that the primary concern was that no additional traffic be added to the adjacent streets. The petition also listed. items that should be completed to make this project neighborhood friendly. Study sessions have since been held, giving the neighbors the opportunity to review the various concepts proposed. He indicated that the neighbors unanimously supported the street layout as proposed. He noted that the school also prefers this circulation pattern for the safety of the children. He informed the Commission that there is an athletic field controlled by the Saratoga -Los Gatos Recreational District, noting that there still remains activities outside school hours. He reiterated that the homeowners support this proposal and requested that the following conditions be included as part of the Commission's approval of the subdivision map: Lots on north and west boundaries of subdivision are to be restricted to single story residences. Finished grade of lots on north, boundary are not to exceed present grade level. - Landscaping and irrigation to be installed at the end of Lynde Avenue, Seaton Avenue and Prune Blossom Court by removing portions of existing pavement. The pavement's new terminus shall be curved. Area between school driveway and west boundary of the subdivision, which is city owned land, to be landscaped and irrigated. Maintenance of items 3 and 4 to be provided by a landscape and lighting district supported by the Lands of Navico. Retain integrity of existing retaining walls and fences along north, west, and south boundaries of subdivision. All damage or replacement to be accomplished at Navico's expense. Jitka Cymbal, project engineer, identified the modifications made to the subdivision layout as follows: the cul -de -sac that goes in a southwesterly direction was straightened slightly, moving it closer to Seaton Avenue; the pedestrian walkway was shortened to 120 foot; the size of the walkway was increased to a varying witdh of 20 to 25 feet; the lot lines for lots 3 -10 were modified; landscaping would be installed in the area located at the end of Lynde Avenue and Prune Blossom Court; an alignment of the existing driveway to the school and Seaton Avenue; and that a small landscape easement has been provided at the comer of the school parking lot and driveway. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:50 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 1996 PAGE - 4 - Commissioner Siegfried stated that a lot of thought has gone into this proposal and that although there are three streets that have the potential to be extended, only one of the streets, Seaton Avenue, should not be extended. He felt that the proposal was a good one. He felt that it was important to provide this kind of access directly through to Herriman, from a pedestrian stand point. He concurred with Mr. Ousley that the athletic field. located at the school site was used extensively on weekends and evenings. Therefore, this circulation would allow for bicycle and walking traffic from areas that are not easily accessible. He stated that he liked the plans and that he would like to see a mixture in size of houses as well as single and two story homes. Commissioner Abshire stated that he originally objected to the proposed plans. However, at the work session held a couple of weeks ago, he was convinced that this was probably the best plan that could be perceived and that it would preserve the existing ash tree. He felt that the signal light at the entrance of the project would be more efficient now that there were four accesses being proposed instead of three. He felt that a problem would exist in that there would be no traffic from this subdivision going to the ones adjacent to it. However, he felt that this disadvantage. was outweighed by the advantage of the current plans. Commissioner Pierce stated that he still had a concern with the layout. He also stated that he did not like any of the alternatives that were presented at the study session. He felt that the logical solution to the lot layout would be a modified alternative C (instead of having two cul -de -sacs, the project could use the signal light at Herriman, go through and make a right turn to connect to Prune Blossom. This modified Alternative C would allow the use of the Herriman signal light and that it would provide additional safety to individuals using Verde Vista. He noted that it was not safe to pull out onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road when the traffic is heavy, because it is a dangerous situation. He indicated that he could accept the rest of the proposal with the exception of the project's layout. Commissioner Patrick stated that she did not like the circulation plan proposed. She recommended that there be another outlet. She felt that there were other alternatives that could address her concerns. She indicated that she liked Commissioner Pierce's suggestion of the use of a modified alternative C. Therefore she could not support this proposal. Commissioner Murakami stated that after reviewing the proposal at the study session, that he was more inclined to agree with Commissioners Siegfried and Abshire. He felt that the proposal would provide enough access for a development of this size. He stated that he would be inclined to support the proposal. Commissioner Asfour stated that his original concern has not been addressed, that being that the proposal only provides one access to the development. He stated that he would need to see one more access provided, connecting one of the other roads dead ending into the property. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 1996 PAGE - 5 - Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she supported Commissioner Pierce's modified alternative C because it would relieve a dangerous traffic situation from Verde Vista to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. She felt that the modified alternative would open up the proposed neighborhood to the existing neighborhood. Commissioner Asfour stated that he did not want the neighbors to think that the Commission was not listening to their concerns. However, the Commission is mandated to make decisions that would benefit the City as a whole, not just a small locality within the City. Community Development Director Curtis recommended that the public hearing be reopened to determine whether the applicant wishes to modify the plans as recommended by the majority of the Commission or whether they wish the Commission to take action this evening. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:58 P.M. TO INQUIRE IF THE APPLICANT WISHES TO HAVE THIS ITEM CONTINUED TO ALLOW TIME TO MODIFY THE PLANS OR WHETHER THEY WISH A VOTE TO BE TAKEN THIS EVENING. Mr. Nesmith informed the Commission that he has investigated the recommended alternative. He indicated that a concern was that the City calls for a maximum length of a court and that the court was already proposed at 1,100 feet. The Lynde addition would bring the court up to 1,600 feet. This extension would be of concern under fire regulations (extension from a fire hydrant). He felt that the additional traffic to the school would also be an issue. What was being proposed was something that would work for the entire neighborhood. Chairwoman Kaplan clarified that the purpose of reopening the public hearing was to determine whether the applicant would like to return with a revised plan to address the concerns of the majority of the Commission based upon the comments made this evening or whether the applicant wishes the Commission to vote on the request before it. Mr. Nesmith requested that the Commission take action on this item tonight as there were no other alternative that would make better use of this site. Commissioners Patrick/Asfour moved to close the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he did not believe that the proposed modified alternative C was a rational one. He felt that it would make a through way from Herriman onto Verde Vista through an existing neighborhood (impacting the four homes currently located on the dead end street). It was his belief that individuals driving across town would go through the signal light, turn right and drive down the existing street, adding additional traffic to an existing neighborhood (taking an existing dead end street and making it a thoroughfare). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 1996 PAGE - 6 - COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL FOR APPLICATION SD -95 -010 AS PROPOSED. THE MOTION FAILED 3-4 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ABSHIRE, MURAKAMI, SIEGFRIED; NOES: ASFOUR, KAPLAN, PATRICK, PIERCE. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PIERCE MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR APPLICATION SD -95 -010. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -3 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ASFOUR, KAPLAN, PATRICK, PIERCE; NOES: ABSHIRE, MURAKAMI, SIEGFRIED. Community Development Director indicated that the resolution of denial would be scheduled for the May 8, 1996 Planning Commission - Consent Calendar. 3. DR -96 -010 - STEPS; 14136 ARCADIA PALMS; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 773 sq. ft. first -story addition and a 769 sq. ft. second -story addition to an existing single -story residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The application also includes a request for exemption from the floor area reduction requirement for building heights over 18 ft. and for the underfloor clearance height of 5 ft. The subject property is 53,178 sq. ft. and is located in an R- 1- 40,000 zoning district. Planner Bradley presented the staff report on this item. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 8:15 p.m. David Zaro, project architect, concurred with staff s recommendation. He stated that he made a sincere effort to minimize the bulk of the second floor area. This was accomplished by centering the second floor area. He also tried to minimize any impacts to the surrounding neighbors and to their view corridors. Commissioner Murakami complimented Mr. Zaro on his architectural drawings. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:20 P.M. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -96 -010 PER THE STAFF REPORT. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). 4. UP- 96-003 - THE BROOKSIDE CLUB OF SARATOGA 19127 COX AVE.; Review of a comprehensive Use Permit for an existing private tennis and swim club facility located on an approximately 3.4 acre site in the R- 1- 10,000 and R- 1- 12,500 zoning district, pursuant to Article 15 -55 of the City Code. Neighborhood Correspondence May 10, 1996 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Subdivision of APN 503 -58 -018 Dear Council Members, We are writing to express our concern about the Planning Commission's resolution regarding the proposed development by Navico of the former Spaich property. In a 4 to 3 vote, the Saratoga Planning Commission voted against Navico's proposal for a single access point into the subdivision from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road where it is intersected by Herriman Avenue and is controlled by an existing stoplight. This configuration is known as Navico's "original" proposal. Subsequent configurations prepared by the developer's engineers at the request of the Planning Commission, as well as an additional configuration that was unveiled by the negative- voting commissioners at the time they voted against the "original" proposal, all involve some continuation of Prune Blossom Drive. - . While we believe that any extension of Prune Blossom is undesirable, the notion put forth by the commissioners is our greatest concern. This scheme is that Prune Blossom extend into the new development and make a left turn to exit at the stoplight at Saratoga- Sunnyvale and Herriman. The distance between Saratoga- Sunnyvale and Prune Blossom is very short. This stratagem would create two intersections within less than 100 feet of each other, both handling vehicles with destinations up Verde Vista. Cars slow down to leave Saratoga- Sunnyvale, then immediately accelerate in order to avoid the potential for being rear -ended by following cars. If they had to stop to let someone complete a turn from Prune Blossom left onto Verde Vista, the rear -end potential is greatly increased, as is the potential for collisions at Prune Blossom and Verde Vista. This configuration converges two incoming threads of traffic with the same destination of Verde Vista at a point where there is no margin for error. This point is in front of our home on the corner of Saratoga- Sunnyvale and Verde Vista, and our driveway is between these two intersections. We feel that any change to Prune Blossom and any other existing neighborhood streets is unncessary. The developer's "original' proposal is an ideal one: it directs all new traffic to an existing stoplight and causes no change to traffic flow in the immediate neighborhoods and around Foothill School. Sincerely, Gerardo Retamoso and Nilda Retamoso 20511 Verde Vista Lane May 9, 1996 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Subdivision of APN 503 -58 -018 Dear Council Members, This letter is to advise you of my position on the configuration of the subdivision of the Spaich property by Navico. I think it is quite remarkable — astounding even — that a developer has presented a configuration that meets all zoning requirements and has met with no disapproval from the neighboring property owners, Foothill School, or from any of the city departments that review a plan before it goes to the Planning Commission. To suggest something else, particularly with no elaboration about its purpose, seems an indefensible position. While I think it was helpful that the Planning Commission asked Navico to present alternative plans, it is important to note that this reaffirmed what the neighbors unanimously acknowledged _ in writing to the Commission: that the `original" plan for a single point of access at an existing controlled intersection was highly desirable, and that by extension, the other configurations had an adverse effect on the quality of our properties and lives. I would like to address the issue of "connectivity" versus what some planning commissioners have referred to as an "enclave" (I protest the application of that very strong term to this issue). Living in a cul -de -sac or other single- access unit, however many homes it holds, has not been an impediment to "connecting" with other members of the Saratoga community. We have more imagination than that. We connect through our children and their activities, interests and schoolmates; and we connect through our religious, civic, and professional associations. And we are grateful for our less -than- well - traveled streets that provide a safe environment. As you review this issue, I urge you to consider that the "original" plan: • meets all city requirements for zoning and subdivision • directs all additional traffic to an existing stoplight • has no opposition from any affected parties • preserves the quality of the surrounding area and ensures that same quality for the new development That four appointed officials with no vested interest in the neighborhood should sanctimoniously impose their opinion on this issue is an inappropriate exercise of their office. Sincerely, &-e—, 4tt;ET_ Lia Lorton 13750 Prune Blossom Drive May 10, 1996 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Subdivision of APN 503 -58 -018 Dear Council Members, I am writing this letter to urge you to overturn the Planning Commission's denial of a proposal presented by Navico for the property formerly owned by the Spaich family. This proposal, for a single entrance to the subdivision at the stoplight opposite Saratoga High school, is unanimously supported by the neighborhods that border on this property. For reasons that have a negative impact on our neighborhoods, the Planning Commission has voted against this proposal. The commissioners who voted against this prefer opening existing streets (Prune Blossom and Lynde) into this development. They prefer this over a well received proposal that there be one entrance at an existing controlled intersection. I believe that extending Prune Blossom (any distance; any configuration) would be detrimental to quality of the existing (and future) properties by creating additional traffic and less privacy on this street. Prune Blossom is a narrow street, and the point at which it intersects Verde Vista (the location of my property) is very close to the intersection of Verde Vista - Saratoga and Sunnyvale Road. To increase traffic through an intersection that is so close to another creates a traffic hazard. I hope that you will exercise your discretionary powers in this matter by rejecting the Planning Commission's denial of this proposal. It has met with no opposition from any quarter other than four commissioners. I feel that the opinions of the neighborhood should carry the most weight in this matter, particularly when the proposal meets all conditions required by the City. Please take our part in this issue; we are clearly the majority, and the process is working. The Planning Commission need only oversee this process and mediate when necessary. They should intervene only if City requirements are not met and not to impose their opinion. Sincerely, Bonnie Yoshikawa Property Owner, 13751 Prune Blossom Drive Mailing Address: 110 Tait Ave., Los Gatos, CA 95030 May 11, 1996 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Subdivision of APN 503 -58 -018 Dear Council Members, 4b at - @' 0 .)04. G.,JW�Lf We are writing to restate our position as signers of the declaration indicating unanimous approval by the immediate community of the `original' proposal put forth by Navico for development of the Spaich property. This proposal is for access to the new subdivision only from the existing traffic signal on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road at Herriman Avenue. We feel that the Planning Commission's disapproval of this proposal disregards the advantage to the entire neighboring community of the least possible impact on them. The commissioners who rejected the "original' proposal favor a plan that causes unnecessary change to the current traffic patterns in, and therefore the quality of, the surrounding neighborhood. (A through - traffic plan connecting Prune Blossom Drive to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road was proposed by the dissenting commissioners as they cast their votes.) As a minimum -width residential street, Prune Blossom is not designed to be a "feeder" for through traffic to a major, intercity roadway, that until Highway 85 opened functioned as a freeway alternative. It is the fact that there is a viable, more - then - acceptable proposal that prompts us to protest any change to Prune Blossom. It is unnecessary to make any change that affects the existing properties, particularly when it ignores the unanimous wishes of all people (including Foothill School) affected by this subdivision. We feel that the advantages of the `original' plan far outweigh any possible advantage of opening and continuing existing streets to additional or through traffic. The City Council has expressed concern in the past for "future residents" in discussions of other development issues. With this in mind, consider that a decision affecting Prune Blossom will affect these people as well as the current residents. Sincerely, Ted Smith and Lillie Smith 13772 Prune Blossom Drive May 22, 1996 TO THE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Re: Subdivision SD -95 -010 3' 1996 V L' We are concerned with the planning commission's recent rejection of the Navico proposal for the development of the above referenced property and are hereby requesting that you reverse this decision on appeal. The commission is apparent 1 y hung up on i ssues of " connecti vi ty " , " traf f i c flow" and "enclaves"... A little background... As neighbors to the proposed development we are obviously concerned by what may impact our property and families... probably more so than the city. We have been aware of plans for the development and following Navico's original proposal to the planning commission on March 27, have met with the company to assure that our concerns are being met. They have been most cooperative in resolving these concerns and have included our recommendations in their plans. Following these meetings we met with our respective neighborhoods in group meetings to review Navico's proposal and any alternative which might be suggested. Navico provided us with alternate plans which they had considered before settling on their final proposal. In all meetings there was unanimous preference for the design submitted to (and later rejected by) the planning commission. We subsequently met with the planning commission in a study session to review the alternate plans and again affirmed our preference for the plan submitted and thought we had gained their support. Local school authorities and the Public Safety Commission also supported this plan (after reviewing many alternatives) and the Fire District had approved it. Needless to say, we were concerned by the Planning Commission's final rejection, particularly following the unanimous community support. We believe their reasoning and motives... based on comments made by the commission—are suspect and their decision should be overturned. Our preference for this plan is based on the following: No additional traffic on local streets... Neighbors and the school authorities are concerned about any plan which provides for "through" traffic on Lynde, Seaton, or Prune Blossom. Access to and from the development (15 homes) would be at the Herriman light where control exists. The Saratoga Planning Department basically agreed with the plan.. however, citing the "enclave" look as a potential problem. We believe this to be minor since dozens of other similar developments exist in the city now ... and on fill - in developments is frequently the only way to use the property. Also, this is not a " Bellgrove " walled community(of 94 homes). Navico has provided access to and through the proposed development. The Public Safety Commission has expressed concern about through traffic near schools and "circulation" in the area. Through traffic on "no sidewalk" streets is a major problem. The three -way stop at the entry to Foothill School was an attempt to correct a similar problem. School officials also expressed their concern over too much connectivity and through traffic on Lynde. They were very pleased with the Navico proposal for automobile access only from Herriman and particularly liked the through walkway and the treatment at the end of Seaton to allow for pedestrian traffic into the school. Trees: The proposal by Navico includes provision to feature, save, and protect the beautiful old ash and gum trees on the property. Other proposals place these on private lots where landscaping may affect their survival or in roadways that would require their removal. In summary we believe the Navico proposal fills all the needs for a beautiful addition to Saratoga. As neighbors, we are very pleased with their attitude and understanding of our feelings and their demonstrated willingness to satisfy our concerns. We also believe the Planning Commission's rejection of the plan is a direct affront to the needs and wishes of the relevant community. We have included copies of the preference sheets used in our neighborhood meetings... Also a map showing the property owned by those who signed. If you need any further information or would like to see the alternate plans which we reviewed please contact us. �L Monte Boisen President, Deerpark Homeowner's Assn. evim Ousl y Preside , Foothill Homeowner's Assn. Enclosures: Report to the Planning Commission Preference Sheets (Signed by homeowners) Map of area indicating signers April 1996 To: SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION We the undersigned residence in proximity to the planned Navico Development wish to express our preference of the four plans.given to us to review. Among our concerns in this review were: Traffic flow; effect on Foothill Primary School;.Pedestrian walkway from Seaton to Saratoga Sunnyvale Road ; Compatibility to existing homes; Access to existing signal light, and others. We hope this will help the Planning. Commission in their decision and honor our concerns. Please sign your name on the page of your preference. ,r,.w , � 7 Ws e /NP y Suml'YERJ v �'y ^ PLAN ONE Zoi /p d zo73 ( �o -rEtd� C.►` C X673/ �.�; �� , 3 > >� /°/�u tiE � � sso M . `fin "04% —2-0 G S-3 o�s3 Au l,q -77 967 7� 86 7-;7S-6 j r6 � '�:C 7 -ns7s <:Z C. 7 —OS--7 S" April 1996 To: SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION We the undersigned residence in proximity to the planned Navico Development wish to express our preference of the four plans given to us to review. Among our concerns in this review were: Traffic flow; effect on Foothill Primary School; Pedestrian walkway from Seaton to Saratoga Sunnyvale Road ; Compatibility to existing homes; Access to existing signal light, and others. We hope this will help the Planning Commission in their decisi.on and honor our concerns. Please sign your name on the page of your preference. t- se, AI" � r l�r-e— o �+psoh J% PLAN ONE ?3F Ze)&tl . l 37 -N "/ dl(-- iYW'CAl- W. �FA51, Us sF.v .Zr1C1p'k lv aG�ur� e� C T ,?d, 7 ��,o% --7 L//,-/5 �O '7 YI,,-/S IB /37%3 ?6ayfe- RlestomAr �r ,� o 4/ 6'�6t"Ou ce- S�7-w` 7� 8 &7-,2 il 9-s- 9-wl7 -2ZZZ '741-0 (aZ �� e-' April 1996 To: SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION We the undersigned residents in proximity to the planned Navico Development wish to express our preference of the four plans given to us to review. Among our concerns in this review were: Traffic flow; effect on Foothill Primary School;.Pedestrian walkway from Seaton to Saratoga Sunnyvale Road ; Compatibility to existing homes; Access to existing signal light,-and others. We hope this will help the-Planning Commission in their decision and honor our concerns. Please sign your name on the page of your preference. PLAN ONE NAME (PRINT & SIGN) ADDRESS PHONE f/��' ��T ��r�:�0r'P�l' . V. 1 A .v '7yx L tc i, hvh-�► h Z� S� k VeKd c ct 6 -v z 6 (26u-� —1 ).Act 2 +ri G i cL D. NOL4cA M P o�07/6 G� 967-1367 April 1996 To: SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION We the undersigned residence in proximity to the planned Navico Development wish to express our preference of the four plans given to us to review. Among our.concerns in this review were: Traffic flow; effect on Foothill Primary School; Pedestrian walkway from Seaton to Saratoga Sunnyvale Road ; Compatibility to existing homes; Access to existing signal light, and others. We hope this will help the Planning Commission in their decision and honor our concerns. Please sign your name on the page of your preference. PLAN ONE NAME (PRINT & SIGN) ADDRESS PHONE ZGs- 1/�i2pF C i . u J�- � J r. April 1996 To: SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION We the undersigned residents in proximity to the planned Navico Development wish to express our preference of the four plans given to us to review. Among our concerns in this review were: Traffic flow; effect on Foothill Primary School; Pedestrian walkway from Seaton to Saratoga Sunnyvale Road ; Compatibility to existing homes; Access to existing signal light, and others. We hope this will help the Planning Commission in their decision and honor our concerns. Please sign your name on the page of your preference. PLAN ONE (�10 ?) I, � 7- /' 3 04,7 NAME (PRINT & SIGN) ADDRESS PHONE /V/Z- 11 &2� r=-'U o�<.o- is /1,L c) '<- i S!! �f << L / < -5 /Z,4?Z7o4— fm"s- April 1996 To: SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION We the undersigned residence in proximity to the planned Navico Development wish to express our preference of the four plans given to us to review. Among our concerns in this review were: Traffic flow: effect on Foothill Primary School; Pedestrian walkway from Seaton to Saratoga Sunnyvale Road ; Compatibility to existing homes; Access to existing signal light, and others. We hope this will help the Planning Commission in their decision and honor our concerns. Please sign Your name on the page of your preference. NAME (PRINT & SIGN) ADDRESS PHONE 6 -,2F �d! S Ci✓ (,�R'h.�i.YN uJ Ic..J.119'v►t j. �NRY H T4 ' •C ,vac` ,�v�, �' �!`�� 7 /385 L AJ� i3�o wy'�nc R'Vc 8c-7 - �27 5-7 i 3 °1 O c4 �LS LTI4L)C CHIT • 741 l 2 • f3 r11; � Pt AN NUMBER ONE: N_ _ a.ln r i ADDRESS l:Y i 7 LyL, ( PHONE NUMBER 'r "It I_� i (i /p o usan 1-j-t c hoMsDn jv qp 7q1- 11 ?p c�1 ;� I .lames .t, 20S l er art- Cr- $ 6 - SS t 4 7 Yt -It 7 $' .w. - PLAN ONE NAME- ADDRESS PHONE ltt,lk-C- 97-S 5 AZJ okm . — — — April 1996 To: SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION We the undersigned residents in proximity to the planned Navico Development wish to express our preference of the four plans given to us to review. Among our concerns in this review were: Traffic flow; effect on Foothill Primary School; Pedestrian walkway from Seaton to Saratoga Sunnyvale Road ; Compatibility to existing homes; Access to existing signal light, and others. We hope this will help the Planning Commission in their decision and honor our concerns. Please sign your name on the page of your preference. PLAN ONE ffe? . L� NAME (PRINT & SIGN) ADDRESS PHONE ;ACK �'L(to�S qaCk LY' /JDC Ads, tIAK-;6 ;4 440S'-7f( -13 7f L-yVA)r -�4 Vf5,�,74 14Y%ell e 15 7/�/� 1-3,91,r-, op L S 3�coc- -y�� =v. j 20 L'0� tiVE CA ,4D L'(+vDC CT 3 9i7 Lgardi 4W 267 .. �dism .26�8 Room 9 a im- rp- r _. .. 0 16 • 6i J� log-I.. P-..a WE No A... ,- rim MRMnnmx l: • ! :. 1_1'1 I ■y LJ= .. _s j �'. Maxwell W. Rasmussen 20650 Woodward Ct. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 (408) 867 -2495 May 29, 1996 Mayor Paul Jacobs, and Council Members City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Mayor Paul Jacobs: Re: SD -95 -010, Navico Inc, Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. The Saratoga Planning Commission recently turned down plan "E" presented by Navico for building 15 homes on this site. I represented the concerned residents of Foothill Homeowners Assn., who reside adjacent to or near -by the proposed development on.the North & West side, at the 1st Planning Commission Meeting. The residents were shown four plans by the builder and asked each to state his or her preference at several meetings we held of our Association. This same procedure was done for the Deer Park Homowners who live on the South side of the development. The residents of both associations unanimously agreed on the plan "E" which was presented to the Planning Commission. This plan has the entrance from Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. at Herriman Ave. with a traffic signal. The Planning Commission wanted a plan that opened Prune Blossom through to the connection of the extended Herriman Ave., and another entrance from Lynde Lane that would place more traffic at the entrance of Foothill School. The access from Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. at Herriman, with the traffic signal, is the safest & least disruptive for Foothill School, Prune Blossom Lane & Lynde Lane Residents. This would be especially true during the 1 1/2 to 2 years of construction when earth moving equipment, cement trucks, utility workers, construction crews and suppliers would have access to a traffic light. The potential for accidents would be greatly reduced. This plan allows for pedestrian traffic from Seaton Ave. & Foothill School to Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. at a cross -walk and traffic light. If Prune Blossom or Lynde Lane were opened to Herriman, that would mean taking traffic off the arterial roads of Verde Vista & Reid Lane and adding traffic to narrow residential streets. The thought that the Saratoga High Students might drive through this development to get to either Verde Vista or Reid Lane is scary. There was not a any opposition from the public at any of the open meetings of the Planning Commission. This development plan is being appealed to the City Council. As residents of the adjacent area, we would appreciate your support for Plan "E" when it is presented to the City Council. Sincerely, Maxwell W. Rasmussen V.P. Foothill Homeowners Assn. Enclosures: Copy Plan One "E" Copy site map III* . " k; 114. 21 bL O f-C AOL I 1TV loot, 13 ir p r. :11C --__ les•.�- w� ►J`/ ' ... ...... J . . ...... ........ . a i �n�nmN al m &W ■y LJ' mm i- �., X104 X111111►`'' Avj SflflfllGfl URIOR SCHOOL DISTRICT 20460 FORREST HILLS DRIVE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3424 May 29, 1996 City Council Members City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Members of the City Council, The Saratoga Union School District has followed the Navico Development of the Spaich property on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road very closely through the planning process. This development backs up on Foothill Elementary School's boundary. We met with neighborhood representatives, the developer, city staff, and Planning Commissioners at a workshop in April to work on safety and traffic concerns. We agreed with the neighbors that Foothill School's traffic already overburdens the streets surrounding this development, and we felt that the proposed entrance at Herriman and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road would be the best entrance and exit from the development. We are writing. to appeal the Planning Commission's vote to change the plan to add extensions of Prune Blossom and Lynde into the development. We believe the traffic generated by Foothill School parents and youth sports into the front (accessed via Reid Lane and Lynde Avenue) and rear parking lots (accessed via Vista Verde, Tamworth, and Seaton Avenues) will obstruct the owners of these new homes and add to traffic congestion. Saratoga's school parking lots and the streets surrounding our schools are already overburdened with traffic since they were built to accomodate school buses, not parent drivers. We hope that you will reverse the Planning commission decision and not add to an existing bottleneck in this neighborhood. Please contact us if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Mary ardner, Superintendent Cindy Ruby, President, Board of Trustees Staff Report dated March 27, 1996 File No. SD -95 -010; NAVICO INC. /BYRON NAVID 15041 & 15072 SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE RD. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY• Application filed: 12/18/95 Application complete: 3/06/96 Notice published: 3/13/96 Mailing completed: 3/14/96 Mailing completed: 3/07/96 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for Tentative Subdivision Map approval to subdivide two parcels of land totalling 6.94 acres into fifteen single - family lots. The existing residence, pool, tennis court, accessory structures and remnant orchard would be removed and a new cul -de- sac would access the development off Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. opposite Herriman Ave. No vehicular access is proposed through the adjoining neighborhoods. The proposed lots range in .size from 15,000 to 21,600 sq. ft. and would permit 4,000 to 4,500 sq. ft. homes (including garages).- The property is located in an R -1- 12,500 zoning district. An environmental initial study have been prepared for this requirements of the Californi a STAFF RECO)DERMATION: and subsequent Negative Declaration project pursuant to the terms and Environmental Quality Act. Review the attached staff analysis and environmental Initial. Study and Negative Declaration, take public testimony, and direct the applicant regarding the issues raised in the staff report and other issues raised during the public hearing. A final Tentative Map and Resolution could then be considered at the next available meeting. ATTACHi S: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Area B- Guidelines For Area Development 3. Copy of Kerwin Ranch Pedestrian Connection 4. Tentative Subdivision Map, Exhibit "A" 5. Conceptual Landscape Plan, Exhibit "B" 6. Perimeter Wall and Entry Plan, Exhibit "C" 7. Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration (with separate attachments) 000002 File No. SD -95 -010; NAVICO INC. /BYRON NAVID 15041 & 15072 SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE RD- STAFF-ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 12,500 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential- Medium Density PARCEL SIZE: 6.94 acres AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Level , PARCEL REOUIREMENTS Provosal (By Rancte) Net Parcel Size: 15,000 sq. ft. to 21,600 sq. ft. Frontage: 60 ft. to -175 ft. Width: 92 ft. to -125 ft. Depth: 140 ft. to -240 ft. Code Requirements /Allowance Net Parcel Size: Frontage: Width: Depth: PROJECT DISCUSSION: Overview: 12,500 sq. ft. (15,000 sq. ft. for a corner parcel) 65 ft. (60 ft. for a parcel abutting c a cul -de -sac turnaround) 90 ft. 120 ft. The applicants are proposing to subdivide this 6.94 acre site, consisting of two individual lots of record, into 15 single - family residential building sites. The property is .currently developed with a single - family residence and extensive residential improve- ments and accessory structures. There are also several fruit trees on the property which are remnants of an abandoned apricot orchard. The City Arborist has visited the site and has determined that due to neglect these fruit trees now have little or no value. The property abuts Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. and is located directly opposite the intersection of Herriman Ave. with Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. The surrounding development consists of similar density single - family homes to the north, south and west. The Saratoga 000003 File No. SD -95 -010; NAVICO INC. /BYRON NAVID 15041 & 15072 SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE RD. Presbyterian Church and Saratoga High School are located on the opposite side of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. to the east. Foothill Elementary School is located just southwest of the site and is partially separated by the 3 acre City /SUSD owned Foothill Park. The applicant is proposing to access all 15 new home sites entirely off Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. at the signalized intersection with Herriman Ave. General Plan Conformance: The General Plan designation for this property calls for medium density single - family residential development, which permits 3.48 dwelling units per net acre. At 6.94 net acres, the proposed 15 homes are well under the maximum permitted density of 24 homes. This part of Saratoga is also governed by the Area B- Guidelines For Area Development (attached) . These guidelines were developed by local neighborhood task force groups for each of the 12 identified specific planning areas in Saratoga. The applicable Area B guidelines limit development within this area to only single- family residences in conformance with the densities of surrounding residential developments. The guidelines also promote pedestrian and bicycle circulation and protection from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. traffic, noise and pollution impacts. Staff finds that the proposal complies with each of these guidelines. Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Compliance: The City's Subdivision and Zoning regulations are the implementa- tion tools of Saratoga's General Plan and the State Subdivision Map Act. The Zoning Ordinance establishes minimum standards for lot sizes, depths, widths and frontages. It also regulates building placement, modifications to natural topography and ordinance protected tree removal. The Tentative Subdivision Map complies with all minimum zoning standards with regard to parcel size and configuration. The City Engineer has reviewed the Tentative Map and finds it to meet roadway and public improvement standards and is also support- ive of the circulation proposal. utilizing the signalized intersec- tion. A condition of subdivision approval would require that the developer create a Lighting and Landscaping Assessment District to maintain the common area perimeter landscaping and to contribute towards 25% of the maintenance costs of the traffic signal. Other Department /Agency Review: This Tentative Subdivision Map has been reviewed by the West Valley Sanitation District, Santa Clara County Health Department, San Jose Water Company, Saratoga Fire District, PG&E, the Santa Clara County 11111 File No. SD -95 -010; NAVICO INC. /BYRON NAVID 15041 & 15072 SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE RD. Transportation Agency and the City Engineer and Arborist. None of these agencies have raised any concerns with the proposal, and their comments and standard conditions would be incorporated into any approval Resolution. Environmental Initial Study: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the .City . has prepared an environmental Initial Study to determine if there would be any significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed subdivision. If significant impacts are identified, the developer must show that these impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable level, or that special circumstances exist to justify the impacts, before the project can be approved. In order to answer the wide range of environmental questions covered by CEQA, staff required that the following studies be performed and submitted for inclusion as attachments to staff's Initial Study: Traffic Impact Report A traffic analysis prepared by Farhad and Associates, Traffic and Transportation Engineers, is attached which concludes that the proposed development would not have a signifi- cant effect on area traffic and circulation. The increased traffic generated by the 15 new homes would not reduce the current "A" Level Of Service at the Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. and Herriman Ave. intersection nor reduce the greater LOS of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. All vehicular access to the subdivision would be directly onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd., thereby avoiding traffic conflicts with neighborhood and elementary school traffic circulation. In addition, the proposed development includes a bus turnout. as requested.by the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency and will improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including a bicycle lane along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. and providing a pedestrian connection at the end of the new cul -de -sac connecting the Seaton Ave. neighborhood to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. Soil Sampling and Analysis Report Because of past agricultural uses of the property, staff reggested that a soil study be done to ensure that there were no residue pesticides or other harmful chemicals in the soils. The attached soil sampling and analysis report prepared by Advance Soil Technology concludes that the soil at the site has not been impacted by past use of agricultural pesticides. The City's "Ground Movement Potential and Relative Geologic Stability" study and corresponding maps prepared by the City's Geologic and Geotechnical Consultants indicates that the soils in this area are suitable for urban residential development. 000005 File No. SD -95 -010; NAVICO INC. /BYRON NAVID 15041 & 15072 SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE RD. Horticultural Consultant Report Saratoga's Horticultural Consul- tant has reviewed the proposal and his comments are either already incorporated into the plan set or would become conditions of project approval.- Significant ordinance protected trees would be required to be preserved. While acknowledging that this residential development will significantly change what is currently an "underdeveloped" piece.of land, staff does not find that the development will result in any significant environmental impacts as defined by CEQA. Staff is therefor recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the attached environmental Negative Declaration. Issues: An extended noticing and review period is required for projects subject to CEQA - the Planing Commission cannot formally act on the Negative Declaration until the April 10, 1996 meeting. Since this is a relatively major project for Saratoga, staff has chosen to use this interim review period to begin public hearing discussions of this proposed development. Staff has identified the following issues for discussion: • Circulation Plan The cul -de -sac plan submitted meets minimum City requirements and eliminates any potential of increased traffic through the adjoining neighborhoods. However, this type of plan does isolate the development from the existing homes. Extensions of the abutting cul -de -sacs would allow the courts to be finished with turnarounds and would also tie the new homes in with the existing neighborhoods. • Pedestrian Connection At staff's request, the applicant has included a pedestrian walkway connection between the new court and Seaton Ave. to allow a more direct pedestrian route to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. (similar to what the Planning Division required for the Kerwin Ranch subdivision). A plan was then submitted with a pedes- trian connection which staff felt would result in a corridor that was too long and narrow - prohibiting a clear view from one end to the other. The applicant has resubmitted an improved revised plan, though still not as wide as staff had requested. The intent was to.avoid creating a long, narrow, "tunnel" for both aesthetic and safety reasons. For comparison purposes, their proposed corridor would be 15 to 25 ft. wide and approximately 105 ft. long.. The final Kerwin Ranch corridor is uniformly 25 ft. wide and roughly 70 ft. long ( copy attached) . 11111. File No. SD -95 -010; NAVICO INC. /BYRON NAVID 15041 & 15072 SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE RD. • Building Height and Story Restrictions The existing homes to the north and west are almost entirely single story--structures. With the exception of a row of two - story homes along Lynde Ave., the homes to the south are predominantly single story also. Staff is recommending that initial home construction be limited to single story struc- tures no more than 22 ft. in height. • Perimeter Landscaping and Wall Design At staff's request, the applicant has also prepared a perime- ter landscaping and wall plan for the area along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. The original plan included an undulating 7 ft. tall brick wall incorporating an arched entry element. Staff encouraged the applicant to pursue a more residential type of plan and used the new Heritage Oaks subdivision on Saratoga Ave. as an example. Revised plans have been prepared but were not available at the time this report was written. These plans are anticipated to be included with the Commissioners' packets for the March 27th meeting. • Bus Stop Shelter The applicant has incorporated a bus stop along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. as requested by the Transportation Agency. The Agency's policy is that they only provide shelters along their major routes, and then only a specific type of shelter that allows for advertising space. Staff is recommending that the developer be required to design and construct a simple wood post and roof shelter with seating. Once the subdivision..is accepted,. the City would be responsible for the maintenance of the shelter. After having a chance to visit the property, staff is recommending that the Planning Commissioners consider the issues raised above, and any other issues that individual Commissioners may have, for the March 27th hearing. RECOMMENDATION Review the attached staff analysis and environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration, take public testimony, and direct the applicant regarding the issues raised in the staff report and during the public hearing. A final Tentative Map and Resolution could then be considered at the next available meeting. 000007 AREA B - GUIDELINES FOR AREA DEVELOPMENT 1. All development of vacant sites within this area shall be limited to single family detached residential and conform to the density of the surrounding residential area. 2. A traffic signal should be installed in the vicinity of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Blauer to provide safe pedestrian passage between homes on the west of Saratoga - Sunnyvale and shopping and - schools on the east side of the road. 3. Traffic should be reviewed to enable those living in the area of Fourth Street to safely enter Big Basin Way during peak traffic and holiday times when traffic is heavy. 4. In the absence of completion of a freeway in the West Valley Corridor, the City shall work with the appropriate agencies to develop and implement a plan to increase the protection of neighborhoods bordering Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road from the noise and pollution which is a result of heavy traffic. This effort will include the consideration of installation of whatever sound barriers or dense landscaping that may be appropriate to help the impacted neighborhoods regain the use and enjoy- ment of their property. I... 5. Tho City should study how traffic from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road impacts the circulation of nearby local residential streets.to determine feasible traffic control methods by which to minimize those impacts. 6. As a condition of City permit approval, if any further develop- ment of the area in the vicinity of the Argonaut Shopping Cente takes place, the impact of increased traffic on Saratoga- Sunnyv Road shall be studied and a plan for minimizing the traffic imp shall be developed. This might involve an access road parallel Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and. providing access to Cox Avenue. 7. Pedestrian crosswalks and islands should be considered for Pier Brandywine and Blauer. 8. Bike paths should be placed on both sides of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. 11111: 4 -6 ci S A R ATO G A and the SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ro r 1 _ I - Q I o. SARATOGA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE 1 B iyittlAAIS A Aloco l f.1 tnr a cowu%li im-gh mG C d ix COX AVE. = E a a �OGP H J &AnATOQA � I N CITY LIMITS 0. �• U' FRI - K 41 � • ALLENDALE AVE. G c4ro s � s Ro INFLUENCE F 0' 2500 6000 Tboo' IL OI SARATOGA SPHERE J f AREA B - CONGRESS SPRINGS /PIERCE ROAD Area B is bounded by Pierce Road on the north, Saratoga Creek and Congress Springs Road on the south and is to the west of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. Most of the area is occupied by low density residential development, or mountainous and orchard open space, similar to Area A. There are, however, some differ- ences between the two areas. Area B contains one Williamson Act orchard. Foothill Elementary School;-the only school within the area, is in the R -1- 15,000 area paralleling Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. Wildwood City Park is located near the Village Business District, which is just across Saratoga Creek. Adjacent to the Park, separated by Fourth Street, is an area of former apartments which have been converted to condominiums. An area of more spaciot clustered condominiums materially increased in size since the last plan review is to the southwest. Lying at one end of the area and close to-the village, this region is somewhat separated from the rest of the area and has minimal impact on the overall predominance of single family lower density homes in Area B. Except for the hillside area, the majority of Area B is already developed. There remains a parcel known as the "Horticultural Foundation" and a nearby orchard area, designated "Spaich Orchard" both with potential for significant development. The Foothill School site would also be a candidate for development if it were closed by the school district. The area is unanimous in the desire to assure that any development or redevelopment of sites wihin the area be only single family detached residential with a density consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. A major concern of the area is the development of the West Valley Corridor as a full freeway. The area unanimously indicated a high priority on immediate development of the corridor, in the belief that its completion would greatly decrease the present intolerable traffic on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. The residents are concerned with the noise, pollution and safety hazards presente by the ever - increasing traffic on that road. In the absence of the promised development of the corridor, the area would like other remedies for relief from the adverse impact of the traffic. These might include sound walls, dense plantings or other means of decreasing through traffic on Saratoga- Sunnyvale-Road. Another concern is the through traffic in neighborhoods which seem to be a result of extensive hillside development. It is felt that this traffic is using residential streets for access to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and that the roads designated as collectors are not adequate to handle the traffic that is being generated. .For this reason, there is opposition to development that will create more trips to and from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. 4 -4 000010 AREA B - CONGRESS SPRINGS /PIERCE ROAD Among other traffic related concerns is the safe pedestrian passage between.-the west side of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and the shopping and school areas in the Argonaut area. It is felt that a pedestrian signal. at Blauer Drive would help provide safe access to shopping and school. In conjunction with any develop- ment between the existing Argonaut Center and Cox Avenue, it is felt that a thorough plan for handling any increase in traffic in and out of the shopping area should be developed, possibly to include an access road which could also provide access to Cox Avenue. Residents of this planning area who reside in the Fourth Street vicinity find it difficult to get from Fourth Street to Big Basin way during peak traffic hours. This situation is especially severe during commute hours and holiday weekends and during the Christmas period when the tree sales are taking place in the county area of the hillsides. For this reason, a safe way of turning from Fourth Street onto Big Basin Way is felt to be a necessity. This would also help decrease some of the through traffic in other neighborhoods which is generated by those people trying to bypass this traffic bottleneck. 4 -5 000011 • -Js*.o o��v ��PPI h�/�INb f INQ PLAN i 3) Unless otherwise provided, landscape contractor %% provide soil analvis for soil preparation specific 0 minimum of three soil samples from different areas O Q site, shall be submitted to Soil and Plant Lab., c location, for recaival of data and report for prey 0 soil for new plantinq. FRUITVALE AVE TOW r...,:.:_ a� a.,a -.,.� 41,00 th'*+ wboo - -, . notmir- W A �r or, Pox 551iffis 1 P.► r r Ann Marie Burger Paul E. Jacobs Gillian Moran Karen Tucker Donald L. Wolfe C/O City of Saratoga City Council Members and Staff 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 June 1, 1996 Re: Request for List of Accepted Development Conditions Dear Council Members: On behalf of the applicant, I thank you for taking the time to review the details of this proposal. In reference to this proposal I have been asked to provide a list of conditions that have been previously agreed to by the applicant. Our goal was to provide a list of conditions that are specific to this site, the surrounding neighborhood conditions and the unique conditions that the elementary school and park present. Of course, additional issues that are standard in nature are expected to be included within this -- list of conditions for any tentative map approval. The following list of conditions has been approved by the applicant after review and in coordination with the Saratoga School Board, Fire District Officials, Planning Departments Representatives, local residents and homeowners association representatives. Only single story residences shall be proposed for Lots 1,8,9,10,11,12,13 and 15. 2. Catch drain basin system to be integrated into design improvements. Allowing the building pad elevations to remain compatible with the surrounding homesites. (specific improvements for existing drainage problem for Smith residence at Prune Blossom) 3. Landscaping installed at the ends of Prune Blossom Drive, Lynde Avenue and Seaton Avenue (see designs) Landscape and Lighting District to be included with this proposal for the areas of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, Seaton Avenue, Lynde Avenue and Prune Blossom Drive. Temporary fencing at drip line to protect existing trees (Martin property, site at Tamworth) 6. Replace subdivision perimeter good neighbor redwood fencing. 7. Installation of bus stop bench at Sunnyvale- Saratoga Road. The applicant would agree to retain the services of a traffic controller for safety purposes, if necessary, during certain times of the construction process. (Concern of Marcia Kaplan) 9. Pedestrian walkway (20 -25 ft easement) from the site to Foothill School and Seaton Avenue sidewalk. 10. Finish sidewalks from site to existing sidewalk for safe access to and from Foothill Elementary at a cross walk. Foothill Elementary instructs their students to cross at the cross walk. It is imperative from that point that they and the children and neighbors have a finished sidewalk for safe ingress and egress to and from the proposed site (North corner Seaton and Tamworth up to site pedestrian walkway). 11. Finish sidewalk curb and gutter at Seaton Avenue to Foothill School (Southwest corner at the park). Access has been a problem and student safety can be improved with the completion of this corner. 12. Preservation of the large Ash, Heritage Oak, Silk and Gum Trees. Intent to feature these trees as a part of the heritage of this subdivision. 13. Cut the back corner of Lot #6 to increase the field of vision for Foothill School parents as they drop off or pick -up their children from Foothill School parking lot. This was a concern of the School District and this proposal would reduce the risk of injury to any of the children or vehicles on site. 14. Notify School Officials of construction schedules. 15. Agreement with Mayeur family to remove existing juniper trees (Seaton Avenue at site border) and replace with proposed sidewalk improvement to cross -walk with landscape finish. In conclusion if there is any additional information that either myself or the applicant can provide for your review, please, do not hesitate to contact me directly. Of course, if there are any conditions that should be included within this subdivision proposal the applicant would be pleased to comply. With Respect, Ray lehalf d J. Nasmeh On of Navico Inc. AIN 1 1996 ctTY OF SARATOGA mY MANAGER'S OFFICE June 11, 1996 Mayor Paul Jacobs and Members of Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor Jacobs: Last evening the Public Safety Commission discussed the enclosed two letters from concerned residents of the Navico project on Saratoga Sunnyvale Road. After much discussion the Commission voted unanimously to support "Plan E." Our comments are as follows: we note that there are other isolated cul de sacs in the City (such as the one on Saratoga Ave.) that are working well; second, before any decision is made to change the developer's plan we believe this should be carefully considered. Also, we believe that no public interest is served by adding traffic channels to the area which neighbors do not want. Finally, we could be creating a public safety situation down the road in and around Foothill Elementary School. In sum we do support "Plan E" as originally submitted and ask you to consider our input as you deliberate this issue at your June 19 regular Council meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me at 523 -5151. Sincerely, en Biester Chair cc: Public Safety Commission enclosures: Rasmussen Letter Martin Letter Saratoga Safety Commission 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Mr Ken Biester, Chairman: Maxwell W. Rasmussen 20650 Woodward Ct. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 (408) 867 -2495 May 22, 1996 Re: SD -95 -010, Navico Inc, Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. The Saratoga Planning Commission recently turned down plan "E" presented by Navico for building -15 homes on this site. I represented the concerned residents of Foothill Homeowners Assn., who reside adjacent to or near -by the proposed development on the North & West side, at the 1st Planning Commission Meeting. The residents were shown 4 plans by the builder and asked each to state their preference at several meetings we held of our Association. This same procedure was done for the Deer Park Homowners who live on the South side of the development. The residents of both associations unanimously agreed on the plan "E" which was presented to the Planning Commission. This plan has the entrance from Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. at Herriman Ave. with a traffic signal. The Planning Commission wanted a plan that opened Prune Blossom through to . the connection of the extended Herriman Ave., and another entrance from Lynde Lane that would place more traffic at the entrance of Foothill School. The access from Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. at Herriman, with the traffic signal, is the safest & least disruptive for Foothill School, Prune Blossom Lane & Lynde Lane Residents. This would be especially true during the 1 1/2 to 2 years of construction when earth moving equipment, cement trucks, utility workers, construction crews and suppliers would have access to a traffic light. The potential for accidents would be greatly reduced. This plan allows for pedestrian traffic from Seaton Ave. & Foothill School to Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. at a cross -walk and traffic light. If Prune Blossom or I-ynde Lane were opened to Herriman, that would mean taking traffic off the arterial roads of Verde Vista & Reid Lane and adding traffic to narrow residential streets. The thought that the Saratoga High Students might drive through this development to get to either Verde Vista or Reid Lane is scary. This development plan is being appealed to the City Council. As residents of the adjacent area, we would appreciate your support from a safety view for Plan "E" when it is presented to the City Council. Enclosures: Copy Plan One "E" Copy site map incerely � axw�.Rasmussen V.P. Foothill Homeowners Assn. Elm it . I .. �1 dy d_ 0 3 f4IWL +I Te yc IIe4L p�►FKI� Of', dw moo.•: H a .o a 0 x �a a z H H t3 � 1s' I �o ISIS I! � odo • .?' �►?� d►1 ?� MIK M!!IM .. Rog i Pie 18 1 ME�Fw"* ■ -- 177j� sm §.:- I li �nAn�nN MIA !...WXJ� minim, Mai X111111 �'"', ' : �: 1n. IRVA Stephen & Rosemary Martin (408) 867 -5044 20552 Verde Court, Saratoga, California 95070 12 May 1996 Mr. Kenneth Biester Chair: Public Safety Committee City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga CA 95070 Re: SD -95 -010 - NAVICO Inc.BYRON NAVID;15041 & 15072SD-95- 010 - NAVICO Inc./BYRON 15041 & 15072 Saratoga- Sunn�ale RoadSunn� ale Road. Dear Mr. Biester: We are members of a Homeowners Association, which was recently formed to consider the effects of the above proposed subdivision. Our association, together with another representing residents on the south side of the development, reviewed the plans, and were unanimously in favor of the Developer's proposed layout, with an entrance opposite Herrman Avenue, and no through routes to other streets. Despite this, the Planning Commission, at its meeting on 4/24/96, rejected the proposal. During the discussions, several of the Commissioners spoke in favor of a concept in which Prune Blossom Avenue would become a through street joining with an entrance to the development opposite Herriman Avenue. Although no definite proposals are, as yet, on the table, we want to express our concern about any consideration of Prune Blossom's becoming a through street. Such a connection would have definite safety implications, in that traffic out of Verde Vista Lane turning on to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, would then use Prune Blossom as a route in order to utilize the traffic signal controlled intersection at Herriman. Similarly, there is likely to be a reverse flow of traffic coming from Highway 85 and proceeding through Herriman. Prune Blossom is a totally unsuitable street for such a volume of traffic, because of its width, and because of the likely backups at its intersection with Verde Vista Lane, a very short block away from the intersection with Sunnyvale- Saratoga. For these reasons, we urge the Public Safety Committee to oppose any such alignment, should it ever become a formal proposal. Thanking you for your attention in this matter, Sincerely, �N- +� Stephen & osemary Martin RE 6.1996 �pR March 24, 1996 Mr. Paul L. Curtis Director of Community - Development Q� . City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Re: A.P.N. 503 -58 -018 We the undersigned residents of Saratoga located within 500 feet of SD -95 -010 (APN 503 -21 -009 & 012) did not receive the NOTICE OF HEARING to be held on March 27, 1996. .NAME (Print & Sign) ADDRESS a a��, 13g 1St cc WV W" v ; 2 ( w Y3 �Az� L , Ay�vdz �� $32 .�A✓�W �?Td l��t_ %V`V► 4 i � o ,A r\ _n 5 Yq CIO `� 7'a U1 j . 6 e,A,o� 7 PHONE V-6 3 7 C/ SO-o4745r Y/l ?- /3S0 zVi -s-eo C? Submitted b Maxwell W. Rasmussen:, 20650 Woodward Court, 867 -2495 Copies: _...._. ... _. City Manager, Mr. Peacock Mayor, 'Mr. Jacobs to r� A. Nehawandian, MD. 13773 Prune Blossom Drive Saratoga, California 95070 June 10, 1996 Mr. Paul Jacobs Mayor 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mr. Jacobs, �TW My wife and I reside at 13773 Prune Blossom Drive in the City of Saratoga. We take care of our grandchildren on a daily basis. One of the reasons we purchased our home was the fact that a cul -de -sac existed that would bring about safety for our grandchildren. I'm writing this letter to ask that our cul -de -sac not be removed. The removal will bring about unnecessary traffic through our segment of Prune Blossom into Verde Vista. I am aware that I am not alone in strongly opposing such a proposal, for the entire neighborhood feels the same. Please give great consideration to our point of view prior to making a decision regarding the status of our cul -de -sac. It is our neighborhood which would have to live with the consequences of your decision. Sincerely, A. Nehawandian, MD. Navico Incorporated Construction and Development 2542 South Bascom Avenue, Suite 201 Campbell, CA 95008 Ann Marie Burger Paul E. Jacobs Gillian Moran Karen Tucker Donald L. Wolfe C/O City of Saratoga City Council Members 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 June 3, 1996 i CIIL D JUN 4 1996 CITY OF : ARATOGA C TY MAi` AGER'S OFFICE Re: Reschedule Application for Appeal of Denial (SD95 -010) Dear Council Members and Staff: The aforementioned matter has been set for the City Council meeting of June 5, 1996. We would respectfully request a continuance of this matter until the next available City Council meeting. Sincerely, Backer Navid ` President Navico Inc. SARA TOGA LEGENDS SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT REPORT TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP APPROVAL APPROXIMATELY 6.94 ACRES OF RAW LAND 15041 SARATOGA - SUNNYVALE ROAD 15072 SARATOGA - SUNNYVALE ROAD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE "SPAICH PROPERTY ") TABLE OF CONTENTS Exhibit A -1 ......................Letter of Appeal Executive Summary Exhibit B -1 ......................Location Map (Street Map) Exhibit B -2 ......................Location Map (Metro Scan Parcel Maps) Exhibit B -3 .. ....................Preliminary Grading- Drainage Plan Map Exhibit B -4 .. ....................Preliminary Subdivision Tentative Map Exhibit C -1 .. ....................Subdivision Improvements Schematics (Seaton Avenue) Exhibit C -2 .. ....................Subdivision Improvements Schematics (Lynde Avenue) Exhibit C -3 .. ....................Subdivision Improvements Schematics (Prune Blossom) Exhibit D -1 .. ....................Subdivision Tree Preservation Map Navico Incorporated Construction and Development 2542 S. Bascom Avenue, Suite 201 Campbell, CA 95008 (408)559 -2020 1 May 24, 1996 Ann Marie Burger Paul E. Jacobs Gillian Moran Karen Tucker Donald L. Wolfe C/O City Of Saratoga City Council Members 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Request for Tentative Subdivision Map Approval Dear Council Members: We have prepared this report to address the issues related to the residential development of the 6.94 acre parcel located at Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road in Saratoga, California. The subject parcel is located within an R1- 12,500 zoning district allowing for the possible creation of up to twenty -four parcels. Realistically, and with the interest of adding to the community that we have been a part of since becoming a resident of this beautiful city over twenty years ago, we decided to develop a residential project that added beauty to our community. We prepared a low density subdivision proposal in which we requested the approval of only fifteen parcels. The lower density proposal allows for each of the parcels to be in excess of the required RI- 12,500 zoning district requirements and actually range in size from 15,500 to 21,600 square feet. Over the past eleven months we have reviewed several different subdivision designs. The research has allowed us to identify advantages that we have incorporated into this subdivision proposal.Throughout the process we have been working with the guidance and advise of the Saratoga Planning Department's, Mr. Paul Curtis and Mr. James Walgren refining the details of this subdivision proposal. In the course of working with the City of Saratoga we were contacted by and developed meetings with the local neighborhood homeowners representatives, the School Board's Cindy Ruby, the District Superintendent Mary Gardener Phd., Public Safety Commission and the Fire District Officials, all of whom have affirmed their strong support for this proposal. We respectfully deliver this Request for Tentative Subdivision Map approval to subdivide the subject parcel into fifteen (15) single family detached parcels.The subdivision decision making criteria has been based on public safety and the compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. With the incorporation of the needs of the community into this proposal we have been given the opportunity to develop a subdivision of homes that generates pride in our community. 1 With the additional support and expertise of the Saratoga based firm of Westfall Engineering, The Architectural Firm of Bijan and Associates, Saratoga Public and Fire Safety Officials, Saratoga School Superintendent - Mary Gardner, Adjacent Homeowner Group Representatives, Individual ' Homeowners and Local Business Leaders we do believe that this proposal generates the optimum benefit to our community. History: 1.) First Planning Commission Meeting on March 27,1996 - Planning commission advises applicant to meet with local residents, homeowner association representatives and school officials to review all of the alternatives and report the findings to the Planning Commission at the April 10, 1996 Special Study Session. ' 2.) Prior to the Special Study Session from March 28, 1996 to April 10, 1996 - Meetings were scheduled with School District Superintendent -Dr. Mary Gardener, Neighborhood Homeowners Association Representatives, Fire and Public Safety Officials and Saratoga Planning Department's Paul Curtis and James Walgren. Throughout the process the initial proposal continued to generate unanimous ' support from the community and associated official representatives. 3.) Special Study Session Meeting on April 10, 1996 - The Planning Commission Officials, applicant, ' neighbors, homeowners association leaders and the school district superintendent meet to review the alternatives that have been generated in response to the Planning Commission's March 27, 1996 request. Five different subdivision plans are reviewed addressing issues such as public safety, traffic t patterns, tree preservation, student /pedestrian access, neighborhood compatibility and impact. A chart showing the positive and negative effects of each subdivision proposal is presented and provides further evidence as to the benefits and unanimous support of the initial subdivision design. In addition, the applicant provided a City of Saratoga Zoning Map highlighted to address the ' Planning Commissions March 27,1996 concerns regarding enclave subdivisions. The applicant demonstrated examples of more than forty separate enclave subdivisions within Saratoga. 4). Following Special Study Session on April 10, 1996 - After reviewing all of the subdivision material at the Special Study Session with the attendance of the officials, neighbors, district superintendent, James Walgren and Paul Curtis and the applicant all appeared to be in agreement that the initial proposal does provide the greatest benefit to the community and the surrounding neighborhood. In ' specific the strong support was generated from the realization of public safety, the compatibility with the existing neighborhood and the ability to allow the already established neighborhoods and the existing traffic patterns to remain undisturbed. In summary, as residents of this city for over twenty years we cherish the opportunity to develop a subdivision of fine homes that generates a sense of pride throughout the entire community. We ask that you review this proposal and provide insight and special attention to the specific details that have been generated from approximately eleven months of meetings with community residents, the school district and city planning and design review professionals. With Best Regards, ' Backer Navid President Navico Inc. ' The following list of parameters have been adopted to develop a design criteria that could then be used as a model in determining the optimum subdivision design for the subject parcel: A. Site Access 1. Public Safety 2. Associated Traffic Patterns 3. Student Safety and Pedestrian Access 4. Intersection and Traffic Conditions 5. Homeowners Association Concerns 6. School Board and District Superintendent Concerns ' B. Subdivision Impact 1. Single and Two Story Locations in Relationship to Existing Homes 2. Single and Two Story Impact Relating to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road ' 3. Potential Benefits to the Saratoga Community and Neighborhood 4. Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration Report Completed ' C. Preservation of Existing Large Trees 1. Location and Preservation of the Existing Silk, Elm and Oak Trees 2. Preservation and Care for the Martin's Property Oak Tree 3. Incorporation of the Existing Trees in the Scope of the Subdivision ' D. Neighborhood Impact and Conditions 1. City of Saratoga Staff and Planning Department ' 2. Saratoga Community Residents 3. Saratoga School Board a. Pedestrian Student Access to Crosswalk at Seaton Ave. b. Field of Vision Concerns During School Hours ' c. Pedestrian Walkway Width and Visibility Requirements 4. Fire Safety Officials Approval 5. Neighborhood Homeowners Associations t 6. Individual Neighborhood Concerns a. Martin's Oak Tree b. Smith's Drainage Problem ' c. Perimeter Fencing Issues d. Site Grade and Height Conditions e. Landscape of Seaton, Prune Blossom and Lynde Avenues f. Pedestrian Walkway and Landscaping on Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. g. Bus Stop Bench Installation at Saratoga Sunnyvale Road h. Mayeur sidewalk addition to access Seaton Ave. crosswalk E. Potential Benefits to the Community from the Proposal a. Lower Density Proposal b. Safety Through Design for Student and Pedestrian Traffic c. Landscape and Lighting District Adopted to Maintain Vegetation d. Installation of Student Sidewalk at Seaton Avenue Crosswalk e. Completion of Controlled Intersection Traffic Safety Light f. Completion of Seaton Avenue and Foothill School Access ' g. Completion of Lynde and Prune Blossom Landscaping h. Preservation of Existing Heritage Oaks, Elm and Silk Trees i. Visually Beautiful Design with Neighborhood Acceptance 1 j. Preserves existing, established neighborhoods and traffic patterns ' Ann Marie Burger Paul E. Jacobs Gillian Moran ' Karen Tucker Donald L. Wolfe C/O City of Saratoga City Council Members and Staff 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 June 1, 1996 Re: Request for List of Accepted Development Conditions Dear Council Members: On behalf of the applicant, I thank you for taking the time to review the details of this proposal. In reference to this proposal I have been asked to provide a list of conditions that have been previously agreed to by the applicant. Our goal was to provide a list of conditions that are specific to this site, the surrounding neighborhood conditions and the unique conditions that the elementary school and park ' present. Of course, additional issues that are standard in nature are expected to be included within this list of conditions for any tentative map approval. The following list of conditions has been approved by the applicant after review and in coordination with the Saratoga School Board, Fire District Officials, Planning Departments Representatives, local residents and homeowners association representatives. Only single story residences shall be proposed for Lots 1,8,9,10,11,12,13 and 15. 2. Catch drain basin system to be integrated into design improvements. Allowing the building pad elevations to remain compatible with the surrounding homesites. (specific improvements for existing drainage problem for Smith residence at Prune Blossom) 3. Landscaping installed at the ends of Prune Blossom Drive, Lynde Avenue and Seaton Avenue (see designs) 4. Landscape and Lighting District to be included with this proposal for the areas of Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, Seaton Avenue, Lynde Avenue and Prune Blossom Drive. 5. Temporary fencing at drip line to protect existing trees (Martin property, site at Tamworth) 6. Replace subdivision perimeter good neighbor redwood fencing. 7. Installation of bus stop bench at Sunnyvale- Saratoga Road. 8. The applicant would agree to retain the services of a traffic controller for safety purposes, if necessary, during certain times of the construction process. (Concern of Marcia Kaplan) Pedestrian walkway (20 -25 ft easement) from the site to Foothill School and Seaton Avenue sidewalk. 10. Finish sidewalks from site to existing sidewalk for safe access to and from Foothill Elementary at a cross walk. Foothill Elementary instructs their students to cross at the cross walk. It is imperative from that point that they and the children and neighbors have a finished sidewalk for safe ingress and egress to and from the proposed site (North corner Seaton and Tamworth up to site pedestrian walkway). 11. Finish sidewalk curb and gutter at Seaton Avenue to Foothill School (Southwest corner at the park). Access has been a problem and student safety can be improved with the completion of this corner. 12. Preservation of the large Ash, Heritage Oak, Silk and Gum Trees. Intent to feature these trees as a part of the heritage of this subdivision. 13. Cut the back corner of Lot #6 to increase the field of vision for Foothill School parents as they drop off or pick -up their children from Foothill School parking lot. This was a concern of the School District and this proposal would reduce the risk of injury to any of the children or vehicles on site. 14. Notify School Officials of construction schedules. 15. Agreement with Mayeur family to remove existing juniper trees (Seaton Avenue at site border) and replace with proposed sidewalk improvement to cross -walk with landscape finish. In conclusion if there is any additional information that either myself or the applicant can provide for your review, please, do not hesitate to contact me directly. Of course, if there are any conditions that should be included within this subdivision proposal the applicant would be pleased to comply. With Respect, , Raym d J. Nasmeh On B alf of Navico Inc. EXHIBIT A LOCATION MAP O' ��1tR RJVICH F MOOR ►- lsvT1 � I T ' 1 / A_ - n carre De cm 1 �• rt�L4 � c ' s�Ux �" to ;q IL- '�'t .. �e7 lu I 950 i T UT • ./ O G Q� R AT 0 %� a a Iwo" leg, Lx uZ OQ r• .... �' : G i ��R08YLSTA 1 `0 a * OR c AFOU F4 Ulf • r� O 1 TRRR T r AV ZA'R...1.! Wy `11- Ila VAT SULUI, 4c Ire Tm-4 Lit ° ♦�:� Arr - � �,,.. �.. ..�...... T. _ rAWrQ"Xw TRAGT H= 5328 -- -YER BE-- VIST*- c --tANE-----.l1- -2--1 —4 eur s 2! �-•r rrwr ma s 503 21 208 °C ,Q23 � �3 ♦ � /9 nc�s enso m b ne �- �TS.4Lxr'T .1�� I 08K - se 4 i za $ A R A T 0 6 A tjwIO ON ut- SCHOOL Sj DISTRICT OF S.:. :OUWTY 11 11-17 AC. - x J ft I� a 2 inks;. KERRIMA?4- -AYE -- r- isscsoe BK. i 397 LU `. J sue. 52 Z Z Q t9 P` -27C}' 1 orwct s manT w1819R - SOM aM CMWY CisOrol — VERDE - - VISTA - -r LADE 1 t 1 I md -1 1 jE X Z. 1. s o I 1 1 ' � a>�� ice --- r-- �-- T---------- -i-- -w — � -a. i 31 35 3L 2f 3D 31 3Z 8i Q .� - ., � d L ,v r2 { Z = ,� Z s 1= 1� 1 ? \ — 1 v m as .a m wr .ors rius ism wOOD w w 3 taoxr rte ---q a .. ,■ ,■,.d �. zr ,■ ,■� t - - - - -- lra•1 1 I w d AL n i iS 1 1L z3 t z= ¢ rf T la 3 �• Z W T � i —1f —� R f>7 - - -��- R 1 16 { rT 1 m ' zl 4 °' 2-d t =1 { 4 1 1 { ryw immo AMUE R° . -��. �� 'b � •: t gay � 5 l SEATON s.+ �„ rr■i 1 .■ 1 8 T i t ^� 1D 1 sta ■ t■r se o.c IKn�yi_ N; 1 1 L 7R. 4809 SARA70GA F00iHa-LS O V J�O 503 58 i , ao' t 1 � c.�L�t =oRxta X771 _ .TRACT ;ti° X328 VISTA LANE--t- ' 3z2 ° m { m3 /8 3217 s 0 4 /T f ��O ��y e Q CI°y w-��20 t 20 O oC G �9 .,� 0 2013 1 2 Z 3 Ae taet» ! o3a.so 120 '—' 64793 9L — i=o a ?6 Ac N E71 .. t P"r 503 21 BK 393 � fir• ��s�as Y- ZD30;s SK. f° 397 ��a ..� •• • •y,••n — saxrA CLXU COMW r�tnoes�t — J 52 SCALE _ 337 -- —SAW06A- SumNYVALE 20 ar�AP�xx ROAD —�'.. lk- Ran cr � �. 1 -__ .-- i a Q 1 1, \ , ^� 22 2r m n t t C d ills 1 e f Pl ` ' / tai E !X ' �v1M 1 LYND� AV F- \ strt� 1 1 1 1 1 ?f ► i i m 1 27 1 g -2ag 1 _ ; .,, - -�� LYNDE AVF— r U I' , '1,y II - �taaonvpe t oev I1.. O z I : •. - `� '• • J - -, 'r 1 __ .__��'- _� ,� 'I a O is I , •nn- _5&7_95' .w.r �. .,+.vnr EJ' ♦ ,.o• {M ;Lyp,71 � T is T •. ',u: ,•.� =� .�+. ..:_�_ —. �d��- -� ' —__ _ __ - -. —___ I ca -1: ," ,1 11 =: �`9d .•T6 I I \ .. 3d .i •� ..,I ''— .vac_.» - ��la�. \ ....� I jJ � �• '.ld✓°6j .,,, :� , / / -�q I ''IO .'i'.: � II • Te •e •e •o •e •e F. I `.� � ,v.v, � � ,rr __ -._:.� I i I ,��,,�. CGO« \ SC' \ 1 0 /y /� ' /.j✓ ` I I 9r, I T II \ •v,r � �•vw.r.^�- I x So ��'�( /1 -' "— �F ••• �.'' IIII ` J A r. J �•. a sir 4 i L`- is ui AAf. is to is I RC'ti{Y I I t .°"t'ut^ I I y' �I :I AS„ J ASV 7 ` `° /. T , I / sue: �' I ti r At*, I I �' „$;Y7SF % / �dtJ_ 1.... ,�.• h II II Z it IVt ... I .v. �•' •• _}.• r �� ti�'-fs 3 ~ s -Y d .tick }' .."., ••r i, \ ,\ \,f iL - - - i ' 1 - _,�-ri� ^ --- HER I h ---- - ----� a .., ` —s RIMAN AVE c -- r- -- - --- --- ;J - :y', "�. i•`.` 'b I \ 1 \: � ',._'��• 5: 1 -'�- �.�.� •: � - I NUE ° -..�c. SEdTON AVENUE •�\ •.. t ,. i . I• I •��. •C7. � �______________ _�a__•� r,J I ;.\„ \ / )'� � _ _ :- - `;' .. ,lac I ` ,F&w,v end • sftr/ nAUhtyT/xw cu 6, ewv/i Till 9 .{% S.F / J; ,. r' , w,rr , ,• I I _ -."*'_ �— r.. O/As,,yig7,p•b,z,eO/Ya -L I)il/ dSI A v.v,r , . • •v, .,+..r, ' - �" 1. ''b -: ,..c+N:l �. I� «. r., n� .• {IS : F . t ��) 8 I '� \\ / � \1 � �•� I I ; / L •F� �___- ' -- I I J: ..,vrt�?, � I 1. hl -- (_'_I I _ b I�b I ••' � 1 : .. .. ' •.� I ,6. /..vw,rr .. ,+wvr ,`� � .� � ,,v.v,��'� _ iy, l � •.�.:T' �� J' M1�I I �' ' s..: ; I 1 ^•* .L � ,T..,,, ..-r� , -1,,._ t.,r 3laA _ ,,, •6, 9. !� .�•,��. 2 = >b �•'� -efl:.... O"°� �•1,.,. q �.:. , i �`\ � �. ':1 I ° -, I •`�.3dtSf y O I vnimaq� `, ;;` � , � ♦ �{ `1 I / 3o SF IN L _ ° 7�, * I I . • o. JCO S. I - -. c_ I I LEGEND: \� :�� •' r 3!•1Y7� �,I_, .,rte 1., j� i -t PROPERTY LINE _ , .. �` 4_ 1 L - -- �.4.«.` f ( , /•,N /, % �� ,IY.1I /r r. ,.T,VIIT�,AJ!,: _: T,w � � —r` ._ '' % \� _ -�l 'l -'__° -'_ _ _ � -'- �•• �� 1 BUILDING SETBACK LINE Ir CURB AND GUTTER \� �° ,.�° ` SWALE b t .e. JS' a s n7, 1� 1=- - -j-a7 —f- � - - v Bo• A r'tJ�. A.C. PAVEMENT ° - - - -- ` . I° uo L ,; /',O- v r- r. ;,.\ 2 •�. F. 1 PAVERS c� 1 1 ; �oeo/ n C 2 W 11 _.• f,_ q.Rc� I NO. BY DATE C ,y^ REVISION BY DATE DATE: /„ +6 PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN ' °B " °• aJ072 ' 2- - °^ "' SCALE, ND "• ' •'° GIESTFALL ENGINEERS . I N,C . t . vERr. -CV DESIGNED. x OTT C, CYr6A1. LANDS OF NAVICO INC. SNEE 14583 816 BASIN YAT. SARATOGA. CA 93070 1.081857 -OZ•• / DRAYN. DATE. R.C.E. J133• ov01 JNGR 1,0 tu z 0 J,-'e Sky - I '1 5 Q) !""ie it it y 0 •) -j 4F Id, e 41 j;, c 2- c"U3 -.127.PA& r Aw .—TYPICAL SECTION sq., SA ATOQA—SUNNYVALE ROAD, L 7 a' "o ao 2a -'0 fo 6,0 % NOTFZ • s Naviev Inc. Z51c, 23.2 South [Law= Avenue. 1201 W- caphdi. Ca. 95008 Tel. 559-2020 Fax 559-2022. Engineer: Well fall r.ginceri. Inc. 11 if 14583 Big n.,i. Way II Sam".. Ca. 93070 d Tel. 867-02" ro W Fax 967-6261 erwn > -ximing use of the pnwrty - residential / agricultuml. Prormd me of (he pn4wny - residential. or; X "I—r %t Eiumg rnni.g - R 1 12.500. X, d, wate, swroy - San Jm Wale, Co. m 0 Ift, , Sanit2tT West Valley Sanitation District (existint r— faciliti within fnonlage ofSamtoga-Sunnyvalc Road). "Drainage f.c.isting City fkiliti- Air F ul. No area -ithi. sitwi,isi— U are bjw to inundation, -j -C G� and Electric - Pacific CW mW bectric Co. > Telephone - pacer. Bell .............. ........... @- - - ------- ... > Z 11 Cable T. V. -sash Bay Cableviiiion At'r z `ems n b; - II 11 --- ----- -- 1111 1 0 0 -J it ------- e qm �=e --- Z'67. HERRIMAN AVENUE jN AVENUE --------------- — W---- r.." A ell 71 X H. ~ I. a\ \s -,. -s °��.XF '+ qtr-- I ++.v» CS. ry ,. 11 i9E •♦ J v-t. in ----------- t%_ tAB' Sis' O►� S�b►ln' - j I \ \ . m'w \� /SQ �S J f . ,]►w_ rrr, r , Oul � ° . ,w e'�L + + r rr r mad y \ . • r . ea+y wr » r ✓\ ., rw - •'" � ..........0 f' F i 'b4e : 444 : 'w 4 w 444 ;:;;..0 .............. '16 i7' ..... . ..... TYPICAL SECTION CUL—DE— SAO �7" fl, J.j xv b r /01 161 540 j .• etrh d or e?.; i7tA B% ey us D VICINITY MAP .e,i -9 0 z TYPICAL SECTION z ILI ENTRY DRIVE > r JOB NO. NO. BY JDATE I REVISION BY DATE DATE: TENTATIVE MAP OS0712 Z-V-fl WrAw. galk!m c SCALE NOR. JO' 77 14%f,*rp,4vq Z"Y, A16u-i—v„ w4wor PERT. WESTFALL ENGINEERS,INC. SHEET DESIGNED. X 'Y' KARELCCTmBA WAY. SARAtOGA. CA 95070 1408366 -0244 LANDS OF NAVICO INC. OF DRAVN, 'DATE. R. E. 3L.534 145113 Big BASIN 7 PROJ.ENCR, -1c I - Al cow- aw .............. ----------------- FA q, II OTP Cu F- E� EATON AVE. pIzopa�er� e Pfmoif txw6, FLAWT Mg't- rl", "r New FVqWILma4 A CL eXleVT�- Or- CdF� 4AftfLA-t- I tx t-qT 0yv vx 1,5rzo-, - 6-a m c • Y-F Ive NAT A,Ff ?-oAc4 ` ~ APR 08 '96 15:07 MHYlCV^ INC. 04/08/1996 14,36 1-213-6596499 8 W. ..��" FAGE 6-1 / / �| '| ~- .'.-' ~� . ' ^ `/r LY N P C7 AV � - I p (:�>) a _ t 6 1. p �Uf'•��1� I3� O CSC r U: hTF-ftf cv E 1 n s i , 1 � _ 7 7 r cx I�YG NC7W WOC. G Up-f5 +te,-U.. r_2RUNr r,2 I.Os�e2�OM Pp-Ivy P W-IF�A 6� I H I. WOOP Mar, w rRUNE: pLaoom. , rpUfV(2rP (4) ■ Ina I a % r uA 0 own lz----------- .$EATON AVENUE --------------- T J" I LFGF—'4D- PROPERTY LANE BUILDING SMACK LINE CURB AND GUTTER SWALZ A.C. PAVEMENT PAVERS 02 fl fd7- 25 �T- -'71 —77 rl XX KAI- r o Q, L t IN KJ, v. 7" X u zl-- ACIP _ ' I � �, j> . - -� � ;� /4Y � ��.•; !��.... • :3,-%, ^sue. r � - - ai "_ j1 �� '' Z j T- tj 1% it �� 1 - 2 1 _ ---------- 4 iv -7, 7=7, rl —I t z-, z 1. 7 IT I GAIL 3A(E, WESTFALL ENGINEERS INC. TREE PRESERVATION TNIAP 21SICK0. -c IT, KA•CL cTrOAL -w4. I ORAWN. Date. A-r-a. 3e9s 1"" 614 WIN SAT. SARAMU. CA "WO 0=1 LANDS OF NAVICO INC. Ills m HERMAN AVENUE 'La -3. Wso rz SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2�I `� AGENDA ITEM: 6D MEETING DATE: June 12, 1996 1 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Commuyaty Development CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: 1we SUBJECT: SD 95 -010; NAVICO INC., 15041 & 15072 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. Applicants are appealing the Planning Commission's denial of their Tentative Subdivision Map request to subdivide two parcels of land totalling 6.94 acres into fifteen single - family lots. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision and deny the appeal without prejudice. The applicants could then file a new map incorporating a modified internal circulation plan for further Planning Commission review. Project Description: Request for Tentative Subdivision Map approval to subdivide two parcels of land into fifteen single- family lots. The existing residence, pool, tennis court, accessory structures and remnant orchard would be removed and a new cul -de -sac would access the development off Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. opposite Herriman Ave. No vehicular access is proposed through the adjoining neighborhoods. The proposed lots range in size from 15,000 to 20,900 sq. ft. and would permit 4,000 to 4,500 sq. ft. homes (including garages). The property is located in an R -1- 12,500 zoning district. Background: The Planning Commission first heard this proposal at the March 27, 1996 public hearing. Upon finding that the map met basic General Plan and Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements with regard to the type and density of development, the Commission focused their discussion on the issues outlined in the succeeding pages. SD 95 -010; NAVICO INC. Page Two • Circulation Plan The cul -de -sac plan submitted meets minimum City requirements and eliminates any potential of increased traffic through the adjoining neighborhoods. However, this type of plan does isolate the development from the existing homes. Extensions of the dead -end streets with cul -de -sacs would allow them to be finished with turnarounds and would also tie the new homes in with the existing neighborhoods. While noting these alternatives, staff did recommend approval of the plan in this particular case given the unique location of the property - directly opposite a signalized intersection and adjacent to Foothill Elementary School with its inherent morning and afternoon traffic. • Pedestrian Connection At staff's request, the applicant had included a pedestrian walkway connection between the new court and Seaton Ave. to allow a more direct pedestrian route to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. Staff felt the plan as submitted resulted in a corridor that was too long and narrow - prohibiting a clear view from one end to the other. The applicant has since resubmitted an improved plan that staff feels is adequate. • Building Height and Story Restrictions The existing homes to the north and west are almost entirely single story structures. With the exception of a row of two - story homes along Lynde Ave., the. homes to the south are predominantly single story also. Staff recommended that initial home construction be limited to a mix of one and two -story structures. • Perimeter Landscaping and Wall Design At staff's request, the applicant has also prepared a perime- ter landscaping and wall plan for the area along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. The original plan included an undulating 7 ft. tall brick wall incorporating an arched entry element. Staff encouraged the applicant to pursue a more residential type of plan and used the new Heritage Oaks five -lot subdivision on Saratoga Ave. as an example. SD 95 -010; NAVICO INC. Page Three • Bus Stop Shelter The applicant has incorporated a bus stop along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. as requested by the Transportation Agency. The Agency's policy is that they only provide shelters along their major routes, and then only a specific type of shelter that allows for advertising space. Staff recommended that the developer be required to design and construct a simple wood post and roof shelter with seating. Once the subdivision was accepted, the City would be responsible for the maintenance of the shelter. At the hearing, the Commission concurred with the recommendations in the staff report with the exception of the circulation plan. Some of the Commissioners felt that a better design would be to incorporate the project into existing neighborhoods by extending one or more of the dead -end streets with cul -de -sacs terminating into the project site. The item was continued to the April 24th public hearing and the applicants were encouraged to meet with neighbors and present alternative plans at the April 10th Commission Work Session. At the April 10th Work Session, the applicants presented several design alternatives to the preferred plan. An evaluation of the pros and cons were presented for each alternative. Several neighbors spoke in favor of the original submittal. At the April 24th hearing the majority of the Planning Commission still felt that the single access off Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. would create an "enclave" type of development that would be isolated from the adjoining neighborhoods. Since the applicants were unwilling to proceed-with any of the alternative circulation plans, a motion was made and passed 4 -3 (Commissioners Asfour, Kaplan, Patrick, Pierce FOR and Abshire, Murakami, Siegfried OPPOSED) to deny the subdivision request. Environmental Determination: An environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared and noticed for this project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: A notice of this item was mailed to property owners within a 500 ft. radius of the subject property and published in the Saratoga News. SD 95 -010; NAVICO INC. Page Four Consequences of Not Actin The Planning Commission Tentative Subdivision Map Follow -up Action: An appropriate Resolution agenda reflecting Council Attachments: on the Recommended Motions: denial would be overturned and the would be approved. will be placed on the next City Council action on this appeal. 1. Planning Commission Denial Resolution SD 95 -010 2. Planning Commission minutes dated March 27 & April 24, 1996 3. Neighborhood Correspondence 4. Staff Report dated March 27, 1996 5. Appellants' Report /Correspondence 6. Tentative Subdivision Map, Exhibit "A" james \exesumn \navico RESOLUTION NO. SD -95 -010 RESOLUTION OF THE SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP OF Navico Inc. /Byron Navid, 15041 & 15072 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. WHEREAS, application has been mad under the Subdivision Map Act of the Stat the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Subdivision Map approval to subdivide two individual lots, all as more particularly 95 -010 of this City; and to the Advisory Agency of California and under Saratoga, for Tentative parcels of record into 15 set forth in File No. SD- WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted noticed public hearings on March 27, April 10 & April 24, 1996 at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is not consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is incompatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan; and WHEREAS, upon closing the public hearing at the April 24 meeting, the Planning Commission deliberated and a majority of the Commission moved to deny the request. The motion passed 4 -3 (Commissioners Asfour, Kaplan, Patrick, Pierce FOR and Abshire, Murakami, Siegfried OPPOSED) to direct staff to prepare a Denial Resolution for adoption at the May 8, 1996 meeting based upon the following findings: • The proposed subdivision would access all 15 new lots directly onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. via a primary cul -de -sac terminating with three courts. This configuration would cause this new development to be physically and visually separated from the adjoining established neighborhoods. The majority of the Planning Commission felt that this was a poor land use configuration and that the development should be integrated as part of the existing neighborhoods. • The lack of a vehicular connection through the proposed subdivision to Verde Vista Ln. (via Prune Blossom Dr.) failed to take advantage of an opportunity to improve ingress and egress onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. from Verde Vista Ln. A through connection would enable traffic to access Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. at the signalized intersection at Herriman Dr. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: File No. SD -95 -010; Navico Inc./ Byron Navid Section 1. After careful consideration of the Tentative Subdivision Map for the proposed subdivision, which map is dated April 18, 1996 and is marked Exhibit "A" in the hereinabove referred file and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Navico Inc. /Byron Navid for Tentative Parcel Map approval be and the same is hereby denied. Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 8th day of May 1996 by the following vote: AYES: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami, Pierce & Siegfried NOES: None ABSENT: Patrick "Chairperson, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secr tary, Plan ing Commission Planning Commission Minutes dated March 27 & April 24, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 5 - COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. LL -95 -002 CONTINGENT UPON CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSENT. 5. SD -95 -010 - NAVICO INC./BYRON NAVID; 15041 & 15072 SARATOGA- SUNNYVALERD.;Request for Tentative Subdivision Map approval to subdivide two parcels of land totalling 6.94 acres into 15 single - family lots. The existing residence, pool, tennis court and accessory structures would be removed and a new cul -de -sac would access the development off Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. opposite Herriman Ave. - there is no vehicular access proposed through the adjoining neighborhoods. The proposed lots range in size from 15,000 to 21,600 sq. ft. and would permit 4,000 to 4,500 sq. ft. homes (including garages). The property is located in an R -1- 12,500 zoning district. An environmental initial study and subsequent Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that it could not take formal action on the application this evening as the project requires an extended review period to satisfy the requirements of CEQA. This application has been scheduled to allow the Commission to review the comments as outlined in the staff report, take public testimony and requested that the Commission include any additional comments that it may have. The comments received this evening would be addressed at the next available meeting. He identified the following issues: 1) The circulation plan tends to isolate the 15 new homes from the existing neighborhood. 2) It is recommended that the pedestrian connection be either .widened or shortened or both without affecting either of the adjoining lots in order to avoid a long, narrow tunnel affect. 3) It is recommended that construction be limited to single story homes of not more than 22 feet in height. 4) The perimeter landscaping has been found to be suitable for this portion of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road with the recommendation that the applicant provide a more residential wall plan similar to the Saratoga Oaks subdivision on Saratoga Avenue (the use of redwood and used brick columns versus a solid brick wall). 5) Staff also recommends that the developer be required to build a simple post and roof type of bus stop shelter to be maintained by the City in the future. He indicated that the wall plans submitted to the Commission this evening were submitted early this week as an amendment to the original . wall plan. He informed the Commission that the original wall plan was proposed to be solid brick which included an arched- entryway over the new court. The new wall plan proposes to use an alternating brick and stucco design, eliminating the arched entryway. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she read the letter from the superintendent of the elementary school. She asked if there was a conflict between the hazardous substance report that came from the County and that of the soil sample? Planner Walgren responded that a conflict did not exist, noting that the County Environmental Health Department was PLANNING COMMISSIUN MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 6 - referring to things such as abandoned vehicles and fuel in storage containers (above ground contaminants) that are routinely required to be cleaned up as a condition of project approval. The soils sampling analysis talks about the testing of soils for contamination. One report addresses surface evaluation and the other studies soil seepage. Commissioner Kaplan felt that the traffic report seemed low to her. She felt that the calculations presented made assumptions and that the traffic count would be dependent upon the number of middle school aged children who would reside in the development. She had questions regarding density and circulation. She felt that the project should form a relationship with that of the community and that it could be modeled after the Kerwin Ranch subdivision. She inquired if the environmental traffic analysis would change if the circulation configuration was modified. Planner Walgren responded that he did not believe that from an environmental impact stand point that modification to the circulation plan would change the conclusions made. The environmental review would consider the level of service of the local road and that of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. If the circulation plan was amended, it would add additional traffic to the neighborhood. Commissioner Asfour expressed concern with the number of dead end streets proposed and felt that the area should be opened. He asked if there would be any impacts if the roads were opened. Planner Walgren responded that an alternative plan would not generate an increase in traffic, but that it would be a different project than what was before the Commission. He felt that the only proposal that would cause a great alteration to traffic movement would be to have Seaton connect all the way through to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. This would be a significant change in circulation and traffic in the neighborhood. Chairman Murakami asked if it would be possible to address pre and post Route 85 affects on circulation to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road? Planner Walgren responded that the traffic analysis was taken on post -85 counts and that they were taken at the time that Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road was upgraded from a Level of Service (LOS) C to B and than to A at this particular intersection. The pre -85 counts would have reflected an LOS C which is an acceptable level of service. The conclusion of the report was that the 15 lot subdivision would not affect the existing LOS A. Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing at 8:13 p.m. Bijon Armandour, project architect, addressed two issues of concerns: 1) access from Saratoga /Sunnyvale Road versus the use of the existing residential collector streets. He indicated that the main reason that access from Saratoga /Sunnyvale Road was used was due to the fact that there would not be an increase in traffic counts nor impacts to the neighborhood. If access is to be from the existing neighborhood, it was his belief that there would be an increase in traffic count to the neighborhood. He disagreed with staff's opinion that the proposed circulation pattern would isolate the project from the rest of the neighborhood. 2) Regarding the design of the wall, it is proposed to break up the wall and that earth tone colors would be used. He requested that the Commission approve the wall concept as presented. He noted that the project proposes a density less than the maximum PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE 7 - allowed for this area. Commissioner Abshire asked if the proposed wall along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road would vary 18 -20 feet from the curb with perimeter landscaping being installed within this area. He asked what type of fencing would be proposed on the other two sides of the development? Mr. Armandour concurred that the wall along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road would be between 18 -20 feet from the curb with perimeter landscaping being installed. He indicated that a masonry sound wall is proposed as a barrier to mitigate noise where a wood fence would not provide that sound mitigation. He noted that a masonry wall was an effective sound wall and would be easier to maintain. Commissioner Patrick inquired if a landscape maintenance district would be responsible for the maintenance of the wall? Mr. Armandour clarified that the side walls belonged to three property owners and that the landscaping would be maintained by a landscape and lighting district. Planner Walgren indicated that the wall and landscaping within the right -of -way area located along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road would be maintained - by a lighting and landscaping maintenance district and that the landscaping for the pedestrian and side yard private fences would be maintained by the three property owners if that was the preference of the developer and acceptable to the City. Commissioner Asfour asked staff who would be responsible for maintaining the landscaping once the state turns over Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road to the City? Planner Walgren responded that the City would be responsible for maintaining the landscaping which are not maintained by a lighting and landscape maintenance district. Commissioner Pierce asked if the proposed sound wall was to be a solid wall (was the brick and masonry wall to be connected or was there to be a gap)? Mr. Armandour clarified that there is to be an eight inch gap between the brick and the masonry wall. Commissioner Pierce stated that he was concerned that any gaps in the sound wall would not mitigate noise as sound would travel through the wall, noting that a solid sound wall would provide for better noise attenuation. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the wall details depict lighting and other details that would need to be maintained. Max Rasmussen, 20650 Woodward Court, informed the Commission that he was speaking for the 17 individuals who attended the Sunday March 24 neighborhood meeting. He indicated that the neighbors did not object to the proposed development as long as it met the guidelines of the General Plan and that consideration was given to the existing residential development. The residents were pleased to see that no other road would be opened as through streets, specifically Prune Blossom and Seaton. He read into the record the eight concerns identified by the existing residents as follows: PLANNING COMMISSIuA MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 8 - 1) Only single story houses shall be placed upon lots backing up to exiting homes on the northern and western boundaries of the subdivision. 2) The building pads of those houses which back up to the northern and western boundaries of the subdivision shall be kept at, or near the existing grade level. The intent of this provision is to maintain the height of the homes as low as possible. 3) Adequate drainage catch basins connected to an underground sewer shall be provided along the northern boundary of the subdivision to prevent drainage onto the adjacent properties. 4) The end of Seaton and Prune Blossom streets shall be properly terminated, completed and landscaped. 5) A landscaping and lighting district shall be established to maintain proper appearance and upkeep of the landscaping along the Saratoga /Sunnyvale Road, at the ends of ' Prune Blossom and Seaton Streets, the subdivision walkway to Seaton, and along -the road leading from Seaton to Foothill School. 6) Protection to the root structure of the 300 year old live Oak Tree on the Martin property shall be provided at least out to the tree drip line. 7) The existing retaining wall along the western boundary of the subdivision shall be inspected and repaired or modified as necessary to assure compliance with building codes. 8) Careful consideration shall be given to extending the eastern wall of the subdivision (with consistent landscaping) to Verde Vista to assure aesthetic harmony along Saratoga /Sunnyvale Road. Note that the existing owners of the two homes between the end of the project and Verde Vista have recently installed new fences in this area. Thus they must not be charged for the wall extension. Mr. Rasmussen requested that these items and any other items which the Commission deemed appropriate be placed in writing with NAVICO before commencement of construction. He informed the Commission that the residents do not want to see Lynde Avenue opened up. He informed the Commission that the following individuals were not in attendance at the March 24 meeting but have indicated support of the area residents recommendations: Mr. and Mrs. Ted Smith, Matthew Vandion, and Mr. Blowe. Chairman Murakami thanked Mr. Rasmussen for speaking on behalf of the area residents. Commissioner Pierce requested clarification regarding condition 4 pertaining to PLANNING COMMISSIuA MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 9 - improvements to Seaton and Prune Blossom streets. Mr. Rasmussen clarified that there are no curbs installed. It is being requested that the area be improved, including the installation of landscaping and fencing. Raymond Nesmith informed the Commission that he handled the land transaction. He indicated that he attended a meeting this week with the homeowner association president and that he was pleased to see that the builder was open to every suggestion made by the existing homeowners. Regarding the perimeter fencing, the developer would agree to replace the existing fence with a wood fence. It was suggested by the homeowners association that the cul -de -sac be completed with the installation of a curb with a planting area behind it. Consideration was also given to Mrs. Martin's backyard in relationship to the existing oak tree (tree to be fenced off). He addressed drainage problems being experienced on Prune Blossom and indicated that catch basin would be installed to address the drainage problem. He felt that the proposed development would be of a benefit to the area and to the city. Monte Boisen, 13896 Lynde Avenue, stated his support of the plan. However, he did not support the opening of Lynde Avenue as a through street due to the safety of the children. Cindy Ruby, Saratoga Union School District Board of Trustee, informed the Commission that there are currently 475 students enrolled in the adjacent Foothill School and that the school is slated to grow as soon as students from "Greenbriar" move into their new homes. She indicated that she has not had the opportunity to review the proposed plans and requested the opportunity to review the plans. A concern being that -there would be a blind spot attributed to the installation of walls along Seaton, to the rear of the school property. She requested that safety measures be included so that the safety of the children is ensured during construction. She also requested that a bike /pedestrian access not be required along the school parking lot because of the desire to keep students in a specific area. Commissioner Kaplan asked if a traffic controller could be hired if it was determined that one was needed during construction (safety concern)? Community Development Director Curtis responded that a traffic controller could be hired, if needed. Commissioner Patrick asked where Ms. Ruby would like to see pedestrian traffic flow? Ms. Ruby responded that she did not want to see traffic empty into the entrance of the parking lot and that she would like to discuss this issue with the site administrator for his input (allow school to be part of the process). Jitka Cymbal, project engineer, addressed the alternate layout and access as addressed by the neighbors. She informed the Commission that several lot layout designs were reviewed and that it was concluded that no matter how many units were proposed, it would impact the existing neighborhood. She indicated that none of the streets are proposed to empty directly into collector streets. In two instances, streets would go by the school, bringing additional vehicles into an area where children are walking or being dropped off. Another street would empty into Prune Blossom which goes onto Verde Vista. Verde Vista could be considered as a collector street. However, there is no signal at the intersection with PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES. MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 10 - Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. Based on these reasons, the design team redesigned the plan to reflect single cul -de -sacs. She addressed the pedestrian walkways and indicated that the pedestrian walkway appeared long because of the depth of the lots. She indicated that the front portion would be landscaped. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the Commission was handed a document that depicts a pedestrian walkway and that you would be able to see the front yard setback on the curb of lots 5 and 6 and that the walkway fencing would begin in the back of the front yard setback, creating a tunnel affect. This detail would need to be resolved depending upon the final configuration of the streets. Commissioner Asfour recommended that the Commission provide its comments for the benefit of the applicant and the neighbors. Commissioner Kaplan felt that a study session could have been held to discuss alternatives to the plan and to discuss the alternatives with the applicant and the neighbors before it came before the Commission as a public hearing. Commissioner Patrick listed three areas of concern as follows: 1) she was not pleased with the proposed circulation and its relationship to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road because she sees this area to be a hazard and that she would rather see the circulation utilize one of the feeder streets. 2) She did not like the pedestrian walkway as it appears to be a long narrow pathway. 3) She did not like the proposed sound wall. She indicated that she would prefer to see the use of a wood fence because the use of a brick wall would not be in keeping with the rural character of Saratoga. She did not believe that the way that the wall was configured with the eight inch gap would reduce sound levels. She felt that the project would need to start from scratch. Commissioner Pierce stated that he was concerned with the lot layout. One alternative would be to utilize the existing streets, extending the cul -de -sacs. Commissioner Kaplan informed the public that she and Commissioner Asfour reside in the area. She stated that she was troubled by the strangely shaped lots. She felt that the homes could be built right up to the edges, giving the development a Greenbriar effect (row house effect). She indicated that the Commission was trying to make the end product look attractive. She was not suggesting that there be made a through -way through Lynde. She felt that the Kerwin Ranch subdivision was a model in the community that provides access from local interior streets so that all the traffic does not flow in and out of the subdivision from the same place. She recommended that this item return to the Commission in a study session. Chairman Murakami concurred with the comments expressed by his fellow Commissioners regarding the traffic patterns. He indicated that the neighbors provided him with enough input as far as what is perceived for the future. The configuration, as presented, was visually unusual. He was concerned with traffic patterns along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 11 - whether it could handle additional traffic. Since the opening of Highway 85, it seems that the main thoroughfare is less hectic and could handle the traffic from this development. He agreed that work sessions would need to be conducted to allow the neighbors, the applicant and the Commission to review alternatives. Commissioner Abshire concurred with comments of his fellow Commissioners. Commissioner Asfour thanked Mr. Rasmussen for representing the neighborhood. He indicated that he did not have any objections to the eight conditions as proposed by the neighbors with the exception of condition 4. He stated that he would like to see the developer and the residents get together and develop at least one more connector street. He did not have a problem with opening up Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road to egress /ingress to the property. He indicated that he was not appointed to the Commission to look at just the neighbors' needs but that he was appointed to review issues for the good of the City as a whole. He stated his preference for a brick wall instead of a wood wall. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that in the past, she has heard that there were a group of neighbors that have come before the City and stated what they wanted to see develop. After development, other citizens then came before the City asking why a project was allowed to be built. She agreed that the Commission serves the City and that the decisions made would need to be made for the best interest of the community. James Ousley, 20707 Seaton Avenue, asked if planning staff would be involved in the study session? Commissioner Asfour responded that staff would be present at the work session. Mr. Rasmussen informed the Commission that he would be out of town on April 24 but that Mr. Ousley and Mr. Boisen would be in attendance should this item be continued to that date. Mr. Armandour requested that the application be continued to the Commission's April 10 meeting. The Commission recessed at 9:12 p.m. to allow the applicant and the neighbors to discuss a date that would be mutually agreeable to conduct a work session. The Commission reconvened at 9:23 p.m. Byron Navid, applicant, indicated that he was trying to make this a beautiful custom home development. It was his intention to make this an acceptable project to the neighbors. He indicated that he would be willing to modify the fence to address the Commission's concerns. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION CONTINUED THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPLICATION SD -95 -010 TO 5:00 P.M., APRIL 10, 1996, ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 1996 PAGE - 2 - PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 1. V -96 -001 - DIAMOND; 18406 MONTPERE WAY; Request for Variance approval to allow the construction of a 272 sq. ft. first story addition to an existing 2,688 sq. ft. single story residence. The addition would encroach 1.2 ft. into the required side yard setback of 7.2 ft. The subject property is 8,220 sq. ft. in area and is located within an R -1- 10,000 zoning district (applicant is requesting continuance to 5/8/96; City review deadline is 9/12/96). COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 (COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSENT). Commissioner Siegfried entered and was seated. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. SD -95 -010 - NAVICO INC./BYRON NAVID; 15041 & 15072 SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE RD.; Request for Tentative Subdivision Map approval to subdivide two parcels of land totalling 6.94 acres into 15 single - family lots. The existing residence, pool, tennis court and accessory structures would be removed and a new cul -de -sac would access the development off Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. opposite Herriman Ave. - there is no vehicular access proposed through the adjoining neighborhoods. The proposed lots range in size from 15,000 to 21,600 sq. ft. and would permit 4,000 to 4,500 sq. ft. homes (including garages). The property is located in an R -1- 12,500 zoning district. An environmental initial study and subsequent Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (cont. from 4/10/96 regular adjourned meeting). Community Development Director Curtis presented the staff report. He indicated that there were still issues to be resolved prior to approval as follows: pedestrian access; circulation alternatives; Saratoga - Sunnyvale wall; one story versus two story homes; and the bus stop shelter. Staff requested Commission discussion and that it provide the applicant and staff with direction regarding the issues listed above or any other issues that it may have. Should the Commission approve the project, a resolution of approval would be prepared for this application and that it would be placed on the consent calendar for its next meeting. Chairwoman Kaplan noted that the public hearing remained open (7:40 p.m.) Ray Nesmith indicated that he did not have anything further to state other than the comments that were stated at the work session. He agreed to answer any other questions which the Commission may have. He stated that he was in agreement with the conditions PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 1996 PAGE - 3 - contained in the letter presented to him. Jim Ousley, 20707 Seaton Avenue, informed the Commission that he was representing the homeowners to the north and west of the project. He indicated that the homeowners presented a petition at the first hearing on this item, noting that the primary concern was that no additional traffic be added to the adjacent streets. The petition also listed. items that should be completed to make this project neighborhood friendly. Study sessions have since been held, giving the neighbors the opportunity to review the various concepts proposed. He indicated that the neighbors unanimously supported the street layout as proposed. He noted that the school also prefers this circulation pattem for the safety of the children. He informed the Commission that there is an athletic field controlled by the Saratoga -Los Gatos Recreational District, noting that there still remains activities outside school hours. He reiterated that the homeowners support this proposal and requested that the following conditions be included as part of the Commission's approval of the subdivision map: Lots on north and west boundaries of subdivision are to be restricted to single story residences. Finished grade of lots on north boundary are not to exceed present grade level. Landscaping and irrigation to be installed at the end of Lynde Avenue, Seaton Avenue and Prune Blossom Court by removing portions of existing pavement. The pavement's new terminus shall be curved. Area between school driveway and west boundary of the subdivision, which is city owned land, to be landscaped and irrigated. Maintenance of items 3 and 4 to be provided by a landscape and lighting district supported by the Lands of Navico. Retain integrity of existing retaining walls and fences along north, west, and south boundaries of subdivision. All damage or replacement to be accomplished at Navico's expense. Jitka Cymbal, project engineer, identified the modifications made to the subdivision layout as follows: the cul -de -sac that goes in a southwesterly direction was straightened slightly, moving it closer to Seaton Avenue; the pedestrian walkway was shortened to 120 foot; the size of the walkway was increased to a varying witdh of 20 to 25 feet; the lot lines for lots 3 -10 were modified; landscaping would be installed in the area located at the end of Lynde Avenue and Prune Blossom Court; an alignment of the existing driveway to the school and Seaton Avenue; and that a small landscape easement has been provided at the corner of the school parking lot and driveway. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:50 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 1996 PAGE - 4 - Commissioner Siegfried stated that a lot of thought has gone into this proposal and that although there are three streets that have the potential to be extended, only one of the streets, Seaton Avenue, should not be extended. He felt that the proposal was a good one. He felt that it was important to provide this kind of access directly through to Herriman, from a pedestrian stand point. He concurred with Mr. Ousley that the athletic field. located at the school site was used extensively on weekends and evenings. Therefore, this circulation would allow for bicycle and walking traffic from areas that are not easily accessible. He stated that he liked the plans and that he would like to see a mixture in size of houses as well as single and two story homes. Commissioner Abshire stated that he originally objected to the proposed plans. However, at the work session held a couple of weeks ago, he was convinced that this was probably the best plan that could be perceived and that it would preserve the existing ash tree. He felt that the signal light at the entrance of the project would be more efficient now that there were four accesses being proposed instead of three. He felt that a problem would exist in that there would be -no traffic from this subdivision going to the ones adjacent to it. However, he felt that this disadvantage. was outweighed by the advantage of the current plans. Commissioner Pierce stated that he still had a concern with the layout. He also stated that he did not like any of the alternatives that were presented at the study session. He felt that the logical solution to the lot layout would be a modified alternative C (instead of having two cul -de -sacs, the project could use the signal light at Herriman, go through and make a right turn to connect to Prune Blossom. This modified Alternative C would allow the use of the Herriman signal light and that it would provide additional safety to individuals using Verde Vista. He noted that it was not safe to pull out onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road when the traffic is heavy, because it is a dangerous situation. He indicated that he could accept the rest of the proposal with the exception of the project's layout. Commissioner Patrick stated that she did not like the circulation plan proposed. She recommended that there be another outlet. She felt that there were other alternatives that could address her concerns. She indicated that she liked Commissioner Pierce's suggestion of the use of a modified alternative C. Therefore she could not support this proposal. Commissioner Murakami stated that after reviewing the proposal at the study session, that he was more inclined to agree with Commissioners Siegfried and Abshire. He felt that the proposal would provide enough access for a development of this size. He stated that he would be inclined to support the proposal. Commissioner Asfour stated that his original concern has not been addressed, that being that the proposal only provides one access to the development. He stated that he would need to see one more access provided, connecting one of the other roads dead ending into the property. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 1996 PAGE - 5 - Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she supported Commissioner Pierce's modified alternative C because it would relieve a dangerous traffic situation from Verde Vista to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. She felt that the modified alternative would open up the proposed neighborhood to the existing neighborhood. Commissioner Asfour stated that he did not want the neighbors to think that the Commission was not listening to their concerns. However, the Commission is mandated to make decisions that would benefit the City as a whole, not just a small locality within the City. Community Development Director Curtis recommended that the public hearing be reopened to determine whether the applicant wishes to modify the plans as recommended by the majority of the Commission or whether they wish the Commission to take action this evening. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:58 P.M. TO INQUIRE IF THE APPLICANT WISHES TO HAVE THIS ITEM CONTINUED TO ALLOW TIME TO MODIFY THE PLANS OR WHETHER THEY WISH A VOTE TO BE TAKEN THIS EVENING. Mr. Nesmith informed the Commission that he has investigated the recommended alternative. He indicated that a concern was that the City calls for a maximum length of a court and that the court was already proposed at 1,100 feet. The Lynde addition would bring the court up to 1,600 feet. This extension would be of concern under fire regulations (extension from a fire hydrant). He felt that the additional traffic to the school would also be an issue. What was being proposed was something that would work for the entire neighborhood. Chairwoman Kaplan clarified that the purpose of reopening the public hearing was to determine whether the applicant would like to return with a revised plan to address the concerns of the majority of the Commission based upon the comments made this evening or whether the applicant wishes the Commission to vote on the request before it. Mr. Nesmith requested that the Commission take action on this item tonight as there were no other alternative that would make better use of this site. Commissioners Patrick/Asfour moved to close the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he did not believe that the proposed modified alternative C was a rational one. He felt that it would make a through way from Herriman onto Verde Vista through an existing neighborhood (impacting the four homes currently located on the dead end street). It was his belief that individuals driving across town would go through the signal light, turn right and drive down the existing street, adding additional traffic to an existing neighborhood (taking an existing dead end street and making it a thoroughfare). PLANNING - COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 1996 PAGE - 6 - COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE / SIEGFRIED MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL FOR APPLICATION SD -95 -010 AS PROPOSED. THE MOTION FAILED 3-4 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ABSHIRE, MURAKAMI, SIEGFRIED; NOES: ASFOUR, KAPLAN, PATRICK, PIERCE. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PIERCE MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR APPLICATION SD -95 -010. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -3 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ASFOUR, KAPLAN, PATRICK, PIERCE; NOES: ABSHIRE, MURAKAMI, SIEGFRIED. Community Development Director indicated that the resolution of denial would be scheduled for the May 8, 1996 Planning Commission - Consent Calendar. 3. DR -96 -010 - STEPS; 14136 ARCADIA PALMS; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 773 sq. ft. first -story addition and a 769 sq. ft. second -story addition to an existing single -story residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The application also includes a request for exemption from the floor area reduction requirement for building heights over 18 ft. and for the underfloor clearance height of 5 ft. The subject property is 53,178 sq. ft. and is located in an R- 1- 40,000 zoning district. Planner Bradley presented the staff report on this item. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 8:15 p.m. David Zaro, project architect, concurred with staff's recommendation. He stated that he made a sincere effort to minimize the bulk of the second floor area. This was accomplished by centering the second floor area. He also tried to minimize any impacts to the surrounding neighbors and to their view corridors. Commissioner Murakami complimented Mr. Zaro on his architectural drawings. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:20 P.M. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -96 -010 PER THE STAFF REPORT. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). 4. UP -96 -003 - THE BROOKSIDE CLUB OF SARATOGA 19127 COX AVE.; Review of a comprehensive Use Permit for an existing private tennis and swim club facility located on an approximately 3.4 acre site in the R -1- 10,000 and R -1- 12,500 zoning district, pursuant to Article 15 -55 of the City Code. Neighborhood Correspondence May 10, 1996 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Subdivision of APN 503 -58 -018 Dear Council Members, We are writing to express our concern about the Planning Commission's resolution regarding the proposed development by Navico of the former Spaich property. In a 4 to 3 vote, the Saratoga Planning Commission voted against Navico's proposal for a single access point into the subdivision from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road where it is intersected by Herriman Avenue and is controlled by an existing stoplight. This configuration is known as Navico's "original" proposal. Subsequent configurations prepared by the developer's engineers at the request of the Planning Commission, as well as an additional configuration that was unveiled by the negative- voting commissioners at the time they voted against the "original" proposal, all involve some continuation of Prune Blossom Drive. While we believe that any extension of Prune Blossom is undesirable, the notion put forth by the commissioners is our greatest concern. This scheme is that Prune Blossom extend into the new development and make a left turn to exit at the stoplight at Saratoga- Sunnyvale and Herriman. The distance between Saratoga- Sunnyvale and Prune Blossom is very short. This stratagem would create two intersections within less than 100 feet of each other, both handling vehicles with destinations up Verde Vista. Cars slow down to leave Saratoga - Sunnyvale, then immediately accelerate in order to avoid the potential for being rear -ended by following cars. If they had to stop to let someone complete a turn from Prune Blossom left onto Verde Vista, the rear -end potential is greatly increased, as is the potential for collisions at Prune Blossom and Verde Vista. This configuration converges two incoming threads of traffic with the same destination of Verde Vista at a point where there is no margin for error. This point is in front of our home on the corner of Saratoga - Sunnyvale and Verde Vista, and our driveway is between these two intersections. We feel that any change to Prune Blossom and any other existing neighborhood streets is unncessary. The developer's "original' proposal is an ideal one: it directs all new traffic to an existing stoplight and causes no change to traffic flow in the immediate neighborhoods and around Foothill School. Sincerely, Gerardo Retamoso and Nilda Retamoso 20511 Verde Vista Lane May 9, 1996 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Subdivision of APN 503 -58 -018 Dear Council Members, This letter is to advise you of my position on the configuration of the subdivision of the Spaich property by Navico. I think it is quite remarkable — astounding even — that a developer has presented a configuration that meets all zoning requirements and has met with no disapproval from the neighboring property owners, Foothill School, or from any of the city departments that review a plan before it goes to the Planning Commission. To suggest something else, particularly with no elaboration about its purpose, seems an indefensible position. While I think it was helpful that the Planning Commission asked Navico to present alternative plans, it is important to note that this reaffirmed what the neighbors unanimously acknowledged in writing to the Commission: that the "original' plan for a single point of access at an existing controlled intersection was highly desirable, and that by extension, the other configurations had an adverse effect on the quality of our properties and lives. I would like to address the issue of "connectivity" versus what some planning commissioners have referred to as an "enclave" (I protest the application of that very strong term to this issue). Living in a cul -de -sac or other single- access unit, however many homes it holds, has not been an impediment to "connecting" with other members of the Saratoga community. We have more imagination than that. We connect through our children and their activities, interests and schoolmates; and we connect through our religious, civic, and professional associations. And we are grateful for our less - than- well - traveled streets that provide a safe environment. As you review this issue, I urge you to consider that the "original' plan: • meets all city requirements for zoning and subdivision • directs all additional traffic to an existing stoplight • has no opposition from any affected parties • preserves the quality of the surrounding area and ensures that same quality for the new development That four appointed officials with no vested interest in the neighborhood should sanctimoniously impose their opinion on this issue is an inappropriate exercise of their office. Sincerely, P� � Lia Lorton 13750 Prune Blossom Drive May 10, 1996 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Subdivision of APN 503 -58 -018 Dear Council Members, I am writing this letter to urge you to overturn the Planning Commission's denial of a proposal presented by Navico for the property formerly owned by the Spaich family. This proposal, for a single entrance to the subdivision at the stoplight opposite Saratoga High school, is unanimously supported by the neighborhods that border on this property. For reasons that have a negative impact on our neighborhoods, the Planning Commission has voted against this proposal. The commissioners who voted against this prefer opening existing streets (Prune Blossom and Lynde) into this development. They prefer this over a well received proposal that there be one entrance at an existing controlled intersection. I believe that extending Prune Blossom (any distance; any configuration) would be detrimental to quality of the existing (and future) properties by creating additional traffic and less privacy on this street. Prune Blossom is a narrow street, and the point at which it intersects Verde Vista (the location of my property) is very close to the intersection of Verde Vista - Saratoga and Sunnyvale Road. To increase traffic through an intersection that is so close to another creates a traffic hazard. I hope that you will exercise your discretionary powers in this matter by rejecting the Planning Commission's denial of this proposal. It has met with no opposition from any quarter other than four commissioners. I feel that the opinions of the neighborhood should carry the most weight in this matter, particularly when the proposal meets all conditions required by the City. Please take our part in this issue; we are clearly the majority, and the process is working. The Planning Commission need only oversee this process and mediate when necessary. They should intervene only if City requirements are not met and not to impose their opinion. Sincerely, Bonnie Yoshikawa Property Owner, 13751 Prune Blossom Drive Mailing Address: 110 Tait Ave., Los Gatos, CA 95030 May 11, 1996 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Subdivision of APN 503 -58 -018 Dear Council Members, is file iVa�wo G� O�a4. 4�vw vaf 6 We are writing to restate our position as signers of the declaration indicating unanimous approval by the immediate community of the "original' proposal put forth by Navico for development of the Spaich property. This proposal is for access to the new subdivision only from the existing traffic signal on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road at Herriman Avenue. We feel that the Planning Commission's disapproval of this proposal disregards the advantage to the entire neighboring community of the least possible impact on them. The commissioners who rejected the "original' proposal favor a plan that causes unnecessary change to the current traffic patterns in, and therefore the quality of, the surrounding neighborhood. (A through - traffic plan connecting Prune Blossom Drive to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road was proposed by the dissenting commissioners as they cast their votes.) As a minimum -width residential street, Prune Blossom is not designed to be a "feeder" for through traffic to a major, intercity roadway, that until Highway 85 opened functioned as a freeway alternative. It is the fact that there is a viable, more - then - acceptable proposal that prompts us to protest any change to Prune Blossom. It is unnecessary to make any change that affects the existing properties, particularly when it ignores the unanimous wishes of all people (including Foothill School) affected by this subdivision. We feel that the advantages of the "original' plan far outweigh any possible advantage of opening and continuing existing streets to additional or through traffic. The City Council has expressed concern in the past for "future residents" in discussions of other development issues. With this in mind, consider that a decision affecting Prune Blossom will affect these people as well as the current residents. Sincerely, Ted Smith and Lillie Smith 13772 Prune Blossom Drive 3 1990 May 22, 1996 TO THE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Re: Subdivision SD -95 -010 We are concerned with the planning commission's recent rejection of the Navico proposal for the development of the above referenced property and are hereby requesting that you reverse this decision on appeal. The commission is apparently hung up on issues of "connectivity", " traffic flow" and "enclaves"... A little background... As neighbors to the proposed development we are obviously concerned by what may impact our property and families... probably more so than the city. We have been aware of plans for the development and following Navico's original proposal to the planning commission on March 27, have met with the company to assure that our concerns are being met. They have been most cooperative in resolving these concerns and have included our recommendations in their plans. Following these meetings we met with our respective neighborhoods in group meetings to review Navico's proposal and any alternative which might be suggested. Navico provided us with alternate plans which they had considered before settling on their final proposal. In all meetings there was unanimous preference for the design submitted to (and later rejected by) the planning commission. We subsequently met with the planning commission in a study session to review the alternate plans and again affirmed our preference for the plan submitted and thought we had gained their support. Local school authorities and the Public Safety Commission also supported this plan (after reviewing many alternatives) and the Fire District had approved it. Needless to say, we were concerned by the Planning Commission's final rejection, particularly following the unanimous community support. We believe their reasoning and motives... based on comments made by the commission—are suspect and their decision should be overturned. Our preference for this plan is based on the following: No additional traffic on local streets... Neighbors and the school authorities are concerned about any plan which provides for "through" traffic on Lynde, Seaton, or Prune Blossom. Access to and from the development (15 homes) would be at the Herriman light where control exists. The Saratoga Planning Department basically agreed with the plan.. however, citing the "enclave" look as a potential problem. We believe this to be minor since dozens of other similar developments exist in the city now ... and on fill - in developments is frequently the only way to use the property. Also, this is not a " Bellgrove " walled community(of 94 homes). Navico has provided access to and through the proposed development. The Public Safety Commission has expressed concern about through traffic near schools and "circulation" in the area. Through traffic on "no sidewalk" streets is a major problem. The three -way stop at the entry to Foothill School was an attempt to correct a similar problem. School officials also expressed their concern over too much connectivity and through traffic on Lynde. They were very pleased with the Navico proposal for automobile access only from Herriman and particularly liked the through walkway and the treatment at the end of Seaton to allow for pedestrian traffic into the school. Trees: The proposal by Navico includes provision to feature, save, and protect the beautiful old ash and gum trees on the property. Other proposals place.these on private lots where landscaping may affect their survival or in roadways that would require their removal. In summary-we believe the Navico proposal fills all the needs for a beautiful addition to Saratoga. As neighbors, we are very pleased with their attitude and understanding of our feelings and their demonstrated willingness to satisfy our concerns. We also believe the Planning Commission's rejection of the plan is a direct affront to the needs and wishes of the relevant community. We have included copies of the preference sheets used in our neighborhood meetings.... Also a map showing the property owned by those who signed. If you need any further information or would like to see the alternate plans which we reviewed please contact us. Mme Boi sen President, Deerpark Homeowner's Assn. Jim Ousl y Preside , Foothill Homeowner's Assn. Enclosures: Report to the Planning Commission Preference Sheets (Signed by homeowners) Map of area indicating signers April 1996 To: SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION We the undersigned residence in proximity to the planned Navico Development wish to express our preference of the four plans.given to us to review. Among our concerns in this review were: Traffic flow; effect on Foothill Primary School;,Pedestrian walkway from Seaton to Saratoga Sunnyvale Road ; Compatibility to existing homes; Access to existing signal light, and others. We hope this will help the Planning Commission in their decision and honor our concerns. Please sign your name on the page of your preference. PLAN ONE de /.?....., �loi 7,073 7A'�� 40 /z i o n/ - 4lt� a /,vA .summ"j- f � 37sv I,t,,,,,, A y /37 7,1 101-1"5 "5 6 � SSO M . �n -7 -0 G 6�t 867 8"17- 9ss'y �fCo 7 -CIS HZ'S <;?G7 -0.§'7 S' April 1996 To: SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION We the undersigned residence in proximity to the planned Navico Development wish to express our preference of the four plans given to us to review. Among our concerns in this review were: Traffic flow; effect on Foothill Primary School; Pedestrian walkway from Seaton to Saratoga Sunnyvale Road ; Compatibility to existing homes; Access to existing signal light, and others. We hope this will help the Planning Commission in their decision and honor our concerns. Please sign your name on the page of your preference. r r ,: o Yn S o h No G-r� nom J% �0VJ/3 Zi vu PLAN ONE � D -7 Gr/ a p T 3 3 7'2 l 3��47�,w� aD & 0 e '�r NXW4A1- W- li'As� uS sF.v .zdV'& C T �j r A l^� V �� ✓W 7 7 Y/,--/5 13713,24(ife 9 /es t)PiAr fa "� 0 -- d' C/ l/ ce- �47-w` 7� rwl7 -2zzZ '71-062 April 1996 To: SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION We the undersigned residents in proximity to the planned Navico Development wish to express our preference of the four plans given to us to review. Among our concerns in this review were: Traffic flow; effect on Foothill Primary School;.Pedestrian walkway from Seaton to Saratoga Sunnyvale Road ; Compatibility to existing homes; Access to existing signal light,-and others. We hope this will help the Planning Commission in their decision and honor our concerns. Please sign your name on the page of your preference. PLAN ONE NAME (PRINT & SIGN) ADDRESS PHONE Vl?rA LoF_ r � � o Q,c�— r u 767 � w�� 14 4,4/L,) nj'j'j & ".q, 13232 -T )-ft %,�,v2,ti A VeKd t ct 6 —v ' z to D- g0L-i"GA M P 4207 16 t tV— 967-1-367 ac � U11�o-o �--0 6 .f' �l�ocd tVAYJ (. April 1996 To: SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION We the undersigned residence in proximity to the planned Navico Development wish to express our preference of the four plans given to us to review. Among our concerns in this review were: Traffic flow; effect on Foothill Primary School; Pedestrian walkway from Seaton to Saratoga Sunnyvale Road ; Compatibility to existing homes; Access to existing signal light, and others. We hope this will help the Planning Commission in their decision and honor our concerns. Please sign your name on the page of your preference. PLAN ONE NAME (PRINT & SIGN) — ADDRESS PHONE J ► ��i F.r�� C� �.C'S%r`.Ef�'`l �' ?�q2 i �r�'. Z�'S�"Z VF►2p� C I. �u �'� S�Q�/ r � J April 1996 To: SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION We the undersigned residents in proximity to the planned Navico Development wish to express our preference of the four plans given to us to review. Among our concerns in this review were: Traffic flow; effect on Foothill Primary School; Pedestrian walkway from Seaton to Saratoga Sunnyvale Road ; Compatibility to existing homes; Access to existing signal light, and others. We hope this will help the Planning Commission in their decision and honor our concerns.. Please sign your name on the page of your preference. PLAN ONE 6/�) /s 007 NAME (PRINT & SIGN) ADDRESS PHONE // C/�r /V/Z- T773-/U O � S i i v/� %.L7 �T7vLC < —rzA 7z� 6 4— April 1996 To: SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION We the undersigned residence in proximity to the planned Navico Development wish to express our preference of the four plans given to us to review. Among our concerns in this review were: Traffic flow; effect on Foothill Primary School; Pedestrian walkway from Seaton to Saratoga Sunnyvale Road ; Compatibility to existing homes; Access to . existing signal light, and others. We hope this will help the Planning Commission in their decision and honor our concerns. Please sign your name on the page of your preference. NAME (PRINT & SIGN) ADDRESS PHONE b bat 12,9 9Lo C-5:10/7- C3;7 �cC-4 0,.jtjI'S /3 3$S LY�-Jbf- AJF- ;27 ,157 r.3 16 MAN NU IBER ONE: NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER ,iYi7 LYu�e- I y/� ei 2- ��,3 2 X. ct- J b 7 - P, .S-4S //P o usan !ti C41arasm il,; qp 7q 1- 117S) Et1�c i .la.vKes 2051 er arie- Cr. 9461 -5814 Sfevete, ic.�c+rct' /390 h 7% -117g' 'NtS1 CT -ANS k3 SIR 3 a.ZSis NLQJ►J�- kk.sw. ° ~. = -- PLAN ONE ADDRESS PHONE April 1996 To: SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION We the undersigned residents in proximity to the planned Navico Development wish to express our preference of the four plans given to us to review. Among our concerns in this review were: Traffic flow; effect on Foothill Primary School; Pedestrian walkway from Seaton to Saratoga Sunnyvale Road ; Compatibility to existing homes; Access to existing signal light, and others. We hope this will help the Planning Commission in their decision and honor our concerns. Please sign your name on the page of your preference. PLAN ONE /fRv/°, L— NAME (PRINT & SIGN) ADDRESS PHONE K N (tv 5 L r i��pC A 64, ,mss- - 7�[� _ 13 7f /7 Q A/. ti;�h��s 7(a� ��cz '� i ��'� LyVvr -�4Vf- h4rr¢y�E- 7�r -�� y , /f /saga s -r.-L /3�� L ;�� /'vi - k4 7- 3S'17 - ° 141�;�f Lk) (ch.;?C'Ci "� ✓;: 2(:) 4-y Lyr, i� 'f. ti/4-tiC y �= �^':c, �, ,�tL Gyn.�c- c_j 7Q, to& CT cIV7fA L-7 J) E5 I. -W-6, /3 */-7 y� :rte 7- /7.3-- /3 9i7 L�v�i If W 267 - 7 3s-�, � �l c /t� — t Z I ..� C r '=NINE ,.� . ■. ■.- ■ :■ - Ps F� XJ=1s 4� s :moo • IR F73OFN le m �S IOU In I ■� • Maxwell W. Rasmussen 20650 Woodward Ct. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 (408) 867 -2495 May 29, 1996 Mayor Paul Jacobs, and Council Members City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Mayor Paul Jacobs: Re: SD -95 -010, Navico Inc, Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. The Saratoga Planning Commission recently turned down plan "E" presented by Navico for building 15 homes on this site. I represented the concerned residents of Foothill Homeowners Assn., who reside adjacent to or near -by the proposed development on_the North & West side, at the 1st Planning Commission Meeting. The residents were.shown four plans by the builder a -nd asked each to state his or her preference at several meetings we held of our Association. This same procedure was done for the Deer Park Homowners who live on the South side of the development. The residents of both associations unanimously agreed on the plan "E" which was presented to the Planning Commission. This plan has the entrance from Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. at Herriman Ave. with a traffic signal,. The Planning Commission wanted a plan that opened Prune Blossom through to the connection of the extended Herriman Ave., and another entrance from Lynde Lane that would place more traffic at the entrance of Foothill. School. The access from Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. at Herriman, with the traffic signal, is the safest & least disruptive for Foothill School, Prune Blossom Lane & Lynde Lane Residents. This would be especially true during the 1 1/2 to 2 years of construction when earth moving equipment, cement trucks, utility workers, construction crews and suppliers would have access to a traffic light. The potential for accidents would be greatly reduced. This plan allows for pedestrian traffic from Seaton Ave. & Foothill School to Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. at a cross -walk and traffic light. If Prune Blossom or Lynde Lane were opened to Herriman, that would mean taking traffic off the arterial roads of Verde Vista & Reid Lane and• adding traffic to narrow residential streets. The thought that the Saratoga High Students might drive through this development to get to either Verde Vista or Reid Lane is scary. There was not a any opposition from the public at any of the open meetings of the Planning Commission.. This development plan is being appealed to the City Council. As residents of the adjacent area, we would appreciate your support for Plan "E" when it is presented to the City Council. Sincerely, Maxwell W. Rasmussen V.P. Foothill Homeowners Assn. Enclosures: Copy Plan One "E" Copy site map v�ICt:;AL v I �• -I-r. L AI�Il • �1 H V, •o a O I Z H end I ROD rrTee S. 16 WO 13 7 � �,� Is • I � , . IMID �� ticdL �ire, tl jig IGG� • 15� I�a°w i • •. • t�Cl��tl•NtK Gf. I OEM M�M h RE W! mm if 0 mmMNMu 1_I'A !■��M■MS1 rM psi: •y ll = III-yj 17� MEN UDIOD SCHOOL DISTRICT 20460 FORREST HILLS DRIVE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3424 May 29, 1996 City Council Members City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Members of the City Council, The Saratoga Union School District has followed the Navico Development of the Spaich property on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road very closely through the planning process. This development backs up on Foothill Elementary School's boundary. We met with neighborhood representatives, the developer, city staff, and Planning Commissioners at a workshop in April to work on safety and traffic concerns. We agreed with the neighbors that Foothill School's traffic already overburdens the streets surrounding this development, and we felt that the proposed entrance at Herriman and Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road would be the best entrance and exit from the development. We are writing. to appeal the Planning Commission's vote to change the plan to add extensions of Prune Blossom and Lynde into the development. We believe the traffic generated by Foothill School parents and youth sports into the front (accessed via Reid Lane and Lynde Avenue) and rear parking lots (accessed via Vista Verde, Tamworth, and Seaton Avenues) will obstruct the owners of these new homes and add to traffic congestion. Saratoga's school parking lots and the streets surrounding our schools are already overburdened with traffic since they were built to accomodate school buses, not parent drivers. We hope that you will reverse the Planning commission decision and not add to an existing bottleneck in this neighborhood. Please contact us if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Mary ardner, Superintendent Cindy Ruby, President, Board of Trustees Staff Report dated March 27, 1956 0 9 W.A I I WE, IRE Diaz 1 �: m sm 60, I ME File No. SD -95 -010; NAVICO INC. /BYRON HAVID 15041 & 15072 SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE RD. EXECUTIVE SMOIARY CASE HISTORY• Application filed: 12/18/95 Application complete: 3/06/96 Notice published: 3/13/96 Mailing completed: 3/14/96 Mailing completed: 3/07/96 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for Tentative Subdivision Map approval to subdivide two parcels of land totalling 6.94 acres into fifteen single - family lots. The existing residence, pool, tennis court, accessory structures and remnant orchard would be removed and a new cul -de- sac would access the development off Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. opposite Herriman Ave. No vehicular access is proposed through the adjoining neighborhoods. The proposed lots range in size from 15,000 to 21,600 sq. ft. and would permit 4,000 to 4,500 sq. ft. homes (including garages). The property is located in an R -1- 12,500 zoning district. An environmental initial study have been prepared for this requirements of the California STAFF RECOMMENDATION: and subsequent Negative Declaration project pursuant to the terms and Environmental Quality Act. Review the attached staff analysis and environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration, take public testimony, and direct the applicant regarding the issues raised in the staff report and other issues raised during the public hearing. A final Tentative Map and Resolution could then be considered at the next available meeting. ATTACEHENTS : 1. Staff Analysis 2. Area B- Guidelines For Area Development 3. Copy of Kerwin Ranch Pedestrian Connection 4. Tentative Subdivision Map, Exhibit "A" 5. Conceptual Landscape Plan, Exhibit "B" 6. Perimeter Wall and Entry Plan, Exhibit "C" 7. Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration (with separate attachments) 000002 File No. SD -95 -010; NAVICO INC. /BYRON NAVID 15041 & 15072 SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE RD. STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 12,500 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential- Medium Density PARCEL SIZE: 6.94 acres AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Level , PARCEL REOUIREMENTS• Proyosal (By Range) Net Parcel Size: 15,000 sq. ft. to 21,600 sq. ft. Frontage: 60 ft. to --175 ft. Width: 92 ft. to -125 ft. Depth: 140 ft. to -240 ft. Code Requirements /Allowance Net Parcel Size: Frontage: Width: Depth: PROJECT DISCUSSION: Overview: 12,500 sq. ft. (15,000 sq. ft. for a corner parcel) 65 ft. (60 ft. for a parcel abutting c a cul -de -sac turnaround) 90 ft. 120 ft. The applicants are proposing to subdivide this 6.94 acre site, consisting of two individual lots of record, into 15 single - family residential building sites. The property is currently developed with a single - family residence and extensive residential improve- ments and accessory structures. There are also several fruit trees on the property which are remnants of an abandoned apricot orchard. The City Arborist has visited the site and has determined that due to neglect these fruit trees now have little or no value. The property abuts Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. and is located directly opposite the intersection of Herriman Ave. with Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. The surrounding development consists of similar density single- family homes to the north, south and west. The Saratoga 000003 File No. SD -95 -010; NAVICO INC./BYRON NAVID 15041 & 15072 SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE RD. Presbyterian Church and Saratoga High School are located on the opposite side of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. to the east. Foothill Elementary School is located just southwest of the site and is partially separated by the 3 acre City /SUSD owned Foothill Park. The applicant is proposing to access all 15 new home sites entirely off Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. at the signalized intersection with Herriman Ave. General Plan Conformance: The General Plan designation for this property calls for medium density single - family residential development, which permits 3.48 dwelling units per net acre. At 6.94 net acres, the proposed 15 homes are well under the maximum permitted density of 24 homes. This part of Saratoga is also governed by the Area B- Guidelines For Area Development (attached) . These guidelines were developed by local neighborhood task force groups for each of the 12 identified specific planning areas in Saratoga. The applicable Area B guidelines limit development within this area to only single - family residences in conformance with the densities of surrounding residential developments. The guidelines also promote pedestrian and bicycle circulation and protection from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. traffic, noise and pollution impacts. Staff finds that the proposal complies with each of these guidelines. Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Compliance: The City's Subdivision and Zoning regulations are the implementa- tion tools of Saratoga's General Plan and the State Subdivision Map Act. The Zoning ordinance establishes minimum standards for lot sizes, depths, widths and frontages. It also regulates building placement, modifications to natural topography and ordinance protected tree removal. The Tentative Subdivision Map complies with all minimum zoning standards with regard to parcel size and configuration. The City Engineer has reviewed the Tentative Map and finds it to meet roadway and public improvement standards and is also support- ive of the circulation proposal_ utilizing the signalized intersec- tion. A condition of subdivision approval would require that the developer create a Lighting and Landscaping Assessment District to maintain the common area perimeter landscaping and to contribute towards 25% of the maintenance costs of the traffic signal. Other Department /Agency Review: This Tentative Subdivision Map has been reviewed by the West Valley Sanitation District, Santa Clara County Health Department, San Jose Water Company, Saratoga Fire District, PG&E, the Santa Clara County 11111f, File No. SD -95 -010; NAVICO INC. /BYRON NAVID 15041 & 15072 SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE RD. Transportation Agency and the City Engineer and Arborist. None of these agencies have raised any concerns with the proposal, and their comments and standard conditions would be incorporated into any approval Resolution. Environmental Initial Study: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the.City has prepared an environmental Initial Study to determine if there would be any significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed subdivision. If significant impacts are identified, the developer must show that these impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable level, or that special circumstances exist to justify the impacts, before the project can be approved. In order to answer the wide range of environmental questions covered by CEQA, staff required that the following studies be performed and submitted for inclusion as attachments to staff's Initial Study: Traffic Impact Report A traffic analysis prepared by Farhad and Associates, Traffic and Transportation Engineers, is attached which concludes that the proposed development would not have a signifi- cant effect on area traffic and circulation. The increased traffic generated by the 15 new homes would not reduce the current "A" Level Of Service at the Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. and Herriman Ave. intersection nor reduce the greater LOS of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. All vehicular access to the subdivision would be directly onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd., thereby avoiding traffic conflicts with neighborhood and elementary school traffic circulation. In addition, the proposed development includes a bus turnout as requested -by the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency and will improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including a bicycle lane along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. and providing a pedestrian connection at the end of the new cul -de -sac connecting the Seaton Ave. neighborhood to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. Soil Samplinc7 and Analysis Report Because of past agricultural uses of the property, staff requested that a soil study be done to ensure that there were no residue pesticides or other harmful chemicals in the soils. The attached soil sampling and analysis report prepared by Advance Soil Technology concludes that the soil at the site has not been impacted by past use of agricultural pesticides. The City's "Ground Movement Potential and Relative Geologic Stability" study and corresponding maps prepared by the City's Geologic and Geotechnical Consultants indicates that the soils in this area are suitable for urban residential development. 000005 File No. SD -95 -010; NAVICO INC. /BYRON NAVID 15041 & 15072 SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE RD. Horticultural Consultant Report Saratoga's Horticultural Consul- tant has reviewed the proposal and his comments are either already incorporated into the plan set or would become conditions of project approval.- Significant ordinance protected trees would be required to be preserved. While acknowledging that this residential development will significantly change what is currently an "underdeveloped" piece.of land, staff does not find that the development will result in any significant environmental impacts as defined by CEQA. Staff is therefor recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the attached environmental Negative Declaration. Issues: An extended noticing and review period is required for projects subject to CEQA - the Planing Commission cannot formally act on the Negative Declaration until the April 10, 1996 meeting. Since this is a relatively major project for Saratoga, staff has chosen to use this interim review period to begin public hearing discussions of this proposed development. Staff has identified the .following issues for discussion: • Circulation Plan The cul -de -sac plan submitted meets minimum City requirements and eliminates any potential of increased traffic through the adjoining neighborhoods. However, this type of plan does isolate the development from the existing homes. Extensions of the abutting cul -de -sacs would allow the courts to be finished with turnarounds and would also tie the new homes in with the existing neighborhoods. • Pedestrian Connection At staff's request, the applicant has included a pedestrian walkway connection between the new court and Seaton Ave. to allow a more direct pedestrian route to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. (similar to what the Planning Division required for the Kerwin Ranch subdivision). A plan was then submitted with a pedes- trian connection which staff felt would result in a corridor that was too long and narrow - prohibiting a clear view from one end to the other. The applicant has resubmitted an improved revised plan, though still not as wide as staff had requested. The intent was to avoid creating a long, narrow, "tunnel" for both aesthetic and safety reasons. For comparison purposes, their propose to 25 ft. wide and approximately 105 Kerwin Ranch corridor is uniformly 25 f t ft. long (copy attached). d corridor would be 15 ft. long.. The final . wide and roughly 70 11111. File No. SD -95 -010; NAVICO INC. /BYRON NAVID 15041 & 15072 SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE RD. • Building Height and Story Restrictions The existing homes to the north and west are almost entirely single story.-structures. With the exception of a row of two - story homes along Lynde Ave., the homes to the south are predominantly single story also. Staff is recommending that initial home construction be limited to single story struc- tures no more than 22 ft. in height. • Perimeter Landscaping and Wall Design At staff's request, the applicant has also prepared a perime- ter landscaping and wall plan for the area along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. The original plan included an undulating 7 ft. tall brick wall incorporating an arched entry element. Staff encouraged the applicant to pursue a more residential type of plan and used the new Heritage Oaks subdivision on Saratoga Ave. as an example. Revised plans have been prepared but were not available at the time this report was written. These plans are anticipated to be included with the Commissioners' packets for the March 27th meeting. • Bus Stop Shelter The applicant has incorporated a bus stop along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. as requested by the Transportation Agency. The Agency's policy is that they only provide shelters along their major routes, and then only a specific type of shelter that allows for advertising space. Staff is recommending that the developer be required to design and construct a simple wood post and roof shelter with seating. Once the subdivision is accepted, the City would be responsible for the maintenance of the shelter. After having a chance to visit the property, staff is recommending that the Planning Commissioners consider the issues raised above, and any other issues that individual Commissioners may have, for the March 27th hearing. RECONNENDATION: Review the attached staff analysis and environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration, take public testimony, and direct the applicant regarding the issues raised in the staff report and during the public hearing. A final Tentative Map and Resolution could then be considered at the next available meeting. 000007 AREA B - GUIDELINES FOR AREA DEVELOPMENT 1. All development of vacant sites within this area shall be limited to single family detached residential and conform to the density of the surrounding residential area. 2. A traffic signal should be installed in the vicinity of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Blauer to provide safe pedestrian passage between homes on the west of Saratoga - Sunnyvale and shopping and - schools on the east side of the road. 3: Traffic should be reviewed to enable those living in the area of Fourth Street to safely enter Big Basin Way during peak traffic and holiday times when traffic is heavy. 4. In the absence of completion of a freeway in the West Valley Corridor, the City shall work with the appropriate agencies to develop and implement a plan to increase the protection of neighborhoods bordering Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road from the noise and pollution which is a result of heavy traffic. This effort will include the consideration of installation of whatever sound barriers or dense landscaping that may be appropriate to help the impacted neighborhoods regain the use and enjoy- ment of their property. 5. Thp City should study how traffic from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road impacts the circulation of nearby local residential streets.to determine feasible traffic control methods by which to minimize those impacts. 6. As a condition of City permit approval, if any further develop- ment of the area in the vicinity of the Argonaut Shopping Centel takes place, the impact of increased traffic on Saratoga- Sunnyvi Road shall be studied and a plan for minimizing the traffic impi shall be developed. This might involve an access road parallel; Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and_ providing access to Cox Avenue. 7. Pedestrian crosswalks and islands should be considered for Pier, Brandywine and Blauer. 8. Bike paths.should be placed on both sides of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. 11111: 4 -6 SARATOGA and the SPHERE OF INFLUENCE SARATOGA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE % tA 0 syittlAms A A10CINt Cllr A e1f,1UNAl rJAN &ING M�1 /.-19- 9 1/1111 16* 1.-/111o. f. 1.11. ILI0 SARATOGA SPHERE J I INFLUENCE K� D' 2500' 6000' 7500' AREA B - CONGRESS SPRINGS /PIERCE ROAD Area B is bounded by Pierce Road on the north, Saratoga Creek and Congress Springs Road on the south and is to the west of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. Most of the area is occupied by low density residential development, or mountainous and orchard open space, similar to Area A. There are, however, some differ- ences between the two areas. Area B contains one Williamson Act orchard. Foothill Elementary School; the only school within the area, is in the R -1- 15,000 area paralleling Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. Wildwood City Park is located near the Village Business District, which is just across Saratoga Creek. Adjacent to the Park, separated by Fourth Street, is an area of former apartments which have been converted to condominiums. An area of more spacious clustered condominiums materially increased in size since the last plan review is to the southwest. Lying at one end of the area and close to-the village, this region is somewhat separated from the rest of the area and has minimal impact on the overall predominance of single family lower density homes in Area B. Except for the hillside area, the majority of Area B is already developed. There remains a parcel known as the "Horticultural Foundation" and a nearby orchard area, designated "Spaich Orchard" both with potential for significant development. The Foothill School site would also be a candidate for development if it were closed by the school district. The area is unanimous in the desire to assure that any development or redevelopment of sites wihin the area be only single family detached residential with a density consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. A major concern of the area is the development of the West Valley Corridor as a full freeway. The area unanimously indicated a high priority on immediate development of the corridor, in the belief that its completion.would greatly decrease the present intolerable traffic on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. The residents are concerned with the noise, pollution and safety hazards presente( by the ever - increasing traffic on that road. In the absence of the promised development of the corridor, the area would like other remedies for relief from the adverse impact of the traffic. These might include sound walls, dense plantings or other means of decreasing through traffic on Saratoga - Sunnyvale -Road. Another concern is the through traffic in neighborhoods which seem to be a result of extensive hillside development. It is felt that this traffic is using residential streets for access to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and that the roads designated as collectors are not adequate to handle the traffic that is being generated. For this reason, there is opposition to development that will create more trips to and from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. 4 -4 000010 AREA B - CONGRESS SPRINGS /PIERCE ROAD Among other traffic related concerns is the safe pedestrian passage between -the west side of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and the shopping and school areas in the Argonaut area. It is felt that a pedestrian signal at Blauer Drive would help provide safe access to shopping and school. In conjunction with.any develop- ment between the existing Argonaut Center and Cox Avenue, it is felt that a thorough plan for handling any increase in traffic in and out of the shopping area should be developed, possibly to include an access road which could also provide access to Cox Avenue. Residents of this planning area who reside in the Fourth Street vicinity find it difficult to get from Fourth Street to Big Basin Way during peak traffic hours. This situation is especially severe during commute hours and holiday weekends and during the Christmas period when the tree sales are taking place in the county area of the hillsides. For this reason, a safe way of turning from Fourth Street onto Big Basin Way is felt to be a necessity. This would also help decrease some of the through traffic in other neighborhoods which is generated by those people trying to bypass this traffic bottleneck. 4 -5 000011 RAME ME CINO NOW - 7!►fi os.n V �e�1or1 h��1��aNb 3) Unless otherwise provided, landscape contractor %It provide soil analyis for soil preparation specific 0 minimum of three soil samples from different areas C O site, &hall be submitted to Soil and Plant Lab., c •� location, for receival of data and report for prey soil for new plantinq. 'I `.FRUITVALE AVE Iml f INQ PLAN. ` ib hWT r PAM �)0' J� w.**' NAG nnimit= Ali�o�oo��eoo,�e��o r v � A r