HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-17-1985 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTSCITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO . O� , ,
DATE: 4/8/85 (4/17/85)
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: Final Building Site Approval SDR -1566 Woodbank Road, Jonathan Roeioffs
Issue Sumary
1. SDR -1566 is ready for final approval.
2. All bonds, fees and agreements have been - submitted to the City.
Recommendation
3. All requirements for City and other agencies have been met.
Adopt Resolution No. 1566 -02 attached, approving the final map for SDR -1566.
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachmnts
1. Resolution No. 1566 -02
2. Report to Planning Commission
3. Status Report for Building Site Approval
-4. Location Map
Council Action
4/17: Approved 50.
.0
RESOLUTION NO. 1566 -2
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Jonathan Roeloffs
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
SECTION 1:
The 1.797 acre Parcel shown as Parcel "A" on the Final Parcel Map prepared
by the West Fall Engineers'and recorded in Book B37 of Maps on Page 39 and
submitted to the City Engineer, City of Saratoga, be approved as one (1)
individual building site.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro-
duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular
meeting held on the 17 day of April 1985
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
CITY of = � ' A�OGA
A
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 5/18/84
Commission Meeting: 5/23/84
SUBJECT: SDR -1566, Jonathan Roeloffs, 18665 Woodban Way,
Tentative Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
REQUEST: Tentative Building Site Approval for a single lot on Woodbank
.Road.
OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Design Review Approval, Building Permit.
PLANNING DATA:
PARCEL SIZE: 1.797 Acres (net)
GENERAL PLAN:
Very Low Density Single Family
ZONING: R -1- 40,000
STTR. nATA
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
SITE SLOPE: 14.75%
Single Family Residential
SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 5.56%
NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: Hillside terrain.- with fruit trees
and several significant pine trees. The proposed residence is
located on the edge of a knoll,..looking across to other residences..
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS:
HISTORY: The site presently contain a single story main residence
and a two story garage and guest house. The applicants are planning
to remove the main residence and replace it with a 2 story home,
connected to the garage and guest house. No plans have been sub-
mitted for this structure but the grading and site development
plan are shown on the tentative map.
Report to the Planninca,Commission
SDR -1566, Jonathan RuE 'fs
GRADING REQUIRED: FILL - 70 Cu. Yds
5/18/84
Page 2
FILL DEPTH - 4 Ft. (max)
SETBACKS: Rear 74' Right Side - 18k' to quest house (20' is required;
Front - 86' (from quest house) Left Side - 41'
SIZE OF STRUCTURE: 6200 Sq. Ft. standard for all structures on site
within this zoning district.
RELATIONSHIP WITH ADJACENT STRUCTURES: The replacement residence,
which the applicant states he proposes to be a 2 story structure,
will look across to and down upon, adjacent two -story structures
and yards. Privacy impacts will be analyzed.: at the time of design
review. A two -story structure is not being approved.at this time.
The surrounding structures and yards are already impacted by the
existing structure and are located a distance away from the house
site location.
DRIVEWAY & CIRCULATION: A turnaround at the end of Woodbank Way
will need to be constructed as approved by the City Engineer and
Central Fire Portection District. The site is located on a cul
de sac greater than 500' in length with no emergency access road.
The General Plan states that "For safety, every new or developing
public or private cul -de -sac greater than 500' in length... should
have a primary and an emergency access ". This is a lot of record
and we have not had any plans to connect Woodbank with Sobey Road.
GEOLOGY: The site has been reviewed by the City Geologist, report
attached, who has recommended the proposal for your request.
Report to the Planning,Commission
SDR -1566, Jonathan Roes 's
PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all
the General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning
Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga.
5/18/84
Page 3
objectives of
and
The housing needs of the region have been considered and have
been balanced against the public service needs of its residents
and available fiscal and environmental resources.
A Categoricial Exemption was prepared relative to the
environmental impact of this project. Said determination date:
May 15, 1984.
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for
SDR -1566 (Exhibits "B" filed April 17, 1984) subject to the
following conditions:
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of
Ordiance No. 60, including without limitation, the
submission of a Record of Survey or parcel map; payment of
storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as
established by Ordinance in effect the time of final
approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any
street work; and compliance with applicable Health
Department regulations and applicable Flood Control
regulations and requirements of the Fire Department.
Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further
particulars. Site Approval in no way excuses compliance
with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with
any other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto,
applicant shall comply with the following Specific
Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord
with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60.
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining
Final Approval.
B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation
(Pay required checking & recordation fees). (If parcel
is shown on existing map of record, submit three (3) to-
scale prints).
C. Construct access road 18 ft. wide plus 1 ft. shoulders
using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on
6 in. aggregate base from "Woodbank Way" to within 100
ft. of proposed dwelling.
Note: a) The minimum inside curve radius shall be 42
ft.
b) The minimum vertical clearance above road
surface shall be 15 ft.
Report to the Planning Commission 5/18/84
SDR -1566, Jonathan Roel 's Page 4
c) Storm runoff shall be controlled through
the use of culverts and roadside ditches.
D. Construct turnaround having 32 ft. radius or approved
equal using double seal coat oil and screenings or
better on 6" aggregate base within 100 ft. of proposed
dwelling.
E. Construct Driveway Approach 16 ft. wide at property
line flared to 24 ft. at street paving. Use double
seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6" aggregate
base.
F. Construct "Valley Gutter" across driveway or pipe
culvert under driveway as approved by the Director of
Community Development.
G. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions
of view as required at driveway and access road inter-
sections.
H. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will
change, retard or prevent flow.
I. Engineered Improvement Plans required for:
1. Access Road Construction.
J. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from
Improvement Plans.
K. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improve-
ments to be completed within one (1) year of receiving
Final Approval.
L. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required im-
provements.
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DEPARTMENT OF.INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Geotechnical'investigation and report by licensed professional
1. Soils
2. Foundation
B. Plans to be reviewed by geotechnical consultant prior-to
building permit being issued.
C. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing:
1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross - sections,
existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities).
2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location,
etc.)
Report to the Planning- ,ommission
SDR -1566, Jonathan Roe? fs
IV.
- V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
5/18/84
Page 5
3. Retaining structures including design by A.I. A. or R.C.E.
. for walls 3 feet or higher.
4. All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be
removed.
5. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan
using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos.,
owner's name, etc.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4
A. Sanitary sewer service has been provided to this site.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION.DISTRICT
A. Construct an.approved on -site fire truck turnaround -.at the
proposed dwelling.site- within 150' of all portions of the
exterior walls of the first floor of the buildings. Other
approved type turnaround must meet requirements of the Fire
Chief. Details shall be shown on building plans.
B. Provide cul de sac with 32' radius as shown on tentative map.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed
and connected by the developer to one of the existing trunk
sewers of the Sanitation District No. 4. Prior to final
approval, and adequate bond shall be posted with said district
to assure completion of sewers as planned.
B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water,Works.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans
showing the location and intended use of any existing wells
to the Santa Clara Valley Water District for review and
certification.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
A. Public Hearing for Design Review Approval is required on
project prior to issuance of permits.
B. Any modifications to the Site Development Plan shall be subject
to Planning Commission Approval.
C. No kitchen allowed in garage and guest house.
D. Retaining wall in side setback area shall not exceed 6' in
height.
Report to the Planning ^-)mmission 5/18/84
SDR -1566, Jonathan Roel.,_.fs ,—,?age 6
E. Variance application to be submitted with design review
application or the portion of the guest house within the 20'
side setback shall be removed prior to issuance of building
permit.
IX. COMMENTS
A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable
City Ordinances.
APPROVED
Kathy Ke6dus
Planner
KK /bjc
P.C. Agenda 5/23/84
MEMORANDUM
CITY' OF SARATOGA
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT: Status Report for Building Site Approval
All conditions for Building Site Approval SDR- 1566 . Jonathan Roeloffs
(have) (have not) been met as approved by the Planning Commission on 6 -27 -84
Listed below are the amounts, dates and City receipt numbers for all required
items:
Offer of Dedication
Record of Survey or arcel Map
Storm Drainage Fee $rsn nn
All Required Improvement Bonds
All Required Inspection Fees.
Building Site Approval Agreeme:
Park and Recreation Fee 1075
Date Submitted
N/A Date
00.00 Date
fit N/A Date
Date
Date Submitted --------------- -
Date Submitted ----------------
Receipt # 729 6
Submitted ---- - - - - -- Receipt - - - --
Submitted -3-28-85 Receipt #-7296
Signed ---- - - - - --
Submitted 3 -28 -85 Receipt# 7296
It is, therefore, the Community Development Department recommendation that
(LXdaZcko ) (Final) Building Site Approval for Jonathan Roeloffs ,
SDR- 1566 be granted.
If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it shall become un-
conditional upon compliance with the following conditions:
Condition(s)
Reason for Non - Compliance
Robert S. Shook
Director of Community Development
0
0
JfAR WSIL Vr
iti
Sq
<0
G'
�1/\
0
=L-O-C AST -#--aN- MAP
CT.
SLIB CT.
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO. 3
DATE: 4/8/85 ( 4/17/85)
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Att
C. Mgr.
--------------------- --------------- - - - --
Final Map Appro (
val for Tract 6701 DeMartini
SUW=: Mt. Eden Road (17 lots)
Issue Summary
1. The tract.6701 is ready for Final Map Approval
2. All bonds, fees and agreements have been submitted to the'-City.
3. All requirements for City and other agencies have been met.
RecomTtendation
Adopt Resolution No. 1364 -02 attached, approving, the final..map for
tract 6701.and authorize execution of contracts for improvement
agreement.
Fiscal Impacts
1
None
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Resolution No. 1364 -02
2. Report to Planning Commission
3. Location Map
Council Action
4117: Approved 5-0.
I
- - r
RESOLUTION NO. 1364 -02
RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP OF
Tract 6701
rt
4
WHEREAS, a final subdivision map of Tract 6701
EDEN RANCH (De Martini) having heretofore been filed with this City
Council for approval, and it appearing that all streets, public ways and
easements shown thereon have not been satisfactorily improved nor completed,
and it further appearing that otherwise said map conforms with the require-
ments of Division 2 of Title 7 of the Government Code of the State of
California, and with all local ordinances applicable at the time of
approval of the tentative map and all,rulings made thereunder, save
and except as follows:
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
(1) The aforesaid final amp is hereby conditionally approved. Said
approval shall automatically be and become unconditional and final
upon compliance by subdivider-with such requirements, if any, as set forth
immediately above as not yet having been complied with, and upon compliance
with Section (3) hereof.
(2) All street dedications, and all other dedications offered on said
final map (except such easements as are declared to be accepted by
i
the terms of the City Clerks certificate on said map), are hereby rejected
pursuant and subject to Section #66477.1 of the Government Code of the
State of California.
(3) As a condition precedent to and in consideration of the future accept-
ance of any streets and easements not by this resolution now accepted,
and as a condition precedent to the City Clerk certifying the approval and
releasing said map for recordation, the owner and subdivider shall enter
into a written agreement with the City of Saratoga, secured by good and
sufficient surety bond or bonds, money or negotiable bonds, in amount of th
estimated cost of. improvements, agreeing to improve said streets, public,
ways and easements in accord with the standards of Ordinance No. NS-60
as amended and with the improvement plans and specifications presently
on file, and to maintain the same for one-year after completion. The form
and additional terms of said written agreement and surety bond shall be
as heretofore adopted by the City Council and as approved by the City
Attorney. The mayor of the City of Saratoga is hereby authorized to exe-
cute the aforesaid improvement agreement on behalf of said city.
(4) Upon compliance by subdivider and /or owner with any remaining require-
ments as set forth in the preamble of this resolution (if any) and
with the provisions of Section (3) hereof, the City Clerk is authorized
and directed to execute the City Clerk's certificate a.s shown on said map
and to transmit said map as certified to the Clerk of the Santa Clara
County Board of Supervisors.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced
and passed by the City Council of the City of Saratoga on the day
of , 19 , by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
City of SoratgaC - -� Exhibit "A"
�- APPROVED GYs) -�/� anuary 10, 1979(PC revised'
' ( to -, * January 10, 1979 (revised)
CITY OF SARATOGA DA1i; JANUARY 4, 1979
STAFF REPORT
SD -1364 Allen Detlartini, Mt. Eden Road, Tentative Subdivision Map Approval - 17 Lots
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 'The applicant is requesting Tentative Subdivision Approval for
17 Lots on 27 acres on Mt. Eden Road near Pierce Road in the HC -RD zoning district.
The parcel has been formerly known as the Block Property.
The site is presently an old orchard with one existing house. The hillside site
contains gentle to moderately steep slopes. The geologic consultant has recognized
two fault traces and have designated two 80 foot wide fault setback zones along the
suspected traces of these faults.
All homes are conditioned with Design Review and are to be placed according to the
Site Development Plan. Water for fire protection is to be provided through the proposed
water assessment district.
*The project lots range from 1.00 to 1.88 acres in sizes with the required depths,
1 widths and frontages. No driveways -are now proposed to access directly onto Mt. Eden
Road. Additionally, scenic easements have been placed on the project southwest of the
upper fault and over the drainage easement along the southeast border.
Public Works has expressed a concern over sight distances at crests and dips of the
proposed roads.
STATUS: An Environmental Impact Report was certified by the Planning Commission as
adequate on December 13, 1978. A Notice of Determination will be filed with the
t County of Santa Clara Recorder's Office when this project is approved.
FIMINGS:' Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974 General Plan,
and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga.
I
The Planning Commission is responsible for making the necessary findings according to
Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Commission must make
one or more of the following findings with Exhibit "D ", in addition to previous findings.
(a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
such project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental
effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact
report.
(b) Such changes or alterations are within the respon 'sibility and juris-
diction of another public agency and such changes have been adopted by
such other agency, or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
(c) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the
mitigation and measures of project alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report.
The Staff Report will recommend approval of the tentative map for SD -1364 (Exhibit "B -3 ".
filed January 10, 1979) subject to,the following conditions:
I. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
A. Comply with Standard Engineering Conditions dated April 11, 1977 (attached).
B. Street improvements on 50 foot right -of -way to be 26 feet.
C. Dedicate and improve Mt. Eden Road to provide for a 25 foot half- street.
D. Provide pedestrian walkway along Mt. Eden Road.
E. Protective planting on hillside cuts and fills will be necessary.
F. Construct storm line as per Master Drainage Plan and as directed by the
Director of Public Works.
(NOTE: Profiles shown on sheet #2 of Tentative Map are not approved at this
time, A complete study of site distances will be made prior to Final
Approval by Traffic Engineer. Comply with the recommendations contained
in the October 4, 1978 memo from William Cotton to Don Wimberly re:
Technical Plan and Technical Field Review.) /
- 1 -
STAFF REPORT 1..
RE:. SD -1364, Allen DeMartini
C �T_january 10, 1979(PC revise -
January 10, 1979 (Revised)
i JANUARY 4, 1979
II. .SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - BUILDING DEPARTMENT /INSPECTION SERVICES
A. A geotechnical report for the subdivision shall be submitted prior to final
approval.
B. Foundation reports required for each lot. Soils engineer shall review all
proposed on -site work and structures for siting, grading, drainage,foundation
structures and erosion control. Any geotechnical corrective measures for lots
shall be addressed. Letter from soils engineer certifying he has done this
review required prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
C. Detailed on -site improvement plans required for each lot. Plan shall include:
1) Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross - sections, existing
and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities).
2) Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location etc.,
subsurface drainage shall be considered).
3) Retaining structures (designed by licensed designer).
i
4) Erosion control measures.
D. Soils engineer shall inspect and approve all excavation and grading operations.
A written report of that is to be submitted to the city prior to final inspection.
E. No grading shall be undertaken after September 30 and before May 1. Excavations
shall be winterized. prior to November 1.
F. All graded slopes shall be treated to prevent erosion prior to rainy months.
G. All grading is to be sloped and contoured to match existing terrain. Cut and
fill slopes shall be no steeper than 3:1.
H. Structures shall include security and fire detection equipment as specified
by City.
I. Existing above and below ground structures shall be made to conform to code
or removed.
J. Private utility structures crossing fault zones shall be constructed so as
to reduce potential of damage in the event of fault movement.
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS' - CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT
A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with requirements
of Cupertino Sanitary District as outlined in letter dated April 12, 1978.
B. Property to be annexed to Cupertino Sanitary District prior to Final Approval.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and connected by
the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers of the Cupertino Sanitary
District. Prior to final approval, an adequate bond shall be posted with
district to assure completion of sewers as planned.
B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works.
C. The septic tank on Lot #7 is to be pumped and backfilled to County standards.
A $400.00 bond is to be posted with the County to insure completion of work.
All domestic connections for the water well on Lot #6 are to be broken. The
well is to be used for irrigation only or abandoned to County standards.
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans Showing the location
and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review and certification.
- 2 -
►g f -
** January 10, 1979 (PC revised)
nuary 10, 1979 (revised)
STAFF REPORT 1 ANUARY 4, 1979
RE:' SD -1364, Allen DeMartini
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES
A. Dedicate trail easement as shown on tentative map.
B. Equestrian trails to be a minimum of 8' wide with additional land if necessary
'to go around obstructions. Other approved width to meet requirements of Parks
and Recreation'Commission. Trail grading to be done by developer prior to
issuance of building permit. Pathway to comparatively level from side to side
and unobstructed.
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT
A. Property is located in a potentially- hazardous fire area. Prior to issuance of
building permit,.remove combustive vegetation as specified. Fire retardant roof
covering and chimney spark arrestor details shall be shown on the building plan.
(City Ordinance 38.58 and Uniform Fire Code, Appendix B)
B. Construct driveway 14 -feet minimum width,, plus one -foot shoulders using double
seal coat oil and screening or better on 6 -inch aggregate base from public street
or access road to proposed dwelling. Slope driveway shall not exceed 12'x%
without adhering to the following,.
- Driveways having slopes between 12'k% to 15% shall be surfaced
using 2'" of A.C. on 6 -inch aggregate base..
- Driveways having slopes between 15% to 17�% shall be surfaced
using 4" of P.C.C. concrete rough surfaced on 4 -inch aggregate
base and shall not exceed 50 feet in length.
f - Driveways with greater slopes or 'longer length will not be
accepted.
C. Construct a turnaround at proposed dwelling sites having a 32 foot inside radius.
Other approved type turnarounds must meet requirements of the Fire Chief. Details
shall be shown on building plans.
D. Driveway shall have a minimum inside curve radius of 42 feet.
E. Provide a parking area for''two_(2)' emergency vehicles at proposed building site,
or as required by the Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on building plans.
F. Extension of existing water system adjacent to site is required for fire protection
Plans to show location of water mains and fire hydrants.
C. Proposed dwelling must have a minimum recognized water supply capable of deliverin€
1,000 gallons per minute for 2 hours. This is based upon the Insurance Service
Office grade for determining a required fire flow to maintain a Grade Five (5)
rating. Minimum required fire flow for the subject facility shall be 1,000 gallons
per minute from any three hydrants of the five flowing with 20-psi residual.
H. Provide 15 -foot clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to building site.
Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles.
I. Developer to install 5 hydrants that meet Saratoga Fire District's specifications,
and deposit $97.5.00 to cover hydrant rental for a period of five (5) years. Hydrant
to be installed and accepted prior to issuance of building permits.
J. Driveway plans to be approved and fees to be paid to the Saratoga Fire
District prior to issuance of permits.
K. Developer to deposit a fee of $10.00 per hydrant for a total of $50 prior to
issuance of building permits.
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
A. Prior to Final Approval, submit CC &R's which state:
1. No recreational courts are allowed on Lots 1 -5, 8, 9, 11 -14, 16 and 17.
Recreational courts may be placed on other lots only as allowed by the
Planning Commission through the Use Permit procedure. Swimming pools to be
allowed only through a modification of the Site Development Plan,
- 3 -
* January 10; 1979 PC revise(
STAFF REPORT '` January 10, 1979(revised)
y . RE: SD -1364, Allen DeMartf .. ,._ JANUARY 4, 1979
r
2. Residences require Design Review Approval. Individual house design to
be evaluated on the basis of compatibility with the physical environment
and compliance with Site Development Plan. Complete plans for all on -site
grading to be included in evaluation. All grading to be contoured so as
to form smooth transitions. All grading to be smooth transitions between
natural and man -made slopes.
3. Fences, walls and hedges are allowed only per City of Saratoga's HC -RD
Zoning District Regulations - "proximate to the principal structure
and in no event to enclose or encompass an area in excess of 4,000
square feet ".
4.' Mitigation Measures as stated on the Tentative Map. These CC &R's are
not to be amended without written consent of the City of Saratoga and
are enforceable by the City.
B. Design Review Approval of all structures and landscaping required prior to
issuance of permits, per HC -RD Ordinance... .
C. •Design Review Approval for the following is required prior to Final Subdivision
Approval:
a) Treatment of pedestrian /equestrian easement
b) Design of any retaining walls over 3 feet in height
c) Landscaping for graded areas, with slopes of 3:1 or flatter and
exceeding 20 ft. in height (toe 'io top) or with slopes steeper
than 3:1 and exceeding 10 ft. in height (toe to top)
D. Any modifications to the Site Development Plan shall be subject to Planning
Commission Approval.
E Special architectural mitigation measures for the residences shall be reviewed
and approved by the Planning Commission.or, as they direct, by, the Staff,_prior
to Final Approval.
F. All cut and fill slopes shall be of such material as to fully support land-
scaping.
G.. No single retaining wall to be•more than 5 feet in exposed face height.
H. Cuts for driveways; visible from viewshed, shall be hidden behind houses and /or
screened.
I. County portion of subject parcel to be annexed to City of Saratoga prior to
Final Approval.
J. Applicant shall comply with Mitigation Measures included on tentative map.
* K. Scenic easements to be shown on Final Map per the following written statement:
We hereby reserve an easement for the use and benefit of property
owners of the tract for permanent open space on and over theose
certain areas designed as "Scenic Easement" on the written map,
which are to be kept open and free from building and structures
and other improvements (including ornamental landscaping, fencing
and decks), but subject to the rights, limitations, powers and
obligations as set forth on that certain Scenic Easement Agreement
dated and which is being recorded concurrently
herewith. Public access is not implied and intended.
* L. Enter into Scenic Easement Agreement. with the City for the scenic easments prior
to Final Map Approval. Neither the CC &R's nor the Scenic Easement Agreement are to
be amended without the written consent of the 0ity of Saratoga and they are to be
enforceable by the City.
Kat Kerd , As istant Planner
KK /roam
APPROVED: as modified at the Planning ComuliSSiOn
Planning C niss on Agenda: 1/10/79 Meeting on January 10, 1979)
w Y
1
ti
dt
o
COA10 11, IE
CREEK
LOCATION MAFP'.
AGENDA BILL N0: om�[
DATE: April 1, 1985
DEPARTMENT: Maintenance
Initial:
Dept. Head:
City Atty:
City Mgr:
SUBJECT: 1984 -85 Roberti- Z'berg Funds
Issue Summary
The Maintenance Department wishes to apply for our 1984 -85 block
grant allocation through the Roberti- Z'berg Urban Open -Space and
Recreation Program. Our agency has been alloted $14,790 which
will revert back to the State if our application is not submitted
May 1, 1985. These funds would be used along with the recently
approved 1984 Bond Act funds to improve Congress Springs Park.
We anticipate an additional $14,800 to be available under the
1985 -86 Roberti- Z'berg Program.,
Recommendation
Adopt the Resolution approving the application for a grant under
the Roberti- Z'berg Open -Space and Recreation Program.
Fiscal Impact
Funding in the amount of $14,790.
Attachments
1. Resolution No.
2. Application for Local Assistance Grant
3. Attachment to Application
4. Notice of Exemption
5. Project Location Map
6. Site Plan
7. Cost Estimate
Council Action
4/17: Adopted Resolution 2226,: 5 -0.
1
State of California — The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
ROBERTI- Z'BERG URBAN OPEN -SPACE AND RECREATION PROGRAM
APPLICATION FOR LOCAL ASSISTANCE GRANT
Project Title:
Congress Springs Park
Applicant (Agency — address incl. zip code)
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
State Senate District No
11
State Assembly District No. 22
Check One
Block Grant
Need Basis Grant ❑
Estimated Total Project Cost S 412 ,125
a
Amount of Grant Request $ 14,790
Amount of Matching Funds S 397,335
Source of Matching Funds See Attached
Project Location:
Santa Clara
County
Nearest City Saratoga
Address and Nearest Cross Street:
12970 Glen Brae Drive
at Cox Avenue
Applicants' Representative Authorized in Resolution .
(type) J . Wayne Dernetz City Manager (408,867-3438 x 11
(Namel (Title) (Phone)
Person with day-to -day responsibility for project (if different from authorized representative)
(tune► Dan Trinidad, Jr. Director of Maintenance ( 408) 867 -3438 x 19
(Name) (Title) (Phone)
Description of Project (Brief)
The project consists of completion and renovation of existing
community park. - Includes new building for restroom, kitchen
snack room, and storage room, adding paving to parking lot for
50 cars; new multi - purpose court and more picnic tables and
benches. Ballfields and soccer fields to be renovated and
several relocated to be completely within park property.
I certify that the information contained in this application, including required attachments, is accurate and that 1 have read and understand the
important information and assurances on the reverse of this form.
Signed
Applicant's Authorized Representative as Shown in Resolution
Date
1 hereby certify that the applicant has met, or will meet, all federal, state or local environmental, public health, relocation, affirmative action,
and clearinghouse requirements and all other appropriate codes, laws, and regulations prior to the expenditure of the grant funds. (Public
Resources Code 5626 (c)
I further certify that the applicant fully understands that the State Department of Parks and Recreation will not assume any responsibility to
ensure compliance with any applicable federal, state or local codes, laws or regulations, but that the Department may conduct an audit to
ensure compliance.
(Signed — Legal Counsel)
for
Applicant
DPR 632 (12/80)
(over)
Date
IMPORTANT
Submit applications throughout year for Block Grants and as announced for Need Basis Grants. Before you an spend any of the
grant —
1. The Legislature must appropriate funds
2. An application must be submitted to State
3. Caution — all state requirements must be met and an agreement signed before any funds will be disbursed.
0
An audit may be performed before final payment.
Needed for Application
One Copy of Each of the Following
1. Application Form.
2. Authorizing Resolution from governing body.
3. Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration and a copy of the Notice of Determination; or, if applicable, a copy of
the Notice of Exemption if the project is categorically exempt.
4. Project location map (city or countyl.
S. Acquisition map and acquisition schedule listing number of parcels, size and approximate date of acquisition and cost
(acquisition projects).
6. Site plan and applicable development, operation and maintenance or innovative cost estimate (development projects).
7. Need Basis Grants for capital outlay, O & M or innovative programs must contain complete project justification following all the
criteria for the applicable project grant request.
Assurances
The applicant hereby gives assurance and certifies with respect to the grant that:
It possesses legal authority to apply for the grant, and to finance, acquire, and construct the proposed project; that a resolution,
motion or similar action has been duly adopted or passed as an official act of the applicant's governing body, authorizing the filing of
the application, including all understandings and assurances contained therein, and directing and authorizing the person identified as
the official representative of the applicant to act in connection with the application and to provide such additional information as
may be required.
It will provide and maintain competent and adequate architectural engineering supervision and inspection at the construction site to
insure that the completed work conforms with the approved plans and specifications; that it will furnish progress reports and such
other information as the State may require.
It will give the State's authorized representative access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers, or documents related to
the grant.
It will cause work on the project to be commenced within a reasonable time after receipt of notification from the State that funds
have been approved and that the project will be prosecuted to completion with reasonable diligence.
ATTACHMENT TO APPLICATION
FOR
LOCAL ASSISTANCE GRANT FOR
CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
1. 1984 Bond Act
2. Local Organizations
3. 84 -85 Roberti - Z'berg Grant
4. 85 -86 Roberti - Z'berg Grant
5. Local Park Development Fees
$ 235,000.
$ 30,000.
$ 14,790.
$ 14,800.
$ 117,533.
TOTAL Estimated Project Cost $ 412,125.
NOTICE 01' EX1 NIPTION
TO: SiCRETARY FOR RESOURCES
1416 Ninth Street, Room 1.311
Sacramento, California 95814
X County Clerk
County of Santa Clara
191 North First Street
San Jose, California 95112
PROJECT TITLE: Congress Springs Park Master Plan
PROJECT LOCATION - Specific: 12970 Glen Brae Drive
PROJECT LOCATION - City: Saratoga
FROM: City of Saratoga
Dent. of Comm. Develoment
13777 Fruitvalc Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
PROJECT LOCATION - County: Santa
Clara
DESCRIPTION OF NATURE, PURPOSE AND BENEFICIARIES OF PROJECT:
Amendment to existing Park Master Plan to allow the construction of one
small building, two tennis courts, and repave existing parking spaces. The
citizens of Saratoga will benefit from this project.
NA14E OF PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVING PROJECT :' City of Saratoga
NMIE OF PERSON OR AGENCY CARRYING OUT PROJECT:
EXEMPT STATUS: (check one)
Ministerial (Sec. 15073) Declared Emergency (Sec. 15071(a))
Emergency Project (Sec. 15071 (b)(c)) X Categorical Exemption. (State type
and section number):
Section 15302 - Replacement of parki
Section 15303- Construction small
REASON WHY PROJECT IS EXEMPT: structures.
Project will replace.-and reduce - .existing ».Section 15-.304-Minor land- .alteratic
impervious parking surface, construct a 1250'sq. ft. accessory structure, constrr
2 tennis courts and will involve minor grading. None of these.activities will crc
significant eff cts on thee e vironme t
CONTACT PERSON: Robert S. ShooK, )irector.o7` Community Development, City of Saratoga
(408) -867 -3438
If filed by applicant: 1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.
2. Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency approving
the project? Yes _ No
Ro •ert S. Shoo
Director f Community Development
. //
Z �
Date
m
4
t
s
�QT
r MITE
l
GOX A�
Pill
l',.
CvAl;�A-rOo -
LOS C�A""ra� �D
G T L 0011,6 �J \I
Gon�re�� 4�-DQrina,� Fork
(� n\,
�7 YA� v /lY
LC? U I "f O r"\ �),
r
�r
iI0 PTH
�ara�-o��, G�Ii�Fornia
Job Title:- Lo1�(J i�5 �I°rz1 r1G+h I��C: -IL
Address: 22 A2I.4/'a,1 GA
Date:
Item
230. r,-- s crinti on
C O S T E S T I 11 A T E
Unit
OuantivV Unit Cns{:' T.-,+M1
T....t, n,.t.�,,..; ,.., T �.•,.acr. -,.�c R.,..hi }.n�•t . �9�,(i T7 ?rl- Rp�.tl nTr 1+�j.
?ii o ^
0Atto. Catifornia 9U5
2
�L LoW
2q,000'
I���/I� PI�I r1U - P20 GAS
22, OOO
C�S1OC6
I
2, ooO
4,0007
pf-11HHr1O N0TI,5IH
4CO.
9
�troyG
S
10
�r-1�N p��o�11°oh�p �+f��°'�T�'
2�,0�
�,�,
�•�C�
?,� -,�-
1,1oO
I
New GC-,
WO
L. �
lo. - .
2 ,CC0-
Cpr-�,00v
4-71:=t
,JP 1�7
4 ,2hv.
I?
/A-W -rOrIA I6, I �.IzI Gi�`TIoH
LAS, 000
�, ��
.P h
t ar
Iq
r-F- 06�^Tr--
2C -
2o
yoo-
T....t, n,.t.�,,..; ,.., T �.•,.acr. -,.�c R.,..hi }.n�•t . �9�,(i T7 ?rl- Rp�.tl nTr 1+�j.
?ii o ^
0Atto. Catifornia 9U5
CITY OF SARATOGA
C
p.-� Initial
AGENDA BILL N0. Do Dept. Hd.
DATE: 4/8/85 (4/17/85) C. Atty.
DEPARU' =: Community Development C. Mgr.
--------------------------------- -------------------------------- - - - - -- - - - -- -_ --
An elo Karavaras Ar onaut Shopping Center, 12940 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd Appeal
SUBJECT: of Planning Commission Decision to Uphold Staff's Denial of a Business License for
----------- a_ Pizza_ Par1Qr---------------------------- - - - - -- --
Issue SunTo y
Mr. Karavaras applied for a business license to operate a pizza parlor out of a 2,172 sq. ft.
space at the Argonaut Shopping Center. Present use of this area is as an office and storage area
for the liquor store on site. The shopping center does not meet current zoning ordinance re-
quirements for parking. The business license was denied initially at staff level because of the
inadequate parking situation, despite the fact that restaurants are permitted uses in this
zoning district (C -N). The applicant appealed this decision to the Planning Commission. At
the Commission's regular meeting on 3/27/85, the denial of the business license was upheld.
The applicant is now appealing the Planning Commission's decision. However, his concept for the
restaurant has now changed from a pizza parlor to a Greek - Italian, family -style restaurant. This
new concept would not change the impact on the shopping center's parking.
Recommendation
1. Determine the merits of the appeal and approve or deny the business license.
2. The City Council may wish to require that variance approval for the parking be obtained.
Fiscal Impacts
N/A
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Appeal letter dated 4/3/85
2. Memorandum to the Planning Commission regarding the denial dated 3/20/85
3. Appeal letter to Planning Commission dated 3/14/85
4. Minutes dated 3/27/85
Council Action
4/17: Consensus to return to Planning Cami.ssion to clarify change in type of
restaurant; applicant to apply for variance.
Date Received:'�5
Hearing Date
L
Fee
CITY USE ONLY
APPEAL APPLICATION
Name of Appellant: C , CK� ^C!��l C)-� 011
Address:
Telephone:
Name of Applicant:
Project File'No.:
Project Address:
Project Description: 1C,,
Decision Being Appealed: C\
/ n'2-- -� 1 r�
GroUu ids r �he Apo cpe peal (Letter may be attacfi c .
Appel ant's Signature
*Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the
City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this
appeal please list them on a separate sheet.
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF
THE DATE OF THE DECISION.
n'
RECEIVED
ANGELO KARAVARAS APR 03 1985
125 36th Avenue COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
San Mateo, CA 94403
(415) 341 -1804
April 3, 1985
I am appealing the decision that there is a parking shortage in the
Argonaut Shopping Center according to your zoning ordinance. I would like it
to be known that I am intending to broaden the usage from a Pizza Parlor to a
full service Greek - Italian, family- oriented restaurant. I have talked to many
homeowners in Saratoga as well as to merchants, and they feel as I do that it
will be good for the city of Saratoga and for the community because the city
of Saratoga has very few family- oriented restaurants. Primarily, the restau-
rants in Saratoga are very fine and expensive dinner houses. Since family
restaurants are so few and limited in their menu, it is unfortunate people
tend to leave Saratoga to go somewhere else to take their family out to din-
ner.
The City loses revenue as the exiisting unit stands in the corner, and
since it has no activity the parking l;ot attracts undesirables in that corner.
Proposed business would reduce undesirables due to the fact that there will be
activity in the corner and; furthermore, as owner I would not want this kind
of activity because it would be bad for the reputation of the restaurant that
I am proposing.
Back to the denial of the business - -the merchants of the shopping center
feel that there is never a parking problem in the shopping center. The shop-
ping center has more than adequate.parking to,meet its needs even if the pro -
posed business is established. Even though the added parking required does
not meet the zoning ordinance, it is my opinion that if the unit is available
for lease, there is adequate parking to meet my needs and the nneeds ofrothers.
The unit can be used as a restaurant and there appears
why the zoning enforced under these
do something circumstances.
don't feel I sho
mutuallybene-
ficial for Saratoga and its families.
13777 FI,.U1TVALF: AVF'NUI, • SARA'1'0CA, CALIFOItNIA 95070
(408) 867 -34:38
MEMORANDUM
Date: 3/20/85
Commission Meeting: 3/27/85
TO: Planning Commission
FROM:_ Diana Lewis
SUBJECT: Denial of Business License for a Pizza Parlor in the Argonaut
Shopping Center
----------------- 7 -----------------------------------------------=--- - - - - --
The applicant is proposing a new pizza parlor in a space which is presently
used as �n.office and storage area for the liquor store on site. Despite
the fact that restaurants are permitted uses in this zoning district, staff
denied" the business license application because of inadequate parking at
the shopping center.
Reasoning for the denial begins with a Parking analysis done two years ago
that revealed the number of spaces available at Argonaut is below that
which is required by zoning ordinance. On site, 425 spaces are provided.
However, in the parking analysis, it was determined that with the uses on
site and 'the number of employees, the amount of parking that should be
provided is 464 spaces. Staff felt that this parking deficit would be
further impacted by a new restaurant use.
For comparison, outlined
below is
the number of parking
spaces required per
use:
PARKING
RATIO
NUMBER OF SPACES
(Spaces
per Gross
REQUIRED PER
USE Floor
Area)
EXCLUSIONS
EMPLOYEE
Restaurant 1 per 75
sq. ft.
Areas for Storage•&
1
Kitchen Preparation
Office 1 per 400 sq. ft.
Storage ' 1 per 1,000 sq. ft. Areas for truck loading 1
Retail 1 per 200 sq. ft. Areas for storage & truck.
loading 1
In general,' restaurant uses require more parking than other uses It is
the applicant's contention that he will not be using most of the space he
will be renting (15' x 901), and on'ly wishes to have S or 6 tables. Thus,
he does not feel his pizza parlor will create an inordinate parking demand.
The Planning Commission can consider the merits of the applicant's appeal
and approve or deny the request. 'The Commission may also choose to require
Memo to Planning Commission 3/21/85
Bu5ine55 License Denial - Argonaut Page 2
that a Variance for the parking be obtained.
Diana Lewis
Planner
P.C. Agenda: 3/27/85
DL /dsc
F, EWE® Date Received: -�
MAR 1. A 1985 Hearing Date:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Fee
CITY USE ONLY
Name of Appellant:
Address:
Telephone:
Name of.-Applicant:
Project File No.:
Project Address:
Project Description:
APPEAL APPLICATION
t I_
Decision Being Appealed:
Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached):
Cc 0 03
A- 0, c- !
r1.(,D r\
/' --
Appellant's Signature
�d
*Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the
City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this
appeal please list them on a separate sheet.
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF
'r!-iE DA'rE OF 'I'[1L'- DECISION.
Planning Commission Page 6
Minutes - Meeting 3/27/85
14. A -1077 - Toshi Fun;)
18830 Cox Ave., Request for Design Review
Approval fo an illuminated sign which is not consistent
with shoppin center program
---------------- - - - - -- --------------------------------------------
Staff explained the applica\de recommending denial.
Craig Maynard, of Cal -Neon s, described the proposal. Discussion
followed on the proposed , and Staff indicated that they felt
approval of the sign would tting a precedent and they are concerned
about consistency. Mr. Md commented that the section of the
building involved is diffethan the others and he does not feel a
precedent would be set for e t of the mall.
Commissioner Peterson movo eny A -1077, per the Staff Report.
Commissioner J. Harris d d the motion, which was carried
unanimously 4 -0. The appeaiod was noted. It was clarified to Mr..
Maynard that if he builds adiv dual letter sign which conforms to
the sign program the si gn wit h ve to come back to the Commission.
MISCELLANEOUS
15. Discussion of Amendment C &Rs f r Tract 6628; continued from
March 13, 1985
It was directed that this matter be continued to April 10, 1985.
16.. Angelo Karavaras, Appeal of Staff Denial of a Business License for
a Pizza Parlor in the Argonaut Shopping Center, Saratoga - Sunnyvale
Road
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Staff explained the request for a business license, recommending denial
of the appeal based on�the lack of parking. Discussion followed on the
parking situation at the Argonaut Shopping Center.
Mr. Angelo Karavaras, the appellant, explained his request and the
calculations for parking.
The Commission expressed concern relative to the impact to the neighbors
of a pizza parlor at that end of the center, and the fact that, because
that location is so secluded, they feel it would invite a lot of
loitering. Chairman Siegfried asked if that is a legitimate concern
that the Commission can address, since it is a permitted use. The City
Attorney commented that there has been a recent court case upholding•a
denial of a permitted use, based upon circumstances of the type that
have been described. Iie added that there would have to be further
investigation and some findings would have to be made, but it is not
without precedent. Commissioner Siegfried suggested scheduling this
matter for a public hearing, rather than denying this on the basis of
inadequate parking. fie added that 11e feels the parking at that end of
the shopping center is never used.
Commissioner Peterson commented that the parking at that end may never
be used, but there are parking ratios, and if this exceeds it he will go
on record as voting to deny. Discussion followed on the calculations
used by Staff to determine the parking. Commissioner Peterson stated
that he feels the last thing the City needs to do is create a Golden
Mushroom in the Argonaut Shopping Center. The City Attorney commented
that it is probably in a sense a bit easier to deny on the grounds of
parking; then we are relying expressly on the provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance. He added that the Commission can add additionally concerns
about the use. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he has no problem
voting for a motion which would deny on the basis of parking ratios;
however, he would like the record to clearly indicate that if the
applicant finds a way to meet the parking, he would have serious
problems with the use in this location. There was a consensus relative
to this concern.
Commissioner Burger moved to deny the appeal of a Staff denial of a
business license for a pizza parlor in the Argonaut Shopping Center,
based on inadequate parking. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion,
which was carried unanimously 4 -0. It was noted that this decision can
be appealed to the City Council within 10 calendar days.
466�- 4k - 6 -
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO. Initial: �� _ Dept. Hd.
DATE: April 17, 1985
C. Atty
DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr.
SUaTECT: LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA-1 (.Exi.sting)
Issue: Sunnary
For the past four years, the City of Saratoga has utilized the provisions'
of the "Landscape and Lighting Act'of 1972" to raise the' revenue necessary
to fund required maintenance and incidential costs within the Landscaping
and Lighting District LLA -1. Pursuant to the Act, proceedings are required-
for each fiscal year during which an assessment is to be levied and collected
within the District.
Resolution No. directs the City Engineer to prepare a'report describing
the improvements, the costs, the areas involved and the proposed assess -
.ments.fQr_each parcel. Resolution No. appoints Wilson, Morton, Assaf
.and McElligott as the attorneys for the district. This district includes all
previously existing lighting districts Azule, Azule annexed, Quito and Saratoga
Village, Arroyo De Saratoga, Tricia Woods; three (_3) Park Maintenance Districts,
Manor Drive, Fredericksburg Dri -ye and Greenbrier; one (1) Parking District,
Village Parking District No. 1, Meadow Brook.
It is anticipated that the Engineer's; Report will be ready-for preliminary
approval at the May 1, 1985 meeting of the City Council. Also, at the May
1, 1985 meeting, the resolution of intention of .:fixing time :and place of hearing
(hearing should be held on June 5, 1985) should b e passed.
Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. a resolu-txion describing improvements and directing
preparation of Engineer's Report for fiscal year 1985 - 1986. Adopt Resolution
No. appointing Wilson, Morton, Assaf and McElliot as attorneys for the
district.
Fiscal Impacts
The costs for the administration, maintenance servicing and lighting energy
axe charged.to the various.zones within the District based on benefit received.
`The"Santa- "Clara County Assessor's Office will collect the amount through the
taxes and, in turn, remit to the City.
Exhibits /Attachments
Resolution No.,2 a2-� together with Exhibit "A"
i.Res'olut,i,bn No. aaa-�A
Council Action
4/•17: Adopted both resolutions 5-0..
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. �� Dept. Hd. P.0
DATE: 4/8/85 ( 4/17/85)
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
Ste'= Landscape and Lighting District LLA -1 (Annexation)
Issue Summary
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
We have,:::been requested by Galeb Paving, Inc. for.Tract 6996 along LEUTAR COURT, and
J. Lohr Properties,Inc. for Tract 7655 along CABERNET DRIVE to utilize the provision of
the Landscape.and Lighting District LLA -1.
The owners of SDR -1452 CUNNINGHAM PLACE and Tract 6199 TRICIA WAY were.required to
maintain the landscaping which was installed by the developer. But the owners.of
above both projects are not maintaining landscaping in proper manners,. therefore it
is our recommendation that City Council require these property owners to join the
Landscape and Lighting District LLA -1 this year because the cost of Annexation will be
distributed among all four projects rather than only two:
This would raise the revenue necessary to fund required maintenance and incidental costs
of the landscape along the intersection of Via Monte Drive and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road.
Pursuant to the Act, proceedings are required for each fiscal year during which assess-
ment is to be levied and collected within the!District.
Resolution No. determines to undertake proceedings for the annexation of territory
to an existing assessment district, describes the improvements and directs the City
Engineer to prepare an Engineer's report. Resolution No. appoints Wilson, Morton,
Assaf and McElligott as the attorneys for the annexation.
�It.is.anitcipated that the Engineers Report will be ready for preliminary approval at
the May 1, 1985 meeting of City Council. Also, at the May'l, 1985 meeting, the.resolution
of intention fixing time and place of hearing (hearing should be held on June 51 1985)
should be passed.
Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. to undertake proceedings for the annexation of territory to an
existing assessment district. Adopt Resolution No. appointing Wilson, Morton,. Assaf
and McElligot as the attorneys for the annexation.
Fiscal. Impacts
The costs for the administration, maintenance servicing are charged to the zone within
the District based on benefit received. The Santa Clara County Assessor's.office will
collect the amount through the taxes.and, in turn, remit to the City.
Exhibits /Attachments
Resolution No.a a a e together with Exhibit "A" and "B"
Resolution No. .A a2 914
Council Action
4/17: Adopted both resolutions 5 -0.
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO. ad- 161
DATE 4/5/85 (4/17/85)
DEPAR'IMEXT• Community Development
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
SUW=: SDR -1590, Leonard" J. Liccardo, Tentative Ma,p Approval for a three (3)
lot subdivision at 20045 Mendelsohn Lane
Issue Summary
1. At its meeting of March 13, 1985 the Planning Commission denied
the applicant's request to subdivide the subject property into three.
lots where only two lots were permitted under the Subdivision Or-
dinance Slope Density Formula.
A portion of the site (.primarily Parcel B) would be subject to inunda-
tion in the event of a 1% flood.
The SCVWD indicated that the flooding problem could be mitigated by
raising the floor level of the building on Parcel B.
The Commission majority determined that a two lot subdivision would
be safer and decided not to grant an exception to the ordinance re-
quirements.
2.
3.
4.
Recommendation
1. Staff recommended denial of the three lot subdivision -since it was
not in conformance with the Subdivision Ordinance and was incon-
sistent with the portions of the City's General Plan.
2. If the City'Council wishes to approve this application it must first
approve the Negative Declaration, make the necessary findings to
grant an exception to the Slope Density Requirements (page 3 on the
Staff Report dated 2/22/85), and the Council must also find that the
project is consistent with the City "s General Plan.
3. Staff still recommends denial.
Fiscal Impacts
None anticipated
Exhibits /Attachments
Exhibit A- Appeal Letter
Exhibit B- Negative Declaration
Exhibit C- Resolution No. SDR - 1590 -1 denying tentative map
Exhibit D- Staff Report.dated 2/22/85
Exhibit E- Planning Commission Minutes dated 2/27/85 and 3/13/85
Exhibit F- Exhibits
Exhibit G- Correspondence received on project
Council Action
4117: Approved negative declaration 4 -0 (Fanelli abstaining).
Granted' appeal, with conditions . (see minutes) ,' 4 -0 (Fanelli abstaining).
Date Received:`;,?? -�
• r°
Hearing Date: i j�-
Fee
CITY USE ONLY
APPEAL APPLICATION
Name of Appellant: William A. Gissler, Civil Engineer
For Applicant)
Address: 1075 Blossom Drive, Santa Clara, CA 95050
Telephone: (408) 241 -3087 or (408) 842 -2173
Name of Applicant: Leonard J. Liccardo
Project File No.: SDR - 1590 - 1
Project Address: 20045 Mendelsohn Lane
Project Description: Subdivision of 2.64 acres into 3 lots
Decision Being Appealed: Planning Commission denial of the Tentative
Map on March 13. 1985.
Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached):
1. There are special circumstances and unique characteristics of the
site due to the existing grading and improvements. The site has been
terraced for many years with flat areas for the existing buildings on
Parcel A and flat areas where the proposed building sites would be
for Parcel B and C. To apply the slope density formula without recog-
nizing this is simply wrong.
2. The site is physically suitable for the proposed development. The
strongest point attesting to this is that the City Geologist: re-
commended approval of the Tentative Map.
Attachments to.this appeal application are:
1. Tentative Parcel Map, Site Plan
2. Tentative Parcel Map, Lot Sections
3. Chronology of the Review Process
4. List of'Key Considerations Why the Tentative Map Should Be Approved
Appellant's Signatur
*Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the
City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this
appeal please list them on a separate sheet.
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUB1H TTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF
THE DX1'L'• 017 ' DECISION.
EIA -4 �r
Saratoga
DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED
(Negative Declaration)
Environmental Quality Act of 1970
File No: SDR -1590
The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the
CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation
has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable
provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15063 throu4
15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code,.and.Resolu-
tion 61S3-.of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project wit
have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the -environm-it
within the terms and meaning of said Act.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Subdivide a 2.64 acre parcel with a slope of
12.9% into three lots at 20045 Mendelsohn Lane, Saratoga, CA. Two
new building sites would be created by this subdivision adjacent to
Wildcat Creek. A portion of the site would be subject to flooding
in the event of a 100 year flood.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Leonard J. Liccardo
375 W. Santa Clara St., Ste. 111
San Jose, CA 95113
The proposed project will not have a significant effect on the
environment since potential flooding impacts can be mitigated by
raising the pad elevation or eliminating a building site. The con-
struction impacts associated with the project will be mitigated by
application of existing city codes and ordinances and by conditions
required through the building site approval process.
Executed at Saratoga, California this 19th day of FPhr„ary 19B-a
ROBERT S. SHOOK _
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OF THE CITY OF
SARATOGA
DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER
0 . a
RESOLUTION NO.
SDR- 1590 -1
RESOLUTION DENYING TENTATIVE MAP OF
LEONARD LICCARDO
I
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the
Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision
Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tentative map approval of a lot, site
or subdivisions of 3 lots, all as more particularly set forth in
File No. SDR -1590 of this City, and
WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed sub-
division, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is
not consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans
relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is not compatible
with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in
such General Plan, reference to the approved Staff Report dated February
22, 1985 ,and /or the findings.on the reverse page, being hereby made for
further particulars, and
WHEREAS, this body has 'heretofore received.and considered the ()
(.Negative Declaration) prepared for this project in accord with the currently
applicable provisions of CEQA, and
WHEREAS, the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) and (b) of
Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdivision, and
tentative approval should not be granted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the
hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the 17th' day of
January , 1985 , and is marked.Exhibit "B" in the hereinabove
referred to file be_and the same is hereby denied. The rationale of said
denial is as more particularly set forth on Exhibit 'All... attached
hereto and incorporated herein be reference, and the approved minutes.
The.above and foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by
the (Planning Commission) at a meeting there-
of held on the 13th day of March 1985 , at which a quorum
was present, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners B. Harris, J. Harris, McGoldrick and Schaefer
NOES: Commissioners Burger and Peterson
ABSENT• . Commissioner Siegfried
ADVI RY GENCY
ATTEST: f /j
7
Secretary Chairman
Section 66474
Subdivision Map Act
66474. A legislative body of a city or county shall deny approval
of a final or tentative map if it makes any of the following findings:
That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general
and specific plans.
0 That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is
not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
0 That the site is not physically suitable for the type of develop-
ment.
❑ That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density
of development.
❑ That the design of the'subdivision or the proposed improvements
are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substan-
tially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
❑ That the design of the.subdivision or the type of improvements is
likely to cause serious public health problems.
❑ That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements
will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large,
for access through or use.of, property within the,proposed sub
division.
`t X.
Qq
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
APN: 517 -21 -04
Date: 2/22/85
Commission Meeting: 2/27/85
APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: SDR -1590, 20045 Mendelsohn Lane
APPLICANT: Leonard V. Liccardo OWNER: Same
ACTION REQUESTED: Tentative Building Site Approval for a three (3) lot
subdivision.
OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIREO: Final Building Site Approval, Design
Review Approval and Building Permits.
'ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A Negative Declaration has been prepared for
this project.
ZONING: R- 1- 20,000 GENERAL_ PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential- Single
Family Low Density
EXISTING LAND USE: Residential
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Residential
PARCEL SIZE: 2.64 Acres
LOT SIZES (Per Applicant) Lot A: .93 Acres (net)
Lot B: 52 Acres (net)
Lot C: 5G Acres (net)
AVERAGE SLOPE OF SITE Overall: 12.9%
(Per Applicant) Lot A: 15.8%
Lot B: 8.5%
Lot C: 9.5%
NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: The site is adjacent to Wildcat Creel:. n
Portion of the site (Lot B) would be subject to flooding in the event of
100 year flood. Mature pine, oat; and other trees are located along tree
creek.
EE'2JECT DESCRTPTTON & 1.SUES: The proposed project would create three (-"))
lot; but only two (2) new building sites. However, an exception to the
slope density requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance would have to be
Report to Planning Commission 2/22/$5
SDR -1590, Liccardo, Mendelsohn Lane Page 2
granted by the Commission to allow this subdivision. Section 13.9 -3
establishes the standards for hillside development (site slope greater than
10 %). The slope density formula of this section would allow 2.27
lots on the site (minimum lot size 1.16 acres) which is rounded down to two
(2) lots. Further, any lots with a slope greater than 10% in slope must be
a minimum of 40,000 sq. ft. in size.
The Commission discussed this issue and the proposed subdivision at a
recent Study Session. As a result of that meeting, the applicant prepared
a map which created two (2) new building sites under 10% in slope adjacent
to Wildcat Creek. The existing building site would be contained in the
steepest lot. This proposal would comply with the minimum 40,000 sq. ft.
lot size requirement for individual lots over 10% in slope but does not
comply with the slope density requirement. Thus, the proposed subdivision,
if approved by the Planning Commission, would constitute an increase in
density not normally accorded properties with slopes greater than 10 %.
According to the Santa Clara Valley Water District, nearly all of Lot B and
a portion of Lot C would be subject to inundation in the event of a 100
year flood. The Di51rtict has indicated that this could be mitigated by
requiring a minimum 511.5 foot floor elevation for any new structures in
the flood zone area. However, this mitigation could require the
substantial importation of fill to raise the building site on Lot B to the
proposed level. Even then, there would still be some risk of flood hazard
to the new dwelling.
Because of the combination of flood hazard with increased density, staff
believes the project, as proposed, is inconsistent with the General Plan.
Lot B should be eliminated as a building site and combined with Lot C to
create a single building site which would not be subject to flooding. The
areas subject to flooding should be set aside as an open space easement to
prevent development in the flood area. Staff cites the following General
Plan Goals and Policies in support of this position:
"OS.2.0 Use open space to protect human life and property from hazards
such as wildfires, earthquake destruction, landslides and
flooding.
OS.2.1 Because of their open space and aesthetic value, creeks
shall be preserved as nearly as possible in their natural
state, and consistent with the protection of adjacent
properties.
C0.3.0 Preserve the quality of the natural environment and the character
of the City through appropriate regulation of site development.
C0.3.5 Watersheds shall be' protected by stringent erosion control
during development and by minimizing grading to the
fullest extent possible.
SS /S.1.0 Protect residents from injuries and minimize property damage from
Report to Planning Commission 2 /22/85
SDR -1590, Liccardo, Mendelsohn Ln. Page 3
earthquakes, flooding, and other natural hazards in populated
areas.
SS /S.1.1 The City shall continue to enforce its existing flood
control regulations, and will cooperate with the Santa
Clara Valley Water District, when proposed projects will
affect floodways in their jurisdiction, to prevent
development activities from aggravating or causing
potential flood problems."
The Planning Commission has allowed, to Staff's knowledge, an exception for
one other subdivison (Tract 6419) on Springer Avenue as far as density on
lots with slopes greater than 10 %. The City Council approved on appeal a
three (3) lot subdivision on Brookwood Lane which was subject to flooding
on the conditions that the building pad elevations were raised and berming
used.
FINDINGS: If the Planning Commission wishes to approve the density
proposed in this subdivision, then an exception to Section 13.9 -3 must
be granted to allow three (3) lots where only two (2) would normally be
permitted. To grant this exception, the following findings must be made:
1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting said property.
or,
2. The exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the
substantial property rights of the petitioner.
In addition to making one of the.findings above, the Commission must
also find that:
3. The granting of the exception will not be materially detrimental to the
public health, safety or welfare or injurious to other property in the
territory in which said property is located.
Staff does not recommend that the Commission make the findings listed above
since the location of a new dwelling in a flood zone could constitute a
public safety hazard. Further, there are no exceptional circumstances
associated with the property which would warrant-an exception from the
requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance.
OTHER ISSUES:
County Sanitation District No. 4 indicates that they will be working with
the applicant to provide sewer service to the property. The District
wishes to remove a pumping st'ati'on and extend the sewer line under
Saratoga -Los Gatos Road via the creek culvert. The cost of this extension
is estimated at about $200,000, of which about $30,000 is estimated to be
paid by the applicant. (See attached letter).
Report to Planning Commission 2/22/85
SDR -1590, Liccardo, Mendelsohn Ln. Page 4
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny this request for a three
(3) lot subdivision since the proposed increase in density is not warranted
with the potential flood hazard problem associated with the site and it
would be inconsistent with -the Goals and Policies of the General Plan.
However, if the Commission wishes to approve this request, it must take the
following steps:
1. Grant an exception to the Hillside Density Requirements of the
Subdivision Ordinance by making the findings listed above.
2. Approve the Negative Declaration and make the findings listed under
"Project Status" listed below.
3. Grant approval subject to the conditions listed below.
PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the General
Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the
City of Saratoga.
The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced
against the public_ service needs of its residents and available fiscal and
environmental resources.
A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the County of
Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this
project, if approved under this application. Said determination date:
2/19/85.
Approval of the tentative map for SDR -1590 (Exhibit B filed 1/17/85) is
granted subject to the following conditions:
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance
No. 60, including without limitation, the submission of a Record of
Survey or parcel map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and
recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the time of
final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any
street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department regu-
lations and applicable Flood Control regulations and requirements
of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance
for further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance
with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other
Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply
with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby required and
set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60.
Report to Planning Commission 2/22/85
SDR -1590, Liccardo, Mendelsohn Lane Page 5
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final
Approval.
B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation (Pay
required checking & recordation fees).
C. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 30 ft.
Half- Street on Mendelsohn Lane.
D. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easements,
as required.
E. Improve Mendelsohn Lane to City Standards, including the
following:
1. Designed Structural Section 18 ft. between centerline and
flowline.
2. P.C. Concrete curb and gutter (R -36).
3. Undergrounding Existing Overhead Utilities.
F. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Drainage
Plan" and as directed by tIhe City Engineer, as needed to convey
storm runoff to Street, Storm Sewer or Watercourse.
G. Construct access road 18 ft. wide plus 1 ft. shoulders using
double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6 in. aggregate
base from Mendelsohn Lane to within 100 ft. of proposed dwelling.
Slope of access road shall not exceed 12 -1/2% without adhering to
the following:
1. Access roads having slopes between 12 -1/2% and 15 shall be
surfaced using 2 -1/2" asphalt concrete on G" aggregate base.
2. Access roads having slopes between 15% and 17% shall be
surfaced using 4" of P.C. Concrete rough surfaced using 4"
aggregate base. Slopes in excess of 15% shall not exceed 50
ft, in length.
3. Access roads having slope in excess of 17 -1/2% are not'
permitted.
Note: a) The minimum inside curve radius shall be 42 ft.
b) The minimum vertical clearance above road surface
shall be 15 ft.
c) Bridges and other roadway structures shall be de-
signed to sustain 35,000 lbs. dynamic loading.
Report to Planning Commission 2/22/85
SDR -1590, Liccardo, Mendelsohn Lane Page 6
d) Storm runoff shall be controlled through the use
of culverts and roadside ditches.
H. Construct turnaround having 32 ft'. radius or approved equal using
double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6" aggregate
base within 100 ft, of proposed dwelling.
I. Construct Standard Driveway Approaches.
J. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view
as required at driveway and access road intersections.
K. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change,
retard or prevent flow.
L. No direct access allowed on Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. from lots
(except existing driveway for emergency purposes).
M. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills.
N. Obtain Encroachment Permit from Cal
within State Right -of -Way. Driveway
must be approved by State prior to
permit.
0. Obtain Encroachment Perjmit from
Development for driveway approaches
Street.
-Trans for wort; to be done
improvements, if necessary,
issuance of encroachment
the Dept. of Community
or pipe crossings of City
P. Engineered Improvement Plans required for:
1. Street Improvements
2. Storm Drain Construction
3. Access Road Construction
Q. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improve-
ment Plans.
R. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to
be completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval.
S. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements.
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional
for:
1. Geology
2. Soils
3. Foundation
C C
Report to Planning Commission 2/22/85
SDR -1590, Liccardo, Mendelsohn Lane Page 7
B. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing:
1. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location,
etc.)
2. Erosion control measures.
3. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using
record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's
name, etc.
C. Bonds required for removal of accessory structures:
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4
A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with
requirements of County Sanitation Dist. No. 4 (see attached
letter).
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT
A. Construct driveway 14 feet minimum width, plus one foot shoul-
ders using double seal coat oil and screening or better on 6
inch aggregate base from public street or access road to proposed
dwelling. Slope driveway shall not exceed 12 -1/2% without ad-
hering to the following:
1. Driveways having slopes between 12 -1/2% to 15% shall be sur-
faced using 2 -1/2 inches of A.C. on 6 inch aggregate base.
2. Driveways having slopes between 15% to 17 -1/2% shall be sur-
faced using 4 inches of P.C.C. concrete rough surfaced on
4 inch aggregate base and shall not exceed 50 ft.' in length.
3. Driveways with greater slopes or larger length will. not be
accepted.
B. Driveway shall have a minimum inside curve radius of 42 feet.
C. Provide 15 foot clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to
building site. Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles.
D. All. bridges and roadways shall be designed t;o sustain 35,000
lbs., dynamic loading.
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
A. A sanitary sewer connection will be required.
C C
Report to Planning Commission 2/22/85
SDR -1590, Liccardo, Mendelsohn Lane Page 8
B. Domestic water to be provided by San lose Water Works.
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER, DISTRICT
A. All buildings within the area subject to inundation from a 1%
flood must have a minimum floor elevation of 511.5 ft.
B. Dedicate easement to Santa Clara Valley Water District as shown
on map.
C. There should be no overbank, drainage from the developed site to
the creel:. Drainage should be to an existing storm drain or to
the creek in an approved outfall structure.
D. Applicant shall, .,prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans
showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to
the SCVWD for review and certification.
E. Any improvement plans shall be submitted for District review and
permit approval.
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PLANNING DIVISION
A. Public Hearing Design Review Approval required on project prior
to issuance of permits.
B. Prior to issuance of building permits, individual structures
shall be reviewed by the Planning Division to evaluate the
potential for solar accessibility. The developer shall pro-
vide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural
heating or cooling opportunities on /in the subdivision/build -
ing site.
C., Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City
Ordinances.
D. Applicant shall comply with the conditions outlined in the City
Geologist's letter dated 2/21/85, incorporated herein by re-
ference.
E. Dedicate an open space /scenic easement to the City encompassing
all areas of the site within 100 ft, of the edge of pavement of
Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. Such easement shall only permit
landscaping within its boundaries. The wording of this easement
shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to
Final Map Approval.
F. Prior to issuance of building permits, the existing accessory
structures on Lots B and C shall be removed.
Report to Planning Commission 2/22/85
SDR -1590, Liccardo, Mendelsohn Lane Page 9
G. The applicant shall execute an indemnity agreement as drafted by
the City Attorney ac }cnowledging the fact that Lot B is located in
a flood zone and relieving the City of any liability for issuing
Building Site Approval or any other permit for Lot B. This
agreement shall be recorded with the recordation of the Parcel
Map.
APPROVED:
Michael Flores
Planner
MF /dsc
P.C.' Agenda: 2/27/85
iryI William CoCon
and Associates
ENGI
GEOTECHNICAL CLULTANTS
314 Tait Avenue, Los Gatos, California 95030
(408) 354 -5542
February 21, 1985
S1085
TO: Kathy Kerdus, Senior Planner , ' C 1 85
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 Fruitvale Avenue COMMUNITY DEVELORMJ
Saratoga, California 95070
SUBJECT: Preliminary Geologic Review
RE: Lands of Liccardo, SDR -1590
At your request, we have completed a geologic review of the subject applica-
tion using the Site Plan and Vicinity Map (50- scale) prepared by William A. Gissler,
dated January 16, 1985.
DISCUSSION
Our review of the referenced map indicates that the applicant is proposing to
subdivide the subject property into 3 lots. The property is presently occupied by a
single - family residence, pool and driveway which provides access from Mendelsohn
Lane. The existing residence and associated improvements are included in proposed
Lot A. Proposed Lot B is primarily a lawn area, but does include a barn and corral
adjacent to Wildcat Creek (southeast property line). Proposed Lot C is also a lawn
area and is undeveloped. The submitted map indicates proposed building sites for
Lots B and C.
SITE CONDITIONS
The subject property is characterized by gentle to moderately steep (10 to 220),
southeast- and east - facing, hillside topography in the northern and western portions
(Lot A) and gentle to moderate (10 to 50)9 northeast - facing, stream side topography
in the southern and eastern portions (Lots B and C).
Grading, associated with the previous development of the subject property for
the existing residence, has modified the natural topography with the creation of
compound pads (i.e., part cut and part fill). The southeastern portion of the residence
and the pool appear to be underlain by fill materials which are primarily retained by
two 4 to 6 foot high retaining walls.southeast of the pool area. Several significant
cracks along the lower brick wall and distress and settlement along the southeastern
pool area were noted during our field inspection. It appears that the brick wall is not
adequately supporting the fill materials and continued distress to the pool may be
likely. Apparently, minor grading (cutting and filling) was performed many years ago
NEERING GEOLOGY 0 ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES 0 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
C
- 2 -
Kathy Kerdus, Senior Planner
February 21, 1985
in the open lawn area (Lots B and C) for the creation of a mini -golf course.
Additionally, the main driveway, which provides access from Mendelsohn Lane to the
existing residence, appears to have been built on a compound pad with fill materials
under the eastern alignment and minor cuts along the western alignment.
Drainage can be characterized by uncontrolled sheetflow to the southeast, east,
and northeast which is intercepted by the northeast - flowing Wildcat Creek. Wildcat
Creek approximately marks the southeast property boundary of the subject site and
was not flowing at the time of our field inspection (February 15, - 1985). The
topography in proposed Lot B appears to be sloped such that ponding of surface runoff
could occur. Our review of flood hazard maps indicates that the areas occupied by
proposed Lots B and C are subject to flood inundation. The subject property is
underlain, at depth, by bedrock materials of the Santa Clara Formation. The bedrock
materials are in turn overlain by poorly consolidated older alluvium and unconsoli-
dated alluvium (stream deposits) along Wildcat Creek.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
The proposed development appears to be somewhat constrained by potential
flood inundation, poor drainage conditions, and the possible presence of non -
engineered fill. However, it appears that proper geotechnical design and appropriate
grading practices could satisfactorily mitigate the potential constrains. Conse-
quently, we recommend approval of the Tentative Map with the following condition:
1) Flood Inundation and Drainage Mitigation - It is our understanding that
the applicant is aware of the potential flood hazards and is proposing to
increase the elevations of the building sites (Lots B and C) with fill
materials to a minimum of 511.5 feet. This elevation appears to meet
with the approval of the Santa Clara Valley Water District. We
recommend that the applicant's geotechnical consultants provide a pre-
liminary master grading and site drainage plan for the subject property to
clearly illustrate the feasibility of protecting the building sites from flood
inundation, and for providing improved site drainage (eliminating ponding)
in and around the proposed building sites.
The preliminary master grading and site drainage plan should be submitted to
the City and reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Geologist prior to
Tentative Map Approval.
William Cotton and Associates
i
-3-
Kathy Kerdus, Senior Planner February 21, 1985
Geotechnical Investigation
In addition, we recommend that prior to issuance of site development and
building permits for each lot, the applicant's geotechnical consultant should conduct a
detailed geotechnical investigation of the proposed building sites. The geotechnical
investigation should address, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and
grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and site - specific design
parameters for foundations and retaining walls. The investigation should determine
the aerial and subsurface extent of existing fill materials and provide mitigation
measures (if needed) to deal with the fill's possibly non - engineered conditions.
The geotechnical investigation, for each lot, should be submitted to the City
and reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Geologist prior to issuance of
site development and building permits.
Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
C
J�? C -
William R. Cotton
City Geologist
CEG 882
WRC:PS:kt
William Cotton and Associates
Planning Commission
Minutes - Meeting 3/13/85
Page 7
A -1052
the side to the adjacent property. She commented that if this were a
40,000 sq. ft. lot she would not approve the 6930 sq. ft. Commissioner
J. Harris added to the findings that the applicant has stated that he
can keep the oak trees around the circular driveway, and he has
indicated that he will replace the trees that are being lost.
Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried
unanimously 6 -0.
16a. Negative Declaration - SDR -1590 - Liccardo
16b. SDR -1590 - Leonard Liccardo, 20045 Mendelsohn Lane, Request for
Tentative Building Site Approval for a three (3) lot
subdivision, in the R -1- 20,000 zoning district; contin-
ued from February 27, 1985
------------------------------------------- ------------------- - - - - --
Staff explained that this matter had been continued from the last
meeting in order to allow some of the Commissioners to visit the site.
They noted that if the project is approved the Commission will need to
make an exception to the ordinance relative to the slope density
computation. They commented that they were recommending denial of the
application for the three lots.
Commissioner Burger gave a report on the on -site visit, indicating that
it had been staked to show the boundaries of the three proposed lots.
She stated that the two issues concerning the other Commissioners on
their site visit were the slope off of the road above and the
possibility of flooding on Parcel B. She described the slope,
commenting that she did not see any danger from cars coming down from
the road above because of the dense vegetation. She added that she also
was personally not concerned about flooding because of the proper infill
being used to bring it up to a level above the flood plain.
Commissioner Peterson agreed, adding that the site is not in the
hillsides and he can make the findings for the exception. He added tht
he believed Commissioner Siegfried agreed. It was noted that the other
Commissioners had visited the site on an earlier date.
The public hearing was opened at 10:17 p.m.
Bill Gissler, the civil engineer, gave a presentation on the project,
describing the site. He commented that he did not feel that the slope
formula applies to such a unique site. He stated that this project
would enable the development of the sanitary sewer line, which would be
a cost savings to the Sanitation District. He noted that there was no
opposition to this project from the neighbors.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Discussion followed on the Staff Report and the basis for the
recommendation of denial of the three lots. Commissioner McGoldrick
commented that she would vote against the proposal. She indicated that
she has no problem with the slope density formula or with the safety
aspect. She stated that she can not see an exception to something where
there is any risk at all to the future occupants. She added that, even
though the engineering is excellent, she can not vote for three lots
where she feels two would be safer. Commissioner J. Barris shared those
concerns.
Commissioner Burger moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SDR -
1590. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which failed 4 -2,
with Commissioners B. Harris, J. Harris, McGoldrick and Schaefer
dissenting.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to deny SDR -1590, per the Staff Report.
Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried 4 -2, with
Commissioners Burger and Peterson dissenting. Commissioner Schaefer
commented that she voted against the project based on the slope density
- 7 -
C �
Planning Commission Pzgo 8
Minutes - Meeting 3/13/85
SDR -1590
r -and the comments in the Staff Report. She added that she would vote for
two lots. Commissioner B. Harris and J. Barris agreed. The•appeal
period was noted.
17. V -684 - Douglas North, 19091 Portos Drive, Request for Variance
Approval to allow an addition to maintain a 17 ft, front
yard setback and 6.67 ft. side yard setback where 25 ft.
and 10 ft. are required, in the R -1- 10,000 zoning dis-
trict; continued from February 27, 1985
-------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Staff described the proposal, noting that this matter had been continued
from the last meeting because the applicant was not present. They
indicated that they were recommending approval of the variance for the
front yard setback and denial of the variance for the side yard setback.
The public hearing was opened at 10:34 p.m.
Doug North, the applicant, gave a presentation on the proposal, noting
the need for parking. He commented that without a variance for the side
yard setback, the addition will look like an add -on. He reported that
PG &E had approved the proposal and will be submitting a letter to that
effect.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner J. !Harris stated that she feels the configuration of the
lot should be taken into consideration. Commissioner McGoldrick stated
that, although it is not pertinent to the findings, the idea of getting
cars off of the street is very attractive to neighbors. She made the
following findings: Exceptional circumstances - Shape of the lot.
Common privilege _ Because it would dramatically channe the appearance
of the house. Special privilege - If it is a common privilege it is not
a special privilege. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve V -G84,
per the conditions of the Staff Report, based on the above findings.
Comissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried 5 -1, with
Commissioner Schaefer. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she felt the
design could be slightly different.
18. A -1063 - Mato Kusalo, Request for Design Review Approval to con-
struct a new 4,867 sq. ft. single family residence which
exceeds the 3,500 sq. ft. allowable floor area standard
at 12663 Sun Valley Court, in the R -1- 10,000 zoning dirt.
-------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Staff explained the application, recoimnending approval. only if the size
of the structure is reduced to be no greater than 4,000 sq. -ft.
Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the
site and the adjacent properties. Staff addressed the proposed fence
on the cul -de -sac frontage which would be over ordinance requirements,
stating that it would need a variance.
The public hearing was opened at 10:46 p.m.
Ron Dick, the designer, clarified that the fence is within the building
envelope, and it was noted that it would not need a variance. Mr. Dick
described the proposed project.
Commissioner Schaefer expressed concern about setting a precedent in
allowing the size standard of one zoning district and the setbacks of
another zoning district. M r: Dick commented that he felt the size and
shape of the lot should be taken into consideration. Discussion
followed on the size of the proposed house.
Commissioner Harris moved to close the public herring. Commissioner
McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
• �3
,
Planning Commission
Minutes - Meeting 2/27/85
UP -574
Page 6
Commissioner B rger indicated that she has a great deal of concern over
any modificati n to the use permit because of the concern from tht
neighbors as i currently exists. She noted that it is a residential
neighborhood. She moved to deny any modification to UP -574
Commissioner B. Harris seconded the motion, which failed 4 -2, wit)
Commissioners J. iarris, Siegfried, Peterson and McGoldrick dissenting.
Commissioner Peterlson moved to approve the Negative Declaration for UP-
574. Commissioner\J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried 4 -2•
with Commissioners McGoldrick and Burger dissenting.
Commissioner J. Har'is moved to modify UP -574 by making the swimminc
hour at 8:00 a.m., f5 only, as.requested by the club, with nc
other changes. Comm- sinner Peterson seconded the motion, which waL
carried 4 -2, with Commissioner Burger and McGoldrick dissenting. It wall
clarified that the motion was a denial of the request to change the time
for the swim team meetsl Commissioner McGoldrick explained that her nc
vote was because she waAwi11ing to give them a trial on the swim meets,
although she was also interested in making the summer hours later than
7:00 a.m. The appeal per \. was noted.
9. A -1021 - Parnas Corporation, Request for Design Review Approval tc
construct a i5 ft., one -story residence on a hillside lot
at 21543 Saratoga Heights Drive, in the NHR zoning dis-
trict; continued from February 13, 1985 (to be continued
------ - - - -to March 13, 1\•85)
------- - - - - -- --------------- -------------- ------- - - - - --
It was directed that this item be continued to March 13, 1985.
10. A -1023 - Parnas Corporate n, Request for Design Review Approva_ -.cc
construct a 27 ft\ , two -story residence on a hillside lot
ast 21531 Saratoga\ Heights Drive, in the NHR zoning dis-
trict; continued from February 13, 1985 (to be continued
to March 13, 1985) \
------------------------- - - - - - ----------------------------
It was directed that this item be co tinued to March 13, 1985.
11. A -1052 - Mark Rapport, Montalvo Heights Drive, Tract 6732, Lot 4,
Request for Design Review Modification Approval for a
new, two -story residence that exceeds the 6200 sq. ft.
floor area standard, in\the R -1- 40,000 zoning district
(to be continued to March 13, 1985)
------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
It was noted that this project has no't gone through architectural
review as required by the CC &Rs. The City Attorney indicated that that
has nothing to do with the jurisdiction\`of this. Commission to make a
decision, but his suggestion would be that, the applicant be advised to
run the matter through the Architectural Review Committee before
bringing it to this Commission. It was determined that this will be
brought to the applicant's attention and the ,matter will be continued to
March 13, 1985. \
12a. Negative Declaration - SDR -1590 - Liccard\
------------------------------------------
12b. SDR -1590 - Leonard Liccardo,.20045 Mendelsohn Lane, Request for
Tentative Building Sita Approval for a three (3) lot
subdivision, in the R -1- 20,000 zoning district
---------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Staff explained the project, indicating that if the Commission wishe- to
approve the three lots it will-be necessary to make an exception t ,e
slope density requirement.- They stated that Parcel B is in the 100 _ar
flood zone. They noted that they recommend that the approval he for twu
lots only.
Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, stating that
- r, -
Planning Commission Page 7
Minutes - Meeting 2/27/85
SDR -1590
1 the engineer feels that the addition of 1500 cubic yards of fill can
raise Parcel B above the flood plain safely. Commissioner Schaefer
expressed concern relative to the closeness to the highway and a
I possible safty hazard. She discussed the contours of the lot,
1• indicating that she feels it may not be an appropriate division.
The public hearing was opened at 10:10 p.m..
Bill Gissler, civil engineer, gave a presentation on the project,
referencing the discussions held at the previous study session. tie
discussed the grading and slope of the site. fie addressed the letter
from the water District and report from the City Geologist relative to
the flood plain, indicating that he does not feel this is a problem. He
stated that they would like to work with Staff regarding the 18 ft.
driveway, the entrance gate and the existing bridge structure.
Mr. Liccardo, the applicant, described the application.
i
t Dr. Dean Barney, owner of the property abutting this site, noted that
1i the Staff Report indicates that the proposed development does not meet
t� the requirements of the General Plan. He addressed the flooding that
has occurred from wildcat Creek.
Mr. Gissler pointed out that there will be a 50 ft. setback from the
r: center line of wildcat Creek dedicated to the water District.
•1411,
Coiiunissioner Schaefer moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
I'P4. McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
}.fz Commissioner McGoldrick commented that when she left the study session
-j shw was very comfortable with the exception to the slope density
4
formula, based on the fact that the two lots were of such a small slope,
°A and it was essentially Parcel A that was the higher slope. She stated,
?rt however, that she is very concerned with the fact that flooding can
occur and, given the closeness of Parcel B to the highway, she has
J trouble with this proposal.
Commissioner Schaefer commented that, looking.at the map she could
approve the proposal with all the exceptions; however, being on site
gives a totally different view. She stated that she would vote for two
lots.
Commissioner Peterson commented that he had not visited the site.
However, regarding the General Plan and the slope density issues, he
feels that is addressed to the hillsides. He added that he had no
problem with the 100 -year flood.
Commissioner Burger stated that she had left the study session feeling
there was no problem with the proposal; however, she has not had an
opportunity to visit the site.
Commissioner B. Harris concurred with Commissioner Schaefer, stating
that there is a very severe slope close to the highway.
The City Attorney explained the use of an Indemnity Agreement relative
to the 100 -year flood.
There was a consensus for the Commissioners who have not seen the site
to visit it at 2:00 p.m. on Saturday, and it was directed that this
matter be continued to the.regular meeting of March 13, 1985.
13. SUP -8 - Nadine McCullough, 14985 Quito Road, Request for Second
Unit Use Permit to allow two (2) existing second units
on two (2) separate parcels, in the R -1- 40,000 zoning
district
------------------------------------- ---- ------- --------- --- - - - - --
It was directed that this item be continued to June 26, 1985.
A 7
APR I 1 .1985,
DEAN C. VARNEY, M.D., INC.
648 E. SANTA CLARA ST.
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 951 12
TELEPHONE (408) 294 -6500
Residence: 19935 Mendelsohn Lane
Saratoga, California
April 10, 1985
Saratoga,City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Re: Gissler /Liccardo Appeal of Denial of Tentative Map to Subdivide 2.64
acres into 3 lots at 20045 Mendelsohn Lane.
Honorable Council Members:
As an immediate neighbor of this proposed subdivision and as concerned long-
time citizens of Saratoga, we would hope that you honor the decisions of both
your paid professional planning staff and your Planning Commission in denying
this project.
Recalling the problems re flooding, mudslides, fire, etc. experienced. by Los
Angeles due to rampant overdevelopment /gEeir hlllsides (and which prompted the.
wise development of our present hillside,:.ordinances,) wecask that you honor
those well thoughtout ordinances and regulations and act wisely for our future.
Not only are the proposed new building sites in a potential flood hazard zone,
they are in violation of the slope density formula. Since sewer hookups will
also be necessary for approval of the lots, several neighbors will be forc ®d
into a hookup they do not desire and will constitute an economic hardship for
some of us in order to satisfy one man's profit motives.
Also consider the loss to the beauty of Wildcat Creek, with its ancient trees
and various wildlife, which the sewer work will damage and perhaps totally
destroy.
We respectfully ask your consideration of the above matters in making your
decision.
Sincerely,
Dean C. Varney, M. D. `
Elizabeth M. Varney
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL N0. 3o Initial:
Dept. Hd.
DATE: 4/8/85 (4/17/85) C. Att
DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr.
SLBJL .. SD -1567, Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD), Tentative Subdivision
Map for 55 Lots
Issue Sunr ry•
1. At its meeting of March 13, 1985, the Planning Commission granted Tentative Subdivision
approval for 55 lots on surplus school property owned by FUHSD. The Final EIR for the
project was certified by the Commission at its meeting of January 23,.1985.
2. The main issue of the appeal is project consistency with the City's General Plan vs..con-
sistency with the stipulated settlement between the City and FUHSD.
3. Other appeal issues are: House sizes, visual impacts, amounts of impervious coverage and
flooding street layout, and park size and location:
Recommendation
1. Staff recommended approval of the subdivision based on the provisions of the stipulated
settlement.
2. The City Council can reverse, affirm or modify the Planning Commission decision after
conducting the public hearing.
3. To approve the project, the Council would have to indicate that it considered the certified
EIR before acting on the project.
Fiscal Impacts
Approval of the project will enhance City revenues and other public agency revenues over
the short term. There will be long term costs to the City.
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Appeal Letter 6. Exhibits.
-2. Resolution No. SD- 1567 -1 7;.. Correspondence
3. Staff Reports, dated 1/17/85, 2/6/85, 2/21/85, 3/6/85
4. Stipulated Settlement and Amendment
5. Planning Commission minutes dated 1/9/85, 1/23/85, 2/13/85, 2/27/85
Council Action & 3/13/85
4/17: Denied appeal; deleted condition V.E.; provided.pedestrian and bicycle access through
at Kreislder.Ct. and deleted path now shown, 5 =0.
Date Received:
Hearing Date: L� �7�
Fee" �
CITY USE ONLY
APPEAL APPLICATION
Name of Appellant : '/� ee! %„-I S
_T
Address: �.
Telephone:
Name of Applicant:
Project File No.:
Project Address:
Project Description:
Decision Being Appealed:
Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached):
Appellant's Signature
*Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the
City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this
appeal please list them on a separate sheet.
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF
THE DATE OF 1'HE DECISION.
March 22, 1985
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, Ca., 95070
Subject: Appeal of Fremont Union High School Tentative Subdivision
Map Approval by the Planning Commission
Dear Council Members:
We the undersigned appeal the Planning Commission ap
proval of the Tentative Subdivision Map for the Fremont Union
High School site on the following grounds:
1. The subdivision map approves construction of considerably
larger homes than those of adjacent neighborhoods to the East
on lots which are too small for such homes. Even though there
are restrictions on home size and height, these are inade-
quate. Furthermore, there also were such restrictions on home
size in the approved Parker Ranchj tentative map which were
changed at a later date to permit much greater home size.
Therefore, we believe that the evidence clearly shows that the
only way to prevent massive homes from being packed in on
small lots is by control of lot size.
2: Much of the site is hillside and construction as approved
will result in scenic damage and major destruction of our
views.
3. The large amount of impervious surface being added through
addition of such a high density of large homes is likely to
increase existing flooding problems in the area.
'4. The subdivision map is inconsistent with both the Saratoga
General Plan and the Saratoga Zoning, in that both the General
Plan and the.Zoning require larger lot sizes.
5. The subdivision map shows a street extending to the South
which could result in future extension of Kriesler or Hillmoor
Courts.
6. The subdivision map is inconsistent with the Saratoga
General Plan which specifies a larger neighborhood park at the
South rather than the North end of the site. We wish to keep
the park at the South end in order to avoid future extension
of both Hillmoor and Kriesler Courts, which would result in
major traffic hazards at the intersection with Arroyo de
Arguello.
- 1 -
7. The Planning Commission did not make the finding that the
project was consistent with the General and Specific plans, as
is required by Government Code Section 66473.5 (attached).
8. The Planning Commission and City Attorney found that the
project was not consistent with the specific and general plans
but did not deny approval as required by Government Code
Section 66474 (attached).
The City Attorney has argued that there is a prior nego-
tiated legal settlement which overrides State law, which the City
will not violate and which will require legal action by appel-
lants to overturn. However, the facts are that the City violated
this legal settlement when, subsequent to the settlement, it
adopted a revised General Plan and zoning which were not consis-
tent with the settlement. Furthermore, the landowners who were
aware of the change in the zoning and the General Plan did not
challenge or appeal the zoning and General. Plan change and the
statute of limitations has passed.on their ability to challenge
the City's action.
In view of the fact that those who buy large, expensive
homes also want sufficient land, there probably is not even a
major financial incentive to the developers to pack large homes
in on lots that are too small .I What possible incentive could
there be to the City to permit construction which is inconsistent
with both the zoning and the General Plan?
We know that the City Attorney is an honorable man who
would not promote new litigation in order to improve his finan-
cial position. We are concerned however that he may be somewhat
biased because of his prior involvement in the legal settlement
relative to this site. If the legal expertise within the Council
is not able to independently come to a conclusion on the need to
comply with State law,.we request that you seek the advice of the
Attorney General's office on this matter.
Sincerely,
NAME( RINT)
_Gro Rot
- 2 -
RF/ /
s /7' L ADDRESS
l 7 7--, %11/�/�
►3
NAME (PRINT) SIGNATURE ADDRESS
-C `_- ` /-='v ��:�_ a Z___ �T L__1�,._.�y �•• C� y3 __ 11(_�� L f�(L��'i �x� � -----------------------------
_Tip ���s )�►� E�, %, �, �-�� � �z,�. � '
%r
--
-------------------- ----------------------- - - - - -�
7 ---- --------- ----- - - - - -- ------------------- asaQaa = —IDas
- 3 -
March 22, 1985
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, Ca., 95070
Subject: Appeal of Fremont Union High School Tentative Subdivision
Map Approval by the Planning Commission
Dear Council Members:
We the undersigned appeal the Planning Commission ap-
proval of the Tentative Subdivision Map for the Fremont Union
High School site on the following grounds:
1. The subdivision map approves construction of considerably
larger homes than those of adjacent neighborhoods to the East
on lots which are too small for such homes. Even though there
are restrictions on home size and" height, these are inade-
quate. For example, the- height limit of 24 feet for single
story homes is greater than the height of most two story homes
in the subdivision to the East of the project. The homes
located on the Eastern side of the project should be no
greater than 18 feet in height. Furthermore, there also were
restrictions on home size in the approved Parker Ranch tenta-
tive map which were changed at a later date to permit much
greater home size in response to the current demand. No one
objects to a large home provided the lot size is adequate. In
view of the damand for large homes, we believe that the only
way to prevent massive homes from being packed in on small
lots is by control of lot size.
2. Much of the;. "site is hillside and construction as approved
will result in scenic damage and major destruction of our
views.
3. The large amount of impervious surface being added through
addition of such a high density of large homes is likely to
increase existing flooding problems in the area.
4. The subdivision map is inconsistent with both the Saratoga
General Plan and the Saratoga Zoning, in that both the General
Plan and the Zoning require larger lot sizes.
5. The subdivision map shows a street
which could result in future extension
Courts. The intersections of these
Arguello are close to blind and they
comodate increased traffic.
- 1 -
extending to the South
of Kriesler or Hillmoor
streets with Arroyo de
could not safely ac-
6. The subdivision map is inconsistent with the Saratoga
General Plan which specifies a larger neighborhood park at the
South rather than the North end of the site. We wish to keep
the park at the South end in order to avoid future extension
of both Hillmoor and Kriesler Courts, which would result in
major traffic hazards at the intersection with Arroyo de
Arguello.
7. The Planning Commission did not make the finding that the
project was consistent with the General and Specific plans, as
is required by Government Code Section 66473.5 (attached).
8. The Planning Commission and City Attorney found that the
project was not consistent with the specific and general plans
but did not deny approval as required by Government Code
Section 66474 (attached).
The City Attorney has argued that there is a prior nego-
tiated legal settlement which overrides State law, which the City
will not violate and which will require legal action by appel-
lants to overturn. However, the facts are that the City violated
this legal settlement when, subsequent to the settlement, it
adopted a revised General Plan and zoning which were not consis-
tent with the settlement. Furthermore, the landowners who were
aware of the change in the zoning and the General Plan did not
challenge or appeal the zoning and General Plan change and the
statute of limitations has passed on their ability to challenge
the City's action.
What possible incentive could there be to the City to permit
construction which is inconsistent with both the zoning and the
General Plan?
We request that you seek the advice of the Attorney General's
office on the question of the need to comply with State law.
Sincerely,
I ,,NAME(PRINT)
j
I
SIGNATURE
-a -
ADDRESS
T-
a L.3
r
v
7. The Planning Commission did not make the finding that the
project was consistent with the General and Specific plans, as
is required by Government Code Section 66473.5 (attached).
8. The Planning Commission and City Attorney found that the
project was not-consistent with the specific and general plans
but did not deny approval as required by Government Code
Section 66474 (attached).
The City Attorney has argued that there is a prior nego-
tiated legal settlement which overrides State law. which the City
will not violate and which will require legal action by appel-
lants to overturn. However, the facts are that the City violated
this legal settlement when, subsequent to the settlement, it
adopted a revised General Plan and zoning which were not consis-
tent with the settlement. Furthermore, the landowners who were
aware of the change in the zoning and the General Plan did not
challenge or appeal the zoning and General Plan change and the
statute of limitations has passed on their ability to challenge
the City's action.
In view.of the fact that those who buy large, expensive
homes also want sufficient land, there probably is not even a
major financial incentive to the developers to pack large homes
in on lots that are too small. What possible incentive could
there be to the City to permit construction which is inconsistent
with both the zoning and the General Plan?
We know that the City Attorney is an honorable man who
would not promote new litigation in order to improve his finan-
cial position. We are concerned however that he may be somewhat
biased because of his prior involvement in the legal settlement
relative to this site. If the legal expertise within the Council
is not able to independently come to a conclusion on the need to
comply with State law, we request that you seek the advice of the
Attorney General's office on this matter.
Sincerely,
NAME (PE31 NT) S I �T�
AIDPRESS
rES = — -- 7gG Lor�EAIA via- Sa,
--------------- - - - - -- -------------- - - - - -- -----------------------------
--------------------- -------------- - - - - -- ----------------------- - - - - --
-a -
March 22, 1985
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, Ca., 95070
Subject :' Appeal of Fremont Union High School Tentative Subdivision
Map Approval by the Planning Commission
Dear Council Members:
We the undersigned appeal the Planning Commission ap-
proval of the Tentative Subdivision Map for the Fremont Union
High School site on the following grounds:
1. The subdivision map approves construction of considerably
larger homes than those of adjacent neighborhoods to the East
on lots which are too small for such homes. Even though there
are restrictions on home.size and height, these are inade-
quate. Furthermore, there also were such restrictions on home
size in the approved Parker Ranch tentative map which were
changed at a later date to permit much greater home size.
Therefore, we believe that the evidence clearly shows that the
only way to prevent massive homes from being packed 'in on
small lots is by control of lot size.
2. Much of the site is hillside and construction as approved
will result in scenic damage and major destruction of our
views.
3. The large amount of impervious surface being added through
addition of such a high density of large homes is likely to
increase existing flooding problems in the area.
4. The subdivision map is inconsistent with both the Saratoga
General Plan and the Saratoga Zoning, in that both the General
Plan and the Zoning require larger lot sizes.
5. The subdivision map shows a street extending to the South
which could result in future extension of Kriesler or Hillmoor
Courts.
6. The subdivision map is inconsistent with the Saratoga
General Plan which specifies a larger neighborhood park at the
South rather than the North end of the site. We wish to keep
the park at the South end in order to avoid future extension
of both Hillmoor and Kriesler Courts, which would result in
major traffic hazards at the intersection with Arroyo de
Arguello.
- 1 -
7. The Planning Commission did not make the finding that the
project was consistent with the General and Specific plans, as
is required by Government Code Section 66473.5 (attached).
8. The Planning Commission and City Attorney found that the
project was not consistent with the specific and general plans
but did not deny approval as required by Government Code
Section 66474 (attached).
The City Attorney has argued that there is a prior nego-
tiated legal settlement which overrides State law, which the City
will not violate and which will require legal action by appel-
lants to overturn. However, the facts are that the City violated
this legal settlement when, subsequent to the settlement, it
adopted a revised General Plan and zoning which were not consis-
tent with the settlement. Furthermore, the landowners who were
aware of the change in the zoning and the General Plan did not
challenge or appeal the zoning and General Plan change and the
statute of limitations has passed on their ability to challenge
the City's action.
In view of the fact that those who buy large, expensive
homes also want sufficient land, there probably is not even a
major financial incentive to the developers to pack large homes
in on lots that are too small. What possible incentive could
there be to the City to permit construction which is inconsistent
with both the zoning and the General Plan?
We know that the City Attorney is an honorable man who
would not promote new litigation in order to improve his finan-
cial position. We are concerned however that he may be somewhat
biased because of his prior involvement in the legal settlement
relative to this site. If the legal expertise within the Council
is not to independently come to a conclusion on the need to
comply with State law, we request that you seek the advice of the
Attorney General's office on this matter.
Sincerely,
NAME(PRINT)
Jo q, ", _c__
Chuck _±JeL-j
—a —
Paz ;�
ADDRESS
o2p7G /,C�,Pc- /SCC G'TcYy6G�
` - - - -`i f - - - -- �� - - -- ' --
March 22, 1985
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, Ca., 95070
Subject: Appeal of Fremont Union High School Tentative Subdivision
Map Approval by the Planning Commission
Dear Council Members:
We the undersigned appeal the Planning Commission ap-
proval of the Tentative Subdivision Map for the Fremont Union
High School site on the following grounds:
1. The subdivision map approves construction of considerably
larger homes than those of adjacent neighborhoods to the East
on lots which are too small for such homes. Even though there
are restrictions on home s.ize and height, these are inade-
quate. Furthermore, there also were such restrictions on home
size in the approved Parker Ranch tentative map which were
changed at a later date to permit much greater home size.
Therefore, we believe that the evidence clearly shows that the
only way to prevent massive homes from being packed in on
small lots is by control of lot size.
2. Much of the site is hillside and construction as approved
will result in scenic damage and major destruction of our
views.
3. The large amount of impervious surface being added through
addition of such a high density of large homes is likely to
increase existing flooding problems in the area.
4. The subdivision map is inconsistent with both the Saratoga
General Plan and the Saratoga Zoning, in that both the General
Plan and the Zoning require larger lot sizes.
5. The subdivision map shows a street extending to the South
which could result in future extension of Kriesler or Hillmoor
Courts.
B. The subdivision map is inconsistent with the Saratoga
General Plan which specifies a larger neighborhood park at the
South rather than the North end of the site. We wish to keep
the park at the South end in order to avoid future extension
of both Hillmoor and Kriesler Courts, which would result in
major traffic hazards at the intersection with Arroyo de
Arguello.
- 1 -
7. The Planning Commission did not make the finding that the
project was consistent with the General and Specific plans, as
is required by Government Code Section 66473.5 (attached).
8. The Planning Commission and City Attorney found that the
project was not consistent with the specific and general plans
but did not deny approval as required by Government Code
Section 66474 (attached).
The City Attorney has argued that there is a prior nego-
tiated legal settlement which overrides State law, which the City
will not violate and which will require legal action by appel-
lants to overturn. However, the facts are that the City violated
this legal settlement when, subsequent to the settlement, it
adopted a revised General Plan and zoning which were not consis-
tent with the settlement. Furthermore, the landowners who were
aware of the change in the zoning and the General Plan did not
challenge or appeal the zoning and General Plan change and the
statute of limitations has passed on their ability to challenge
the City's action.
In view of the fact that those who buy large, expensive
homes also want sufficient.. land, there probably is not even a
major financial incentive to the developers to pack large homes
in on lots that are too small. what possible incentive could
there be to the City to permit construction which is inconsistent
with both the zoning and the General 'Plan?
We know that the City Attorney is an honorable man who
would not promote new litigation in order to improve his finan-
cial position. We are concerned however that he may be somewhat
biased because of his prior involvement in the legal settlement
relative to this site. If the legal expertise within the Council
is not able to independently come to a conclusion on the need to
comply with State law, we request that you seek the advice of the
Attorney General's office on this matter.
Sincerely,
NAME(PRINT) SIGNATURE ADD:FESS
--------------------- - - --�—� r� -- --- — -- ---------- ---------------
c' �S % �.r. -✓ cf- - � - - - - -- v2 ���Y� tom. .�..,I ;
-a -
M
March 22. 1985
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, Ca.,,95070
Subject: Appeal of Fremont Union High School Tentative Subdivision
Map Approval by the Planning Commission
Dear Council Members:
We the undersigned appeal the Planning Commission ap-
proval of the Tentative Subdivision Map for the Fremont Union
High School site on the following grounds:
1. The subdivision map approve.sl construction of considerably
larger homes than those of adjacent neighborhoods to the East
on lots which are too small for,-such homes. Even though there
are restrictions on home size and height, these are inade-
quate. Furthermore, there also were such restrictions on home
size in the approved Parker Ranch tentative map which were
changed at ,a later date to permit much greater home size.
Therefore, we believe that the evidence clearly shows that the
only way to prevent massive ;comes from being packed in on
small lots is by control of lot size.
2. Much of the site is hillside and construction as approved
will result in scenic damage and major destruction of our
views.
3. The large amount of impervious surface being added through
addition.of such.:a high density of large homes is likely to
increase existing flooding problems in the area.
4. The subdivision map is inconsistent with both the Saratoga
General Plan and the Saratoga Zoning, in that both the General
Plan and the Zoning require larger lot sizes.
5. The subdivision map shows a street extending to the South
which could result in future extension of Kriesler or Hillmoor
Courts.
6. The subdivision map is inconsistent with the Saratoga
General Plan which specifies a larger neighborhood park at the
South rather than the North end of the site. We wish to keep
the park at the South end in order to avoid future extension
of both Hillmoor and Kriesler Courts, which would result in
major traffic hazards at the intersection with Arroyo de
Arguello.
- 1 -
7. The Planning Commission did not make the finding that the
project was consistent with the General and Specific plans, as
is required by Government Code Section 66473.5 (attached).
8. The Planning Commission and City Attorney found that the
project was not consistent with the specific and general plans
but did not deny approval as required by Government Code
Section 66474 (attached).
The City Attorney has argued that there is a prior nego-
tiated legal settlement which overrides State law, which the City
will not violate and which will require legal action by appel-
lants to overturn. However, the facts are that the City violated
this legal settlement when, subsequent to the settlement, it
adopted a revised General Plan and zoning which were not consis-
tent with the settlement. Furthermore, the landowners who were
aware of the change in the zoning and the General Plan did not
challenge or appeal the zoning and General Plan change and the
statute of limitations has passed on their ability to challenge
the City's action.
In view of the fact that those who buy large, expensive
homes also want sufficient. land, there probably is not even a
major financial incentive to the developers to pack large homes
in on lots that are too small. hat possible incentive could
there be to the City to permit construction which is inconsistent
with both the zoning and the General�Plan?
We know that the City Attorney is an honorable man who
would not promote new litigation in order to improve his finan-
cial position. We are concerned however that he may be somewhat
biased because of his prior involvement in the legal settlement
relative to this site. If the legal expertise within the Council
is not able to independently come to a conclusion on the need to
comply with State law, we request that you seek the advice of the
Attorney General's office on this matter.
Sincerely.
NAME(PRINT)
f2<�
SIGNATURE
- 2 -
ADDRESS
-----------------------------
,.:7ZJ�fZ Z�� ------------ ---
)-7
NAME(PRINT)
SIGNATURE
--
_-�lr7C�.i'co�'/ _
/_Yopo-aD C�7�
-------------------- �- }- �- � - - - - --
-ZO
-------- - - - - -- -------------- -- - - -- -------------------- --- ---- --
- 3 -
, . . ".��, . °. +'. �'.'`� ",� :'. u. mil' :'• �k�
Div. 2
REQUIREMENTS 5 66473.5
§ 66473.5. Consistency with general and specific plans
No local agency shall approve a tentative map, or a parcel map
for which a tentative map was not required, unless the legislative
body shall find that the proposed subdivision, together with the pro-
visions for its desihn and improvement, is consistent. with the general
plan required by Article 5 (commencing with Section tiS :iOO) of
Chapter 3 of Division 1 of this title, or any specific plan adopted pur-
-uant to Article S (commencing with Section 65.150) of Chapter 3 of
Division 1 of this title.
A proposed subdivision shall be consistent with a general plan or
a specific plan only if the local agency has officially adopted such a
plan and the proposed subdivision or land use is compatible with the
objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in such
a plan.
( Added by Stats.1974, c. 1536, p. 3.182, § -t, operative lurch 1, 1975.
Amended b Stats.1982, c. 87, a 20, urgency, eff. March 1, 1982.)
Histor
The 1952 amendment changed, at the
„,ginning of the sentence comprising the
first paragraph, "map" to "tentative
trap'•: and :ulded tiro clause iuunediately
'owin, this change. readiug "or a parcel
.1.p for which a tentative map wus nut re-
quired".
cal Note
Derivation: Bus. I, Prof.C. former
115211, added by Stats.1913, e. 128, p. 866,
1, amended hp Stats.11953, c. 156G. p.
3216, § 2: Stats.19.55, C. 1593, p. 255.5,
Stats.l!It ,, c. I1SO. p. :!1.ti1, § ;
Ststs.1971, c. 1 1 -I6, 1.. 2553, § 3.
Stats.1937, c. 670, 11• 1563, 3 I.
Cross References
')esign, defined, see § GG418.
Local agency• defined, see § GG12U.
Subdivision; defined, see S 66 -124.
yt
7 1.);'s�'ii
•,1.;r:.;
Ltir. ti.t
Law Review Commentaries
California's land planning
rcquirenwnts: Consist,•ncc trier. .lose1.h F. Ili -
Case for dere;tulatimo.
t;eorge L,•froe Memo (19sm 211 Sanut Clara L.Rev. 285.
11981) 51 So.Ca1.L.It. 4.17.
Notes of Decisions
In general I
n,runint;iul I„w :111,1 1.1 I'll 11'. incunu•
Absence of general plan d
h„usiug; o1.1.or till iIles within ❑ 1.11,1.,.....,1
Amendment of plans 2
conunuuity planning; area may be chal-
FIndings 3
Icn;;c,l :11 thr suhdiyisiou 111:11. stngv, sittre
Injunctive relief 6
st :lte law rt-quires that subdivision Yunp
Review 7
npprm;ds I„• r, "ki. lit t' nth th,• „ nunnni-
"uhstanllal evidence 5
t ti, 1 :11 phm. 1'i,v of 11, I \Inr v. lily
"f Son 1 r. .,!N.
- - - --
I:::; l',A.3d •1111.
i. In general
ll,wsin;; cl,•nn•nt of 1u:t,ter Mau in city
f 1:1,•nd:1 .. „ nl,unrd :nn cxtn nlrlc rnm-
\ \'hen rite's rn� -,; :�L•un
incllrl,'. :111 plrhrn.;i"• :u1ul� : :i. ,�1 1.11•.,•1,1 21,1,811,;: in
,dhjrriivv to provide :rlr 11,1.11
hum <in;; 1,1.. ni rc :1nd intun• urrd; :111.1. giyrn fact
pornmities for 1.rrs "a< n;
low :wd n jodrr- Him -.vvr :dI plan :1,1.1 its ,rditi:ttwe, in
etc hwoms-. city's failur•
to provi l,• twit :1r a "f land use rr;;ulati,:n repres,•ntr.d an
287
yt
7 1.);'s�'ii
•,1.;r:.;
Ltir. ti.t
Di\'. '_
REOUIRENIE\TS
rneu[ 1'rrr).n't. trial ,1.1.11 �cas•;nuhnri:,•,I
tq grant injanrti%, rrli• i u1. rlo• I,a,i, ,.t
inrnnsisn•n•')' of fit-- prnl,o...•.I street 1.r„ j-
ec•t kith oiry's ;;rnor:tl 1•!:111 ,11111 mr the ; a-
sia of ihr ho•k of it nois,• .•L•nn 1.t it.
encral pLm c�ith uhi,•Ir rl.,• strut 11.... -. r
was to hr• r.ni.istrnt. 1•'ri,•n,ls ..( "It' Wit.
v. .Cit.v of llaywar,l 1111�01
`1 t, 106 ('..\.:',I 9.ss.
7. Review
Sul.,•rior court's fin,lin:; that nn ..;h-
stantial rci,lrn•'•' supl,nrn•,I rite routt.li's
•,-tertuination tlrrt prn1,,,.r.l ,IrN-rloptri,,rt
§ 66474
,or.i.n'nn'.I r�ith ,iry's ,11.11;11 1J:u1 �t'as
uor Limlin;; on , •,•irt ..I appeal. . •!n•ri:rllc
.�cL,•rr th.• su1 „•ri „r ,.,1111 iniprnprrlc
si,l,•n•,I .•c i,lrn. ,• mlii, li hn•l 111.1 Lr,•u hr.
fnn• tin• .�nun,�i 1. \I,� \lill:ur �. . \un•rir:nr
1;.•1..•1:11 I'in: u1.,• t'nrp. t19TGI I::1
1112, Go
Ilnr. Lion of aI,I,••IIaIr 1•ourt io rrvir%%in,,
rirc .•1.1111, il's a1,1.ro\al of .1,•colnl.ntrnt
I•la:: is to ,I,t••rn,in.• chrrhrr rhr fin,liiits
of :u',• y ,snfiwi.•nt :111.1
\%I. —!„•r t n• ;it,,lincs are snppn,,0.11 he
suL..nntinl rti,1.•u,r ;11111 suppor, nc! nl;ru-
r•c'. •L• •isiou. I.I.
§ 66474. Findings justifying disapproval
A legislative body of a. city- or county shall deny approval of a
tentative map, or a parcel map _or which a tentative map \vas not re-
f(uired, if it makes anv of the following findings:
(a) That the proposed map is not consistent \with applicable gen-
eral and specific plans as specified in Section 65451.
(b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision
is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of devel-
opment.
(d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed den-
sity of development.
(e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improve -
nents are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or sub-
stantially and avoidably injure fi-sh or wildlife or their habitat.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements
is likely to cause serious public health problems.
(g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improve-
ments will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large,
for access through :)r use of, properly xithin the proposed subdivi-
sion. in this cofillrr'!;oll. lhr t r,,.'rrnin,>; holy ill;[\' ;11,11111\•1' ;I 111;111 if it
finds that altei'rlale u;1sculvnts, Cyr access ur for use, will be provided,
and that these will he substantially eduivalent to ones previously ac-
quired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements
of record or to casements estahli zhed by judginol't of ;1 court of r om
p0ont ulrisdiction ;tr1d no atill1w AV is h. r1 by . ranted to ;! Ir'.t isl;llivc
hurly to dt1r'rrnine 1,11;1t the puhh'. ;it lar,r has a111111r1d r.';Isolllrnts for
access throu:
J..LUTICN NO. SD-1567 -1
RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF
FREMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DIST.
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency
under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and un-
der the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tenta-
tive map approval of a lot, site or subdivisions of 55 lots,
forth all as more particularly set for in File No. SD -T�of this
City, and
WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed
subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and im-
provement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with
all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision
and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies and gen-
eral land use and programs specified in such General Plan, refer-
ence to the approved Staff Report dated 3-6- 8 5 (amended) , 2 - 21-85 and
being hereby made for futher particulars, and 1-7-85 amended)
WHEREAS, this body has heretofor received and considered the
(&V,l U p XX0 W XEXaV Q L &Q (EIR) prepared for.
this project in accord with the currently applicable provisions
of CEQA, and
WHEREAS, none of the condition's set forth in Subsections (a)
through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect
to said subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in
accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for
the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the
18th Y of January 1985--and is marked Exhibit "B-6"
in the hereinabovereferred to file, be and the same is hereby
conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as
more particularly set forth on Exhibit "A" and incorporated
herein by reference.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly passed and adop-
ted by the Planning Commission at a meeting thereof held on the
13th day of March 19B5 at which a quorum
was present, by the following vote:
AYES. Commissioners B. Harris, Burger, McGoldrick, Peterson and
Schaefer
NOES: Commissioner J. Harris
ABSENT. Commissioner Siegfried
ATTEST: ADVISORY
A7
CY %
By-
Chairmari
Se etary Planning Commission
147W
I
0
REPORT TO PLANT N_1 COMMISSION
APPROVED BY: C�
DA : ,- /I *Revised: 3/13/85
APN: . 366 7-5 -5 INII ALS: DATE: 1/17/85
Commission Meeting: 1/23/85
APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: SD -1567, South of Prospect Road and the
S.P.R.R. tracks
APPLICANT: Fremont Union High School District
ACTION REQUESTED: Tentative Map Approval for a 55 lot subdivision.
OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED: Final Map Approval, Design Review Approval
and Building Permits.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: An EIR for this project has been prepared and
must be certified as complete prior to project approval. ;..,
ZONING: NHR (using R -1- 20,000 standards per the stipulated settlement)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
Residential - Hillside Conservation Single Family.;
�f al
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single Family Residential r.
PARCEL SIZE: 47.5 Acres Y
NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: Riparian & grassland vegetation. Prospect;:�'i
Creek runs along the northeastern edge of the site.
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 9%
GRADING REQUIRED: Total soil movement is estimated at about 85,000 cubic ;.
yards.
LOT SITES: Range from .46 acres to 1.3 acres
LOT SLOPES: Range from under 9% to 19%
•j�
(Note All lots with slopes of 10% or more must be a minimum of 40,000
ft. (0.92 °.acre) in size. This can be varied via the exceptions
provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance). ,...
Qt66��',
�J
Report to the Plannin mmission 1/17/85
SD -1567, Fremont Uni igh School District Page 2
PROJECT HISTORY: After preliminary geologic work in 1979 -the Fremont Union
High School District (F.U.H.S.D.) formally applied for Tentative Map
Approval for a 73 lot subdivision on the subject property in March, 1980.
At that time the existing zoning of the property was R- 1- 15,000 for the
western two - thirds and R -1- 12,500 for the eastern third. However, in
June 1976 the City Council had-introduced an ordinance which would have
amended the zoning of the site to R -1- 20,000 PC pending submission of
plans. The project was thus designed with R -1- 20,000 PC standards in
mind. The initial steps for preparation of an EIR including an early
public consultation meeting were being taken in April, 1980.
On April 8, 1980 Measure A was adopted by the City of Saratoga which
created a moratorium on development pr6jects in the City's northwestern
hillsides, including the subji.ect site, until a Specific Plan was adopted.
In June 1980 F.U.H.S.D. sued to remove the subject property from the effect
of Measure A and to allow the Tentative Map application to proceed. In
1981 the City and F.U.H.S.D. entered-into a "Stipulation for Settlement ",
which created a compromise to end the suit. This settlement allowed
F.U.H.S.D. to develop no more than 55;single family dwelling units on the
subject property consistent with the City's R -1- 20,000 or P -C standards.
The City was also given the option to'require the dedication of 2.3 acres
of the site for a park with the City selecting the park location.
PROJECT ISSUES
OPEN SPACE: The subdivision map submitted by the applicant (Exhibit "B ")
does not show a park site or any other public open space. The existing
general plan shows the southern 8 acres of the site designated as Open
Space- Outdoor Recreation. The adopted Specific Plan indicates that the
Parks and Recreation Commission should review the park site on the subject
property. In May 1984 the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended
that the City require a 2.3 acre park, as permitted under the settlement,
on this site. The Commission did not specify a location for this park.
Staff informed the applicant of these issues and ha prepared two subdivision design.
options which ing.lud6 parks a minimum of 2.3 acres in size located beneath
the P.G. & E. powerlines. which traverse the site. This location is not
consistent with the park location shown in the General Plan. However,
the City may not wish a park of that size in that location since such a
park could impact existing residences to the east and would be expensive
for the City to maintain. The City would have to purchase 5.7 acres from F.U.H.S.D. to
create the park in that location and the applicant would still be allowed a minimum of
55 units. This would required smaller lot sizes thus giving the appearance of higher density.
Considering these factors, the park proposed by the applicant may be a
better open space solution for this project since it also could act as
a connector between the Parker Ranch trail system and pedestrian accessways
to the east.
However, the auestion of whether or not there should be a park on the site
must be resolved by the City Council.
Report to the Plannin mmission To 1/17/85
SD: -1567, Fremont Union High School District Page 3
DEVELOPMENT
be designed
The project
subdivision
standards w
size.
STANDARDS: The s
using PC (Planned
must also conform
maps submitted by
ith those over 10%
tipulated settlement allows the project to
Community) or R -1- 20,000 zoning standards.
to Subdivision Ordinance Standards. The
the applicant comply with R -1- 20,000 zoning
in slope being at least 40,000 sq. ft. in
If a cluster development were to be used, which is one of the alternatives
examined in the EIR, PC standards would have to be utilitzed to allow
design flexibility. PC standards would allow a large portion of the site
to be preserved in open space which could then be maintained by the home-
owners association. However, new standards for setbacks, coverage, lot
dimensions, -and other development criteria would have to be created and
established for the project.
R -1- 20,000 standards are already established and well understood as part
of the Zoning Ordinance. This familiarity makes these standards easier
to understand and apply for both staff and any future developers. The
R -1- 20,000 development pattern would also be consistent with existing
single family development in the area. Therefore, staff recommends that
R -1- 20,000 standards be used in developing the site.
CIRCULATION /TRAFFIC:
The circulation system shown on Exhibit B.has two main entry and exit points
to the subdivision: Prospect Road and Burnett Drive. Both of these
points are located at or near the northern end of the subdivision. The
Prospect Road and Street "A" intersection would be the major entrance to
the subdivison. The southern end of the subdivision proposes an emergency/
secondary access between Kreisler Court and Court "D" of the subdivision.
The plai'also shows a potential future road connecting Farr Ranch Road.
with Street "B" to provide a southern access to the site. This street
would not be built until the Moore property to the south of the site is
developed.
The northwestern Hillside Specific Plan shows a Hillmoor Drive extension
providing an emergency /secondary access road to the southern end of the
of the site. The proposed subdivision does not follow this plan but it
does.not prevent the plan from being followed. Considering the location
of Kreisler Court relative to Hillmoore Drive, and the nature of emergency/
secondary access roads, the proposed sudivision could be considered
generally in compliance with the intent of the Specific Plan.
Internal circulation-, can be designed as a closed loop as shown in Exhibit
"B" or by one mal.or road with a series of cul -de -sacs running uphill from
this road. Both of these systems would provide adequate internal circulation
but there may slightly different visual impacts. The EIR has.noted
several potentially hazard9us internal circulation problems and recommends
mitigations which will be conditions of approval for this project.
Report to the Plannin ommission AM, 1/17/85
SD. -1567, Fremont Uni High School District Page 4
The EIR for the project indicates that traffic impacts from the project
alone are minor. However, these impacts in conjunction with the existing
traffic situation and the cumulative impacts associated with future
development would significantly impact the Prospect Road and South Stelling
Road intersection particularly during the P.M. peak hour. The existing
level of service (L.O.S.) would be reduced from C (stable flow or operation)
to D/E (borderline unstable flow or operation). The L.O.S. at Prospect Road
and Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, which is already very poor, would not be
significantly impacted by this project or other future projects.
The EIR has identified several mitigation measures to reduce these impacts
such as improving the southern side of.Prospect Road to provide better
access to the through and turning lane at its intersection with Saratoga -
Sunnyvale Road and signalization improvements at this intersection.
The developer of the project may be assessed a proportional:.to full share
of the cost of the improvements. It.should be noted that coordination
and cooperation between the cities of Saratoga, Cupertino, San Jose and
the State of California (.CAL Trans) would be necessary to effect these
improvements.
Saratoga would also have to work with the City of Cupertino to determine
how to improve the Prospect Road and Stelling Road intersection. The
developer would also be required.to pay a pro rata share for those
improvements.
i
NOTE: Access to lots 17 & 18 can be�provided by Farr Ranch Road which
could reduce the amount of grading required.
GRADING /DRAINAGE: The applicants's engineer has prepared a slope study
(Exhibit "C ") showing three grading alternatives for the project. The
first proposal .would create a large, contoured 3:1 uphill fill slope.
Smaller amounts of cut and fill would be required downslope. The second
proposal is an 8' down split which requires a smaller 3:1 uphill fill
slope by using a stepped two -story foundation. Somewhat more cut would
be required downslope. The third proposal would leave more of the
natural 6:1 slope intact with minimal cut and fill.
Proposal 1 could allow the construction of some dwellings with less of the
building exposed to view. The applicant's engineer indicates that the fill
necessary to accomplish this would be contoured to match'�the existing terrain.
Staff would favor the natural slope proposal to minimize grading but this
could create buildings with a greater visual impact. However, some of
these impacts can be reduced by creating design standards regarding
structure bulk and height.
The projects' drainage system will tie into Prospect Creek and the
City's existing storm drainage system. The EIR indicates that further
study may be necessary to determine the flooding potential of cumulative
development in the area. The Santa Clara Valley Water District has
requested in its letter dated December 11, 1984 that such a study be
done by the developer. Some further improvements to the Prospect Creek
drainage channel might also be required. Adequate drainage for the
project should be provided to ensure no adverse impacts on adjacent
properties.
Report to the Planning ommission 1/17/85
SD -1567, Fremont UnicWAWigh School Dist. Page 5
The Commission expressed concern about cumulative drainage impacts on
Prospect Creek at its study session on December 18, 1984. The applicant
has submitted a letter dated January 3, 1985 outlining the hydrologic
studies done and their results. There appears to be no significant
hydrologic impact from the project either by itself or with Seven Springs
Ranch.
DESIGN IMPACTS:
At its study session of December 18, 1984 the Commission discussed con-
cerns about structure sizes and structure heights. The applicant's
engineer indicated that building pads nearest the eastern edge of the
property would be kept as low as possible to minimize impacts on adjacent
property owners.. Staff would recommend that structures .on lots 36 - --48
be limited to single story structure.no greater than 18' in height to
further protect the privacy of adjacent properties which can be as much
as 3' 4' lower than the site.
Some commissioners were concerned about large house sizes dominating the
lots. After some discussion the Commission suggested to the applicant
that house sizes be no greater than 4000- 4800.sq. ft. range and the
smaller houses be located along the eastern perimeter of the site adjacent
to existing residential development.
The Commission should also consider if structure heights should be
limited on the higher elevations of the site since they could interfere
with the views of some property owners.
GEOLOGY: The City Geologist has indicated that the geologic element of
the EIR is adequate subject to standard soil and geotechnical review
conditions. Staff had indicated that the site might contain the Shannon
or Mont'e'Vista Fault but no evidence of this fault was found in a previous
study which utilized trenching. Therefore;•.it is not considered a factor
in the design of the project.
VEGETATION: The major vegetative features of the site are the strips of
riparian vegetation along Prospect Creek and a drainage swale which
bisects the site. The vegetation in Prospect Creek will be protected
by S.C.V.W.D. easements and an open space buffer zone suggested as a
mitigation in the EIR. Much of the scrub and other vegetation in the
drainage swale will be removed. However, staff has noted 3 large oak
trees in this swale area which should be preserved. This is also a
mitigation measure in the EIR. It should be noted that since the drainage
improvements in Parker Ranch have been installed, this swale has carried
considerably less drainage water.
FINDINGS
Prior to approval of this project the Planning Commission must make one
of the three findings below to comply with CEQA:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect as identified in the final EIR.
Report to the Plannin ommission 1/17/85
SD -1567, Fremont Uni igh School District Page 6
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction
of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such
changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be
adopted by such other agency.
3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible
the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the
final EIR.
Staff recommends that Findings 1 and 2 be made. Findinq 1 can be made
due to the mitigation measures that will be required as conditions
of approval listed on pages 2 -2 to 2 -12 of the FEIR. These mitigation
measures address all identified environmental effects associated with
the project which are also listed on pages 2 -2 to 2 -12 of the FEIR.
Finding 2 should also be made since the Prospect Road and Stelling Road
intersection will be impacted by the project. However, the bulk of this
intersection is within the jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino. Four
different public agencies have jurisdiction over the Prospect Road and
Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road intersection. These intersections can only be
improved if the,changes.required are adopted by these agencies.
Report to the Planninc ommission 1/17/85
SD -1567, Fremont Unio High School Dist. page 7
PROJECT STATUS: Said project is in accordance with the "Stipulation
for Settlement" entered into by the City of Saratoga
and the Fremont Union High School District. The project is designed in
conformance with the standards of the zoning and subdivision ordinances
of the City pertinent to an R -1- 20,000 single family development.
The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced
against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal
and environmental resources.
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SD -1567
(Exhibit B- 6 filed January 18, 1985) subject to the following conditions:
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
Comply with standard engineering conditions dated April 11, 1977.
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COMMTTNTTV T1F.VP.T.(1PMPT�TrP IT)PDhDrPMPNTm
A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final
Approval.
B. Submit "Tract Map" to City for checking and - recordation. (Pay
required checking & recordation fees).
C. Include "Offer of Dedication "' to provide for a 30 ft. Half- Street
on Prospect Road.
D. Include ":Offer of Dedication" to provide easements, as required.
E. Improve Prospect Road to City Standards, including the following:
1. Designed Structural Section 20-f -t. between centerline and
flowline.
2. P.C. Concrete curb and gutter (V -24).
3. Pedestrian Walkway (5 ft. A.C.)
4. Undergrounding Existing Overhead Utilities.' (Excluding Tower
Line) .
F. Include "Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 25 ft. Half- Street
on all interior streets.
G. Improve all interior street to City Standards, including the
following:
1. Designed Structural,Section 16.5 ft. between centerline
and flowline.
2. P.C. Concrete curb and gutter (V -24).
Report to
SD -1567,
_
the Planning ommission
Fremont Uniol igh School District
s-:
1/17/85
page 8
I. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Drainage
Plan" and as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey
storm runoff to Street, Storm Sewer or Watercourse, including
the following:
1. Storm sewer trunks with necessary manholes.
2. Storm sewer laterals with necessary manholes.
3. Storm drain inlets, outlets, channels, etc.
J. Construct Standard Driveway Approaches.
K. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view
as required at driveway and access road intersections.
L. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change,
retard or prevent flow.
M. No direct access allowed on Prospect Road from lots.
N. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills.
0. Engineered Improvement Plans.required for:
1. Street Improvements
2. Storm Drain Construction.
P. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement
Plans.
Q. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be
completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval.
R. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements.
S. Obtain approval from City of Cupertino to complete improvements
easterly to Stelling Road.
T. Pay Traffic Impact Fee per lot in affect at the time of obtaining
building permits.
Report to the Plannin 6 ommission 1/17/85
SDR -1567, Fremont Uni High School Dist page 9
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional;
1. Geology
2. Soils for total.site as well as each lot prior to Building
Permit issuance.
3. Foundation study for each lot based on information gained in
soils studies.
B. Plans to be reviewed by geotechnical consultant prior to building
permit being issued.
C. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing:
1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross - sections, existing
and proposed elevations,;earthwork quantities).
2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope,.outfall, location, etc.)
3. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for
walls 3 feet or higher.
4. Erosion control measures
5. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using
record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's
name, etc.
D. Bonds required for:. Grading /Erosion Contkol
E. Other requirements: P. G. & E. facilities shall be protected from
access.
IV. SPECIFIC'CONDITIONS - CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT
A. Sanitary sewer service can be provided for the subject development.
B. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with
requirements of Cupertino Sanitary District.
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CENTRAL.FIRE DISTRICT
A. The existing water systems shall be extended to the site; contact
San Jose.Water Company.
B. The developer shall install ten (10) hydrants-to meet Central Fire
Protection District's specifications.
C. All fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted prior to issuance
of any building permits. Contact should be made with the water
company as soon as possible to eliminate engineering delays.
EON
* E.
Emergency access gate shall be equipped with a fire department
"MEDECO" locking device.
Subject to the approval and discretion of the City Council, the
developer will pay a development fee of $566.15 per lot to
Central Fire District at the time of Final Map Approval to pay
this project's proportional share of the cost of building a new.
fire station on the Seven Springs Ranch site.
Report to
SDR -1567,
the Plannin Commission
Fremont
1/17/85
Un4High School District
page 10
VI. SPECIFIC 'CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
A. A Sanitary sewer connection will be required.
B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works.
C. If any wells are present they must be sealed to health department
standards and water district standards.
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. Dedicate the right of way needed for Prospect Creek as shown on
the map attached to the letter from the Santa Clara Valley Water
District dated November 16, 1984..
B. The site's drainage shall be incorporated into the existing storm
drainage system. If a storm drain outfall into the creek is
necessary, it should be designed to serve the general area to
minimize the number of future outfalls needed and in accordance
with SCVWD Sheets 8 -12.
C. In acco- rdance with District Ordinance 75 -6, the owner shall show '
any existing well(s) on the plans. The well(s) shall be properly
registered with the District and either maintained or abandoned in
accordance with District standards. Wells shall be sealed in
accordance with District standards unless they are to be used for
the proposed developement. In this case, they should only be used
after proper testing and inspection. Please call Mr. Nicholas Lyn
at 265 -2600, extension 382, for information regarding permits and
the registering of or abandonment of any wells. Written confirmation
from the developer or his engineer regarding the existence of any
wells and their proposed disposition is required.
D. Because it can affect the operatioiy and maintenance of the channel,
grading adjacent to the right of way should be done in accordance
with District Detail Sheets 20 -20B. The details of the grading
should include the cross - sectional view at the right of way and be
shown on the improvement plans..
E. Improvement plans shall be sent to the Santa Clara Valley Water
District prior to start of site construction.
F. The developer shall initiate a study of the impact of increased
runoff on downstream flooding. The development should not cause
any additional areas to floor or increase flood elevations on any
other property. It is the responsibility of the developer to
provide this information, although the work shall be coordinanted
with the District.
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PLANNING DIVISION
A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of
Building Permits.
B. Prior to issuance of building permits individual structures shall
be reviewed by Planning Division to evaluate the potential for
solar accessibility. Applicant shall provide a solar shade study
Report to the Plannin ission 1/17/85
SD -1567, Fremont Uni igh School Dist. to page 11
to assist staff in this review. The developer shall provide, to
the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or
cooling opportunities on /in the subdivision /building site.
* C. Prior to Final Nap,Approval, submit CC & R's for City review and
approval which state:
1. hll main dwellings, individually or combined with accessory
structures, shall be no larger than 4800 sq. ft. consistent
with R- 1- 20,0!00 standards with the exception of lots 36 -48
which shall use a 4,000 sq. ft.limit consistent with adjacent
R- 1- 12,500 standards.
2. Height limits for each lot shall be as follows:
Building Height Limitations:
Lots No. 1 -4: 28'
Lots No. 8 -9: 28'
Lots No. 13 -14: Z8'
Lots No. 1S -16: 22'
Lots No. 17 -18: 28'
Lot No. 36: 22'
L
Lot No. 37: 18'
Lot No. 38: j 22'
Lot No. 39: 18'
Lot No. 40: 18'
Lot No. 41: 22'
Lot No. 42: 22'
Lot No. 43: 22'
Lot No. 44: 18'
Lot No. 45: 18'
Lot No. 46: 18'..
Lots No. 47 & 48: 22'
Lots No. 49 -54: 25'
3. All structures on Lots 15, 16, and 36 through 48 shall be
single -story structures.
4. Residences shall be located on the lots in 'accordance with
the approved site development plan.
5. Fences on lots 1 -3 (rear lot line only), 4, 8, 9, and 12 -34
shall utilize an open, heavy guage wire grid to preserve, a
much as possible, the openness of the site.
6. These CC & R's cannot be amended without prior City approval
in writing and are enforceable by the City.
7. All cut and fill slope landscaping shall be maintained
through private maintenance agreement with the City.
8. These CC & R's shall be recorded on the Final flap.
S. No structures are permitted in.any open space easement.
Frances for security may be permitted in the open space
easement adjacent to Prospect Creek.
Report to Planning Commissio
SD -1567, Fremont Union High S11 ool Dist.
1:/17/85
Page 12
* 10. h fifty (50) ft. wide light and air easement shall be
recorded along the western property line. No structure over
20 ft. in height shall be located within this easement and no
tree, or other vegetation, shall be allowed to attain a
height greater than 20 ft. within this easement.
D. The developer shall comply with the mitigation measures listed in
Exhibit "D ". These mitigation measures shall be recorded with the
CC & R's.
Del ete --- - L`—r-encJ-nQ_ aallong Prospect Creek shall be provided in ac ee-w
this Santa Clara ` Valley Water District su sect to Design
Condition Review Ap ro a_--b- — y. `Fe-nc ng- ..shall be installed prior
ssuance of any Building Permits.
F. All trees over 12" in diameter and all oaks over 10" in diameter
shall be preserved. Special care shall be taken to preserve the
oak trees contained in the drainage swale that bisects the property.
Details on how these trees shall be preserved both during and
after construction shall be submitted for review and approval by'
the City arborist prior to issuance of Final Map Approval.
G. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City
Ordinances.
* H. hpplicant shall provide a 15' -35' buffer along Prospect. Creel;,
measured from top of bank:, as shown on EXhibit B -6, through the
recordation of an open space easement prior to Final Map
hpproval. The wording of this easement shall be reviewed and
approved by the City httorney prior to recordation. (This
easement cannot be amended without prior City approval in
writing).
1. ht the option of the City Council, the developer may:
1. Dedicate a park:. at least 2.3 acres in size on the site to
the City.
or
2. Pay in lieu park fees.
or
3. h Homedwner's hssociation.can be formed to lease the park
site from the City on a long term basis and improve the site
to allow for recreational purposes .subject to approval by the
Planning Commission of any improvement plans. The fees and
lease terms shall be approved by the City Council prior to
Final flap hpproval.
Report to Planning Commissi 01/17/85
SD -1567, Fremont Union High chool Dist. Page 13
app -rowed - by -fha -gam �_ ..R ��ata,ran_�i�mmis.sior�,_ et�ze�n_P-rknr
- �d��n�- tc- �- .�ha- g�-�.s..ter.xs..- s•id.e_.- cif_ #.Y�- sa..t.e .
K. Design Review Approval for the following required prior to Final
Map Approval:
1) Treatment of emergency access road and barrier.
*a } -- ��ea� -�e��- mot - des. t. �, iau.. �atb��_inc..Lud,irig_barri.exs_ to_.hn..rs�
an d- vehi� -l-e s .
3) Landscaping and irrigation plans for the unimproved areas
of the right -of- way,street trees especially,and erosion
control for all cut or fill- slopes.
4) Design of any retaining walls over three feet in height.
5) Grading plans for the entire site.
L. The applicant shall landscape all portions of the public right -
of -way that are to remain unimproved. Landscaping and irrigation
improvements shall be installed and established within 90 days
of completion of the right -of -way improvements.
- lands.c a,-.Aa
-�- aged_ s_.uvithin_the_uubli..c
frrr-a- mZ�rimtxm- -of -- cure - year -�-f- tee- -6ai�ie�- eke-- hox�eo-�r�e��- �seoe iat3��
s ari- -re nsz-bre -fc - ffrft+rta4ffrrng lie --3 ar�dsf pew �ea�
* N. H11 individual lot owners .shall be required to maintain all
landscaped ares within the public right -of -way in front of and /or
to the side of their lots. [his provision shall be included in
the CC & R's for this project.
0. All cut and fill slopes shall be of such material as to fully
support landscaping.
P. No single retaining wall to be more than 5 feet in exposed face
height.
Q. All grading shall be contoured so as to form smooth transitions
between natural and man made slopes.
R. Developer shall.comply with the conditions of P.G. & E. regarding
the use of their easement as outlined in P.G. & E's letter dated
November 13, 1984.
S. Developer shall comply with the conditions of the City Geologist
as outlined in his letter dated November 12, 1984.
T. Unless conditioned elsewhere in this report, all development of
the subject property shall be consistent with R -1- 20,000 standards
found in the Zoning Ordinance and all applicable Subdivision
ordinance standards.
Report to Planning CommissioSol SD -1567, Fremont Union High Dist
U. Upon recordation of the final
lots or parcels shown on such
subdivided so as to increase
acres permitted on this site.
1/17/85
Page 14
subdivision map for this site, no
map may thereafter be further
the total density of 55 units /47.5
V. All the conditions of this Staff Report shall be recorded on the
face of the final subdivision map for this project.
NOTE: All pools, spas, accessory structures, recreation courts
or main dwellings located outside approved building envelopes on
lots with an average slope greater than 10% shall be require.-.-c
site modification approval by the Planning Commission.
W. The riparian vegetation at the rear of lots 12 -14 shall be
preserved, as shown on Exhibit B -6, by the recordation of an open
space easement. The wording of this easement shall be reviewed
and approved by the City httorney.
X.. Grading shall be done in conformance with the plan and notes
contained in Exhibit B -G. IJo retaining wall shall exceed S ft.
in height.
Y. The following improvements shall be bonded for as required by the
Director of Community Development (the form and amount of the
bond shall be determined prior to Final Map Approval):
Such traffic control measures for the Prospect Road /Stelling Road
area deemed by the Director of Community Development to be
appropriate, based upon his reasonable determination that the
measures are required to mitigate traff..ic impacts from the
project during a five year period beginning one year after all
public improvements have been accepted by the City, If,. in the
judgement of the Director of Community Development, a traffic
study is necessary to ascertain the impacts from the project, the
cost of the study shall be paid by the developer..
* Z. There shall be no pedestrian or equestrian easement between lots 44 and 45
connecting Street 'A' to the existing pedestrian walkway leading to Norada
Court.
APPROVED L\-
Michael Flore
Associate Planner
MF /bjc
P.C. Agenda 1/23/85
Report to Planning Consion 1/17/85
SD: -1567, Freemont Union High School Dist
EXHIBIT "D" - MITIGATION MEASURES
1. Passive park /recreation area shall be required in the development plan
by the city, in accordance with the City of Saratoga General Plan, the
Northwestern Hillside Plan goals and objectives for open space and
Exhibit B -1.
2. Implement appropriate mitigation measures from Sections 3.2 (Circulation),
3.4 (Visual Quality), 3.5 (Geology), 3.6 (Hydrology), 3.8 (Noise), and
3.9 (Air Quality) which are designed to reduce the impact of the proposed
project on the adjacent residential developments.
3. If the City of Saratoga participates in signalization and other circulation
improvements at the Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road /Prospect Road intersection, the
city shall assess the project developer for a proportional share of the
cost of improvements.
* 4. 'To reduce the congestion experience on Prospect Road, between Via
Roncole and Saratoga /Sunnyvale Road, the southern side of Prospect Road
at this location shall be improved by the developer to two lanes in the
eastbound direction. This would give traffic better access to the
various through and turning lanes at the intersection, especially
during peal:. periods.-
. i
5. Because of the short sight distances caused by the vertical alignment at
the intersection of Street "A" and "B" at the southwest corner of the pro-
ject site, it may be necessary to restrict buildings, fencing, and land -:
scaping on the two corner lots in such a manner as to provide adequate
sight distance.
* 6.. Due to the sharpness of the curve on Street 'H' at the PG &E easement,
motorists shall be warned as to the degree of sharpness of the curve..
This could be accomplished with the addition of curve warning signs
together with an advisory safe speed indication in advance of the
curve. If in the opinion of the Director of Community Development,
this curve is sufficiently reduced in sharpness by redesign, these
warning signs may not be necessary.
7. The developer shall provide ten fire hydrants to meet the�'Central Fire Pro-
tection District (CFPD) requirements, and adequate fire flows on site
Of 1,000 gallons per minute for two hours as required by city ordinance.
Emergency access gate at Kreisler Court shall be equipped with a "MEDECO"
type locking device. Site plans including fire protection facilities
should be inspected by the CFPD prior to project approval.
8. The developer shall provide any infrastructure improvements required to
serve the project, including sewer and storm drain facilities.
9. Project streets shall be of high quality construction with increased struc-
tural sections in order to minimize m �dntenance costs.
10. Limit the height of residences most visible to adjacent, off site resi-
dences (proposed by applicant).
11. Design residential properties to blend with the natural terrain by using
terraced architecture and grading techniques, where feasible, and appro-
priate colors and materials to reflect the natural patterns. This will
reduce the visual impacts of development to surrounding areas and distant
views.
G M
Report to Planning Commission 1/17/85
SD'-1567, Freemont Union High.School
12. Revegetate the development site with native trees and other plants im-
mediately to reduce views of the development on site, restrict erosion
problems and replace lost vegetation. Immediately replant cut and fill
slopes with native vegetation.
13. Finish required grading to blend with the natural contours by avoiding
abrupt changes in grades.
14. Seismic design requirements of the current Uniform Building Code shall
be satisfied.
15. Utilities shall be designed to provide sufficient flexbility to with-
stand the ground motion induced during an earthquake.
16. Foundation support shall be designed to resist the effects of ground
shaking.
17. A soils engineer shall review the grading plans, improvement plans,
and foundation plans for the project.
18. A soils engineer and engineering geologist shall inspect site grading
and foundation construction in order to review fill placement, observe
conditions exposed by the grading, and record significant geologic fea-
tures that may be exposed.
19. Design of cut and fill slopes shall comply with city grading ordinances.
20. Cut and fill slopes shall be no steeper than 3:1 (horizontal to vertical)
or flatter, unless steeper slopes are determined suitable by a soils
engineer and are approved by the city.
21.. All fill shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90+ per-
cent. The moisture conditions during compaction should average above
the optimum moisture content determined for the material.
22. All natural expansive topsoil (surface organics) shall be stripped away
in construction areas.
23. Structural fill shall consist of either clean native soil(free of organic
matter and any other non soil material) or import material approved by
a soils engineer.
24. All fills placed on sloping ground shall be continuously keyed into the
bedrock slope to provide a firm bond between the fill and the undisturbed
natural ground.
25. A friction pier and grade beam system is considered the most appropriate
foundation type for the proposed development. If desired, the soils
engineer can recommend alternative foundation systems where applicable,
after review of the final grading plan on a lot by lot basis.
26. Presoaking of the native subgrade with water may be necessary in foun-
dation footing trenches and beneath concrete slabs for areas of relative-
ly high shrink /swell potential.
Report to Plann Commission 1/17/85
SD.' =1567, Freem ' Union High School Dist.
27.- Additional specific design and enqineering criteria as recommended
by the geotechnical consultants shall be followed.
28. Design a storm drain system conforming, to the extent possible, with
overall natural drainage patterns of site. Stormwater from a large
area shall not be allowed to concentrate at one drainage point and
flow down a hillslope.
29. Construct drainageways in residential areas to control runoff from
rooftops and roadways and to prevent excess water from entering
steep slopes.
30. The project applicant shall prepare for the Santa Clara Valley Water
District, a study of the flooding potential of cumulative project area
development and, if necessary, implement the water district's mitiga-
tion measures to avoid the 100 year flood plain.
31. Provide necessary surface and subsurface drainage systems to adequatel"
handle storm runoff within the project site.
32. Design landscaped areas of the project site to absorb runoff from roof;
and walkways.
33. Developer or Homeowner's Association shall regularly clean and main-
tain the on site storm drainage system to ensure proper functioning.
34. An erosion control plan shall be prepared and implemented in coordina-
tion with appropriate regulatory agencies, including the Santa Clara
Valley Water District and the Evergreen Resource Conservation District.
35. Grading plans shall conform with city grading ordinances.
36. Grading for building site pads, roads,.and drainage shall be kept to
a minimum.
37. The construction operations shall be evaluated and inspected periodic-
ally by the soils engineer.
38. Earthwork operations shall be performed during the dry weather season,
May to October or at the city's discretion.
39. Graded pads shall not be allowed to remain undeveloped during the rain,
season. All exposed.soils shall be mulched and planted with vegetatioi
before the start of winter seasonal rains.
40. Stormwater shall not be allowed to flow directly down unprotected
slopes. Interceptor ditches and benches shall be utilized during
rainy season construction to prevent gullying.
41. Catch basins shall be used to retain sediment within the site area
during construction period.
42. Mud shall be removed from the tire threads of earthmoving equipment
before allowing them to traverse project area streets. Loads
shall be wetted down to prevent disposition of fine grained sediment
by wind.
0 a
Report to Planning Commission 1/17/85
SD .1567, Freemont Union Hi. School Dist.
43. Natural vegetation shall be retained whenever possible.
44. All development shall be landscaped, to the extent possible, with
vegetation requiring minimum irrigation or application of fertilizer~
and pesticides.
45. To the maximum extent feasible all mature oak trees on the site
shall be retained (proposed by applicant).
46. If mature oak trees must unavoidably be removed due to project im-
plementation, two trees of the same or similar species shall be re-
planted and cultivated elsewhere on the site for each tree removed,
in addition to those trees required by the Subdivision Ordinance.
47. The City of Saratoga could require that the project include a 2.3 acrE
park site to help compensate for the loss of vegetation and habitat
due to construction or require in lieu park fees to preserve other
open space areas.
* a:,, Najor riparian vegetation along Prospect Greek shall be preserved with
an open space easement and Prospect Creek shall be protected with 15 -
;i5 ft. wide buffers of undisturbed vegetation along each side of the
creel: as shown on Exhibit B -6.
49. Immediate revegetation of graded slopes shall occur to prevent soil
erosion.
50. Earthmoving equipment and grading shall be restricted to construction
areas to prevent disturbance of remaining vegetation.
51. The project landscaping shall include native trees, such as oaks,
sycamore, and willow, along with shrubs and ground cover that have
wildlife food and cover value.
52. Disturbed sections of Prospect Creek shall be immediately revegetated
with native and naturalized trees, shrubs and grasses to be approved
by the Department of Fish and Game and the Santa Clara Valley Water
District.
53. To minimize the noise impact of construction, all construction ve-
hicles and equipment shall be properly muffled.
54. Construction activities at the project site shall be restricted to
the weekday hours of 7:30 a.m. and 6 p.m. to minimize disturbance
to local residents.
55. Inform the public of.proposed construction timelines to minimize po-
tential annoyance related to construction noise. This is important
for homes located within a few hundred feet of construction activity.
56. Construction of a sound wall along the Southern Pacific Railroad
tracks side of lot 55 within the proposed development shall be re-
quired to mitigate the impacts of railroad generated noise on this
lot.
Report to
Planning
Co ssion
1/17/85
SD -1567,
Freemont
Union Hi. School Dist
57. Broom sweep thoroughly tracked out materials near construction
site- access:points.
58. Spray water or apply dust palliatives to minimize dust entrainment
by the action of the wind.
59. Wet and /or cover all dump trucks hauling earth with a tarp so that
wind action is less able to blow soil materials out of the truck
and onto the roadway.
60. Pave or seal in disturbed areas, as soon as possible, to reduce dust
during construction activity.
61. Excercise care during refueling of construction vehicles and other
equipment to reduce evaporative hydrocarbons emissions.
62. In the event that archaeological resources are encountered during sub
surface construction, land alteration work in the general vicinity of
the find shall be halted and a qualified archaeologist shall be con-
sulted. Prompt evaluations could then be made regarding the finds,
and a'course of action acceptable to all concerned parties could
then be adopted. Local Native American organizations should be con-
sulted, if human remains are encountered (although no evidence of
their presence has been found at this time).
0 1 0
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSI ®N
DATE: 2/6/85
Commission Meeting: 2/13/85
SUBJECT SD- 1567, Fremont Union High School District
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Planning Commission discussed the above referenced project at its
study session of February 5, 1985. At that time the Commission re-
viewed the conditions for the project proposed by Staff in the Draft
Staff Report dated January 17, 1985. The applicant expressed concerns
about the height limits proposed, fencing along the creek, the 100'
buffer proposed along the creek, development and maintenance of a park,
landscape maintenance, and Prospect Road widening and signalization
improvments. The applicant also relayed the results of his meeting
with the Parks and Recreation Commission regarding the location of the
park.
Representatives from Central Fire District requested that the Commission
condition the project to submit a fee of about $566 per lot to help
defray the cost of constructing a new fire station on a site dedicated
for this purpose on Seven Springs Ranch. Since the project would
directly benefit from the construction of the new fire station, it was
the consensus of the ComTdssioners present that the condition would be
reasonable. However, the City Council would ultimately have to approve
the addition of the condition.
After this discussion the Commission indicated it wanted to meet on
site on February 13th at 4:00 P.M.. The Commission wanted the applicant
to stake out the intersections of the proposed streets and the 100'
creek buffer. The applicant is also to place poles representing the
possible structure heights on some sample lots.
Since the Commission will be meeting on site on the same day of its
regular meeting staff suggests that this item be continued to the
meeting of February 27th to allow for time to amend the project's
conditions.
APPROVED
Michael Flores
Associate Planner
P.C. Agenda 2/13/85
Q Q
r J
�DXVT&
A ` 0
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
Date: 2/21/85
SD -1567, FREMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Commission Meeting: 2/27/85
'Ihe Planning Commission visited the project site on February 13,
1985 and also discussed it at the meeting of the same date. ht
t. hat time the Commission discussed the relocation of the
potential 2.'j acre part; as requested by the Parks and Recreation
Commission. fhe Commission also discussed the buffer zone limits
proposed for Prospect Creek by the applicant (IS' - 3S' wide) as
in alternative to the Department of Fish and Game request (100,
wide). the applicant has not yet received comments from the
16tate on the new buffer proposal.
the Commission also asked staff to check with S.C.V.W.D. to
determine if a fence were necessary along Prospect Creek:. In
reviewing the correspondence on file from the.District staff
found that the Uistrict had not specifically asked for, fencing
along the creek but staff had added the condition for safety
reasons. if the Commission determines that the individual property
fencing that is likely to be installed will be sufficient; then
condition VIII.E. can be deleted..
Uecause of the proposed park relocation mentioned above, (see attached
map) the applicant has had to realign several lots. Seven lots
(Nos. 19 -24, X52) will have a slope greater than ltd% but will be
less than 40,000 sq. ft. in sice as required by Section 13.5 -3 of
the subdivision ordinance. To approve this subdivision the
Planning Commission would have to grant an exception to Section
13.5 - by making the following findings:
1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting said
property.
or
2. the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment ,
of the substantial property rights of the petitioner.
In addition to making one of the findings above, the
Commission must also find that:
�. The granting of the exception will not be materially
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or
injurious to other property in the territory in which said
property is located.
Report to the Planning Commission 2%21/88
SD -1567, Fremont Union High School District Page 2
Staff would recommend that the Commission grant the exception
making findings 2 and i because of the provisions of the
"Stipulated Settlement" requiring a minimum of 55 lots and the
exception will not have any adverse impact on public health,
safety and welfare.
The City httorney suggested that the proposed park could be
dedicated to the City and then leased to the homeowners for
private recreation use on a long term basis.
The Commission.requested further information from the applicant
regarding the location of two story structures in the adjacent
eastern subdivision to determine if individual height limits for
each lot should be established. Information on pad elevations
and structure heights, and comparisons with adjacent Parker Ranch
dwellings, was also requested. (he Commission indicated, and the
applicant agreed, that the size limits on structures along the
eastern property line of the site.
CONDITIONS
Staff would recommend the adoption of the following amended and
new conditions for this project per Exhibit
hMENOMEN(S
VIII. C. Prior to Final Map Approval, submit CC & R's for City
review and approval. which state:
1. Ali main dwellings, individually or combined with
accessory structures, shall be no larger, than 4800
sq. ft. consistent with R- 1- 20,000 standards with
the exception of lots 56 -48 which shall use a 4000
sq. ft. consistent with adjacent R- 1- 12,500
standards.
2. hll structures on lots 36 through 48 shall be
single story structures no greater than 18' in
height, hil structures on lots 49-54 shall be
single story structures under, 25' in height.
3. Residences shall be located on the lots in
accordance with the aproved site development plan.
4. Fences on lots 1- 6(rear lot line only), 4,8,5, and
12 -34 shall utilize an open., heavy gauge wire grid
to preserve, as much as possible, the openness of
the site.
S. (here CC & R's can not be amended without prior
City approval in writing and are enforceable by the
City.
s
Report to the Planning Commission /'1 /8S
SD -1567, Fremont Union High School Dist Page 3
6. All cut and fill slope landscaping shall be
maintained through private maintenance agreement
with the City.
7. these CC & R's shall be recorded on the Final flap.
8. No structures are permitted in any open space
easement. Fences for security may be permitted in
the open space easement adjacent to Prospect Creek:.
Vlll. E. Delete
VIII. I. At the option of the City Council the
developer may:
1. Dedicate a park: at least 2.3 acres in
size on the site to the City.
or
2. i
Nay in lieu park fe6s.
VIII.N. All individual lot owners shall be required to maintain
all landscaped areas within the public right -of -way in
front of and /or to the side of their lots. this
provision shall be included in the C.C. & R's for this
project.
NEW CONDITIONS:
VIII.W. The riparian vegetation at the rear of lots 12-14 shall
be preserved, as shown on Exhibit B -G, by the
recordation of an open space easement. The wording of
this easement shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Attorney.
VIII.X. Grading shall be done in conformance with the plan and
notes contained in Exhibit B -6. No retaining wall shall
exceed S ft. in height.
VIII.Y. fhe following improvements shall be done as required by
the Director of Community Development:
Such traffic control measures for the Prospect
Road /Stelling Road area deemed by the Director of
Community Development to be appropriate, based upon his
reasonable determination that the measures are required
-to mitigate traffic impacts from the project during a
five year period beginning one year after all public
improvements have been accepted by the City. If, in the
judgement of the Director of Community Development; a
traffic study is necessary to ascertain the impacts from
11
Report to the Planning Commission ;_/21/85
SD- 1S6'7, Fremont Union High School Dist Page 4
the project, the cost of the study shall be paid by the
applicant.
V.E. the developer will, pay a development fee of $566.15 per
lot to Central Fire District at the time of Final Map
Approval to pay this project's proportional share of the
cost of building a new fire station on the Seven Springs
Ranch site. (Note: the City council will be
considering this issue at its meeting of February 26,
1985 so this condition is tentative only).
APPROVED _
Michael Flores
Associate Planner
MF /bjc
P.C. Agenda 2/27/85
4
Y �
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
Date: 3/6/85
Commission Meeting: 3/13/85
SUBIECI*: 50-1567 - Fremont Union High School District
-------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
The Planning Commission continued this item from its meeting of February
27, 1985 after closing the public hearing. The Commission discussed: 1) an
option to lease back the park to a Homeowners Association; 2) how future
traffic circulation improvements at Prospect Road and Stelling Road will be
financed; and, 3) a land development fee to help defray the cost of
constructing a new fire station at Seven Springs Ranch.
The advantage of the park lease back is that the park. site would remain in
City ownership but the developer and homeowners would pay to develop and
maintain recreation facilities. Lease monies could be used to help
maintain other parks for the 25 -30 year extent of the lease. The City
could then take over the improved parr. at the end of the lease. Staff has
amended condition VIII. H. to accommodate this option.
Condition VIII. Y. has been amended to require bonding for any improvments
at the intersection of Prospect and Stelling fora period of five (5)
years. The issue of the fire station land development fee has not yet been
decided by the City _Council so staff has worded Condition V. E. to require
Council approve prior to the charging of such a fee.
Other corrections to the conditions include:
Revised height limits for each lot in the CC &R's.
c, H light and.air easement 50' wide along the western side of the site
limiting the height of structures and trees to 20 ft.
3. Reducing the open space buffer along prospect Creek. from 100 ft. to 15-
35 ft. as agreed to by the Department of Fish and Game.. (Mitigation
Measure #48 has also been amended in conjunction with this).
Staff has also amended Mitigation Measure #4 to-require the developer to
pay the cost of widening Prospect Road now rather than trying to determine
what a pro -rata share of the improvements will be which would be difficult.
..In reviewing Condition VIII.H., staff has noted that a problem may arise in
the subdivision layout if the City Council opts for in lieu park fees
rather than a park. The 2.3 acre site would have to be incorporated into
Report to Planning Commission 3 /6/85
SD -1567, Fremont Union H.S. Dist., Prospect Rd. Page
the subdivision which means a new Tentative Map would have to be approved
by the Commission prior to Final Map Approval. This might also change the
conditions of Tentative Map Approval due to revised lot numberings.
RECOMMENDATION: Once the issues listed above are resolved, staff would
recommend approval of the project per Exhibit "B -6 ", the Staff Report dated
January 17, 1985, and the following amended and additional conditions:
AMENDMENTS
VIII. C. Prior- to Final Map Approval, submit CC & R's for City review and
approval which state:
1. All main dwellings, individually or combined with accessory
structures, shall be no larger than 4800 sq. ft. consistent
with R- 1- 20,000 standards with the exception of lots 36 -48
which shall use a 4,000 sq. ft.limit consistent with adjacent
R- 1- 12,500 standards.
2. Height limits for each lot shall be as follows:
Building Height Limitations:
Lots
No.
1 -4:
28'
Lots
No.
8 -9:
28'
Lots
No.
13 -14:
28'
Lots
No.
15 -16:
22'
Lots
No.
17 -18:
28'
Lot
No.
36:
L
22'
Lot
No.
37:
18'
Lot
No.
38:
22'
Lot
No.
39:
18'
Lot
No.
40:
18'
Lot
No.
41:
22'
Lot
No.
42:
22'
Lot
No.
43:
22'
Lot
No.
44:
18'
Lot
No.
45:
18'
Lot
No.
46:
18'
Lots
No.
47 & 48:
22'
Lots
No.
49 -54:
25'
3. All structures on Lots 15, 16, and 36 through 48 shall be
single -story structures.
4. Residences shall be located on the lots in accordance with
the approved site development plan.
5. Fences on lots 1 -3 (rear lot line only), 4, 8, 9, and 12-34
shall utilize an open, heavy guage wire grid to preserve, a
much as possible, the openness of the site.
0 D
Report to Planning Commission 3/6/85
SD -1567, Fremont Union H.S. Dist., Prospect Rd. Page 3
6. These CC & R's cannot be amended without prior City approval
in writing and are enforceable by the City.
7. All cut and fill slope landscaping shall be maintained
through private maintenance agreement with the City.
8. These CC & R's shall be recorded on the Final Map.
9. No structures are permitted in any open space easement.
Fences for security may be permitted in the open space .
easement adjacent to Prospect Creek.
10. A fifty (50) ft. wide. light and air easement shall be
recorded along the western property line. No structure over
20 ft. in height shall be located within this easement and no
tree, or other vegetation, shall be allowed to attain a
height greater than 20 ft. within this easement.
VIII. E. Delete
VIII. H. Applicant shall provide a 15' -35' buffer along Prospect Creel:.,
measured from top of bang., as shown on Exhibit B -6, through the
recordation of an open space easement prior to Final Map
Approval. The wording of this easement shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Attorney prior to recordation. (This
easement cannot be amended without prior City approval in
writing ) .
VIII. I. At the option of the City Council, the developer may:
1. Dedicate a park at least 2.3 acres in size on the site to
the City.
ME
Z. Pay in lieu park fees.
or
3. A Homeowner's Association can be formed to lease the part;
site from the City on a long term basis and improve the site
to allow for recreational purposes subject to approval by the
Planning Commission of any improvement plans. The fees and
lease terms shall be approved by the City Council prior to
Final Map Approval.
VIII. N. All individual lot owners shall be required to maintain all
landscaped ares within the public right -of -way in front of and /or
to the side of their lots. This provision shall be included in
the CC & R's for this project.
0 o
Report to Planning Commission 3 /6/85
SO -1567, Fremont Union H.S. Dist., Prospect Rd. Page 4
NEW CONDITIONS:
VIII. W. The riparian vegetation at the rear of lots 12--14 shall be
preserved, as shown on Exhibit B -6, by the recordation of an open
space easement. The wording of this easement shall be reviewed
and approved by the City Attorney.
VIII. X. Grading shal
contained in
in height.
VIII. Y. The following
Director of
bond shall. be
1 be done in conformance with the plan and notes
Exhibit B -6. No retaining wall shall exceed 5 ft.
improvements shall be bonded for as required by the
Community Development (the form and amount of the
determined prior to Final Map Approval):
Such traffic control measures for the Prospect Road /Stelling Road
area deemed by the Director of Community Development to be
appropriate, based upon his reasonable determination that the
measures are required to mitigate 'traffic impacts from the
project during a five year period beginning one year after all
public improvements have been accepted by the City. If, in the
judgement of the Director of Community Development, a traffic
study is necessary to ascertain the impacts from the project, the
cost of the study shall be paid by the developer.
V. E. Subject to the approval and discretion of the City Council, the
developer will pay a development fee of $566.15 per lot to
Central Fire District at the time of Final Map Approval to pay
this project's proportional share of the cost of building a new
fire station on the Seven Springs Ranch site.
AMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES (EXHIBIT D)
4. To reduce the congestion experience on
Roncole and Saratoga /Sunnyvale Road, the
at this location shall be improved by th
eastbound direction. This would give
various through and turning lanes at
during pear. periods.
Prospect Road, between Via
southern side of Prospect. Road
developer to two lanes in the
traffic better access to the
the intersection, especially
6. Due to the sharpness of the curve on Street 'A' at the PG &E easement,
motorists shall be warned as to the degree of sharpness of the curve.
This could be accomplished with the addition of curve warning signs
together with an advisory safe speed indication in advance of the
curve. If in the opinion of the Director of Community Development,
this curve is sufficiently reduced in sharpness by redesign, these
warning signs may not be necessary.
4.8. Major riparian vegetation along Prospect Creek shall be preserved with
an open space easement and Prospect Creek shall be protected with 15 -
35 ft. wide buffers of undisturbed vegetation along each side of the
creek. as shown on Exhibit B -6.
0 . 0
Report to Planning CoMM155ion 3116/85
SD -1567, Fremont Union H.S. Dist, Prospect Rd. Page 5
hPPROVED:
P.C. Agenda: 3/13/85
MF /dsc
_ 4A e"
Michael. Flores
Planner
STIPULATION FOR SETTLEMENT
This Stipulation for Settlement ( "Agreement ") is made;
at Saratoga, California, this 31st day of May, 1981, between
FREMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, a School District,
( "Fremont ") on the one hand and ROBERT BEYER as City Clerk of
the City of Saratoga ( "Beyer "), and MAYOR LINDA CALLON, JOHN
MALLORY, CHERIEL JENSEN, MARTHA CLEVENGER and DALE WATSON (each
of the last five (5) named individuals will hereinafter be
referred to collectively as "City Council Members "), on the
other hand, with reference to the following recitals:
A. Fremont is the owner!of approximately 47.915 acres
of certain real property located within the ,City of Saratoga
( "City "), which real property is more particularly described
as Parcels "A" (Assessor's #APN366 -5 -5) and "B" (Assessor's
#APN366 -5 -6) in Exhibit "1" attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference ( "the Property ").
B. On or about April 8, 1980 the Citizens of Saratoga
passed an initiative ordinance, commonly known as Measure A,
which became effective on April 25, 1980.
C. Section 7 of Measure A states:
"Pending final completion of the require-
ments of Section 3, no zoning changes, land
divisions, subdivisions, building or grading
permits for construction of a new residence,
or other land development approvals of any
-1-
aa�_. 0--4
a
Aft
kind shall be issued in the subject area, nor
any applications accepted therefor; provided,
that upon a showing of extreme hardship and
in agreement with the provisions of this
initiative, exceptions may be granted after
two noticed public hearings by a 4/5's vote :
of the City Council."
Section 3 of Measure A states:
"The City of Saratoga shall within one year
from the effective date of this ordinance,
or. as soon thereafter as feasible, complete
a comprehensive review of all development
issues in the subject area and adopt a
Specific Plan for the area pursuant to
California Government Code Sections 65450-
65553, incorporating the standards set forth
,in Section 4 below, and all policies and
regulations required to implement said Plan."
'The''City has- 'contended that Parcel "A" of the Property
is included within the subject area of Measure-A as defined
in Section 3 hereof and as'shown on Exhibit.''A" thereto, and
as shown on Exhibit "2" attached hereto and made a part hereof
by reference. Fremont has contended that Parcel "A" of the
Property is not so included in the subject area.of Measure A.
Parcel "B" of the Property is not included within the subject
area of Measure A.
D. On June 18, 1980, Fremont filed a Petition for Writ
of Mandate in the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Santa Clara, No. 452274, seeking, inter alia,
an order demanding respondent to exercise discretion by removing
Fremont's property from the effect of Measure A and to process
r
Fremont's application for tentative map approval pursuant to
existing city ordinances. Said action is entitled Fremont Union
High School District, a School District, Petitioner, vs.
-2-
CT,
Robert Beyer, as City Clerk of the City of Saratoga; Mayor
Linda Callon, Martha Clevenger, John Mallory, Cheriel Jensen
and Dale Watson, members of the City Council of the City -of',
Saratoga, Respondents ( "the Fremont action ").
E. Beyer and the Council Members appeared in the Fremont
action and each and all denied and continue to deny each and
every one of Fremont's allegations as to all issues and in all
respects.
F. Without admitting the validity of any of the
contentions which have, or might have been made by any of them,
the parties to this Agreement desire and intend fully and finally
to compromise and to settle all such contentions and other
matters in controversy among them.
G. Civil Code Section 1542 provides:
"A general release does not extend to claims
- -which-the creditor does not know or suspect
to exist in his favor at the time of
executing the release, which if known by
him must have materially affected his settle-
ment with the debtor."
H. This Agreement contains the entire agreement and
understanding concerning the subject matter between the parties
to this Agreement and supersedes and replaces all prior
negotiations and proposed agreements, written and oral. Each
of the parties hereto acknowledges that no other party, nor the
agents nor attorneys of any other party, has made any promise,
representation, or warranty whatsoever, express or implied, not
contained herein to'induce- the execution of this Agreement, and
-3-
acknowledges that this Agreement has not been executed in
reliance upon any promise, representation, or warranty not
contained herein..
I. In addition to the settlement of all matters in
controversy with respect to the Fremont action, the parties
hereto desire to settle all other claims, demands and /or
causes of action which may exist between them whether known,
unknown, or suspected, except as they may arise from this
Agreement.
J. All of the parties to this Agreement hereby
acknowledge that they have been represented by independent- ..........-
counsel of' their own ch'o'ice 'throiighout "all negotiations which
preceded'the"ekecution of this Agreement and that they have
executed this Agreement with the consent of, and upon the
advice of, their own counsel.
NOW,. THEREFORE,,_it_is mutually agreed as follows:
1. In addition to those hereinabove set forth, and
any others hereinafter contained, the following definition
shall also apply throughout this Agreement:
A. "The fifty -five dwellings ": The fifty -five
single family dwellings to be built on Parcel "A" in accordance
with the City's Subdivision Ordinance and, at the City's
option, either the planned residential development ( "P -D ")
provisions of the City Zoning Ordinance or the R -1 zoning
applicable to the Property as per paragraph 3 below. In
-4=
addition, one single family dwelling is to be built on Parcel
"B ", which is zoned R -1 10,000, in accordance with the City's
Subdivision Ordinance.
2. Upon the effective date of this Agreement as defined
in paragraph 16 below ( "effective date "), the parties to this
Agreement will not take any action in pursuance of the Fremont
action for as long as necessary to allow Fremont or its assigns
to obtain tentative and final map approval, grading and building
permits to build only the fifty -five dwellings as provided in
paragraph ,3.
3 . .. The .. City . shall. process, an -application, for, -.and grant
tentative.and final map approval and thereafter process applica-
tions for.and grant building and grading permits and issue all
other necessary approvals and /or permits to build only the fifty-
five dwellings. on Parcel "A" sites as may hereafter be approved
by the City, conditioned upon prior design review approval of each
of said dwellings and sites under the City Zoning Ordinance, and
further conditioned upon,,Fremont first complying with the
applicable provisions of ordinances of the City other than
Measure A. No development shall occur on the Property other than
single- family dwellings and conditional and accessory uses
appurtenant thereto.
Consistent with the limitation of development set forth
in this paragraph 3, Fremont a-Jrees that upon a sale of the
Property or any portion thereof, such sale will be subject to
all of the restrictions set forth in this Agreement.
-5-
The purpose of such restriction is to limit all develop-
ment of any kind on Parcel "A" to the fifty -five (55) dwellings
and to.ensure that no development of any kind whatever shall
occur at any time in the future on the Property except as
permitted by this Agreement.
4. At the City's option, Fremont or its assigns shall
dedicate to the City, at no cost to the City, approximately
2.3 acres of the Property for use as a public park. The City
shall select the location of such public park on the Property.
5. At such time as Fremont submits to the City (1) an
application_.for.tentative map.;approval... and /or_.final..map..approval
of..the fifty- five.Parcel "A" bulding..sites, or (2.) an-application
for design review approval or .grading and building permits.for
each of the fifty -five dwellings referred to in paragraph 3 above,
such applications shall be processed by the City expeditiously
and in the ordinary course of the City's processing of such
applications.
a
6. Immediately upon the effective date of this Agreement
Fremont will dismiss the Fremont action with prejudice as to
all parties to this Agreement.
7. Upon any party's failure to perform any provision of
this Agreement, the other party may within one (1) year from the
date hereof and after compliance with paragraph 12 hereof, file,
reinstitute, or refile the Fremont or any other appropriate
lawsuit and proceed .therewith; as well as assert such causes
Q.
ArK
of action and /or rights to relief and /or defenses as may flow
from such failure of performance or as may then be available.
8. Each party to the Fremont action shall bear his,`her,
or.its own attorney's fees and costs.
9. Except for purposes of implementing paragraph 3 of
this agreement, Fremont and the City hereby stipulate as follows:
"Measure A is a valid and enforceable initiative approved
by the citizens of the City of Saratoga. The boundaries of
Measure.A are definite, certain, and understandable, and are as
they appear on Exhibit '1'.- attached hereto and made a part hereof,
which .Exhibit... !.1 !....was .included :in ..and . made . a part :.of the-motion.
adopted by.the.City Council on.April.22,.1980, reported at page-
12-.of the.City Council minutes of that date:." Said stipulation
shall be of no force or effect in the event of (1) failure of
performance-of-this Agreement by.the City, and (2) reinstitution or
refiling pursuant to paragraph 7 here -of.
10. Conditioned upon full performance of this Agreement
by all parties:
A. Beyer and each of the City Council Members shall
release Fremont, its agents and attorneys, from any and all
claims, demands, and /or causes of action which may exist between
them, whether known, unknown; or suspected, and Beyer and each
of the City Council Members hereby waive the provisions of Civil
Code.Section 1542 set fortY,.in Recital G above. The release of
unknown claims contained in this paragraph 10A is a separate
consideration for the release contained in paragraph 10B hereof
-7-
and Beyer and each of the City Council Members would not have
executed this Agreement or agreed to this paragraph 10A but for
the release contained in paragraph 10B.
B. Fremont shall release Beyer and each of the City
Council Members, their agents, and attorneys, from any and all
claims, demands, and /or causes of action which may exist between
them, whether known, unknown, or suspected and Fremont hereby
waives the provisions of Civil Code Section 1542 set forth in
Recital G above. The release of unknown claims contained in
this paragraph 10B is a separate consideration for the release
contained in paragraph 10A hereof and Fremont would not have
executed this Agreement or agreed to this paragraph 10B but.for
the release contained in paragraph 10A.
11. All parties to this Agreement shall use their best
efforts to carry out all of the terms of this Agreement and
shall take all steps reasonably necessary to do so.
12. If at any time Beyer, the City Council Members or
Fremont determines on good cause that it.will be unable to
obtain performance of this Agreement by the other, it shall
give thirty (30) days written notice thereof to the attorneys
of record for the other party in the Fremont action. Immediately
upon the receipt of such notice, Beyer or the City Clerk of the
City, the City Council Members and Fremont shall, consistent with
the provisions of paragraph above, make every reasonable effort
to resolve the matter.underlying the notice within thirty (30)
days. If such effort is unsuccessful, any party may proceed per
paragraph 7 hereof.
13. This Agreement may be amended by an instrument in
writing referring hereto, signed by Fremont, Beyer, and the
City Council Members, only, who shall, for this purpose,.be\.,
the Attorney -in -Fact of Beyer. Such amendment must specifically
state that it is. an amendment to this Agreement. This Agreement
may not be amended orally or otherwise than as set forth in this
paragraph 13.
14. Fremont shall have the right to assign all or any
part of-its rights or obligations under this Agreement and shall
give written notice of intent to assign to the City's City Clerk
not less than thirty (30) days prior to any such intent to assign.
15. This Agreement is entered into for the benefit of the
parties hereto and shall be for the benefit,of, and be binding
upon, the parties hereto, their heirs, successors, and assigns.
This Agreement shall be recorded with the Office of the Recorder
of Santa.Clara County. Other than the parties hereto and their
heirs, successors, and assigns, and the attorneys now of record
in the Fremont action, no third person shall be entitled, directly
or indirectly, to base any claim or have any right arising from or
related to this.Agreement.
16. If it becomes necessary to enforce any of the terms
of this Agreement or to declare rights hereunder, the prevailing
party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and other
costs of litigation in addition to any other relief to which he,
she, or it may be entitled; provided, however, if an action is
filed, reinstituted, or refiled per paragraph 7 hereof, the
provisions of this paragraph 16 shall not apply to the causes
-9-
Of
of action, claims for relief, and /or defense so filed, reinsti-
tuted, or.refiled.
17. The terms of this Agreement shall not be effective
until signed by all parties and approved as to form by their
attorneys. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the
date upon which it is last signed by all parties and approved
as to form by their attorneys. It may be signed in one or
more counterparts and, when all parties have signed, the original
or a counterpart, such counterparts together shall constitute one
original document. When so signed, this Agreement shall be filed
with the court in the Fremont action as a Stipulation for Settle-
ment, and the Court shall order that the parties carry out its
provisions, but the effectiveness of this Agreement does not
depend upon Court approval or any such Court order or orders.
DATED: June 10, 1981
FREMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
A School District
ROBERT BEYER, as City Clerk of
THE CITY OF SARATOGA
DATED: June 6, 1981 By �
"Beyer"
DATED: June 2, 1981
DATED: June 2, 1981
DATED: June 2, 1981
DATED: June 2, 1981
DATED: June 2, 1981
'1"+Y12
Mayor Linda Callon
rtha Clevenger
Mallory
"City Council Members"
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2nd day of June, 1981.
APPRIIVE,DClggkTO ORM: CRIST, GRIFFITHS, BRYANT, SCHULZ,
BIORN & CLOHSN
DATED:June 11, 1981 By
Frank Lee Crist, Jr.
Attorneys for Fremont
DATED: June 11, 1981 DATED:_ June 2, 1981
LAGORIO, I-iENEKE & MADDEN -and- PAUL B. SMITH
Attorneys at Law Saratoga ' y Attorney
By By
Anthony A. Lagoa o 11 aul m Ali
Attorneys for Beyer and the City Council Members
' VU
i LauIL3n, ..1..
PARCEL "A" '3eginning at the point of intcrse - -coon of the Easterly
line of that certain 35.0 acre tract of land conveyed by t'.ary
1-Jones, et a1, to George J.- Fisher and Helen M. Fisher, his wife,
by Deed recorded 61ay -25, 1917 in Book 452 of Deeds at pa ,e 595,
Santa Clara County Records, with the Southwesterly line of that
' certain 0.909 acre tract of land conveyed by Andrew N. Buck, to
San Joss -Los Gatos Interurban Rail. -jay Co, a co= poration, by
deed recorded June 30, 1909 in Book 349 of Deeds, at page 22,
SantaClara County Records, said point of beginning being also
:distant North 89° 30'30^ East, 573.33 feet.and South 0° C1' 49^
l' /st 444.90 feet from a found granite nonument at the quarter sec-
ion corner between Sections 25 and 26, Township 7 South, Range
',lest, thence along said Easterly line of said 37,0 acre tract'
South 0° 01' 49" 'Nest, 2219.71 feet to the Southeasterly corner
! of said 37,00 acre tract being on the South line of Sr!ction 25,Town-
ship- 7— South,'Range 2 'lest; thence alone aai'.1 South- iine.of Section
25`North 89° 35' 3C" Ea,st, 29 "7,99"feet to a found 3/411 iron.pipe-
;:at- the Southwesterly--corner of"that-certain 12,24 -acre tract of. •-
j :<land: ;conveyed by J: F. Thompson,et al, to I.a:Yrence l'.. Buck by De
recorded_ November •'2, ,1899 in Book 223 of Deed -s,_ a t pace 456,
;".Santa C1ara,County"fi� cords; thence along the �7asterly line of
•- said_:- 12:24- °acre•- tract- Horth.-0° Cl' 49— ,aSt.; 1837.46 feet to
J the pointof intersecticr, cf said ".esterly line :•,ith the 1:)uth-
westerly line of the hereinabove mentioned 0.9C9 acre tract;
z�a: 3r ??'Q�+h?ri±�3tiihs?�<.etS�riA.. thence along said Southwesterly line from a tangent bearing
of North 41° 39' 39" L�'r.st "along a curve to the right with a radius
of ,3859,75 feet through a central angle 'of 7° 10' 22^ for an
�.arc.length of.463.20.feet "to the point of beginning,.
Containing 13.822 acres, more or less, as Surveyed in
'"August 1960 by t4,acay 8 Somos, Civil En,inccrs, and beinr
a,00rtion of the S;luthwest .1 s of Section 25, Township 7J
t ? South, Range 2 ' est, ,'.S . D,• -3, • &- 1.!, -- -
e inriiri� �t iounc' granite r..onument at-the'-quarter "soction
cornar- between Sectiors. <5....and ^G, Townsnlp -7 SOUL!'., '.tangs ')_ ti'•e;t;".....
q
thence I Ruing said point of beginning alone; the 1/4 s ^coon line
running East and West throu -h the center of sis Section 25, orth
^9° 30' 30" East, 315.61 feet to the intersection thereof with
the ';�esterly line of that certain 1. °'35 acre tract of land conveyer
by Mary Jones and J. +l. Jones, her husban 1 to 0. A. hale, i;y :.O,
recorded August 20, 1907 in Book 321 of Deeds, at paie 45(,S-in`_z
,.. . :......" .. r.
Count}' Re cor:is; thence along the Vle sterly line of sai 1. JJl
tract from a tangent bearing of South 26° 50' 36" East
along a curve to left with a radius of 3B59.75 feet, U:rouih a
central angle of 7° 38' 41" for an arc length 'of 514.99 f ^at
point in the .Westerly line of that certain 30.36 acre tract
of land conveyea;.by 3enjanin Il, Hollenbeck to Geor e F. i :aker:elJ
deed recorded April u, 1887 in Book 8B of Deeds, at pa .'e 529,
Santa Clara Count, Records; thence along said V,esterl; line o: saic:
--
lane conveyed to 'akefiel� South 0° 01' 49" ''lest, 2219.71 feet to a
point in the South line of said Section 25; thence alon, said
line of Section 25 South 89° 35' 30" '• ;est X :. 65.42 fee to a for:
South n
�
Sou iron pipe stanr.in:i at the cor.;aon corner for Sections 2.6, and
35, Toms p Seven (;) South, ;cane Two (2) Test, and cbrncrvo- the
•• Quito Ronci :o; thence alon_: the Section line civ : :in(.i sai :: Section;
25 and..2o North 0° 14' S0" West, 2663.70 feet to t;:e point of be;;inr.in
Containing 33.566 acres, more or less, as surveyed in .august 1960
by Mackay & Somps, Civil Engineers and 'being a portion of the Sout'1-
1c west quarter (S'l 1/4) "of Section 25, Tot-inship Seven (7), South (lance
".;'Two (2) lest, Mount Diablo base and ;!eri(iian.IV
v �
' , . .... _ � :� �{.+. rvi• :r.:w.sY.;±^.v�r.'.::�'!?t.it"' rich;.. :�;.�a•r,::r.,-ttS�l'�C'.�. -��- �.- r- -r —'ti"
EXHIBIT "1"
PARCEL "B"
Beginning at a paint on the quarter section line
running East'y- and• - 'hest-'- through - Sect ion s- - -25'- Township 7 South, Range-
r_ ViEt, I,% D. B. & P.S. distant thereon North 890 30' 30" cast,
578.33 feet from a found granite monument at the quarter section
corner between said Section 25 and Section 26 of said Township 7
South, Range 2 'Nest, said point of beginning also being the
Northeasterly corner of that certain 1.535 acre tract of land
conveyed by'Mary Jones, et,al, to 0. A. Hale, by Deed recorded
August 20, 1907 in Hook 321of Deeds, at page 450, SantaClara
_Co.un_t.y Re.cords;. thence along said quarter section. • line and
along the Northerly-line of said 1.535 acre tract South 89 030130"
West, 173 -2-1 "'feet to a point on the Northeasterly boundary of
the Peninsular Railway Co. right- of -wav (807 wide); thence along
said Northeasterly line from a tangent bearing of South 27 °26144"
East.along a curve to the left with a radius of 3779.75 feet
through a central angle of 5° 147 16'r for an arc length of 345.53
feet to the•point of intersection of said Northeasterly line
with the masterly line of sid 1.535 acre tract;'.thence along
said Easterly line North 0° 019 49" East, 300.42 feet to the
poin.t....o: ceginning, a
Containing-0.618 acres, more or less, as surveyed in August
1960 by Mackay & Somps, Civil Engineers and being a portion
of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25, Township 7 South, Range 2
West, M. D,: B. '& M.
•,.�a:.a.•.�.. sir.' �-•" r--,. �,,,;*-• �- � ._- ti.- .,.�..•.•:•:z-- *-- �',s. -- - �_. n- ::�;�,'n����„�,i,::_ >i= i,y+.�• ��.r:..... .;.'; :.- .....�� ~`r•.
_•tom .:,'`,� '._ M �. r j'. '_( �� �'�. .1.' 1- �-�0; �
a= 3'� —+-
"T' • - __- ... _' , ! �•il..`.� s,�i._..
�iZ� V..T <..•Ry��wa
^� -�.r l:
L2 (Y '�'_ `,F.� vs :Ir' .9i7,'MC:Lw_svr dtr•C- ev�.a11.�..:'Lmu.i.�n.
•' a lw.o�.� 7�
lv.•. �
_ _ —_ 1.1.('', ��It-•�•„7_�
� `• .j �.- � i •.:}..�. ♦ '� Jam• ..'. :.,a L ; ," '.1 .:` .. ": �
;/ + +`�` ^ +Y,xZ,:ufY~ ape-*",?.::/: Vyi. ... 4!`.....•..' r.' A.' Y' u1'(..•• S✓ c_•;;'','„•
- { • \ 4
'� i.�
. .• . .
�a.,•, is,' r: S�_.'•". r..�..F'��•;�a.r;w�,f;,r�:�,,:` K•`:
F
•'A.c
• f}.' •'„i,.♦1 :l r �, 7 i' !•..�� J7R. !M.. .r .�1 : . • �"`T �, w, �-�. �• may,^
•,I I..S :�•.. 4' \. �,�.: e.; •rw J• .1/'{,• .'�/ �` l.t+M�' ,./��. -ri r(••..,: {'f►}V•/;�. '1_.. ...�!' r �� .?ter 'S'�"..3.:,;r.''�•:,. a:
�
t...~f►v''. Y.�.•1. =•.. .-• w�•:._..:.:., 7�•,....,-..- 4i-
♦ _..+.. . ..
• • �.Y •`�"� �.
LT,'J�yl ��. /'' :d h:'1�V may. tI
ss��arie�• �. i�y1i_ �L1~ ?�I:,. w..` v+ r••.;. a1�° 17.' �.__♦ �1:; cGY=' T:` �" ��An' 1tl�MnMi ..�alai.TaA.�.._._�.._� -. ..
•�Z ^f__ � _ _
__ _ ____ - ..
•, �:, 5,,.-:. i. re. ,,.�,�,�•�`••a.+'•�..,.�.r --• ^: r..- ... � .r✓•..._ •y��•. .,�.. ..- ��r•�, mot.; F•+; •,� _, •
_— .._._.__ c' ...... ............................... --CITY LIMITS j
,
j
• .. .. • •lip. -- -�• J -
-_
V .~
' �;.; `• ,
I
CITY of SARATOGA
Northwest Hillside Area
,
PRCJECT AREA
tilt. Edon Urban
Servlca Area
N
Prospect Urban
Service Area
G1[Y..L1?AIiS 0 _5pp ;
feet ,
AP'1ENDMENT TO STIPULATION
FOR SETTLEMENT
THIS AMENDMENT TO STIPULATION FOR SETTLEMENT is made
at Saratoga, California, this day of November, 1981, by
and between FREIIONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, a School District
( "Fremont "), on the one hand, and J. WAYNE DERNETZ as City Clerk
of the City of Saratoga ( "Dernetz "), MAYOR LINDA CALLON, Council-
members JOHN MALLORY, CHERIEL JENSEN, MARTHA CLEVENGER and DALE
e
WATSON (each of the last five (5) named individuals will herein
after be referred to collectively as'"City Councilmembers "), on
the other hand, and is made and entered into with reference to
the following recitals:
A. On May 31 , 1981, the parties hereto
entered into a Stipulation for
attached hereto marked Exhibit
reference as if and as though
B. Said Stipulation
resolution of the City Council
June 2, 1981, and was approved
Settlement, a copy of which is
"A" and incorporated herein by
set out in full.
for Settlement was approved by
of the City of Saratoga on
by resolution of the Board of
Trustees of the Fremont Union High School District on
C. Subsequent to the approval and execution of this
Agreement by all the parties hereto, the parties have agreed
that Section lA of said Stipulation for Settlement needs further
clarification in order to determine with particularity under
what residential zoning standards the property will be allowed
to develop.
-1-
D. In an effort to avoid further litigation and allow
future implementation of this Agreement, the parties hereto have
agreed to amend the Stipulation for Settlement as set forth herein-
after.
WHEREFORE, the parties hereto hereby agree that Section
lA of said Stipulation for Settlement shall be and is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"A. 'The fifty -five dwellings': The fifty -five
single family dwellings to be built on Parcel
'A' in accordance with the City's Subdivision
Ordinance and, at the City's option, either the
planned community district_ ('P -C') provisions of
the City Zoning Ordinance or the R -1- 20,000 zoning
as per Paragraph 3 below. In addition, one single
family dwelling is to be built on Parcel 'B',
which is zoned R- 1- 16,000 in accordance with the
Subdivision Ordinance. It is the understanding of
the parties hereto that no more than fifty -five
(55) units shall be permitted to develop on the
property except that this Agreement will in no
way restrict or affect the ability of either party
to exercise transfer of development rights in the
future in accordance with City policies or ordinances
which might be in effect at such future time of
exercise."
In all other respects, the Stipulation for Settlement,
Exhibit "A" attached hereto, is reaffirmed by the parties.
Dated:
Dated: _( ,)- / I C, 1 �? I
FREMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRIC ^1,
a School District
By
President
By
Secretary
"Fremont"
J. WAYNE DERNETZ, as City Clerk of
t City, - o-f`Saratoga
iL•
"Dernetz"
_1 -
C
Dated:
Mayor Linda Callon
Dated: --
11artha Clevenger
Dated:
ohn r- lallory
Dated:
Dated: 1,2
APPROVED AS TO FOR1,1:
Dated:
Dated:
Dated:
Cheriel Jensen
uale Watson
- "City Councilmembers"
GRIST, GRIFFITHS, BRYANT, SCHULZ,
.BIORN & CLOHAN
Frank Lee Crist, Jr.
Attorneys for Fremont
LAGORIO, HENEKE, MADDEN & TARBOX
By
Anthony A. Lagorio
PAUL B . �ITH
Sa7PZau d.m, to ey
By
B a th
-3-
At torneys for Dernetz and
City Councilmembers
r
Planning Commission Page 5
Minutes - Meeting 1/9/85
C -213 (cont.)
After discussion of th changes, Commissioner Peterson moved to
adopt Resolution C -213 -1 recommending the text amendment to the
City Council. Commission r Barris seconded the motion, which was
carried unanimously 5 -0. It was clarified that this amendment
includes the change of th regular parking spaces to 9 -1/2 x 18
but they require double striping. Commissioner Schaefer
commented that she disagre s with the size of the new regular
spacing but she voted for th amendment.
010b E -1 -84 - Fremont Union High School District, Consider a
SD -1567 - Draft EIR and Tentative Subdivision Approval for
a 55 -lot subdivision on a 47.5 acre site in the
NHR District located just south of the inter-
section of Prospect Road and the SPRR tracks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Siegfried reported that there had been a study session
on this matter, and this evening just the EIR will be considered.
He explained that continents will be taken on the adequacy of it
and then the subdivision will be considered at the next meeting.
Staff described the proposal and the contents of the
Environmental .Impact Report. He noted that there are three
alternatives discussed in the EIR, i.e., no project, clustered
planned community design without increasing the number of units
and a reduced grading plan, still using single - family detached.
Staff recommended that the Commission take public testimony on
the Draft EIR, and then close the public hearing so that the con-
sultant can respond to the comments and bring back a final EIR
for Commission consideration.
The public hearing was opened at 8:41 p.m.
Mr. Santoriello, Norada Court, addressed a trail shown coming from
Norada Court up into the proposed area. He submitted a petition
and letter objecting to this. He noted that there is already a
trail on Prospect Creek. He asked about the zoning of that area,
stating that he thought it was a 2 -acre minimum. The City
Attorney commented that there was litigation by this property.
owner, who was actually claiming a higher density than set forth
in this particular map. when the litigation was settled the
density was established for this site.
Commissioner Schaefer asked if this trail would be an access
for children between the new and existing neighborhoods, and no
horses were allowed, if this would pose a problem. Mr.
Santoriello commented that it is now an existing pedestrian walk-
way. Staff stated that it is designated on the map as a pedes-
trian walkway, and is not for horses. They explained that there
is a proposal for a small neighborhood park, and this would be a
walkway to.that area.
George Geblepski, Hillmoor Drive, explained that this trail
is really an access to a drain. He also addressed the traffic
and inquired about a traffic light at Stelling and Prospect.
Charles Hunter, 20846 Meadow Oak, stated that he would like an
aesthetic development if this area is to be developed. He
expressed' concern' about the traffic, particularly in conjunction
with the development of the proposed development of the Seven
Springs Ranch.
Dave Ball, Farr Ranch Road, asked what secondary access routes
are required and why. Staff explained that it is typical under
our subdvision requirements to have secondary access for more
than 15 units. Mr. Ball commented that there is secondary access
'�. Planning Commission Page 6
Minutes - Meetiong 1/9/85
E -1 -84 and SD -1567 (cont.)
off of Burnett and there is emergency access planned off of
Kreisler. He added that the only value he can see in this
proposal is that as secondary egress from Farr Ranch Road; if
that would be the case he can see benefit to that. However, he
would propose that that road be blocked with a.gate.
Mr. Sugi, Norada Court, indicated that the purpose of the
existing path was strictly for the Water District people to use.
He suggested putting a more scenic wider path by the Prospect
Creek for access to the proposed park. He objected to the
policing he has had to do with the existing trail and he asked
that it be closed.
Commissioner Harris questioned the percentages of projected
traffic leaving the development and also the percentages of tax
dollars being spent in Saratoga. She also pointed out that the
Saratoga Country Club is private and not open to the public. She
also questioned the traffic numbers on pages 11 and 12 and
stated that she would submit them to the consultant after the
meeting..
Mr. Russell Leavitt, Program Manager for the EIR, from Earth
Metrics, indicated that the proposed project does propose to
extend the pedestrian walkway into the project site to the first
street available to provide access to a potential park and to
provide pedestrian access between the neighborhoods. He
explained the benefit of having the proposed trail, rather than
one along Prospect Creek.
Commissioner Peterson asked what advantage there is in having the
trail if it is decided that there will be no park. Mr. Leavitt
stated that it would be to the advantage of both neighborhoods
and is taking advantage of an existing trail.
Mr. Leavitt .addressed the traffic and a possible signal at
Stelling and Prospect. He explained that that intersection is
controlled by the City of Cupertino. He indicated that a signal
warrant study probably will be needed in the future if the Seven
Springs Ranch is developed. He commented that, regarding
secondary access to Farr Ranch Road, this was specifically
mentioned because it is a connection that is recommended as a
goal or policy of the Northwest Hillsides Specific Plan and not
so much as an emergency access road for this project, but as a
connector to further development along Farr Ranch Road and
beyond. Regarding the traffic numbers, Mr. Leavitt indicated
that the assumptions they used were based on the existing traffic
pattern at those intersections. He discussed the figures used in
establishing the percentages.
Discussion followed on the figures used, and it was noted by the
Commission that the figures overlay a great deal of commute
traffic. They questioned whether or not the people who live in
that project are going to follow that same pattern.
Mr. Leavitt noted. that the traffic figures on pages 311 and 312
include trips from other future projects in the area. Discussion
followed on the location of the proposed park.
Commissioner Peterson moved tDclose the public hearing on the
EIR. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was
carried unanimously.
It was.directed that this matter be continued to January 23,
1985. It was noted that the Subdivision Approval will be
discussed at that meeting.
- 6 -
Planning Commission Page 2
Minutes - Meeting 1/23/85
A -1045 (cont.)
Jerry LaGiusa, repr enting Parnas Corporation, addressed lowering the
pitch of the roof. H clarified that he could lower the pitch to 24 ft.
Commissioner Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
McGoldrick seconded th motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve A -1045, Parnas Corporation, per
the Staff Report dated anuary 15, 1985, with the change that the pitch
of the roof be 10/12 nd the height will be a maximum of 24'6 ".
Commissioner Burger secon ed the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-
0.
Discussion was held on tem #3, A -1047, Mr. and Mrs. John Schadegg.
Commissioner McGoldrick ga e a Land Use Committee Report, describing the
lot. She indicated that he house to the rear is approximately 2 ft.
lower than this pro[ t She noted the correspondence received
regarding the oak tree. She stated that she would like to see a
condition stating that the applicant shall pay for the City
Horticulturist to inspect th oak tree. She added that, if the neighbors
were to agree to some landsc ping.on their side of the fence and if that
landscaping did not interf re with the oak in the horticulturist's
opinion, she would like to se some landscaping paid for by this applicant.
The public hearing was openedlat 7:45 p.m.
Mr. Schadegg described the de ign of the house. Discussion followed on
the oak tree and the cost of the horticulturist.
Commissioner Harris moved to lose the public hearing. Commissioner
McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Burger moved to app ove A -1047, John Schadegg, per the Staff
Report dated January 7, 1985 an Exhibits B and C, adding condition #7,
to state that the oak tree be rev ewed by the City Horticulturist and his
recommendation be part of the app oval. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded
the motion, which was carried una imously 6 -0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
6. V -674 - Aaron Berman, Reque t for Variance Approval for impervious
coverage which would exceed 35% at 19140 Via Tesoro Court,
in the R -1- 40,000 zo ing district; continued from January
9, 1985 (to be with rawn)
It was determined that the impervio s coverage has been reduced
and this matter has, therefore, been ithdrawn.
7a. V -670 - Bill and Barbara Sud ow, Request for Design Review
7b. A -1035 - Approval to construct new two -story residence and
Variance Approval for a 25 ft. front yard setback where
75 ft. is required at 2 502 Saratoga Heights Drive
(Tract 6665, Lot 11), i the NHR zoning district;
continued from January 9 1985 (to be continued)
-------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
It was directed that this matter be continued to February 13, 1985.
0- 8b E -1 -84 - Fremont Union High School District, Consider an EIR and
SD -1567 - Tentative Subdivision Approval for a 55 -lot subdivision
on a 47.5 acre site in the NHR District located just south
of the intersection of Prospect Road and the SPRR tracks
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Staff recommended that the public hearing had been held on the EIR at the
last meeting and the consultant has submitted the responses to the
comments. They stated that the Planning Commission should determine if
the EIR is adequate and then open the public hearing on the Tentative
- 2 -
Planning Conunission— -' Page 3
Minutes - Meeting 1/23/85
E -1 -84 and SD- 1567(cont-)
Subdivision Approval.
Russell Crowther, Norada Court, commented that a number of the key issues
that were raised earlier in the process have not been addressed by the
EIR. He stated that a number of the sections of the Government Code
require that a subdivision not be approved which is inconsistent with the
zoning and the General Plan. He added, that he feels it is totally
inappropriate to approve what is analyzed in the Environmental Impact
Plan without changing the zoning and General Plan. He added that he
feels the EIR is inadequate in that it doesn't address an alternative
which is consistent with the the zoning and General Plan and it does not
address changing them. He also indicated that a major concern in the
neighborhood is flooding. He explained that during the Parker Ranch
development a major concern had been a culvert that goes under Arroyo de
Arguello near the railroad tracks. Discussion followed on the culvert.
Mr. .Crowther expressed concern that the culvert will not clean itself
fast enough to prevent serious f looding. He added that they fear that
the combination of Seven Springs Ranch and this project is likely to
cause the culvert to overflow. fie stated that he feels that the EIR is
inadequate in addressing this issue.
Commissioner Harris stated that there is a letter from Bill Heiss in the
Final EIR, stating that he had the understanding from the engineer for
the Seven Springs Ranch that they will have an individual drainage system
going into Calabazas Creek, and it will not go into Prospect Creek.
Staff clarified that a minor percentage will be going into Prospect
Creek. They pointed out that there is a response from the Santa Clara
Valley Water District that does not indicate any concern for the culvert.
Mr. Crowther commented that the Water District is assuming that the
culvert is clean, which it is not. Chairman Siegfried stated that these
comments will be incorporated and considered.
Mr. Leavitt, the EIR consultant, clarified the traffic numbers in the
Final EIR to Commissioner Harris.
Commissioner Peterson moved to adopt Resolution E -1 -84, per the Staff
Report dated January .16, 1985, certifying the Final EIR as adequate, and
acknowledging that the project will have a significant effect on the
environment by adopting the attached resolution. Commissioner McGoldrick
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0. 1.
Staff explained the Tentative Subdivision Approval application and the
issues to be resolved. They noted a letter from Mr. Ball, who is
concerned about the extension of Farr Ranch Road into the project and is
requesting that it be only an emergency access and gated as such. The
access to the project was discussed. Discussion was held on the proposed
park and Staff stated that the Parks and Recreation Commission will be
submitting their comments, and they will also be looking at the broader
issue of trails in that vicinity. Commissioner Schaefer suggested that,
since there are many new people on that Commission, several people who
worked on the Trail Study should make a presentation to them.
The public hearing was opened at 8:18 P.M.
Bill Heiss, civil engineer for the applicant, gave a presentation on the
project, explaining the new plan. He discussed the access, the size of
the proposed homes and the pedestrian walkway. Mr. Heiss also discussed
the hydrology of the site and the flow of the water, indicating that he
feels there is no problem relative to the culvert. Chairman Siegfried
commented that this issue will be discussed at the study session, and Mr.
Heiss at that time can discuss the calculations made.
Staff commented that the facilities of Prospect Creek and Calabazas Creek
are under the jurisdiction of the Water District. They indicated that
they would try to find out the frequency of review of these facilities
and report it at the study session.
- 3 -
Planning Commission Page 4
Minutes - Meeting 1/23/85
SD -1.567 (cont.)
Mr. Crowther expressed concern that the flow that will be directed into
Prospect Creek will increase the chances of flooding. He questioned the
percentages discussed by Mr. Heiss and asked that they be checked.
Chairman Siegfried stated that this will be further discussed at the
study session, and asked Staff to invite the Water District to attend
the session, if they wish.
Carl Franklin, 12312 Farr Ranch Road addressed the design of the streets
and access. He also asked that a restriction be put on the planting of
trees and a restriction of 24 ft. on the height on the homes, so that the
views of the existing homes will not be impacted. He also suggested that
the one -acre lots not be allowed to use solid wall fencing.
It was directed that this matter be continued to a study session on
February 5, 1985 and the regular meeting of February 13, 1985.
Commissioner Schaefer suggested that, if a restriction on trees is to be
considered, ordinances from other cities should be obtained to review.
9a. Negative Declaration - SDR -1586 - Los Gatos Jt. Un. H.S. Dist.
---- - - - - -- -----------------------------------------------------
9b. SDR -1586 - os Gatos Jt. Union High School District, Request for
entative Building Site Approval for a 3 -lot subdivision
the R -1- 12,500 District on a surplus portion of .the
3 acre Saratoga high School site located at the south -
e st corner of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Merriman Ave.;
c tinued from January 9, 1985 (to be continued
to •ebruary 13, 1985)
It was directed thatXthis matter be continued to February 13, 1985.
10. SUP -6 - Newell and Gladys Wood, Request for Second Unit Use
Permi to allow an attached, one -story second
unit a 14161 Douglass Lane, in the R -1- 20,000
zoning istrict (application invalid)
It was determined that this application is invalid and is withdrawn.
11. V -681 - David Mor e, Request for Variance Approval to allow an
addition maintain a 15 ft. side yard setback where 20
ft. is req fired at 15165 El Camino Grande, in the R -1-
40,000 zoni g district
Staff explained the applicat on, recommending denial, having been unable
to make the findings. The added that they have found that it is
possible to build a standard size garage without encroaching into the
setback.
Commissioner McGoldrick gave a and Use Committee report, describing the
site. She stated that Mr. Mor e had indicated that he had discussed
moving the driveway so that it would not come under the dripline to
disturb the oak tree on site.
The public hearing was opened at 8:�5 p.m.
David Morse, the applicant, describ the proposal. Mr. Morse commented E!O that his hobby is car collecting n would like the size of garage
proposed. He addressed the oak tree s that he did not intend to
do anything to disturb it. Mr. Mors discussed the findings, stating
that 1) Practical difficulty - If he m aintains the 20 ft. setback he
feels it would require him to make a sm ller garage; he does not feel the
garage can be moved to the south becaus \begood two overhangs of the garage
and the house would meet and it would fthe driveway 5 ft. toward the
oak tree. fie added that it would also e him to store cars outside.
2) Exceptional circumstances - The siunusual., in that there is a
real difference in the setbacks of his and the adjacent neighbors'
house. lie added that the garage will buffer for the swimming
pool. He stated that he could easily the driveway outside of the
- 4 -
Planning Commission Page 2
Minutes - Meeting 2/13/85
V -670 and A -1035 (coat.)
Mr. Sudlow introduced the architect, Steve Crawford. He discussed the
fencing, indicating that there was no problem with reducing the fencing
to include only 4,000 sq. ft. fie described the retaining wall, which is
stepped and will include planting.
Commissioner Schaefer moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve V -670 and A -1035, per the Staff
Report dated February 6, 1985, adding the date of the Geologist's letter
in the conditions and adding the condition that the retaining wall be
stepped and reviewed and approved by Staff. Commissioner J. Harris
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0.
6. SD -1567 - Fremont Union High School District, Request for Tenta-
tive Subdivision Approval for a 55 -lot subdivision on
a 47.5 acre site in the NHR District located just south
of the intersection of Prospect Road and the SPRR
tracks; continued from January 23, 1985
------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Chairman Siegfried reported that a site visit had been made today. The
public hearing was opened at 7:45 p.m.
Bill Heiss, the civil engineer, referenced his letter regarding the
conditions of the Staff Report. He gave a presentation on the project,
suggesting that the open space buffer required by the Department of Fish
and Game be reduced. He also suggested that this buffer be the back
yard of the individual homes, and that the open space easement line be
the building setback line. The proposed park was discussed, and Mr.
Heiss indicated that there was a reluctance for the subdivision to
maintain a public park. He commented that they would be agreeable to
having a private park or private recreational area. The traffic impact
on the intersection of Prospect and south Stelling was discussed.
Commissioner McGoldrick stated that she would like to see a condition on
this property similar to that placed on the Owen property, with a five -
year timeframe in which to ask this developer to participate in any
signal. The height of the homes on lots 36 to 48 was discussed.
Chairman Siegfried asked Mr. Heiss to submit pad heights, suggested
maximum height and information on possible impact to neighbors.
Fran Franklin, of the Parks and Recreation Commission, expressed
disappointment at the suggestion that the proposed park be made a
private park. Discussion followed on limiting the impervious surface if
it were a private recreational area. The City Attorney commented that
an option the Commission might consider is for the property to go to the
City as a park and then leased to the Homeowners Association.
Staff was asked to submit input on the manning of a fire station in this
subdivision. They were also asked to submit information relative to the
necessity for fences along the creek area.
Commissioner J. Harris discussed the height of trees and possibly
controlling the type of trees. Mr. Heiss was asked to indicate lots
where plantings might have a significant impact.
It was directed that this matter be continued to February 27, 1985.
7a. Negative Declaration - SDR -1586 - Los Gatos it. Un. H.S. Dist.
-------------------------------------------------
------------------
7b. SDR -1586 - Los Gatos it. Union High School District, Request for
Tentative Building Site Approval for a 3- lot'subdivi-
sion in the R- 1- 12,500 District on a surplus portion
of the 35 acre Saratoga High School site located at
the southeast corner of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and
------------ Herriman -Ave.; continued from January 23, 1985
--------------------------------=------------
Staff described the project, recommending approval. They noted that
there is a cul -de -sac in excess of 400 ft., and if the Commission
approves the project they will need to make an exception and make the
finding relative to that. They explained that this exception would be
for an interim period of time. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use
Committee report, describing the site and noting that some of the trees
c _e
lS
Planning Commission Page
Minutes - Meeting 2/27/85
A -1055
wet.
Mrs. Skov xplained that this matter had been going on for five years.
mm
She coent d that if the road is going to be completed shortly she has
no problem.1 She questioned the height of the house, and Staff was asked
to clarify e height.
Jim Johnson, 14966 Sobey Road, stated that he would like the Commission
to not wait f r this development to have the road finished. Ile gave the
history of th condition for the road, stating that first Veda Call and
then Mr. Yaug r were supposed to improve the road. He suggested that
the Commissio put a date by which the road is to be completed, not
contingent up n when the site is to be developed. He described the
road, noting ho dangerous it is, and stating that it should be lowered.
Mrs. Johnson de cribed the hazardous condition of the road, asking that
a date be put on the completion of the road.
The bond on the ompletion of the access road was discussed. Mr. Tager
asked that he be allowed to put his plans in and possibly get some
grading done while the road is being completed. Staff commented that
they could submi a report for the next meeting on the status of the
road requirement and the necessary steps needed to complete it.
There was a conse sus that the Commission would like to allow the
paperwork of Mr. T ger to be processed while the road issue is being
resolved. Commiss oner Schaefer commented that she would like to see
some kind of drain ge behind the retaining wall, subject to Staff
approval. Mr. Tag r stated that he would like an option of ei. �r
putting in the retai ing wall or building up the back of the found. in
higher.
Commissioner J. Harri moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
McGoldrick seconded th motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner McGoldric moved to approve A- 1055, per the conditions of
the Staff Report dated February 15, 1985, contingent on the road issue
being resolved. Comm ssioner Burger seconded the motion, which was
carried unanimously 7 -0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
(T7.SD'-1567 - Fremont Union High School District, Request for Tenta-
tive Subdivision Approval for a 55 -lot subdivision on
a 47.5 acre site in the NHR District located just south
of the intersection ofProspect Road and the SPRR tracks;
continued from February 13, 1985
----------------------------------------------------- ------- - - - - --
Staff explained the history of the project. They summarized the new
Staff Report on the project. They noted that the applicant had to
relocate the park and rearrange some of the lots. Therefore, seven of
the lots with slopes greater than 103 are less than 40,000 sq. ft. in
size, and the Commission would have to grant an exception for these lots
if they were to approve the subdivision.
The public hearing was opened at 9:03 p.m.
Lill Heiss, the civil engineer, gave a presentation on the project. Ile
suggested that perhaps the park could be leased back to a Homeowners';.
Association. He discussed the five -year timeframe relative to a'.
possible signal. Mr. Heiss noted that he had diagramed the building
height situation with cross - sections and discussed home and tree he' `ts
relative to Mr. Franklin's site.. He indicated that the height of as
could be covered in the CC &Rs. The possibility of an establishment-ui a
scenic easement zone was addressed.
Commissioner Schaefer suggested a third option regarding the park, to
lower- the amount of land, have a private recreational center for these
4 - -
Planning Commission' Page 5
Minutes - Meeting 2/27/85
SD -1567
homes and some open space, and paying some fees into the City. Sh,
stated that she does not feel there is any benefit to the City in owning
the land and leasing it back to a Homeowners Association.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissione;
Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously:
After discussion there was consensus to have Staff submit input
regarding a third option regarding the park. It was directed that thi:
matter be continued to the regular meeting of March 13, 1985, at whic}
time this matter can be discussed, along with the fee for the Firc
District.
Break - 9:25 p.m. - 9:40 p.m.
8. UP -574 - B ookside Club, Request for Modification to a Use Per-
m' to allow extended hours of operation from 7:00 a.m.
to one hour after, sunset, daily, for tennis and swimming
at 19127 Cox Avenue, in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district;
co tinued from February 13, 1985
Commissioner Scha fer abstained from the discussion on this matter.
Chairman Siegfried noted the changes made in the request from the club,
i.e. adult swim from 8:00 a.m, to 9,00 a.m. Monday through Friday,
and four swim meet at 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, during the summer. The
correspondence rece ved from the neighbors was noted.
The public hearing wVs opened at 9:42 p.m.
Joan Philbrick, a me ber of the board, clarified the modification. She
described the swim me is and the other activities of the club.
A gentleman who live across Saratoga Creek Drive addressed the noise
generated by the club wimming, especially the swim meets. He expressed
opposition to any exte sion regarding the swim meets.
Dolores Askew, 12651 Saratoga Creek, suggested that the swim team
practice be at 8:00 a.m or 9:00 a.m., instead of 7:00 a.m.
Bob Salutric, 12635 Sar toga Creek, expressed opposition to the noise
from the swim meets. He added that the club, is.too close to the
residential area.
Mrs. Butt, 19164 Gunth r Court, addressed the traffic and parking
relative to the club. Sh suggested that the club relocate if it wishes
to expand. A.
Gene Steiger, 19186 Gunthe Court, agreed, stating that he feels the use
permit should stand as is with the swim team practice changed to 8:00
a.m, from 7:00 a.m.
Susan Windus, 12681 Saratog Creek, commented that the Brookside Club
has not lived up to their use permit. She stated that she would like to
see the Commission review t e use permit in two or three years. She
asked that there be no modifi ation to it.
Shelley Tobar, 19264 Gunther ourt cited the noise created by the swim
meets and spoke in opposition t any modification.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Burger seconded the motion, whiclV was carried unanimously.
It was clarified to Commissioner McGoldrick that the swim team starts at
7:00 a.m. in the summer becaus of the summer school program. Silo
questioned the team starting at at that time during the summer. She
suggested that there be a trial f two swim team meets at the earlier
time, to see what kind of cooperat'on is received.
S
W Aft
Planning Commission Page 4
Minutes - Meeting 3/13/85
UP -575
Commissioner SchaeXer moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Burger moved to approve UP -575, per the Staff Report dated
March 5, 1985, dele ing the reference in Conditions #2 and #7 that the
address of the showh use shall not be advertised, and Oak St., Oak Place
and Aloha shall b added to Condition #2. Commissioner Schaefer
seconded the motion, hich was carried 5 -1, with Commissioner McGoldrick
dissenting.
Discussion followed on Item 110, V -679, Randy and Linda Thorsch.
Commissioner Schaefe commented that she agrees with approving the
carport as it exists, but she does not agree that there should only be
one parking space on ite. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use
Committee report, descr' bin
g the site.
The public hearing was ripened at 8:47 p.m.
Linda Thorsch, the app icant, stated that they have no objection to
extending the carport kall, ck. The setbacks were discussed. It was
clarified to Richard Ke representing the applicant, that if the
carport Were extended a roval would be given for removing an olive
tree.
Commissioner Harris move to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Schaefer seconded the moti n, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner McGoldrick me
the Staf Report, changing
state that Staff will det
removed if necessary, and
cars. She added that the f
that not granting the varia
ability to have a covered 1
the motion, which was carri
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ed to approve V -679, per the conditions of
'inding #1, relative to the olive tree, to
'mine the best position for it and it can be
:hat the carport be the size to permit two
idings for the variance are made on the fact
�e for the side yard setback would limit the
rking space. Commissioner Schaefer seconded
unanimously 6 -0.
11. A -1054 - Milton Garfield Northeast Corner of Douglass Lane and
Durham Court, R quest for Design Review Approval for a
new, two -story ingle family residence, in the R -1-
20,000 zoning d'strict (to be continued to March 27, 1985
It was directed that this item be continued to March 27, 1985.
12.' SD -1567 - Fremont Union High School District, Request for Tenta-
tive Subdivision Approval for a 55 =lot subdivision on
a 47.5 acre site in the NHR District located just south
of the intersection of Prospect Road and the SPRR tracks;
continued from February 27, 1985
------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Staff explained the history of the application and the last Staff Report
on it. he indicated that the issues to be resolved by the Commission
are the lease -back option for the park, how to deal with future traffic
circulation problems at Prospect and Stelling, and a land development
fee to defray the cost of a new fire station at Seven Springs Ranch.
The public hearing was opened at 8:55 p.m.
Sandy Santoriello, Norada Court, spoke in opposition to the proposed
project. He questioned the way this application is being processed,
despite the fact that Measure A was adopted. The City Attorney
explained that there was litigation commenced shortly after Measure A
and there was a settlement agreement approved by the Council at a public
- 4 -
0
Planning Commission Page 5
Minutes - Meeting 3/13/85
SD -1567
meeting. tie added that this map is now being processed in accordance
with that settlement agreement, which was entered into prior to the
adoption of the Specific Plan and the Zoning Ordinance which now applies
to the NHR area. He explained that suit was filed by the School
District, along with other developers in the Measure A area; those suits
were settled and this is one of the settlements. He commented that his
instruction to the Commission, as far as this project was concerned, is
that the tentative map be consistent with that settlement agreement.
Bill Heiss, civil engineer, discussed the lease concept for the park and
the size and heights of the homes in the development.
Russ Crowther, Norada Court, addressed the height, i.e. 22 ft. single
story, which he feels is excessive. He inquired about the abandonment
of the sidewalk easement that goes into the project from Norada Court.
Staff commented that there is still an easement on the subdivision
itself for the storm drainage. Discussion followed on the additional
pedestrian easement which had been created for access.
Mr. Crowther commented that the current General Plan shows an 8 -acre
park located at the end of Kreisler Court. He asked if there was
something in the settlement that permitted a 2.3 -acre park. Staff
commented that the settlement specifically gave the City the right to
have a 2.3 -acre park dedicated to the City. Mr. Crowther indicated that
the residents favored a park at the end of Kreisler Court, which would
prevent it from going through. He passed out sections from the
California Government Code, which state that no local agency shall
approve a tentative map unless the! legislative body shall find that the
proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and
improvements, is consistent with the General Plan. He noted that the
General Plan shows this as NHR zoning and shows an 8 -acre park in a
different location. The City Attorney stated that the map is being
processed consistent with a settlement agreement arrived at during the
context of litigation. He commented that the position that has been
taken is that, while there may have been a subsequent Specific Plan and
Zoning Ordinance, the Council was authorized to settle legal issues
raised during the course of litigation; an agreement was entered into
and approved by the court, and the City is abiding by that agreement.
He added that he did not share Mr. Crowther's view that the City is not
abiding by California law; he and Mr. Crowther just have different ideas
as to how that law applies in this case. He pointed out that the Staff
Report states that the project is consistent with the settlement
agreement and the settlement agreement itself was consistent with the
City's General Plan in force at the time the agreement was negotiated.
Mr. Heiss discussed the pad elevations of the homes along Norada Court
and the Arguello area. He also addressed the water drainage system.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Discussion followed on the conditions regarding the traffic circulation
plan and the fire station. The abandonment of the sidewalk easement was
further discussed. The City Attorney commented that the pedestrian
easement can be eliminated as it applies to this subdivision. He added
that the Commission can then make a recommendation to the Council to
abandon that portion of the pedestrian way coming off of Norada Court.
He commented that they would check into that because it is an easement
in use. He stated that they would get some feedback from the people on
Norada Court as to whether further action is needed on their
subdivision.
Commissioner Schaefer recommended that the Commission go with the lease
option relative to the park, stating that she feels it would be an
excellent investment for everybody concerned. She added that it will
also increase the value of the homes. There was a consensus for that
option. The City Attorney stated that if there is consensus he would
- 5 -
r
Planning Commission Page 6
Minutes - Meeting 3/13/85
SD -1567
like to leave the issue open so that Staff can meet with the applicant
and try to develop some plan for that area and bring the proposal back
to the Commission.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve SD -1567, per the Staff Reports
dated March 6, 1985 and January 17, 1985, and Exhibit "B -6 ", with the
third lease option for the park and the abandonment of the pedestrian
easement in this development. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion,
which was carried 5 -1, with Commissioner J. Harris dissenting. She
stated that she shares Mr. Crowther's concern for this going against the
General Plan and the Specific Plan.
Break 9:40 p.m. - 9:55 p.m.
13. A -1021- P rnas Corporation, Request for Design Review Approval to
c nstruct a 25 ft., one -story residence on a hillside lot
afl 21543 Saratoga Heights Drive, in the NHR zoning dis-
tr'ct; continued from February 27, 1985 (to be continued)
It was directed thAt this item be continued.
14. A -1023 - Parn s Corporation, Request for Design Review Approval to
const uct a 27 ft., two -story residence on a hillside lot
at 21 31 Saratoga Heights Drive, in the NHR zoning dis-
trict. continued from February 27, 1985 (to be continued)
--------------- ------------=--------------------------------------
I
i
It was directed that t is item be continued.
15. A -1052 - Mark Rap ort, Montalvo Heights Drive, Tract 6732, Lot 4,
Request or Design Review Modification Approval for a
new, two story residence that exceeds the 6200 sq. ft.
floor are standard, in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district;
continued from February 27, 1985
Staff explained the prop sal, noting that-.they were unable to make the
i
findings and recommend de al. Discussion followed on the. grading. It
was noted that a letter had been received from Hoskins Engineering
reflecting a discrepanc in the amount of grading on a previous
approval. Commissioner cGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report,
discussing the trees to b removed, the house design and the height.
She stated that she could ee no other homes that would be impacted by
this home.
The public hearing was opened\at 10:00 p.m.
Mark Rapport gave a present tion on the project, describing the new
design. He addressed the tree removal and grading.
Commissioner Schaefer moved to \close the public hearing. Commissioner
Harris seconded the motion, whicVi was carried unanimously.
The City Attorney suggested, ince there is another Design Review
Approval outstanding and because f the discrepancy in the grading, that
there be a condition that thi approval, by agreement with the
applicant, would supersede and can el the earlier approval.
Commissioner Schaefer moved to app ve A -1052, making Finding #2 based
on the fact that it will only immedi tely affect the house that will go
in next door in the future, and for arthquake purposes it is better to
build on the solid land rather than n a lot of fill. She added that
there are trees and natural landscapin on the site, and the home will
be an attractive asset to the area. S e stated that there should be a
condition that the house be no higher th n 29 feet at any point from the
ridgeline and that the driveway have a minimum of 2 ft. landscaping down
- 6 -
City of Saratoga
Planning Department
Ref: 55 lot subdivision
( School Site)
Dear Sirs:
RECEivED
JAN 0 7 1985
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Jan 7, 1985
""JI'lals-6 /
We live at 12312 Farr Ranch Road in saratoga. ( lot #3 )
Our home sits above the proposed 55 lot development.
We built there so we could enjoy the view that our lot offers,
therefore we have THREE concerns as regards to the proposed
subdivision.,
1. That the homes on the one acre sites be located near the
front of the sites, and that the height of the homes be
no more than 24 feet.
2. That the height of all trees and shrubs planted along
the rear of the acre sites be`no more than 15 feet.
3. That there be a restriction forbidding solid wood fencing,
with cyclone or wood and mesh fencing as an option.
Our reasons for these concerns are that we bought our lot
primarily for the unobstructed view that it offers. The one acre
sites will be directly in front and below our lot, and if there
are no height.restriction on the homes or trees, it will seriously
affect the value of our property, and the view that we moved here for.
! I am unable to attend the meeting, as I am out of town, but I
thank you for your consideration of our situation.
Sincerely,
Carl and Judy Franklin
i
r'r.1 1 1 1 UIN
TO: SARATOGA CITO.OUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMIJWON
Relative to the proposed development of the Fremont
School Property, we the undersigned, request that the sidewalk
easement connecting this property with Norada Ct. be abandoned
and divided equally between the adjacent property owners. It
makes no sense to have a trail on public streets when the
Prospect Creek, power line and railroad easements are directly
adjacent and are currently used as trails.
We also are concerned about approval of godzilla sized
homes on undersized lots and request that you limit home sizes to
be compatible with the lots or require larger lots similar to
those specified in the initiative petition adopted by Saratoga
voters.
NAME(PRINT)
ADDRESS
SIGNATURE DATE
�7
fI O , IK��K�
IZA 6 ,E5ficl<'
07091/�/ /0 rfl-9-b -4 G%
r
:. , �, 64,,x,
IJ6 /9,5
C?0 TH9 rL
'2 ' � /1 GT
Alt�
'
D et/
JVAel VAIW o .Se
aa7g7a
I 1 1 /
� �5
7 071 o (/ / d ` -�i
i
! 0 YS
I/
Aft
PETITION — Ala
TO: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
Relative to the proposed development of the Fremont -
School Property, we the undersigned, request that the sidewalk
easement connecting this property with Norada Ct. be abandoned
and divided equally between the adjacent property owners. It
makes no sense to have a trail on public streets when the
Prospect Creek, power line and railroad easements are directly
adjacent and are currently used as trails.
We also are concerned about approval of godzilla sized
homes on undersized lots and request that you limit home sizes to
be compatible with the lots or require larger lots similar to
those specified in the initiative petition adopted by Saratoga
voters.
NAME(PRINT) ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
` € f
i
� rAR arzou �'rf € J /� €
Jo A IUij Cf /ZHR -O t�f € 1221 �/1/10Yd we
i
L ScAl 82oie, Fl € ��3 � `f A22o Yo d e Al2.- u�cc o
SsaM`v(ZCEI
7S .
€
i
€ €
€
€
€
�
€
3
€
€ 1
f a
RECEIVED
JAN 231985
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
January 22, 1985
Mr. Richard Siegfried, Chairperson
Saratoga Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mr. Siegfried:
The Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed residential
sub - division, Fremont Union High School District site, calls for the
future connection of Farr Ranch Road to proposed Street B.
The residents of Farr Ranch Road, signatures attached, request that
this provision, shown on Page 3 -8 of the Draft Report, be eliminated.
Farr Ranch Road already experiences considerable traffic due to
construction in the area. We feel that connecting into the new
development below us could substantially increase that traffic.
Secondary access to the development can be provided via Burnet Drive.
The one benefit we. see to this proposed connection of Farr Ranch Road
is to allow emergency egress on what otherwise is a very long cul -de-
sac. A locked gate across Farr Ranch Road, between Parker Ranch, and
the Fremont Union High School site is an acceptable alternative to us.
This is similar to the proposal made for'the connection made between
Kreisler Ct. and this new development.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
J P,
^1
David L. Ball
12375 Farr Ranch Road
Saratoga, CA
Attachment
NAME ADDRESS
-j (A-
0o,�w1;5pl /ss /D,) _
T
E'A
viz -�,�,Z, E
5D- rs(, -7
RECEIVED
MAR 0 5 1985
(;OMMUNITY OEVELOPMENT-
..:___
9so 70
_�....0 �. d7�N_ �....... ��O�O.S,C /� ... _..,_ � EUc�- C��!�7.�y % .... _�.. _ _ �✓ /� L
�G''.E' 0�2 ___.�._�__,,...._
..... 0.....
11A WO
(VeFRIV*e,
PV
FL
af 17
9so 70
Fremont Union High School District
HIGH SCHOOLS
589 WEST FREMONT AVENUE
ADULT /COMMUNITY
POST OFFICE BOX F
BLANEY
C
EREMONT
SUNNYVALE, CALIFORNIA 94087
F ONT
(408) 735 -6060
HOMESTEAD
•
LYNBROOK
MONTA VISTA
JACK ROPER
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS
April 9, 1985
Ms. Betsy Cory
City Clerk
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Appeal - Prospect Site
Dear Ms. Cory:
We were advised that Russell Crowther and several other individuals
filed an appeal pertaining.to the Planning Commission's approval
of our Tentative Map subdivision. Attached is a letter which
I have prepared to the City Council on behalf of the Fremont
Union High School District, setting forth the district's position
on the appeal. It would be very much appreciated if you would
include my attached response to the appeal in the materials
which are forwarded to the City Council prior to the scheduled
hearing on April 17, 1985.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Crank
Assistant Superintendent
Business Services
RWC:hnd
Enclosure
c: Robert Shook
Bill Heiss
�nan�/ o� Ju�aleca safrasv �/ J/iCG, ((�/icr �i ls/ra 6 a"— ,au, � �tP�/ Pyr�la rP�ar�ir�rrar�
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Fremont Union High School District
HIGH SCHOOLS
589 WEST FREMONT AVENUE
ADULT /COMMUNITY
POST OFFICE BOX F
BLANEY
CUPERTIN
SUNNYVALE, CALIFORNIA 94087
FREMONT
(408) 735 -6060
HOMESTEAD
•
LYNBROOK
MONTA VISTA
JACK ROPER
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS
April 9, 1985
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: SD 1567
Honorable Council:
We understand an appeal of the Tentative Map approval for SD 1567 has been
filed by Mr. Russell Crowther and some of his neighbors. His letter of
March 22, 1985, has been provided to our office. In reviewing the letter,
we.feel the appeal.is totally without merit and the issues raised were
reviewed extensively by the staff and Planning Commission, with appropriate
mitigation measures incorporated into the Tentative Map conditions. For
clarity, we would like to respond to each issue as it appears in the March 22
letter.
#1 The Planning Commission was very concerned about the impact of this
project on adjacent neighbors, and established certain criteria to
ensure the minimum disruption to the community. The lots in the project
are 20,000 square feet and larger, which is significantly greater in
size than the adjacent Arguello subdivision with 12,500 square foot
zoning. In spite of the larger size, the Planning Commission limited
those lots abutting the.Arguello subdivision to be no larger than that
permitted under the 12,500 square foot zoning rather than the.20,000
square foot zoning. They further stipulated that no house could be
larger than the 20,000 square foot zoning, even though many of the
lots are significantly larger, up to one acre in size. They also
reviewed height limitations for those lots that were considered to
be critical as far as neighborhood impact.
Referencing the amendment of the original home size conditions in the
Parker Ranch is a clear distortion of the facts. The Parker Ranch
Development was the first project in the City to contain some kind
of house size limitation. It pre -dated the implementation of a City-
wide ordinance setting maximum house size. It was only logical that
the limitation placed on the Parker Ranch would be amended to be
consistent with that applicable to lots throughout the City, which
is what occurred and represented a very logical sequence.
,Viuiitil �rublreD% Asa /ors mil( C/ �/�ra�i mod%, Yo "V g jeu,/'"Pr' Y' gted'l0 n 1 Ye "'V W. Yarde'WWtp
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
City Council
City of Saratoga
April 9, 1985
Page 2
#2 This project is hardly a hillside project, considering its average
slope of 9 %. The portion abutting the Parker Ranch is of a greater
slope, but in no case is there any land in excess of 20 %. The Planning
Commission did review the impact of the project on the adjacent homes,
as outlined in the paragraph above. As you know, the Parker Ranch
project lies above this project, and continues to a higher elevation
across its entire length; hence, any disruption of views could only
be those of the lower portion of the Parker Ranch.
#3 The Planning Commission placed a condition on the project requiring
a study of the development impact on downstream drainage. This study
was completed during the Tentative Map hearing, and sent to both the
City and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. As a result of this
study, a letter was directed to the City from the Santa Clara Valley
Water District, dated January 31, 1985, which stipulated that development
of this project would not cause any downstream flooding. As you may
remember, with the development of the Parker Ranch a significant amount
of downstream drainage improvements was required on Prospect Creek.
With completion of this construction, the previous drainage problems
.in this area have been completely solved and the system is functioning
as designed. After development of this particular project, additional
drainage facilities will be installed which will collect run -off which
presently, by small ditches and sheet flows, drains into the Arguello
area. This drainage will be intercepted both by streets and the
internal drainage system of the high school property development,
further mitigating any nuisance water problems that might still exist.
#4 This question.relates totally to the stipulation of settlement agreement
between the City and the District.
#5 The Tentative.Map indicates that a cul -de -sac will terminate adjacent
to the Kreisler Court cul -de -sac, with a grated barricade to be
constructed in that location. The plan also shows a street stubbed
to the south into the Moore property, with a possible future emergency
or public road connection to Farr Ranch Court in the Parker Ranch.
Both of these extensions are consistent with the City's circulation
plan.
#6 The question of park location on the project was studied by the Parks
and Recreation Commission, and they preferred that shown on the Tentative
Map. The generalized location, which is nothing more than a green
designation on the General Plan at the southerly part of the school
project, was not deemed appropriate for several reasons. One primary
reason was the impact on adjacent existing homes of placing a park
in their backyard. Most homeowners do not appreciate having a public
City Council
City of Saratoga
April 9, 1985
Page 3
park developed in close proximity to their home. The Parks and
Recreation Commission felt that the park, in a more central location
as shown on the Tentative Map, would minimize its impact, since it
is surrounded totally by the new development with very few homes
abutting it, even in the.developed condition. Its visibility, as
indicated on the Tentative Map, was deemed desirable to add to the
feeling of openness and for the ease of maintaining security of the
park, which would be quite difficult at the southerly location. The
argument that the park would prevent street extension by the City does
not seem logical, since the City would own the park. If they wanted
to extend the streets, and they.owned the park, they could certainly
do it at their own option since they control the land. We are not
aware of any indication in the General Plan as to the exact size of
the park. The park, as indicated, is consistent with the stipulation
of settlement agreement.
#7 The Planning Commission made the required findings as directed by the
City Attorney.
#8 The Planning Commission made the required findings as directed by the
City Attorney.
In reviewing the processing of this Tentative Map by the Planning Commission
and staff, we feel the City took great pains to evaluate and mitigate any
potential impact by the project. After such a thorough and lengthy review
by the Planning Commission and staff, we feel this appeal is inappropriate
and does not recognize the effort that went into the study and eventual
approval of the Tentative Map. We therefore urge the City Council to deny
the appeal and uphold the approval of the Tentative Map.
Sincerely,
/7'0A-,V-
Robert W. Crank
Assistant Superintendent
Business Services
RWC:hnd
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE . SAR.ATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission DATE: March 18, 1985
'FROM: Parks and Recreation Commssion
SUBJECT: Fremont School Site
It is the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Commission that
the site shown on the Jennings- McDermott - Heiss, Inc. Exhibit B -6,
Fremont School Site, be developed as a low maintenance public park
and that access from Norada Court to the park location be retained
and improved. The Parks and Recreation Commission is opposed to
this land being developed as a private park for exclusive use by
residents of the new development.
Since maintenance funds are not available at this time we suggest
that low maintenance improvements be made at the developers expense.
Any and all improvements should be made only upon consultation with
City staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Kicn vaiione, Lnairman
Parks and Recreation CM mission
st