Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-15-1995 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTSSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Q S s MEETING DATE: MARCH 15, 1995 ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS J AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR.: DEPT. HEAD: 'A SUBJECT: Public Meeting on extension of Utility Users Tax Recommended Motion(s): N /A. No action is taken at the Public Meeting. Report Summary: At your meeting, you will conduct the Public. Meeting prescribed by Gov't. Code Section 54954.6 on the proposal to extend the Utility Users Tax with no sunset provision . The purpose of the Public Meeting is to afford the affected public, in this case all residents and business persons in the City who subscribe to electric and gas service, the opportunity to seek information from the Council about the proposal. No action is taken at the Public Meeting. Rather, official testimony is offered and action taken at the Public Hearing on the matter which is now scheduled for April 19. Fiscal Impacts: The proposed tax would raise an estimated $791,476 in FY, 95-96, and an average of $832,052 annually for the five year period ending in FY 99 -00. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: As required by the Gov't. Code. For the Public Meeting, this involved publishing a 1/8 page legal ad in the Saratoga News on March 1,-18r and 15,: A'copy_of the ad is attached. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: N /A. Follow Up Actions: The Public Hearing will be scheduled for April 19. Attachments: 1. Legal Ad. 2. Excerpts from Staff report dated February 1, 1995. O� JOINT NOTICE OF PUBLIC '• HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE CITY COUNCIL ... Notice is hereby given that the Deputy City Clerk of the Saratoga City Council, State of California, has set Wednesday, the 19th day of April, L%5, at 8.00 p.m. (or earlier if public hearings are readied before 8:00 pm. on the agenda) in the City Council Chambers at A. time and p��forr PJY c,h Saratoga, California: as -the UR; Ordinance extending a utility user tax at rate 'of 3.S%.wlth no-sunset clause. Amount or rate of tax: 3.5 % Activity to be taxed: Residential and commercial gas and electric usage Estimated amount of revenue to be raised by the tax annually: $791,476 in 1995 -96; $832,052 five -year average for FY 1995.96 through FY 1999 -2000. Method and frequency for collecting the tax: Collected by Pacific Gas and Electric Co. on monthly utility bills. Notice Is Battier ONen that Wednesday, the 15th day of March, 1995, at 7:30 pm. at the same place has been set for the time of an informational meeting on the same subject .All interested persons may appear and be heard at both the above times and place. If you challenge the subject projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the City Council's information packets, written commu- nications should be filed on or before the Thursday before the meeting. A copy of any material provided to the City Council on the above hearings) is on file at the Office of the Saratoga City Clerk at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga. Questions may be addressed to the Public Works Director, 867 -3438. /Grace Cory/ Deputy City Clerk (Pub SN 3/1) 24 SARATOGA NEWS AIARCH I, 1995 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 1, 1995 ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR.: DEPT. HEAD: 014 04 SUBJECT: Annual review of Pavement Management Program and Utility Users Tax Recommended Motion(s): Move to accept the annual report on the Pavement Management Program and direct staff to initiate proceedings to extend the Utility Users Tax at the recommended rate of 3.5 %. Report Summary: The Utility Users Tax is authorized pursuant to Article 5 -30 of the City Code. In general, the tax imposes a 3.5% surcharge on electric and gas rates. While technically the revenues generated by the tax are deposited into the City's General Fund, it is the policy of the City to earmark all of the tax revenues to support the City's Pavement Management Program. Section 5- 30.140 of the City Code prescribes an annual review of the revenues raised by the tax at a public hearing in January. (Please recall that at your previous meeting you continued the hearing to February 1.) At the hearing, the Council is charged with reviewing the rate of the tax and determining the continuing need for the tax revenues based upon past expenditures and projections of future costs. Since all of the tax revenues support the Pavement Management Program, this report examines the past and future performance of the Program. Additionally, the current Utility Users Tax automatically sunsets on July 1 of this year. If the Council is inclined to extend the tax as recommended, the Council will need to follow new procedural requirements contained Section 54954.6 of the Government Code. Essentially, this will require additional hearings and noticing which were not required when the tax was last extended in 1990. For further details about these new procedures and a suggested timeline of specific actions which will need to occur, please refer to the attached memo from the City Attorney dated January 12. To avoid these requirements in the future, the Council can opt to extend the tax without any sunset provision, but still retain the ability to review the tax rate annually. As explained later in this report, because of the fiscal consequences the City would face if the tax were allowed to expire, staff recommends continuing the Utility Users Tax at the current 3.5% rate, and without any future sunset provision. Background: The City's Pavement Management Program is a computerized data base which systematically recommends various maintenance treatments for all of the publicly maintained streets in the City. Currently, there are approximately 142.5 centerline miles of streets which the City maintains with a replacement value of almost $42 million. The program is built upon a model which assumes standard pavement performance characteristics for various street classifications over time, and which attempts to extend the life of a street before reconstruction is needed to approximately 100 years. By carrying out the recommended maintenance treatments the City will, over time, reduce its annual pavement maintenance costs by more than 45% if no maintenance is performed, and by more than 65% if pavement overlays are performed every ten years. A more thorough description of the Pavement Management Program and pavement maintenance philosophies can be found in Attachment No. 4. To begin the evaluation of the next five year cycle of the Pavement Management Program, I've attached three, spreadsheets which summarize alternative street maintenance funding and expense scenarios for the six year period beginning with FY 94 -95 and ending with FY 99 -00. Each spreadsheet is based upon a uniform set of assumptions except for one, the rate of the Utility Users Tax. The assumptions common to each scenario are: o Gas Tax (except Section 2107.5) and Traffic Safety Fee revenues are escalated at 1% annually- 0 No interest will accrue to the Gas Tax Fund. o Utility User Tax revenue is escalated at 2.5% annually. o General street maintenance expenditures are escalated at 2% annually. o Pavement Management Program expenditures reflect actual expenditures for FY 94 -95, and the full recommended programs for FY 95 -96 through FY 99 -00. The Program escalates preventive maintenance costs by 2.5% annually. o Capital Project funding and expenditures are limited to five identified projects as follows: • Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. Improvements, Project No. 924 - $340,000 ISTEA Grant in FY 94 -95; $85,000 local match in FY 94 -95; $425,000 construction in FY 94 -95. • Pierce Rd. Bridge Replacement, Project No. 953 - $300,000 HBRR Grant in FY 95 -96; $75,000 local match in FY 95 -96; $375,000 construction in FY 95 -96. • Quito Rd. Bridge Replacements, Project No. 9111 - $73,600 HBRR Grant in FY 95 -96; $12,267 local match reimbursement in FY 95 -96; $6,133 local match in FY 95 -96; $92,000 design in FY 95 -96; $506,400 HBRR Grant in FY 96 -97; $84,400 local match reimbursement in FY 96 -97; $42,200 local match in FY 96 -97; $633,000 construction in FY 96- 97. • Cox Ave. Improvements, Project No. 9112 - $13,500 RHGC Grant in FY 95 -96; $1,500 local match in FY 95 -96; $15,000 construction in FY 95 -96. • Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. Rehab. - $89,900 ISTEA Grant in FY 97 -98; $22,475 local match in FY 97 -98; $112,375 design in FY 97 -98; $809,100 ISTEA Grant in FY 98 -99; $65,000 developer contribution in FY' 98-99; $137,275 local match in FY 98 -99; $1,011,375 local match in FY 98 -99. The three scenarios evaluated illustrate street maintenance funding and expense projections for the six year time horizon with continuation of the tax at a 3.5% rate, extension of the tax at a 2% rate, and no extension of the tax. Analysis:. Setting aside. for the moment the Utility Users Tax revenues and the Pavement Management Program expenditures, it is projected that the City will spend $6,104,646 on general street maintenance activities and street related capital improvements, and accumulate $5,181,421 in funds for those same purposes over the five years beginning with FY 95 -96. Or, the City will expend $923,225 more than it receives from the various identified funding sources. Note also that $284,583 of the total projected funding is identified as local match funding for capital project grants, and presumably this amount will come from General Fund sources. Over the same five year period, the Pavement Management Program recommends expenditures of $3,681,271. Major highlights of the Program include: o Slurry seals of all streets in the Beauchamps and Parker Ranch subdivisions in FY 95 -96. o Overlays of Fruitvale Ave. from Allendale to Farwell, and Quito Rd. from Baylor to the SPRR tracks in FY 95 -96. o Overlays of Devon and McFarland Aves., Prospect Rd. from the westerly City limits to Titus, and Quito Rd. from north Sobey Rd. to the SPRR tracks in FY 96 -97. o Slurry seal of Saratoga Ave. from McFarland to.Bucknall in FY 97 -98. o Overlays of Allendale Ave. from Portos to Quito, Cox Ave. from Quito to Cumberland, Pierce Rd. from Congress Springs to Saratoga Heights and Via Regina to Sarahills, and Saratoga Ave. from Saratoga - Sunnyvale to Herriman in FY 97- 98. o Overlay of Saratoga Ave. from Herriman to Via Monte in FY 98 -99. o Overlays of lower Quito Rd. below Sobey Rd.,.and lower Fruitvale Ave. below Farwell Avp_ in vv QQ -nn In summary, over 52% of the City's street system will receive maintenance of one sort or another during the five year period (averaging 10.4% per year), and the recommended total program expenditures amount to roughly 8.6% of the replacement value of the entire street system (averaging 1.7% per year). The complete work programs and associated budgets for the five year period are attached. A color coded map highlighting the entire five year program will also be available at your meeting. For its approximate $3.7 million maintenance investment, total depreciation of the entire street system over the 5 year period will be limited to just under $2.1 million, and the total cost to the City will be $5.8 million. However, if the City were to perform no maintenance at all, the street system would depreciate in value by almost $10.5 million, or $4.7 million more. Therefor, by investing $3.7 million into the Pavement Management Program, the City will prevent almost $8.4 million in total system depreciation. The three spreadsheet scenarios illustrate why the current Utility Users Tax rate of 3.5% and the corresponding revenues it raises are critical to the successful continuation of the Pavement Management Program. Without the tax revenues or some equivalent funding mechanism, the City would be unable to implement the recommended full program. Even with a continuation of the 3.5% tax rate, the cash flow model projects a deficit of $194,194 at the end of FY 99- 00. However, this amount is comparatively small to the total amount of funds flowing into and out of the overall street maintenance program during the time horizon, and can most likely be managed through fine tuning of the program including cost savings as time goes on. Consequently, it is not recommended that the Council direct any changes to the recommended full program at this time. The second spreadsheet shows the effects of reducing the tax rate to somewhere between 0% and 3.5 %, in this case 2 %. As you can see, sizeable deficits appear each year, and the cash flow model shows the fund balance steadily declining until at the end of the 5 year period, it is close to $2 million in arrears. To compensate for this, the City Council would have to either direct sizeable cuts in the Pavement Management Program, probably in the 50 % -60% range, develop an alternative funding source to make up the shortfall, or do some combination of both. As an aside, I draw your attention to the fact that last year, the previous City Council adopted a new policy which redirected certain General Fund revenues formerly allocated to the Pavement Management Program away from the Program. This action effectively reduced General Fund support of the Program by approximately $235,000 per year. The third spreadsheet shows the effects of allowing the Utility Users Tax to sunset and failing to replace the tax with an equivalent funding mechanism. Essentially, this scenario would result in termination of the Pavement Management Program as there would be no means to manage the large annual deficits. The results of this would become apparent by the steady and rapid deterioration of the City's street system, a condition which I believe most taxpayers would not tolerate. Furthermore, the State legislature's suspension of the Maintenance of Effort requirement repeals at the end of FY 96 -97. If that happens, then Saratoga would need to spend at least $861,577 in non - restricted funds per year on street maintenance purposes beginning in FY 97 -98 to remain eligible to receive the Section 2105 Gas Tax subvention, roughly $162,665 per year. Lastly, any reduction or elimination of the Utility Users Tax would cause an additional dollar for dollar loss of property tax revenues allocated to the City through the Tax Equity Allocation formula contained in Section 97.35(f)(2) of the Revenue and Taxation Code. The maximum estimated potential loss to the City from reducing or eliminating the tax is $597,000 in FY 95 -96, and grows to $726,000 in FY 99 -00. Conclusion: Saratogans Pavement Management Program represents a long term investment in one of the City's most valuable assets, its publicly maintained street system. The overall condition of the City's streets bears directly on individual property values, something which most, if not all Saratogans hold in high regard. Many other cities do not have a Pavement Management Program or.if they do, fail to properly invest in it. The bottom line result is that Saratoga's streets are in better condition and get more frequent attention than those in other cities and at considerably less cost to the taxpayer over the long run. I believe that there is genuine support in the community for continuing the Pavement Management Program. This report attempts to explain how and why the success of the Program is directly linked to the Utility Users Tax. While it may be traditionally popular to reduce or eliminate tax burdens, I do not believe that such a move would be wise in this instance. Instead, for the many reasons stated in this report, plus for the simple reason that future Saratogans should not be burdened by present day neglect, I strongly recommend that the City Council direct staff to initiate steps to extend the Utility Users Tax without a sunset provision at the present rate of 3.5% Fiscal Impacts: As noted in the report. Advertising. Noticing and Public Contact: As approved by the Council on January 4. Copies of the Notice to community groups and the legal ad which was published in the Saratoga News are attached. Additionally, a press release announcing the hearing was published in the newspaper and broadcast over KSAR. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: As noted in the report. Follow Up Actions: Staff will proceed with steps to extend the tax. Tentatively, the Public Meeting will be scheduled for March 1, and the Public Hearing for April 5. Attachments: 1. Spreadsheets (3). 2. Funding and expenditure pie charts. 3. Annual Pavement Management Program full recommended work programs for FY 95 -96 through FY 99 -00. 4. Pavement Management Program Summary. 5. Memo from City Attorney dated January 12. 6. Article 5 -30 of the City Code. 7. Copies of community group notice and legal ad. STREET MAINTENANCE FUNDING AND EXPENSES PROJECTIONS FOR 1994 - 2000 3.5% UTILITY USERS TAX RATE 6 YEAR 6 YEAR FY 94 -95 FY 95 -96 FY 96_97 FY 97 -98 FY 98 -99 FY 99 -00 TOTAL AVERAGE ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FUNDING 2105 Gas'Tax $159,831 $160,000 $161,600 $163,216 $164,848 $166,496 $975,991 $162,665 2106 Gas Tax 130,122 130,000 131,300 132,613 133,939 135,278 793,252 $132,209 2107 Gas Tax 220,982 221,000 223,210 225,442 227,696 229,973 1,348,303 $224,717 2107.5 Gas Tax 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 36,000 $6,000 Interest on Gas Tax Fund Bal. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Traffic Safety Fees 60,000 60,000 ---------7-------------------------------------------------- 60,600 61,206 61,818 62,436 366,060 $61,010 Sub -Total $ 576, 935 $ 577, 000 $582, 710 $ 588 ,477 $594,301 $600,183 $3,519,606 $586,601 Capital Projects - $ 340, 000 $ 399 ,367 $590,800 $89,900 $874,100 $0 $2,294,167 $382,361 (Grants, refunds, etc.) $1,225,811 $704,315 $819,552 $749,143 $770,636 $637,625 $4,907,082 $817,847 Capital Projects - Local match 85,000 82,633 42,200 22,475 137,275 0 $369,583 $61,597 Sub -Total $425,000 $482,000 $633,000 $112,375 $1,011,375 $0 $2,663,750 $443,958 Utility Users Tax @ 3.5% $1,522,446 $ 791, 476 $ 811;263 $831,545 $852,334 $873,642 $5,682,706 $947,118 Total Funding $2,524,381 $1,850,476 $2,026,973 $1,532,397 $2,458,010 $1,473,825 $11,866,062 $1,977,677 EXPENSES $250,042 $165,280 ($16,551) ($117,049) ($227,854) $2,524,381 $1,850,476 $2,026,973 2029 Congestion Management $30,229 $30,285 $23,241 $23,706 $24,180 $24,664 $156,305 $26,051 3031 Street Maintenance 351,356 357,577 364,729 372,024 379,464 387,053 2,212,203 $368,701 3032 Sidewalks and Trails 41,329 42,362 43,209 44,073 44,954 45,853 261,780 3033 Traffic Control 150,608 163,108 166,370 ' 169,697 173,091 176,553 999,427 .$43,630 $166,571 3035 Medians and Parkways 152,601 155,591 -------------------------------------------------------------- 158,703 161,877 165,115 168,417 962,304 $160,384 Sub -Total $726,123 $748,923 $756,252 $771,377 $786,804 $802,540 $4,592,019 $765,337 Capital Projects $425,000 $482,000 $633,000 $112,375 $1,011,375 $0 $2,663,750 $443,958 Pavement Management Program $1,225,811 $704,315 $819,552 $749,143 $770,636 $637,625 $4,907,082 $817,847 Total Expenses $2,376,934 $1,935,238 $2,208,804 $1,632,895 $2,568,815 $1,440,165 $12,162,851 $2,027,142 Funding Surplus /(Defecit) $147,447 ($84,762) ($181,831) ($100,498) ($110,805) $33,660 ($296,789) ($49,465) CASH FLOW MODEL Beginning Fund Balance Total Funding Total Expenses Ending Fund Balance CAWK\95STRRPT $102,595 $250,042 $165,280 ($16,551) ($117,049) ($227,854) $2,524,381 $1,850,476 $2,026,973 $1,532,397 $2,458,016 $1,473,825 $2,376,934 $1,935,238 $2,208,804 $1,632,895 $2,568,815 $1,440,165 $250,042 $165,280 ($16,551) ($117,049) ($227,854) ($194,194) STREET MAINTENANCE FUNDING AND EXPENSES PROJECTIONS FOR'1994 - 2000 2% UTILITY USERS TAX RATE 6 YEAR 6 YEAR FY 94 -95 FY 95 -96 FY 96 -97 FY 97 -98 FY 98 -99 FY 99 -00 TOTAL AVERAGE FUNDING 2105 Gas Tax $159,831 $160,000 $161,600 $163,216 $164,848 $166,496 $975,991 $162,665 2106 Gas Tax 130,122 130,000 131,300 132,613 133,939 135,278 793,252 $132,209 2107 Gas Tax 220,982 221,000 223,210 . 225,442 227,696 229,973 1,348,303 $224,717 2107.5 Gas Tax 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 36,000 $6,000 Interest on Gas Tax Fund Bal. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Traffic Safety Fees 60,000 60,000 ------------------------------------------------------------- 60,600 61,206 61,818 62,436 366,060 $61,010 Sub -Total $ 576, 935 $ 577,000 $582,710 $588,477 $594,301 $600,183 $3,519,606 $586,601 Capital Projects - $ 340, 000 $399,367 $590,800 $89,900 $874,100 $0 $2,294,167 $382,361 (Grants, refunds, etc.) $1,225,811 $704,315 $819,552 .$749,143 $ 770,636 $637,625 $4,907,082 $817,847 Capital Projects - Local match 85,000 82,633 ------------------------------------------------------------- 42,200 22,475 137,275 0 $369,583 $61,597 Sub -Total $425,000 $482,000 $633,000 $112,375 $1,011,375 $0 $2,663,750 $443,958 Utility Users Tax @ 2% $1, 522, 446 $ 452, 272 $ 463, 579 $ 475 ,168 $487,047 $497,223 $3,897,735 $649,623 Total Funding $2,524,381 $1,511,272 $1,679,289 $1,176,020 $2,092,723 $1,097,406 $10,081,091 $1,680,182 EXPENSES 2029 Congestion Management $30,229 $30,285 $23,241 $23,706: + $24,180 $24,664 $156,305 $26,051 3031 Street Maintenance 351,356 357,577 364,729 372,024 379,464 387,053 2,212,203 $368,701 3032 Sidewalks and Trails 41,329 42,362 43,209 44,073 44,954 45,853 261,780 $43,630 3033 Traffic Control 150,608 163,108 166,370 169,697 173,091 176,553 999,427 $166,571 3,035 Medians and Parkways 152,601 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 155,591 158,703 161,877 165,115 168,417 962,304 $160,384 Sub -Total $726,123 $748,923 $756,252 $771,377 $786,804 $802,540 $4,592,019 $765,337 Capital Projects $425,000 $482,000 $633,000 $112,375 $1,011,375 $0 $2,663,750 $443,958 Pavement Management Program $1,225,811 $704,315 $819,552 .$749,143 $ 770,636 $637,625 $4,907,082 $817,847 Total Expenses $2,376,934 $1,935,238 $2,208,804 $1,632,895 $2,568,815 $1,440,165 $12,162,851 $2,027,142 Funding Surplus /(Defecit) $147,447 ($423,966) ($529,515) ($456,875) ($476,092) ($342,759) ($2,081,760) ($346,960) CASH FLOW MODEL Beginning Fund Balance Total Funding Total Expenses Ending Fund Balance CAWK\95STRRPT $102,595 $250,042 ($173,924) ($703,439) ($1,160,314) ($1,636,406) $2,524,381 $1,511,272 $1,679,289 $1,176,020 $2,092,723 $1,097,406 $2,376,934 $1,935,238 $2,208,804 $1,632,895 $2,568,815 $1,440,165 $250,042 ($173,924) ($703,439) ($1,160,314) ($1,636,406) ($1,979,165) STREET MAINTENANCE FUNDING AND EXPENSES PROJECTIONS FOR 1994 - 2000 0% UTILITY USERS TAX RATE 6 YEAR 6 YEAR FY 94 -95 FY 95 -96 FY 96 -97 FY 97 -98 FY 98 -99 FY 99 -00 TOTAL AVERAGE ---------------------------------------------------------------------- FUNDING 2105 Gas Tax $159,831 $160,000 $161,600 $163,216 $164,848 $166,496 $975,991 $162,665 2106 Gas Tax 130,122 130,000 131,300 132,613 133,939 135,278 793,252 $132,209 2107 Gas Tax 220,982 221,000 223,210 225,442 227,696. 229,973 1,348,303 $224,717 2107.5 Gas Tax 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 36,000 $6,000 Interest on Gas Tax Fund Bal. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Traffic Safety Fees 60,000 60,000 --------------------------------------------------------------- 60,600 61,206 61,818 62,436 366,060 $61,010 Sub -Total $ 576, 935 $577, 000 $ 582, 710 $ 588 ,477 $594,301 $600,183 $3,519,606 $586,601 Capital Projects - $ 340, 000 $ 399 ,367 $590,800 $89,900 $874,100 $0 $2,294,167 $382,361 (Grants, refunds, etc.) $1,225,811 $704,315 $819,552 $749,143 $77Q636 $637,625 $4,907,082 $817,847 Capital Projects - Local match 85,000 82,633 42,200 22,475 137,275 0 $369,583 $61,597 Sub -Total $425,000 $482,000 $633,000 $112,375 $1,011,375 $0 $2,663,750 $443.958 Utility Users Tax @ 0% $1,522,446 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,522,446 $253,741 Total Funding $2,524,381 $1,059,000 $1,215,710 $700,852 $1,605,676 $600,183 $7,705,802 $1,284,300 EXPENSES 2029 Congestion Management $30,229 $30,285 $23,241 $23,706 $24,180 $24,664 $156,305 $26,051 3031 Street Maintenance 351,356 357,577 364,729 372,024 379,464 387,053 2,212,203 $368,701 3032 Sidewalks and Trails 41,329 ' 42,362 43,209 44,073 44,954 45,853 261,780 $43,630 3033 Traffic Control 150,608 163,108 166,370 169,697 173,091 176,553 999,427 $166,571 3035 Medians and Parkways 152,601 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 155,591 158,703 161,877 165,115 168,417 962,304. $160,384 Sub -Total $726,123 $748,923 $756,252 $771,377 $786,804 $802,540 $4,592,019 $765,337 Capital Projects $425,000 $482,000 $633,000 $112,375 $1,011,375 $0 $2,663,750 $443,958 Pavement Management Program $1,225,811 $704,315 $819,552 $749,143 $77Q636 $637,625 $4,907,082 $817,847 Total Expenses $2,376,934 $1,935,238 $2,208,804 $1,632,895 $2,568,815 $1,440,165 $12,162,851 $2,027,142 Funding Surplus /(Defecit) $147,447 ($876,238) ($993,094) ($932,043) ($963,139) ($839,982) ($4,457,049) ($742,842) CASH FLOW MODEL Beginning Fund Balance Total Funding Total Expenses Ending Fund Balance CAWK\95STRRPT $102,595 $250,042 ($626,196) ($1,619,290) ($2,551,333) ($3,514,472) $2,524,381 $1,059,000 $1,215,710 $700,852 $1,605,676 $600,183 $2,376,934 $1,935,238 $2,208,804 $1,632,895 $2,568,815 $1,440,165 $250,042 ($626,196) ($1,619,290) ($2,551,333) ($3,514,472) ($4,354,454) Street Maintenance Program 1995 -2000 Where the $$ comes from... C.I.P. GRANTS & REFUNDS STATE GAS TAX (28.� C.I.P. LOCAL MATCH (3.1%) UTILITY USER TAX (44.5 %) @3.5% rate TRAFFIC SAFETY FEES (3.3 %) $9,341,681 total Street Maintenance Program 1995 -2000 Where the $$ goes... MEDIANS AND PARKWAYS (8.3%) TRAFFIC CONTROL ( SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS (2.3 %) STREET MAINTENANCE (19.0 %) CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PMP (37.6 %) CAPITAL PROJECTS (22.8 %) $9,785,917 total 11 10 9 8 7 6 U 5 C � o 4 3 2 1 A Street Maintenance Program 1995 -2000 + Utility Tax @) 3.5% 1996 1998 YEAR O Total Expenses O Utility Tax @) 2.0% � Utility Tax (9) 0% 444,236 2,229,207 4,604,496 Vlllt 1L JJ inU 11 G4 Midaol R Nave Steven R Meyers Rliraboth IL Saver MichhcJ S. Riback ICeaneth A. WiL,on ClXbrd F. Campbell h icbaw F. Rodriquez V- 09dcca Faubion Wondr A. Roberts David W. Skinner Steven T. Mattac Rick W Jatvic Veronica A. Nobb of mumet Andm 18aitzman TO: SROMs RE! MEYERS, NAVE, RMAM SILVER & WILSON A Professional Law Corporation City Council City Manager Gateway Plaza m Davie Stt+eet, Suite 300 San L AIMM, CA 94M Telephone: (310) 351.4300 Facsimile: (510) 3514481 Michael S. Riback, City Attorney I". UCi U4 Santa Kc168 office SW Fifth Stnoct, Suite 230 Santa Rosa, cA 95401 M 50-M 5"17 (Fox) Reply to. San Leandro DRAFT DATE: January 12, 1995 Procedure to Follow in Order to Consider Extension of Utility Users Tax Pursuant to Article 5 -30 of the City Code, the City Council previously enacted a utility users tax. Article 5 -30 will automatically repeal effective July 1, 1995 (see Section 5- 30.160). Therefore, the ability to continue to impose the utility users tax will expire as of July 11 1995, unless action is taken prior to that date to extend the tax. In order to consider an extension of the utility users tax beyond its July 1, 1995 repeal date, the City must comply with a recently enacted procedure which is set forth in Government Code Section 54954.6. The procedural requirements of this statute are summarized below. • The City council must conduct at least one public meeting (not a public hearing) at which public testimony is taken regarding the proposed extension of the utility users tax; and at least one public h-e-ariner at which public testimony is again taken and the City Council takes formal action on the proposed extension of the tax. • Before the public meeting or public hearing may be held, a joint notice of both the public meeting and the public hearing must be published in the newspaper. • The earliest date the public meeting may be held is ten unit 1C .)U InU 11 ,G4 r, U3/ U4 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney RE: Procedure to Follow in Order to Consider Extension of Utility Users Tax DATE: January 12, 199s PAGE; 2 (10) days after the first publication of the joint notice. The earliest date the public hearing may be held is forty -five (45) days after the first publication of the joint notice. • The joint notice must include, among other things, the following: A. The amount or rate of the tax. B. The estimated amount of revenue to be raised by the tax annually. The importance of these new procedural requirements is that the City Council must determine well in advance of a public hearing, whether it wishes to consider enactment of an extension of the utility users tax, and the rate of that tax for the upcoming fiscal year. Since the current Utility Users tax expires on July 1, it is important for the City council to determine in the very near future whether it wishes to consider extending the tax and the rate of the tax. A typical time line for consideration of extension of the tax might be.the following: • If the Council at its meeting of February 1, determines to consider extension of the tax and determines the proposed rate of the tax, then; • The joint notice of both the public meeting and the Public hearing setting forth the proposed rate of tax and the estimated amount of revenue to be raised by the tax annually, could be published; and • The public meeting could be held at the regular Council meeting on March 1 (at least ten.days after the first Publication of-the notice); and • The public hearing could be held at the regular Council meeting on April 5. „nay � � �� � tiu 1 1 • �� r. U4 /li4 TO; City Council and City Manager FROM: Michael s. Riback, city Attorney RE: Procedure to Follow in Order to Consider Extension of Utility Users Tax DATE: January 12, 1996 PAGE: 3 0 DRAFT In conclusion, in order to comply with these procedural requirements and also in order to provide a time "cushion” in case of any delays in the process, the City Council should decide shortly whether it wishes to consider extension of this tax. Michael s. Riback City Attorney MSR:dsp mnrew \273 \memo \Jaa95 \taxproce.msr No refund shall be pa/es er the provisions this on tmless the claimant lishes his right th to by v' n records showing eent to such r nd. 5- 25.130 Actions to c. Any tax equired to be paany ent under the provision f this Article sh deem debt owed by the transie to the City. Ach collected by an operator whi has not been tte the City sh all be deemed a debt ed by the to the City. Any person owing mone o the Cir the provisions of this Article shall be ' to an brought in the name of the City for the rec ery o h amount. 5- 25.140 Proceeds general fund. The proceeds derived the transient occupancy tax shall be deposited i e Ci 's general fund and shall be expended for gene opera ' expenses incurred by the City or for capi improveme or such other legal uses and purpose determined b e City Council. 5- 25.150 Violations of Article; enalties. Any oper r or other person who viol s any of the Provisions this Article or who fails or re to register as requir, herein, or to furnish any return uired to be m or who fails or refuses to furnish a su ental ret r other data required by the Tax Admint tor, or o renders a false or fraudulent return or cl , is g ty of a misdemeanor, punishable as provide n apter 3 of this Code. Article 5 -30 95 5- 30.030 5- 30.120 UTILITY USERS TAX Sections: Refunds. 5- 30.010 Imposition and purpose of tax. 5- 30.020 Definitions. 5- 30.030 Exemptions. 5- 30.040 Electricity users tax. 5- 30.050 Gas users tax. 5- 30.060 Actions to collect tax. 5- 30.070 Duty to collect; procedures. 5- 30.080 Powers and duties of Tax Administrator. 5- 30.090 Delinquent taxes - service supplier. 5- 30.100 Failure to collect and report tax. 5- 30.110 Delinquent taxes - service user. 95 5- 30.030 5- 30.120 Records. 5- 30.130 Refunds. 5- 30.140 Annual review of tax rate. 5- 30.150 California Public Utilities Commission jurisdiction. 5- 30.160 Repeal of Article. 5- 30.010 Imposition and purpose of tax. There is hereby established and imposed a utility users tax in the amount set forth in this Article for the purpose of raising revenues for the general governmental purposes of the City. All of the proceeds of the taxes levied under this Article shall be placed in the City's general fund. 5- 30.020 Definitions. For the purposes of this Article, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this Section, unless the context or the provision clearly requires otherwise: (a) Service user means a person required to pay a tax imposed under the provisions of this Article. (b) Service supplier means a person required to collect and remit a tax imposed under the provisions of this Article. (c) Service address means the address of the ultimate consumer of the service supplied by the service supplier (d) Tax Administrator means the Finance Director of the City. (e) Electrical Corporation and Gas Corporation, shall have the same meanings as defined in Sections 218 and 222, respectively, of the Public Utilities Code of the State. "Electrical Corporation" shall be construed to include any municipality or governmental agency engaged in the selling or supplying of electrical power to a service user. 5- 30.030 Exemptions. (a) Nothing in this Article shall be construed as impos- ing a tax upon any person when imposition of such tax upon that person would be in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State. (b) No tax under this Article shall be imposed upon any service user exempted from the payment of Federal income tax, as determined by the Internal Revenue Service. (c) No tax under this Article shall be imposed upon the City or any other governmental entity. (d) The tax imposed liy this Article shall not apply to the utilities for the personal residence of a service user if the combined annual gross income of all members of the household in which such individual resides is fifty percent or less of the median income for Santa Clara County and such individual applies for and is granted 5- 30.030 an exemption from the tax in accordance with the provi- sions of Paragraph (e) of this Section. An exemption shall be granted for a period of one year if the service user establishes, to the satisfaction of the Tax Administrator, that the annual gross income of the service user and all members of his household will not exceed the limits set forth herein during such year. The exemption may be renewed for additional one year periods upon recertifi- cation by the service user of annual gross income showing qualification for the exemption. The median income for Santa Clara County shall be the amount shown as such median income for said County in the latest available federal census, adjusted annually as of July first of each subsequent year by the percentage of increase or decrease in the Consumer Price Index for the San Francis- co /Oakland Area, All Items, All Urban Consumers, as Published nearest to July fast by the United States Depart- ment of Labor, Bureau. of Labor Statistics, or such other median income as may be determined from time to time by resolution of the City Council. (e) Any service user exempt from the taxes imposed by this Article under the provisions of Paragraphs (a), (b), (c) or (d) above, may apply to the Tax Administrator for an exemption; provided, however, the Tax Administra- tor may waive the filing of an application for exemption under Paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of this Section if the Tax Administrator has sufficient information to determine, in the absence of such application, that the service user qualifies for an exemption. The application shall be made upon forms supplied by the Tax Administrator and shall be accompanied by such additional information and docu- ments as he may require to determine eligibility for an exemption. The Tax Administrator shall review all such applications and certify as exempt those applicants deter- mined to qualify therefor. The Tax Administrator shall thereupon notify all service Suppliers affected that an exemption has been granted stating the name of the service user, the service address to which the utility is being supplied, the account number, if any, and such other information as may be necessary for the service supplier to remove the exempt service user from its tax collection procedure. Upon receipt of such notice, the service supplier shall not be required to bill or collect any further tax im- posed by this Article from such service user until further notice is given by the Tax Administrator. (1) All exemptions under this Section shall continue and be renewed by the Tax Administrator so long as the prerequisite facts supporting the initial qualification for exemption shall continue; provided, however, that the exemption shall automatically terminate upon any change in the service address of the exempt person, but such person may,apply for a new exemption with each change of address. Any person exempt from the taxes imposed by this Article shall notify the Tax Administrator within ten days of any change .in fact or circumstance which might disqualify such person from receiving the exemp- tion. It shall be a misdemeanor for any person to knowing- ly receive the benefits of an exemption provided by this Section when the basis for such exemption does not exist or ceases to exist. (g) The exemptions provided by this Section shall not eliminate the duty of the service supplier to collect taxes from an exempt person or the duty of such exempt person to pay the taxes to the service supplier unless an exemption is granted by the Tax Administrator. Nothing herein shall prevent any person who is granted an exemp- tion from thereafter applying for a refund of taxes previ- ously paid, in accordance with the provisions of Section 5- 30.130 of this Article. (h) Any service supplier who determines by any means that a new or nonexempt service user is receiving service through a meter or connection exempt by virtue of an exemption issued to a previous user or exempt user of the same meter or connection, shall immediately notify the Tax Administrator of such fact and the Tax Adminis- trator shall conduct an investigation to ascertain whether or not the provisions of this Section have been complied with, and, where appropriate, order the service supplier to commence collecting the taxes from the nonexempt service user. 5- 30.040 Electricity users tax. (a) There is hereby imposed a tax upon every person in the City, other than an electrical corporation or a gas corporation, using electrical energy in the City. The tax unposed by this Section shall be at the rate of three and one -half percent of the charges made for such energy, including minimum charges for service, and shall be paid by the person paying for such energy. (b) As used in this Section, the words "using electrical energy" shall not be construed to mean: (1) The use of such energy from a storage battery , Provided, however, that the term shall include the receiving of such energy for the purpose of using it in the charging of storage batteries; or (2) The receiving of such energy by an electrical corporation or a governmental agency at a point within the City for resale. (c) The tax imposed in this Section shall be collected from the service user by the person selling such electrical energy. The amount of tax collected in one month shall be remitted to the Tax Administrator on or before the last day of the following month; or at the option of the person required to collect and remit the tax, an estimated amount of tax collected, measured by the tax billed in the previous month, shall be remitted to the Tax Adminis- trator on or before the last day of each month. 5- 30.050 Gas users tax. (a) There is hereby imposed a tax upon every person in the City, other than a gas corporation or an electrical corporation, using gas in the City which is delivered through trains or pipes. The tax imposed by this Section shall be the rate of three and one -half percent of the charges made for such gas, including minimum charges for service, and shall be paid by the person paying for such gas. (b) As used in this Section, the term "charges" shall not include charges made for gas used in the generation of electrical energy by a public utility or a governmental agency, and the term "using gas" shall not be construed to mean the receiving of such gas by a gas corporation or governmental agency at a point within the City for resale. . (c) The tax imposed by this Section shall be collected from the service user by the person selling the gas. The amount collected in one month shall be remitted to the Tax Administrator on or before the last day of the follow- ing month; or at the option of the person required to collect and remit the tax, an estimated amount of tax collected, measured by the tax billed in the previous month, shall be remitted to the Tax Administrator on or before the last day of each month. 5- 30.060 Actions to collect tax. Any tax and/or penalty required to be paid by a service user under the provisions of this Article shall be deemed a debt owed by the service user to the City. Any such tax collected from a service user which has not been remitted to the Tax Administrator shall be deemed a debt owed to the City by the person required to collect and remit. Any person owing money to the City under the provisions of this Article shall be liable to an action brought in the name of the City for the recovery of such amount. 5- 30.070 Duty to collect; procedures. The duty to collect and remit the taxes imposed by this Article shall be performed as follows: (a) Every service supplier who receives, or is entitled to receive, the payment of charges from a service user, shall collect the amount of tax imposed by this Article from each such service user. (b) The tax shall be collected insofar as practicable at the same time as and along with the charges made in accordance with regular billing practice of the service 97 5- 30.090 supplier. Except in those cases where a service user pays the full amount of said charges but does not pay any portion of a tax imposed by this Article, or where a service user has notified a service supplier that he is refusing to pay a tax imposed by this Article which said service supplier is required to collect, if the amount paid by a service user is less than the full amount of the charge and tax which has accrued for the billing period, a propor- tionate share of both the charge and the tax shall be deemed to have been paid. (c) The duty to collect the tax from a service user shall commence with the beginning of the first regular billing period applicable to that person which starts on or after the effective date of this Article. Where a person receives more than one billing, one or more being for different periods than another, the duty to collect shall arise separately for each billing period. 5- 30.080 Powers and duties of Tax Administrator. (a) The Tax Administrator shall have the power and duty, and is hereby directed to enforce the provisions of this Article. (b) The Tax Administrator shall have power to adopt rules and regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this Article for the purpose of carrying out and enforc- ing the payment, collection and remittance of the taxes herein imposed. A copy of such rules and regulations shall be on file and available for public examination in the Tax Administrator's office. (c) The Tax Administrator may make administrative agreements to vary the strict requirements of this Article so that collection of any tax imposed herein may be made in conformance with the billing procedures of a particular service supplier so long as said agreements result in collection of tax in conformance with the general purpose and scope of this Article. A copy of each such agreement shall be on file and available for public examination in the Tax Administrator's office. 5- 30.090 Delinquent taxes - service supplier. (a) Taxes collected from a service user which are not remitted to the Tax Administrator on or before the due dates provided in this Article are delinquent. Any tax billed to a service user but not paid to the service supplier shall not be deemed an obligation of the service supplier unless such tax is thereafter paid to the service, supplier. (b) Any service supplier who fails to remit any tax imposed by this Article within ten days after receipt of written notice from the City of such failure shall pay a penalty of ten percent of the amount of the tax. 5- 30.090 (c) If the Tax Administrator determines that the non- payment by any service supplier of any remittance under this Article is due to fraud, a penalty of twenty-five percent of the amount of the tax shall be added thereto in addition to the penalty stated in Paragraph (b) of this Section. (d) In addition to the penalties imposed by Paragraphs (b) and (c) of this Section, any service supplier who fails to remit any tax imposed by this Article shall pay interest at the rate of one and one -half percent per month, or fraction thereof, on the amount of the tax, exclusive of penalties, from the date on which the remittance first became delinquent until the tax is paid in full. (e) Every penalty imposed upon a service supplier, and such interest as accrues, under the provisions of this Section shall become a part of the tax required to be remitted. 5- 30.100 Failure to collect and report tax. (a) If any service supplier shall fail to make, within the time provided in this Article, any report and remittance of said tax or any portion thereof required by this Article, the Tax Administrator shall proceed in such manner as he may deem best to obtain facts and information on which to base his estimate of the tax due. As soon as the Tax Administrator procures such facts and information as he is able to obtain upon which to base the assessment of any tax imposed by this Article and payable by any service supplier who has failed or refused to make such report and remittance, he shall proceed to determine and assess against such service supplier the tax, interest and penalties provided for by this Article. In case such determination is made, the Tax Administrator shall give a notice of the amount so assessed by serving it personally or by deposit- ing it in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the service supplier so assessed at his last known address. (b) The service supplier may within ten days after the serving or mailing of the notice referred to in Para- graph (a) of this Section make application in writing to the Tax Administrator for a hearing on the amount as- sessed. If application by the service supplier for a hearing is not made within the time prescribed, the tax, interest and penalties, if any, determined by the Tax Administrator shall become final and conclusive and immediately due and payable. If such application is trade. the Tax Adminis- trator shall give not less than five days' written notice in the manner prescribed herein for the service supplier to appear at a time and place fixed in said notice and show cause as to why the amount specified therein should not be fixed for such tax, interest and penalties. 98 (c) If a hearing is conducted on the amount of tax assessed, as provided in Paragraph (b) of this Section, the Tax Administrator shall determine the proper tax to be remitted and shall thereafter give written notice to the service supplier of such determination and the amount of tax, interest and penalties due and payable to the City. Such amount shall be paid in full by the service supplier within ten days after the serving or mailing of the notice unless, prior to the expiration of such ten day period, the service supplier files with the City Clerk a written notice of appeal to the City Council. In such event, the appeal shall be conducted in accordance with the procedure set forth in Section 2 -05.030 of this Code. No penalty provid- ed for in this Article shall be imposed after the filing of an appeal to the City Council or until completion of the hearing thereon and the making of a determination on the subject of the appeal by the City Council. 5- 30.110 Delizfquent taxes - service user. (a) Whenever the Tax Administrator determines that a service user has deliberately withheld the amount of any tax imposed by the provisions of this Article from the amounts remitted to a service supplier required. to collect the tax, or that a service user has failed to pay the amount of the tax to such service supplier for a period of four or more billing periods, or whenever the Tax Administrator deems it to be in the best interest of the City, he may relieve the service supplier of the obligation to collect taxes due under this Article from certain named service users for specified billing periods. (b) The service supplier shall provide the Tax Adminis- trator with a monthly report showing the name and address of each service user refusing .to pay a tax imposed by the provisions of this Article, or failing to pay such tax for a period of four billing periods, and the amount of tax such service user has failed or refused to pay. (c) The Tax Administrator shall give written notice to the service user that he has assumed responsibility to collect the taxes due for the stated periods and demand payment thereof. The notice shall be served on the service user by personal delivery or by deposit of the notice in the United States mail, postage prepaid thereon, addressed to the service user at the address to which billing was made by the person required to collect the tax; or, if the. service user has changed addresses, to the last known address of the service user. In the event the service user fails to pay the tax to the Tax Administrator within fifteen days from the date of service of the notice, which shall be the date of mailing if service is not accomplished in person, .a penalty of twenty-five percent of the amount of the tax set forth in the notice shall be imposed, or Ten Dollars, whichever is greater. If the tax is not paid in .-_ full within sixty days from the date of service of the Tax Administrator's notice, the service user shall pay interest on the unpaid tax, exclusive of penalties, at the rate of one and one -half percent per month, or fraction thereof, from the date which is sixty days after service of the Tax Administrator's notice to the date on which the tax is paid in full. (d) Any penalty and interest charged to a service user pursuant to Paragraph (c) of this Section shall become a part of the tax required to be paid; provided, however, the Tax Administrator, or the City Council on appeal, shall have authority to waive collection of the penalty or interest or both if the service user establishes, to the satisfaction of the Tax Administrator or City Council, that failure to pay the tax was the result of financial inability, mistake, or excusable inadvertence. 5- 30.120 Records. It shall be the duty of every service supplier required to collect and remit to the City any tax imposed by this Article, to keep and preserve, for a period of three years, all records as may be necessary to determine the amount Of such tax that such service supplier may have been required to collect and remit to the City, which records the Tax Administrator shall have the right to inspect at all reasonable times. 5- 30.130 Refunds. Whenever the amount of any tax, interest or penalty has been overpaid or paid more than once, or has been erroneously or illegally collected or received by the City under this Article, it may be refunded as provided in Paragraphs (b) and (c) of this Section provided a claim in writing therefor, stating under penalty of perjury the specific grounds upon which the claim is founded, is filed with the Tax Administrator on such forms as he may prescribe. Claims for refunds must be filed within three years after the date of payment of the tax. (b) A service supplier may claim a refund or claim a credit against taxes collected but not yet remitted to the City, of the amount overpaid, paid more than once or erroneously or illegal collected or received, when it is established. in a manner prescribed by the Tax Adminis- trator, that a refund is justified; .provided, however, in the case of a tax erroneously or illegally collected by the service supplier, no refund shall be allowed unless the amount thereof has either been refunded by the service supplier to the service user or other person from whom the amount was collected, or credited against charges subsequently payable by such service user or other person. (c) A sery ice user may obtain a refund of the amount overpaid, or paid more than once, or erroneously or 99 5- 30.160 illegally collected or received by the City, by filing a claim the manner provided in Paragraph (a) of this Section, but only when the service user having paid the tax, interest and/or penalty establishes to the satisfaction of the Tax Administrator that: (i) the service user has been unable to obtain refund from the service supplier who collected the same; and (ii) the refund is justified.. (d) The decision of the Tax Administrator on any claim for a refund may be appealed to the City Council in accordance with the procedure set forth in Section 2- 05.030 of this Code. (e) Notwithstanding other provisions of this Section, whenever a service supplier, pursuant to an order of the California Public Utilities Commission or a court of competent jurisdiction, [Hakes a refund to service users of charges for past utility services, the taxes paid pursuant to this Article on the amount of such refunded service charges may also be refunded to service users by the service supplier and the service supplier can claim credit for such refunded taxes against the amount which is due upon any monthly returns. In the event this Article has been repealed as of the time such refund is to be made, the amount of any refundable taxes will be borne by the City. 5- 30.140 Annual review of tax rate. The rate of tax set forth in Subsections 5- 30.040(a) and 5- 30.050(a) shall be subject to annual review by the City Council at a public hearing to be conducted during January of each year. The Council shall determine the need for the revenue produced by the utility users tax, based upon past expenditures and projections of future . costs. The rate of tax set forth in Subsections 5- 30.040(a) and 5- 30.050(a) may be reduced by the adoption of an ordinance amending this Article, but shall not be increased above three and one -half percent. 5- 30.150 California Public Utilities Commission jurisdiction. Nothing contained in this Article is intended to conflict with applicable toles, regulations and tariffs of any service supplier subject to the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. In the event of any conflict, the provisions of said rules, regulations and tariffs shall control. 5- 30.160 Repeal of Article. This Article shall automatically be repealed on July 1, 1995. C SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2-,S5% MEETING DATE: MARCH 15, 1995 ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS AGENDA ITEM 96.,wn CITY MGR.: DEPT. HEAD: ' SUBJECT: Wildwood Park Improvements, Capital Project No. 955 - Approval of Plans and Authorization to Advertise for Bids Recommended Motion(s): Move to approve the project plans and authorize staff to advertise the project for bids. Report Summary: The plans and specifications for the Wildwood Park Improvements, Capital Project No. 955, are now complete and the project is ready to be advertised for bids. The project was granted final clearance by the State Dep't. of Parks and Recreation on January 17, and by the Parks and Recreation Commission on March 6. Recent concerns expressed by park neighbors over the expansion of the picnic facilities were resolved to everyone's satisfaction at the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. Instead of expanding the picnic area into an undeveloped knoll above the playground area, the additional picnic tables are proposed to be located in a vacant cleared area closer to Saratoga Creek and the pedestrian bridge. The project is forwarded to the City Council by the Commission with the following recommendations which were unanimously endorsed by the Commission: 1. The playground improvements be approved as designed and specified. 2. The additional picnic facilities should be located in existing cleared areas of the park. 3. The existing greenbelt and undeveloped areas of the park should be preserved. The City Council must now grant final approval of the project and authorize staff to advertise the project for bids. If this is done as staff is recommending, then a construction contract should be ready for the Council to award on April 19. It is anticipated that construction could then begin in early May, and be complete by the end of June. Fiscal Impacts: The project is the last of three projects to be funded with 1988 Park Bond Act funds. There are $51,000 in funds earmarked for the project of which $48,000 is budgeted in the current budget (Project 955) for construction. This appears to be a sufficient amount of funds to complete the project as designed. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: :Those who wrote letters were notified and sent agendas. At the Parks and - Recreation Commission meeting, notice of which was mailed to�the entire neighborhood, it was noted that the Council would consider this matter on March 15. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The project would not be approved and staff would not advertise the project for bids. This could jeopardize the project funding since funds must be obligated by June 30. Follow Up Actions: The project will be advertised for bids. Attachments: 1. Memo to Parks and Recreation Commission with Attachments 1, 2, 5, and 6. 2. Plans and specifications. (These can be viewed in the Public Works- Engineering office and will be available at your meeting.) I O� 0 @Cq gmekU00Z 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438 TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Public Works Director COUNCIL - MENIBERS: Aar, Marie Burcer '3cul E. Jacocs Gillen R4oran K.Y&7 7bc,er CC ald L. Mode SUBJECT: Wildwood Park Improvements, Capital Project No. 955 DATE: February 17, 1995 The improvement plans for the subject project were approved by the State Parks Dept. on January 17. As of that date, the City is authorized to advertise the project for bids. Approval to advertise is granted by the City Council. However, before I schedule the project for Council action, I want the Commission to conduct one final review of the plans at your March 6 meeting in light of recent comments and concerns raised by various neighbors of the park. I believe this is appropriate since so much time has elapsed since the project was initially conceived and also since many of the cast of characters at the City, on the Commission, and in the surrounding neighborhood have changed. A brief history of the project follows: January, 1989 - The City applies to the State Dept. of Parks and Recreation for $51,000 in 1988 Park Bond Act funds to build various specified improvements in Wildwood Park authorized pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2537.adopted on 12/21/88. Environmental review of the project is completed and the project is deemed categorically exempt (Class 1) under CEQA. A Notice of Exemption is recorded by the City on 1/6/89. The project is assigned Capital Project No. 955. May, 1989 The State notifies the City that the project application is accepted as complete. $51,000 is allocated to the project and work on the project is authorized to begin. November, 1991 - Improvements to Wildwood Park, including those identified'in the City's original application, are summarized in the City's Parks and Trails Master Plan. May, 1992 - Design development work gets underway. Local landscape architect Jeff Heid is retained to provide design services for the project. "I 't•C VCI P,d :nDef June, 1992 - Preliminary project plans are reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission for the first time. Comments and ideas are expressed to include in the final design. July, 1992 - The Commission reviews the final plans for the project and votes unanimously to approve them and send them to the Council for acceptance. April, 1993 - The project plans and specifications are submitted to the State for their review and approval. June, 1993.- State notifies City that project documents are not complete. Additional information and resubmittal is requested. April, 1994 - State authorizes extension of project performance period to 6/30/95. December, 1994 - City resubmits project documents to State responding to comments received in June, 1993. January, 1995 - State approves project documents and authorizes City to advertise project for bids. The neighborhood surrounding Wildwood Park will be notified that this item will be on the agenda for your March meeting. It is my intention to schedule the project for final Council approval on March 15. The Commission's comments will be conveyed to the Council via my staff memo. Assuming the Council approves the project on March 15, I envision award of a construction contract on April 19, construction beginning in early May, and construction completion in early June. Lar y I. Pe lin Attachments: 1. City's application for 1988 Park Bond Act funds with Resolution No. 2537 and Notice of Exemption. 2. Wildwood Park improvements as defined in the Parks and Trails Master Plan. 3. Minutes from June 1, 1992 P &R Commission meeting. 4. Minutes from July 6, 1992 P &R Commission meeting. 5. Letter from State Parks dated-1/17/95 granting project approval. 6. Various letters received from park neighbors. State of Crlifornw — The Resources Agency A t I A C N M E wr DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE, COASTAL, AND PARK LAND CONSERVATION PROGRAM APPLICATION This Form and Required Attachments Must Be Submitted for Each Project Site ROGRAM TYPE (check one below) ] Per Capita ] Special District (not qualifying for Per Capita) ] Trails -0JECT NAME Wildwood Park Improvement RANT`APPLICANT (Agency and address-incl. zip code). City of Saratoga 13777 F.ruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 rent Applicant's Representative Authorized in Resolution Dan Trinidad, Jr. Name (type) AMOUNT OF GRANT REQUESTED (Minimum Grant — $20,0oo except Trails) $ 51,000 ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST (State Grant and other funds) $ 51,000 COUNTY NEAREST CITY Santa Clara San Jose PROJECT ADDRESS 20764 Fourth Street Big Basin Way SENATE DISTRICT NO. ASSEMBLY D 11 1 22 Maintenance Director 408 867 -3438 x 42 Title Phone !rson with day-to-day responsibility for project (if different from authorized representative) Name (type) uvn u; proleet Title Phone ImVrovement of Wildwood Park including expansion of the existing picnic areas with the addition of group picnic areas with barbecues and picnic tables; construction of a sand volleyball court; renovation of turf and irrigation system; expansion and refurbishment of the children's play equipment. .)r Day. protects Land Tenure — Project is: 4.0 acres: 4.0 —Acre% owned in fee simple by Grant Applicant Acres available under a —year lease Acres other interest (explain) cur III y mat inc imormatlon contained in this nportant information and assurapir6soh the r Signed — Grant A certify that this pr jest is consistent nd will satisfy aAlgh priority need.. Signed 'R 807 (8/03) For Acquisition projects Projects land will be acres � Acquired in fee simple by Grant Applicant � Acquired in other than fee simple (explain)��_ form, including required attachments, is accurate and that I have read and understand the Dan Trinidad, Jr., Maintenance Direct9Z1 La-z Authorized Representative as shown. in Resolution j� Date rdr ;nd recreation element of the applicable city or county general plan or the district park and recreation plan Bmslie, Planning Director Representative of Grant Applicant's Planning Agency (For. nonprofit agency, Authorized Representative as showy; in Resolution) / C/o Date GROUP PICNIC AREA Excavation & Grading $8,000 Barbecue 1 @ 2,000 2,000 Tables 3 @ 1,000 .3,000 Steps & Walkways 5,000 Misc. & Contingencies 3,000 $ 21,000 . 19 • •• 1.141 Excavation & Grading 2,500 Headers 260 l.f. @ $10 /1.f. 2,600 Sand 135 tons @ $30 /ton 4,000 Misc. (poles, etc.) 900 $ 10,000 PLAY STRUCTURE Expansion & Refurbishment & IRRIGATION RENOVATION : rrr Turf (verticut, overseed, top dress) 5,000 Irrigation (back -flow preventer) 4,000 Valves & Heads (as needed) 2,000 TOTAL $ 50,000 RESOLUTION NO. 2537 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY.OF SARATOGA APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE PER CAPITA GRANT PROGRAM UNDER THE CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE, COASTAL, AND PARK LAND CONSERVATION ACT OF 1988 for the followinq'Drojects: 1. Improvement of Wildwood Park including: expansion of picnic areas, construction of sand volleyball court, renovation of turf and irrigation system. Replacement of deteriorating and unsafe play structure. 2. Replacement of deteriorating and unsafe,play structures in E1 Quito, Kevin Moran, Congress Springs and Gardiner Parks. WHEREAS, the peoDle of the State of California have enacted the California Wildlife, Coastal, and Park Land Conservation Act of 1988, which provides funds to the State of California and its political subdivisions for acquiring and /or developing facilities for Dublic recreational and open space purposes; and WHEREAS, the State Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the Drogram within the state, setting uD necessary Drocedures governing application by local agencies under the Droqram; and WHEREAS, said Drocedures established by the State Department of Parks and Recreation require the applicant to certify by resolution the aDDroval of application before submission of said application to the state;.and WHEREAS, said application contains assurances that the applicant must comply with; and WHEREAS, the applicant will enter into an agreement with the State of California for acquisition or development of the .project; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Saratoga HEREBY: 1. Approves the filing of an application for the Per Capita Grant Program under the California Wildlife, Coastal, and Park Land ernTservation Act of 1988 state grant assistance for the above projects; and 2. Certifies that said applicant understands the assurances and certification in the application form; and 3. Certifies that said applicant has or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the projects; and 4. Appoints the Maintenance Director as agent of the City of Saratoga to conduct all negotions, execute and submit all documents including, but not limited to aoDlications, agreements, amendments, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the comb_ letion of the aforementioned Drojects. Approved and Adopted the 21st December 88 --- --day o f 1 I, the undersigned, herL-by certify that the foregoing Resolution No•____2537_____ was duly adopted by the City Council following roll call vote: AYES: CouncilmTbers Clevenger, Moyles, Peterson and Mayor Anderson NOES: None ABSENT: CounciInp-mber Stutzman Attested by: City Clerk ill"_12 Mayor _OPY OF FIC"E. I H j: =ARATOGA By nsr-.d on -6' ?9 through y—�- -_ in the offic." of the County Clerk Grace K. `(amakawa County Clerk By. - .Deputy j J r Jra� L la Dn 1 10 f - I J IQOTICE OF 1!�'AMAKAWA Ccun:y UCrn Santa Clara County ro. _ Office of Planning and ReSearch or 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk County of Santa Clara 0 W. Heaainq ee San Jose CA 95110 PRJJect Title Wildwood Park Irr'Provement Pro 20764 Fourth Street roject Location - r T. D CPU ri tr MR: City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga project Location - Coi Description of Nature Santa Clara purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project �rov�t of Wildwuod park including with the .addition of a group picnic aea�wslof the existing construction of a sand volleyball court; renovation barbecues g Pl�lc areas Picnic tables; system; and expansion and refurbishment of the children s turf d irrigation Benefits entire cormimity. play equipment. lame of Public Agency Approving Project City of Saratoga fame of Person or Agerc • Dan. Trinidad, J Out r., �LziYtenance Di tProjec aerant Status: Check Orre) Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); - 21080 ( b ) ( 1 ) ; 15268) ; Leclared Emergency • 4 9b, ie r enc y �ject(Sec 21080(b)(); 15269)(c) ). - - - Project is e Catc_,oricall%, exam' t - Class 1 tact Lean Trinidad, Jr. If filed by a pplica 408 867 -3.438 42 nt: 1• Attach certified document of exempti 2• Has a notice of exemption on finding. Yela � No Project? P been filed by the public agency Date Received fo approving the g: ighature Director of Maintenance Revised 3larch 1986 AT*rAcHl►dEtJ T Z. WILDWOOD PARK 3.4 Community Parks This park is one of the most widely used parks in the City. Its upkeep and maintenance are important. Although no significant facility changes are projected at this site there are a number of ongoing and future improvements which are required to ensure that the site continues to function as a succesful component of the parks and recreation provision of the City with access for all members of the community. Major improvements include the renovation and addition of seating to the existing amphitheatre, upgrades to the play equipment and park furniture to correct safety hazards and general wear and tear, the construction of a pedestrian bridge over Saratoga Creek to provide handicap access to the park from Parking District No. 1, and the construction of a handicap restroom. Also proposed are the addition of a new group picnic site and improving the condition of the existing volleyball court. Existing Facilities: Picnic tables and barbecue facilities; Children's playground; Horseshoe pits; Restrooms; Stage /amphitheatre; Open turf area; Volleyball court; Group reservations; Security lighting; Drinking fountain. Program: Item Cost Improvements to park furniture and play equipment: $51,000 Handicap access improvements - Restroom: 101000 Pedestrian bridge: 110,000 Renovate/ upgrade amphitheatre: 40,000 Upgrade volleyball: 5,000 Group picnic area - picnic tables, benches, and grills: 7,000 Drinking fountain: 1,500 Shade Trees: 2,000 TOTAL $226,500 3.4 -6 3.4 Community Parks Financing: The City Capital Improvements Program indicates a current allocation of $51,000 from State Park Bonds grant money in the 1991 -92 fiscal year to fund the play equipment and furniture improvements at Wildwood Park. Funding for the bridge is provided through the Housing and ° Community Development Act (H.C.D.A.) for the amount of $110,000. In addition, the plans underway for the construction of a handicap restroom are also utilizing the H.C.D.A. for funding. Remaining amounts required for improvements will need to be drawn from future grant funding, the Park Development Fund or the General Fund. Operations and Maintenance: The site's 4.0 acres at $5500 each require $22,000 annually in operations and maintenance costs. No significant changes are anticipated as a result of this Master Plan. Revenue: Some revenue could be anticipated from amphitheater bookings. Additional revenue may be anticipated from the new group picnic area. 3.4 -7 . ATTACHMEMT 5- STATE OF CALIFORNIA — RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION P.O. BOX 942896 SACRAMENTO 94296 -0001 �a (916) 653 -8776 January 17, 1995 Mr. Larry Perlin Director of Public Works City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga CA 95070 ATTENTION: Bob Rizzo Dear Mr. Perlin: SUBJECT: State Engineering Review 88 -1- 43006, Wildwood Park Protect Scope: Addition of group picnic areas with barbecues and picnic tables; construct sand volleyball court; renovate turf and irrigation; and expand play equipment. Scope reviewed: Group picnic area, play area renovation. Engineer's Comments: The bid package (capital project no. 955) is approved. If you have any questions, please contact me at the above number. Sincerely, Betty Ettinger Project Officer =ROM :ATD FIELD SERV Mr. Larry Perlin Director of Public Works Saratoga City Offices 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Perlin; TO :97410940 Logan S. Deimler 14320 Springer Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 February 8, 1995 A 7-r-AC H M F-N r (p 1995,02 -08 11:SSAM ##SS0 P.01 f I am very disturbed by an article that appeared recently in the Saratoga News concerning planned "improvements" to Wildwood Park. I do not consider a portion of these upgrades to be an improvement at all, but rather a degradation to the park. Specifically, the planned expansion of the picnic area into the area above the playground is not a benefit to the park, those who use it most often, nor the surrounding community. Wildwood Park is a unique urban park -- a sylvan setting just a stone's throw from an active downtown area. The woodsy feel of Wildwood Park is determined in no small part by the natural surroundings that separate the developed areas from the residences near the park. F..xpanding the picnic and barbecue area into this natural setting will degrade this wildlands barrier, thereby detracting from what makes Wildwood Park so unique. It is, after all, called Wildwood Park, not "Picnicgrove" Park. The meadow area that would be destroyed to allow room for the picnic tables is a natural habitat, an extension of the. grecnbelt that is situated to the north of the park. This meadow habitat is a link in support of the wildlife that inhabits this area. J have seen doer, raccoons, and opossums within the park. The avian community of the park is sufficiently diverse that a community education class entitled "Wings Over Saratoga" is held in Wildwood Park. Is the addition of six picnic tables worth the necessary encroachment into the habitat that supports this wildlife community -- again, only a stone's throw from downtown? Predators, such as the owls which regularly migrate into the park to nest and teach their young to hunt, would most strongly feel this intrusion, perhaps to the point of abandoning the area. I have further concerns on this proposed new picnic area with respect to public safety. Wildwood Park has long had a reputation as a hang -out place, both for young adults and those with seemingly nothing better to do. Recent legislation limits the consumption of alcohol during the weekdays (which is a step in the right direction), but that won't entirely remove the undesirable elements from the park. I expect that summer evenings and weekends will still see groups of people loitering in the park. A purpose of parks, of course, is to provide a place for people to relax in an outdoor environment. But, if a seemingly threatening group takes over a portion of the park, that area is avoided by other members of the community who wish to use it. The proposed new picnic area is a secluded area located uphill from the playground and very near to it. The seclusion provided by this location will undoubtedly attract those who wish to not be observed doing FROM :ATD FIELD SERV TO :97410940 1995.02 -08 12:00PM #550 P.02/0: r e 2 what they're doing, and in the process, dissuade parents from allowing their children to play in the newly improved playground. How can this be considered an improvement? As neighboring residents of Wildwood Park, we have had to contend with people illegally extending the park's hours of use. This has led on occasion to loud conversations, loud music, and even fights -- all highly undesirable intrusions into the area's normal nighttime peace and . quiet. Moving the source of these intrusions closer to the surrounding residences will only further aggravate the situation. Mr. Rizzo, the Parks Superintendent, believes that this will cause the residents to more likely notice illegal after -hours use of the park and notify the Sheriff of the situation. True, but does aggravating a problem to make it better really make sense? As a regular caller of 911 to complain of activities in the park, I can tell you that it is an irritation, and I don't look forward to doing it more often. To the credit of the Sheriff's Deputies, their response is always prompt, but I doubt they want to start making the trip to Wildwood more often than they do now. Besides, the location of the proposed picnic area will make the easiest route to escape approaching Deputies through the back yards of the surrounding homes -- a situation I definitely don't want, since one of them is m1nel The real question to answer is who benefits from the expanded picnic areas. We already know it's not the neighbors nor the resident wildlife. Normal daytime users have no need of more picnic tables, so it must benefit the large groups that use the park on the weekends. More large groups entering and using Wildwood will further increase competition for limited parking spaces available near the park, taking them away from the downtown businesses. Most often these groups are not from the nearby community, and increasing their numbers will only make It harder for local residents to access the park on weekends. Increased use will also bring increased noise, which will now be located closer to the homes surrounding the park, furthering the negative impact this expansion will have on the neighboring community. Please understand, the residential community surrounding Wildwood Park is a long - established one, where people demonstrate the true meaning of "community." We treasure the unique nature of our area and the natural serenity it provides. The "wild feel of Wildwood is no small contributor to that unique nature. Plopping groups of boisterous picnickers into our back yards can only detract from what we have come to love. The other planned improvements to Wildwood Park truly do improve it. The playground additions and upgrades and the new ground covers to provide wheelchair accessibility are welcome changes to the park, They will make Wildwood Park an even better place. But the expansion picnic area just has no place in preserving the "wild" part of Wildwood, nor in improving its public safety or its community impact. 1 strongly urge you to limit the planned Wildwood Park upgrades to only the playground improvements, and not the picnic area expansion. Sincerely, /V", Logan S. Deimler H: (408) 741 -5688 W; (408) 365 -4848 February 9, 1995 TO: Members of the City of Saratoga Parks Commission: The recent Saratoga News article (1/25/95) about planned improvements for Wildwood Park was the first we had ever heard about the plans to "clear out the hill above the slide to put in more picnic tables." We are supportive of any improvements that will enhance this beautiful place, but we have serious concerns regarding plans to change the "wild" part of Wildwood Park and would hope these potential problems can be taken into consideration by your commission: 1. The Destruction of an Intact, Natural Part of Saratoga that Deserves Protection We are fortunate to be sharing the park and our neighborhood with birds that are rare in populated areas such as stellar jays and great- horned owls. We are afraid that if their habitat in the upper park wooded buffer is altered or diminished it would impact them heavily. 2. Increased Noise Levels Affecting the Neighborhoods SurroundingWildwood Park. The neighborhood consisting of Fourth Street, Wildwood Way and Springer Ave. is an old, established one, unique and treasured. Why do you need a new picnic and BBQ area close to the neighborhood when there are more accessible locations by the brook and entrance pathways. 3. Increased Fire Danger. We had a fire on this hill during summer 1993. The fire department was called to the scene within ten minutes of the fire starting. We hate to imagine what might ha \fe happened had the mother who called 911 not been home. Locating BBQs and picnic tables adjacent the upper part of Wildwood Park would increase the probablility of fire. 4. More Difficult Law. Enforcement in the Park. We applaud the new alcohol restrictions, but feel that encouraging visitors to picnic next to the children's playground and the wooded buffer zone will increase historic enforcement problems. Also, the children using the playground will be exposed to the adult conversations and /or activities of the individuals who often "hang out ". Wildwood Park is used and enjoyed by many in our community who cherish its unique and tranquil charms. We have a responsibility to carefully weigh the effects that installing the proposed new picnic ground would have on the entire community and �fs w,l0hh.once,dcriCJ4e,NW401tis WtL(ld be difficult and expensive)if not impossible,toundo, if they are wrong for Saratoga. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Sincerely, Charlotte Sp cino, Michael Sparacino Copy: Ahn MArie- &rjer Jd-�f:W Pa-,,( Jacobs C.h;cF (_raulf, f'432t S�r:rv��r f 1 ve . 54ra4-olA (9,64" mom, 60 k tro a +W'Y P�ACpa KArlh,7r.cW L,#,rr'J pc "ll', &Vf, wrlscI 11.10" Peeves Doo wd k February 8, 1995 Mr. Harry Peacock City Manager of Saratoga- c/o The City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Cl FE 9 1995 D � 1.i B �. Mq�gGE� 3 O Cq FFICE RE: The planned improvements for Wildwood Park as to the installment of six tables and barbecue pits" above late area now know as the "playground." the Dear Mr. Peacock: We are very concerned about the proposed addition of barbecue pits to the upper hillside area (above the playground) s tables and Wildwood Park. of As you must be fully aware, much of the area that surrounds Wildwood Park is residential, complete with quaint homes, and adults to occupy them, young and .old alike, and et f children ny assortments. Wildwood Park is typically a joy for many of us nd feel fortunate to live near it and share it with our families friends we neighbors. and The common user of Wildwood Park is of no threat to our our environment, or our community, but obviously these individuals are not our concern. There exists a group of Young ls men, who frequent the park, and through their presence people, large reduced the park's usage to theirs alone. largely They spend many hours during the day, and after dark as smoking, drinking, fighting, using the creek as a toilet (we andl' other park users have witnessed this), sleeping alon the cre many and hillsides (close to the proposed improvement area, area , and generally loitering in large groups. ) They elude the sheriffs and give the Community Service Department quite a run for their money. The blazing heat of summer puts damper on their gatherings and the bitter cold does not move h individuals indoors. They come from Saratoga, and other re these Wildwood Park is convenient and seemingly welcomes them r areas, so others that wish to join them. and any We would like to suggest that the six tables and barbecue pits that are a part of the scheduled "improvements" of Wildwood Park be relocated to another area of the park or not installed at all, for the safety and well being of the users of the park as well as the residences and businesses that surround it. There is an area in the lower park that is near the creek, the volleyball pit, the bridge, and the existing tables and barbecue area. It is a perfect site for an additional social area in Wildwood Park and it would not change, in any way, the current usage of the upper hillside area, about which we are concerned. We the users and surrounding community of Wildwood Park have many of the same goals for Saratoga as do our city's politicians. We want peace and cleanliness in our environment, good education and educational resources for our children, money in the city purse, development as it benefits all, a dog park (Hal), etc. We appreciate your time on this matter. We feel that the issue in question can be resolved to benefit both the city plan and the community at large without giving the abusers of the park a new area to destroy, and from which to intimidate. Sincerely, _. \� � •, jam' ,0 \ he Fuzell -Casey Family 14346 Wildwood Way Saratoga, CA 95070 TO THE CITY OF SARATOGA: We, the undersigned, as neighbors of Wildwood Park, believe a portion of the upgrades planned for the park are not in the best interests of the community. Specifically, we object to the expansion of the picnic area into the area above the playground. We object to this for the following reasons: (1) To perform this expansion will corrupt the uniquely sylvan nature of Wildwood Park, destroying the currently existing meadow located there and its attendant natural habitat. (2) It will create a secluded location for undesirable persons to loiter near the playground, dissuading parents from allowing their children to play there. (3) The additional picnic tables planned will increase usage of the park by large groups, further increasing competition for the limited parking spaces available to downtown businesses, and raising the noise level to which surrounding residences are subjected. For these reasons, we strongly request the City of Saratoga limit the Wildwood Park upgrades to only the playground improvements, and not the picnic area expansion. NAME ADDRESS PHONE -7V -03 'F6 7 ; -7 -14:73 A/ 3 63- S A(�Iiauo Let- S . i 1¢D9/ �. Iy231 !S-Pc'- - q i -3y5Z v (4316 W. I3��::4, X67 - Vii_ %/3 7L r� i TO THE CITY OF SARATOGA: We, the undersigned, as users of Wildwood Park, believe a portion of the upgrades planned for it are not in the best interests of those who regularly use the park. Specifically, we object to the expansion of the picnic area into the area above the playground. We object to this for the following reasons: (1) To perform this expansion will corrupt the uniquely sylvan nature of Wildwood Park, destroying the currently existing meadow located there and its attendant natural habitat. (2) It will create a secluded location for undesirable persons to loiter near the playground, dissuading parents from allowing their children to play there. (3) The additional picnic tables planned will increase usage of the park by large groups, further increasing competition for the limited parking spaces available near the park. For these reasons, we strongly request the City of Saratoga limit the Wildwood Park upgrades to only the playground improvements, and not the picnic area expansion. NAME ADDRESS PHONE C cc-f-', l u n y M a� �t l� S e.�� o cl 2-- G c ,�U �)e 7`f SO iy2-7 ( c?u i Ave C, et'5t."'; ,138 i ;L'1 7- 7,Rx ()L- I� E C LC J 3 7 73 o 41 TO THE CITY OF SARATOGA: We, the undersigned, as users of Wildwood Park, believe a portion of the upgrades planned for it are not in the best interests of those who regularly use the park. Specifically, we object to the expansion of the picnic area into the area above the playground. We object to this for the following reasons: (1) To perform this expansion will corrupt the uniquely sylvan nature of Wildwood Park, destroying the currently existing meadow located there and its attendant natural habitat. (2) It will create a secluded location for undesirable persons to loiter near the playground, dissuading parents from allowing their children to play there. (3) The additional picnic tables planned will increase usage of the park by large groups, further increasing competition for the limited parking spaces available near the park. For these reasons, we strongly request the City of Saratoga limit the Wildwood Park upgrades to only the playground improvements, and not the picnic area expansion. NAME ADDRESS PHONE Ann C n -1 -�D-7 ZUS �� !t'�ctit'1 IPis! g� d eta e�J,6E azo (Po ar e- (t ?-d . S4ncL 20-3061 is 7 �, 1 -�-- - CC`S ��L� � � j � � 1�'1•���. � �� � � _ — f c7 , A /� U1 i� �uru -ber 1 �t fir. rk$ 81t7-� 933 If2e L TO THE CITY OF SARATOGA: a4 qy!'S _ ...... . We, the undersigned, as neighborskf Wildwood Park, believe a portion of the upgrades planned for the park are not in the best interests of the community. Specifically, we object to the expansion of the picnic area into the area above the playground. We object to this for the following reasons: (1) To perform this expansion will corrupt the uniquely sylvan nature of Wildwood Park, destroying the currently existing meadow located there and its attendant natural habitat. (2) It will create a secluded location for undesirable persons to loiter near the playground, dissuading parents from allowing their children to play there. (3) The additional picnic tables planned will increase usage of the park by large groups, further increasing competition for the limited parking spaces available to downtown businesses, and raising the noise level to which surrounding residences are subjected. For these reasons, we strongly request the City of Saratoga limit the Wildwood Park upgrades to only the playground improvements, and not the picnic area expansion. NAME ADDRESS PHONE Z�� I�� _. Wctj 661 -9111 010, g le- �I) lea C. ►�„ � w � w �y � - �� I VU ,� SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: March 15, 1995 AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT.: Community Development ICAI'TY pVV 1 ITEM: lU MGR: SUBJECT: Consideration of a Development Agreement between the City of Saratoga and Greenbriar Homes specifying development requirements for the previously approved 94 -lot, single - family residential development on the former Paul Masson Winery site at 13150 Saratoga Avenue. Recommended Motion: Approve the Development Agreement Ordinance for first reading. Report Summary: as submitted and introduce. an On November 2, 1994, the City Council approved the 94 -lot, single - family residential development on the former Paul Masson Winery site. The approval culminated several months "of planning work including the preparation of the Paul Masson Specific Plan, neighborhood meetings and Planning Commission and City Council public hearings for both Conceptual and Final Development Plans. A Development Agreement was required to "memorialize" the action taken by the City Council. In addition to including conditions of approval, either outright or by reference, the agreement specifies phasing, development sequence and timing, and target dates for development to occur. On March 8, 1995, the Planning Commission reviewed and discussed the Development Agreement and forwarded the agreement on to the City Council with comments; but without a recommendation. The Commission felt that since the City Council had approved the Final Development Plan, the Council should be the approval body. The following concerns were forwarded on to the City Council for consideration as part of the Council's review.: • Section 4.2 Term (page 3) - The Commission felt that a 10 -year agreement was too long and suggested a 3-year term with a provision for an extension should the project be delayed. Response: The applicant will respond to this concern at the City Council meeting. • Section 7.4 Timing of Development (page 5) - The lots backing onto Saratoga Avenue should be developed as part of the initial development phase. This would ensure that if the total project was not completed, the Saratoga Avenue frontage would be developed with residences with little likelihood, that non - residential development would be considered on the balance of the property. City Council, March 15,, 1995 Greenbriar Development Agreement Page 2 Response: The applicant will respond to this concern at the.City Council meeting. • Subparagraph 5.3.1 Tot Lot Park (page' 20) - Clarification was requested to ensure that the tot lot park would be completed within 150 days from initiation of construction of the tot lot. Response: Language has been added to the agreement shown at the top of page 21 responding to the concern. • Subparagraph 5.3.3 Contractor Sub - Permits (pages 23 -24) - The City Attorney indicated to the Planning Commission that this was a new process available to the City. Final language was being prepared by both the City Attorney and the applicant's attorney. Response: Final language has been prepared and is included in the agreement. • Subparagraph 5.3.4 Formation of Landscape and Lighting District (page 24) - The Commission suggested that a statement of the purpose of the district be included. Response: Appropriate language has been added to the agreement Environmental Determination: A Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project. No further environmental determination is required for the Development Agreement. Fiscal Impacts: None Advertisina, Noticina and Public Contact: Public notices were mailed to property owners within 500 ft. of the site and a notice was published in the San Jose - Mercury News and posted at City Hall. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The project could not proceed as the City Council project resolution required adoption of the Development Agreement. Follow Up Actions: The Ordinance will be placed on a forthcoming City Council agenda for adoption. Attachments: 1. Development Agreement 2. Ordinance (for introduction) 3. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated March 8, 1995 T)iE GREENBRiAR COMPANIES 4340 Stevens Creek Blvd.. Suite 275 San Jose, CA 95129 (408) 984 -5900 • FAX (408) 984 -7060 G March 9, 1995 Honorable Members of the City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Greenbriar Development Agreement Dear Honorable Council Members: On Wednesday evening, March 8th, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Development Agreement between the City of Saratoga and Greenbriar Saratoga Road Company. As you may recall, this Development Agreement is one of the conditions of approval of Resolution No. 94-44, which was adopted by City Council on November 2, 1995, approving a 94 -lot single family residential subdivision on the former Paul Masson Winery site. The Development Agreement presented to the Planning Commission was the product of joint cooperation between the Planning staff, the City Attorney, Greenbriar and Greenbriar's attorney. The total contents of the document, as presented to the Planning Commission, had been agreed upon. The Planning Commission raised a few concerns which Greenbriar addressed at the public hearing. Two suggestions by the Planning Commission were acceptable to Greenbriar and have been incorporated in the Development Agreement before you. Two additional concerns were expressed with respect to the phasing /construction of the project and with the term of the Development Agreement and they will be addressed in this letter. One member of the Commission pointed out that she believed the underlying reason for the Council requesting a Development Agreement was to ensure that the project was constructed as approved, all residential. Greenbriar agrees with this statement and feels the intent has been satisfied. The Commissioner asked what assurances were provided. to satisfy this concern and also suggested that she felt it would be good if homes along Saratoga Avenue were constructed early to discourage a future request for commercial development along Saratoga Avenue. Greenbriar pointed out that the original approvals allowed for two final maps and the phasing essentially divides the property in a north -south direction with the first phase consisting of the northern portion. Therefore, the remaining portion would neither be appropriate nor practical for commercial uses. Furthermore, Greenbriar has submitted a final map for the entire project, thus alleviating this concern because all of the property will be encumbered by a map for residential purposes. Additionally, in accordance with the conditions of approval, the Development Agreement calls for Greenbriar to install the landscaping and improvements along Saratoga and McFarland Avenues before receiving a certificate of occupancy on any of the homes and to begin the installation of the tot -lot area at the southern boundary of the property no later than two years after closing the first home. Therefore, the community will have an attractive streetscape from the beginning of the project and the possibility for commercial use on the property will be virtually non - existent. The second concern was relating to the term of the Development Agreement. Some of the Commissioners were concerned that ten years was too long of a time period and suggested that three years may be more appropriate. Greenbriar .feels that the ten year period is fair. When the Council imposed the requirement for a development agreement we inquired with our counsel what a reasonable term for the Development Agreement would be.. He indicated, that based on his experience, a ten year term was neither unusual nor unreasonable. Our counsel's advice was subsequently confirmed by the City Attorney. The Development Agreement provides benefits for both the City and the Developer. The Developer is assured that they will be able to construct the project as it was approved and as it was conceived in their business plan. The City receives assurance that they are going to receive certain fees and infrastructure improvements as well as certainty on the timing of particular features of the development. The City receives the majority of their benefits early in the process (ie: $767,000 in park fees and the installation of landscaping and improvements along Saratoga and McFarland Avenues and the installation of the tot lot area), while the Developer's true benefit comes later, if for some reason they are unable to complete the project per the timeframe in their business plan (ie: there is an unexpected change in the economy) or the City adopts new regulations that otherwise would make the completion of the project very difficult if they were required to adhere to the new regulations. Greenbriar's intent is certainly to build and sell the homes as quickly as we can. Our business plan calls for a two to three year build out if everything goes as planned. Therefore, on the basis of our respective counsel's advice we feel the ten year term for the Development Agreement is appropriate and we respectfully request that the City Council approve the Development Agreement for a term of ten years as presented by the Planning staff, the City Attorney and Greenbriar. Greenbriar is excited about beginning the project and we look forward to working with you and City staff to create a wonderful new community in Saratoga. Sincerely, Patrick Costanzo, Jr. Director of Land Development ORDINANCE NO. 71- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING DEQELOPIMUT AGREEMENT FOR THE GREENBRIAR BARATOGA ROAD CO. SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT THE VITY COUNCIL OF TAR CITY OF SARATOGA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. RECITALS A. The application of Greenbriar Saratoga Road Co. ( "Greenbriar ") for a 94 unit single- family residential project ( "Project ") was approved by the City Council on November 2, 1994, by adoption of Resolution No. 94 -44. B. The Paul Masson Specific Plan ( "Specific Plan ") was previously prepared for the property on which tho Project is located. The Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council by Resolution No. 93 -046. C. The Project was found to be consistent with the Specific Plan, and a mitigated negative declaration for the Project was prepared and certified by the City Council. D. A Condition of Approval of the Project requires that Greenbriar and the.City enter into a development agreement. E. A development agreement between the City and Greenbriar ( "Development Agreement ") has been presented to the City Council, a copy of which is attached hereto as Attachment 1. F. The mitigated negative declaration prepared for the Project sufficiently encompasses the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement. G. A public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement was held before the Planning Commission on March 8, 1995, for which public notice was given as provided by law and at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard. H. The Planning Commission forwarded the Development Agreement to the City Council, with comments. I. A number of minor modifications to the Development Agreement have been made since the Planning Commission reviewed the document, which modifications the City Council finds need not be referred back to the Planning Commission. 1 J. A public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement was held before the City Council on March 15, 1995, for which public notice was given as provided by law, and at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard. K.' The City Council has considered the comments received and made by the Planning Commission at the March 8 public hearing. Section 2. FNDINGS AND DETERNTNATTQNS Therefore, on the basis of (a) the foregoing Recitals which are incorporated herein, (b) the City of Saratoga's General Plan, (c) the Specific Plan, (d) the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and on the basis of the specific conclusions :set forth below, the City Council finds and determines that: 1. The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified and contained in the City's General Plan and in the Specific Plan in that the General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations for the site include "residential" and the project is a residential development consistent with the "residential" designation. z. The Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the zoning district in which the real property is located in that the project approvals include a Planned Unit Development for the project, Which is- provided for in the MUPD zoning district. 3. The Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use policies in that the project will implement land use guidelines set forth in the Specific Plan and the General Plan which have planned for residential development at this location. 4. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare in that the project will proceed in accordance with the Conditions of Approval for the project adopted by the City council. 5. The Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values in that the project will be consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan. Section 3. APPROVAL The City Council hereby approves and authorizes the Mayor to sign, the Development Agreement (Attachment 1). 2 U Section 4. BZgORDATION Within ten days after the Development Agreement is executed by the Mayor, the City Clerk shall submit the Agreement to the County. Recorder for recordation. Section 5: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga held on the day of , 1995, by the following vote. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk marea 9, 199s =rzw \373 \0rd \greabrar.pre 3 MAYOR U SA1ggT O G^l 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438 COUNCEL AZEMBERS: Ann Marie Burger Paul E. Jacobs Gillian Moran M E M O R A N D U M Karen Kicker Donald L. Wolfe TO: Saratoga Planning Commission FROM: Paul L. Curtis, Community Development Director DATE: March 8, 1995 SUBJECT: Greenbriar Development Agreement Background: On November 2, 1994, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 94 -44 approving the 94 -lot, single - family residential subdivision on the former Paul Masson Winery site at 13150 Saratoga Avenue. One of the conditions of approval required a Development Agreement be approved prior to the approval of the final subdivision map. Authority for Development Agreements: Article 2.5 of the State Government Code authorizes cities to enter into development agreements with project proponents. Development Agreements have been in effect in California since 1979. The purposes of an agreement are to vest the right for a developer to proceed with a multiple - phased project without the fear of future changes in the law which would significantly change the original approval and to assure the City that required infrastructure Ae.g. off -site improvements) and timing of improvements will occur on specified dates (for example, the Greenbriar development agreement specifies that landscaping of the "loop open space /sidewalk" will be installed with each group of 4 -6 houses). The Government Code requires a public hearing to approve an agreement with the Planning Commission's recommendation forwarded to the City Council for final action. The development agreement is a procedural matter and does not change the approved project.in any way. The agreement includes all of the conditions of approval, the requirement of the CC &R's Printed on recycled paper. Greenbriar Development Agreement March 8, 1995 Page 2 together with the requirements for phased improvements and payments of fees. Planning staff, the City Attorney and representatives of Greenbriar Homes and their attorneys have met, discussed and are in total agreement with the contents of the document. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the development agreement and recommend its adoption to the City Council. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. .�� AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: March 15, 1995 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development Department Rebecca Spoulos - Code Enforcement Division SUBJECT: Declaration of Existence of Public Nuisance Conditions on APN #38644038 (Railroad Property off Cox Avenue), Saratoga, California. Recommended Motion: 3/15: Adopt resolution declaring a nuisance at APN #38644038 4/19: Conduct a public hearing and adopt resolution ordering public nuisance abatement on APN #38644038. Report Summary: Since November 1994, the code enforcement division has attempted to contact Southern Pacific Transportation Company (SPTC) regarding an illegal dumping of Palm tree clippings on their property near the railroad tracks north of Cox Avenue. Correspondence was mailed to (SPTC) regarding the dumping. No response or action was taken by the responsible to remove the debris. Over fifteen voice mail phone messages were made to the Roadmaster of (SPTC), Larry Lybarger, explaining the violation and corrective action deemed necessary. No response or action was taken by the Roadmaster or (SPTC). The proposed resolution will constitute a finding and declaration by the Council that a public nuisance exists upon the property. The adoption of this resolution will be the initial step in having the City remove the public nuisance (Palm tree clippings) and assess the costs for such work against the property as an assessment pursuant to City Code Article 3 -15. Fiscal Impacts: None. City costs incurred in cleaning up the property will be reimbursed as a special assessment to be collected with the property taxes for the site. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Notice of this declaration will be given to the property owner (by mail, posting and publication), who may object to the proposed abatement at a hearing scheduled for this purpose on April 19, 1995. Consequences of Not Acting, on the Recommended Motion: The public nuisance will remain upon the property. Follow Up Actions: Following the conduct of the public hearing on April 19, 1995, the Council may then order the abatement work to be performed. Upon completion of the abatement, a report of costs will be furnished for confirmation by the Council and Assessment against the property as a lien. Attachments: Proposed resolution. Copy of correspondence to sent responsible. Photos. • / V 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95010'-. (408),867-3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: 12/02/94 Ann Marie Burger Paul E. Jacobs . Gillian Moran NOTICE OF VIOLATION Karen Tucker. . Donald L..Wolfe. Southern Pacific Rail -road 795 Newhall San Jose,' CA 95110 RE: Saratoga Municipal Violation: 07- 05.0,50 Case Number: #94 -11 090 Dear ,Sirs It.has been brought to the attention of'the.Code Enforcement Division that an alleged•violation of the Saratoga Municipal Code• is occurring at the Cox Ave Railroad Tracks. An investigation into the complaint'by a Community Service Officer.... confirmed the allegation. The-condition constituting violation of the Saratoga City Code is There is a 'large pile' of Palm tree clippings which has.'been,,dumped along the.railroad tracks off Cox'Avenue. (north side) The Community Service Officers have investigated the dumping, and are unable to locate any suspects.- Therefore, the railroad company must remove the clippings from_the property. Therefore, your voluntary cooperation is requested to corrector remove the violation by.no later than 12 /31/94, so that compliance with the-Saratoga Municipal Code is-achieved'. Failure . to correct the violation• within the, allocated time will 'result in' the issuance of a citation or criminal complaint by this office.. Enclosed is a copy of the ordinance(s) for your review. Please contact this office at, (408) 867 -343$ - •X266, if you .wish 'to discuss this matter further. Thank you for 'your anticipated' cooperation and compliance. Sincerely, Rebecca Spoulos Community•Service Officer Enclosure,- Copy 'of Saratoga Ordinance 07- 0.5.050 Printed on recycled paper. 3610 o �o 26 k AR- 91 -oot- A� N y / 65 29 ' 25 !� lb` 60.0, 138 14 _ - _ ` - /9849 - 23 - r ,v 3p 6 s 9 w µ_ -- Z - _ ,90 O N C 8 6?- 30 ti 19 3 u 3/ Bu , i,9B g0 d Io CV 1 1 32 /8 0 N* 20 o oh �s NZ, ° / 78 foie' - B2 69 58 G9 33 h e1 17 / 71 5 9 A 7To co 40 __ - RiFR � // 1° c 34 0% 1 , 2 r 38 124 9 73.92 % 1 � ,� -- 35 s Cq J /9BP9 /9F toti O39'� DR-87 -1g6 36 ; o /9836 1-9824 r 42 50 �1 \ 43 A 939B O 54 04 3 SII es I, Ttis9 / �� 37 I I P. M. 1 L L� : N F i 2, e 1 /3 551 - M - 9 1 N r 40 S -g3ec 1°° '' P�.. �p Im 1 q -113 � _ e I: 0.58 AC. i 0.51 AC. P.G. 8 E. (0/38 PC L. A i PCL. B (PT N.i, BK.391 PG. 4 pc <'S " Al o 60 �} 61 110.01 137.24 241.56 — _ to1.Z6 85 _e" -P0015 C 0 X - 8 K 393 � o':,: � '.':" • - , _ 02b -7-Dr-D. 04DU `PAS -M " God AVG , 0 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. � ST,3 MEETING DATE: March 15, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: l014' ORIGINATING DEPT.: Community Development SUBJECT: CITY MGR: Request for a General Plan Amendment to redesignate approximately 3 of the 5 acres from Medium Density Residential (M -10) to Commercial Retail (CR) (GPA -94 -002) . The request also involves Amending the Zoning Ordinance by rezoning the 3 acres from R-10,000 to Commercial Neighborhood (C -N) (AZO -94 -001) . The property is l o c a t e d a t 1 2 3 2 5 S a r a t o g a A v e n u e. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission recommendation and deny the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change requests. Report Summary: On January 25, 1995, the Planning Commission reviewed the requests for the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments to redesignate approximately 3 acres of a 5 acre site from a single- family residential land use designation and residential zoning to - a commercial land use designation and commercial zoning. The Commission received public testimony from both the applicant and approximately 13 neighborhood residents. Many more residents attended the public hearing and were represented by the Saratoga Woods Homeowners Association spokesperson. Following the public testimony and discussion, the Planning Commission decided by a 6 -0 vote to recommend denial of the project based on the following reasons: • Maintaining a residential land use will preserve the "defining line" between the residential appearance of Saratoga and the commercial appearance of San Jose. • Several negative impacts would result which can not be entirely mitigated. • The proposal is contrary to the long -range vision statements contained in the General Plan which emphasize maintaining Saratoga's residential character while discouraging the expansion and intrusion of incompatible, non - residential land uses. City Council, March 15, 1995 Kosich, GPA -94 -002 & AZO -94 -001 Page 2 • The existing residential zoning classification was established in this area with thoughtful consideration and there are no reasons for change. • There are no apparent changes in existing circumstances to warrant a change from low- density residential to a commercial land use designation and zoning. The Planning Commission directed staff to prepare denial Resolutions which were adopted at the February 8, 1995, Planning Commission meeting. Per State Government Code and Saratoga Municipal Code provisions, the City Council may approve, modify or reject the recommendation of the Planning Commission. However, any substantial modification of the proposed amendments not previously considered by the Planning Commission, should be referred back to the Planning Commission for further consideration either in the form of an amended application or a new application. Response to Applicant's Letter: On March 9, 1995, the applicant submitted a letter (Attachment 1) stating that the commercial land use designation and zoning will no longer be pursued. The applicant is requesting that the City Council not take action on the commercial applications at this time, but rather schedule study sessions to discuss "alternative housing needs" for the City which the applicant feels can be met on the Kosich property. City Council Options: The City Council has the following options in response to the applicant's request: 1. Approve the applicant's request and direct staff to schedule study sessions to discuss land use and zoning alternatives. Result of this action: This would not "officially close the book" on the commercial request which has received significant opposition from neighborhood residents and the Planning Commission. The commercial applications need to be "officially resolved." 2. Not accept the applicant's request and take action on the Planning Commission recommendation. Per the applicant's letter stating that a commercial designation and zoning is no longer going to be pursued, denial of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change is appropriate. Result of this action: This would "close the book" on the commercial request consistent with Planning Commission and neighborhood opposition. Study sessions can still be scheduled to discuss project alternatives per previous City Council direction for "major projects" which include General Plan or Zone Change City Council, March 15, 1995 Kosich, GPA -94 -002 & AZO -94 -001 Page 3 requests. Staff feels that a new application should be required for proposals significantly different than the commercial requests and that new filing fees be required. Any significant change in the request will require all new staff analysis, environmental evaluation, staff reports, public hearings, etc., the costs of which will not be covered if the original application is "simply amended." Staff feels that the original recommendation to deny the commercial development proposal is appropriate and that study sessions can be scheduled to discuss project alternatives. Fiscal Impacts: None if a final decision is made on the submitted application. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Notices were mailed to surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. Notices were also posted at City Hall and advertised in the newspaper. Environmental Determination: No environmental determination was made by the Planning Commission since the recommendation was to deny the requests. If consideration is given to approve a change in any form, further environmental analysis will be required. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Approving the applicant's request (i.e. not accepting the Planning Commission recommendation) will result in an amendment to the City's General Plan and Zoning for the site which will allow commercial development on the 3 acres subject to current development review regulations and procedures. Follow Up Actions: Upon City Council direction, staff will prepare appropriate resolutions reflecting Council action. Resolutions will be placed on a forthcoming meeting consent calendar agenda. City Council, March 15, 1995 Kosich, GPA -94 -002 & AZO -94 -001 Page 4 Attachments: 1. Letter from Virginia Fanelli, dated March 9, 1995 2. Letters to City Council received following Planning Commission action. 3. Planning Commission Resolutions GPA -94 -002 & AZO -94 -001 4. Planning Commission Minutes dated 1/25/95 & 2/08/95 5. Staff Report dated 1/25/95 (includes traffic and noise studies) 6. Correspondence, Exhibit "B" (received as part of the Planning Commission public hearing process) 7. Plans, Exhibit "A" FC li Fanelli Consulting, Inc. I aid Planning I PropriTy Management / Real Ls!ate Broker RECEIVED MAR 9 1995 rLhivi vu DEPT. March 9, 1995 City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor Burger and Council members: On behalf of Kosich Construction, we are writing this letter to inform you that as a result of the neighborhood opposition and the opinions expressed by the Planning Commission, Kosich Construction will no longer be requesting a Commercial designation and zoning for their 5+ acre property oil Saratoga Avenue. While we are confident that from a planning standpoint this is the best use for the property, we understand it is not a political possibility. We continue to believe, based on the sound study and the traffic study, having family oriented homes backing onto Saratoga Avenue at this location is not appropriate. We know there are alternative housing needs within die city which can be. rnet "All proper, neighborhood sensitive, planning for this properly. Therefore, we are requesting that before you take action on the original application, you schedule a study session either of the City Council or a combination of City Council acid Planning Commission to review these altertlatives with us. It will provide an opportunity for input from all concerned parties. We sincerely hope that the Kosich decision not to pursue the Commercial designation and zoning will eliminate the acrimony which has arisen over this application. We thank you for your consideration of our request. Very truly yours, V' ' is L. Fanelli cc: M. Fariss, President Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners' Association Kosich Construction Ron Dick & Associates 10052 PasadcnaAwnue, Suitc B • C:aprrtino, CA 95014 v (408) 99ii -8188 • Fax (4(18) 996.8261 HArch 7, 19°x',5 Saratoga City ICoaunncill. 13777 IFruuitvale Avernmue Saratogaa, California 95070 Dear Me+s herr•s of the Saratoga City Cou nc i l x This letter is being written in regard to the application for the U'..ossich Property rezoning that will be heard by you on Wych 15th. Theme are several reasons why the proposed rezoning should be denied, but one of the most glaring is that the proposed rezoning flaunts the City of Saratoaga;'s General Plan. The Generall. Plan took considerable time to formulate and was designed to oversee the development of the lash few developable open spaces in the city. Citizen connitteess spent invaluable time considering all the proposed alternatives for the best and greatest use of the little remaining developable open space. Their decision was to designate the last remaining piece of IPInsii.c:h property Ifs; - 1/10,000. This decision ukOassri based{ on the area surrounding it and was considered the bast use for the property. Unfortunately the city limits of Saratoga did not extend completely to Lawrence Expressway. Remaining out of the City of Saraatoga" s jurisdiction was a small piece of-land that was within the City of San Fosse. A Few years ago San Jose approved the rezomrai.inq turf thin piece of land and the development of the Sarataga Station complex ►ss i thouutt even c onnsu ll. t ai. ng the City of Saratoga or adjacent property owners. The first knowledge of this approval was the onset of the development on this property,, far togs, late fFDr any of the affected property owners to be given any chance to address their c:oncernns. These property oars are corrntai.mnuaai.nng to shoulder the burden of San Josse"ss decision. These acre residents of the City of Saratoga who were stabbed in the back by the City of San Jose- Now the owners of the Kbsssai.c:h property have petitioned you to allow than to rezone and develop their property in the samm son verr - They cite the ex i.st,amc:e of Saratoga Station as reason to approve the rezoning g annd! commercial development of their property. Thin reasoning would suggest than when one finds a rotten apple in a casseT one should delight in that rotten apple and ssurnoaunnd it with other "prized' rotten apples. The affected property owners have come to you in order to prevent another disaster from occruarai.nrg. They feel that it is your responnsaib i lty to acct on their best behalf as residents of the City of Saratoga and by doing no assist then in their search for the best quality of :Rafe available to them. The IKossiiach -family has indicated) than twelve mom homes could easily be built on this land with its existing ifs- :dfI0,000 zoning, the affected property owners ask that the zoning g remariinn R -1! 1MOO and that this property be pica: to its intended use. Saratoga has its own Vision oT what this city should look like and be, do not allow the City oT San Jose determine what Saratoga will become. Saratoga is unique in its character and presently dissimilar to the unplanned sprawl oT San Jose. The time has come Tor you to auk what YOM) can do -for the City oT Saratoga. Allow youpseRves to be remembered an preserving the unique nature of Saratoga. Sincerely, 1 an- A-17 12752 Saratoga Creek Drive Saratoga$ CA 950Y770 Voice Mail (408) 236-289M. 2 azcia �azis�, • �•, C C C -c=4 To. ; i9 Clinical Audiologist �a¢cia �a2iss o¢iiociatri 2450 Samaritan Drive San Jose, California 95124 (408) 356 -0404 February 24, 1995 Saratoga City Council Members 13777 Fruitvale Ave. RE: Kosich request to rezone their orchard Saratoga, 95070 for commercial development Dear Council Members: I am taking this opportunity to write you as a "private citizen', not as the President of the Saratoga Woods Homeowners Association. In doing so, I would like to present a few pertinent arguments against approving the Kosich family's request to rezone their orchard for commercial development. The first argument relates to the "mitigating action" offered by the City Planning Department regarding traffic. Their suggestion was to install a traffic signal at Kosich Drive on Saratoga Avenue. I have no expertise in traffic but it seems obvious that a signal would not reduce traffic, but only attempt to control it; such an installation would likely result in further exacerbating the existing backups onto Lawrence Expressway. Commercial development of the Kosich property would add considerable traffic to an already frequently gridlocked area. One of Mrs. Fanelli's initial statements to us was that we would prefer the traffic resulting from commercial development to that generated by 12 residences on the Kosich site because fewer trips would be generated. Experts estimate each residence generates 10 round trips; that would mean approximately 120 trips. Even the most naive observer-could, sucessfully argue that considerably greater traffic than 120 trips would be required to make 31,000 square feet of commercial development successful. Now that it is official that E1 Paseo is to be razed and likely rebuilt as commercial (at least in part), it would be safe to assume that a development of that size would seriously impact the businesses in . its vicinity. Such competition would likely severely negatively impact any nearby businesses, especially new ones. Any commercial center generating fewer than 120 trips and near EL Paseo besides, would be doomed to failure. Saratoga's General Plan was developed to serve the best interests of both the residential and business communities of the City. That Plan was adopted unanimously after careful research and consideration; Mrs. Fanelli was a Council Member at the time of its adoption. Piecemeal attempts to alter the General Plan should be met with serious opposition. Any amendments to the Plan should be made after much careful research and thoughtful consideration, not after only superficial regard. Certainly, over time, changes in the General Plan may well be needed, especially if conditions in a given location change. Other than increase traffic on Saratoga Avenue, which affects the entire City, no detrimental changes in the Saratoga Woods neighborhood have occurred for over 35 years. In fact, the original development has continued to expand so that now 380 residences are included and the area is highly desirable. It would certainly be in keeping with the current, as well as the future status of the area to deny any application not in keeping with the R- 1- 10,000 designation. Approval of any zoning other than single family, detached housing would be in direct conflict with the General Plan and. the initial intent of the Kosich family to maintain the site as single family, residential. I am looking forward to the March 15 City Council meeting at which the rezoning request is scheduled to be discussed. I am confident that the Council Members will reaffirm their stated determination to maintain the integrity of the neighborhoods and to support the existing Saratoga businesses. It is obvious that the current commercial success of the existing businesses is less than desired. The City Council, indeed, the residents of Saratoga, need to support our businesses, not undermine their success by allowing additional competition. I anticipate that the City Council will uphold its stated Vision for Saratoga and the General Plan. Sincerely yours, LL: M. A, CCC -A Clinical Audiologist t 18735 Kosich Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 March. 3, 1995 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Satratoga, CA 95070 Subject: Kosich orchard property, Saratoga Avenue Dear Council Members, I urge Council members vote to uphold the residential nature of Saratoga. Please deny the Kosich brothers permission to commercially develop the west side of Saratoga Avenue between "Kinko's" and Kosich Drive. Please do not amend the General Plan or change the existing zoning ordinance. My neighbors and I have serious concerns over traffic congestion, traffic safety, increased noise , crime attraction, reduced property values, aesthetic impact, and the justification for more commercial businesses in the area. Beyond the foregoing reasons there is a broader based objection which affects all residents of Saratoga. I refer to the potential for extending the Saratoga Avenue commercial corridor southward into the pristine residential neighborhoods of our city. It would be a fundamental mistake to allow a crack in the barrier that now contains the huge commercial enclave that is Westgate Mall, Westgate West, and El Paseo. The flood -gates would open to demands to extend commercial zoning to the very ramps of Highway 85. By my walk around survey, 23% of the store locations available in Westgate Mall and Westgate West are currently vacant (36 of 156). El Paseo is in such dire straits, its owners have stated their intention to knock it down and redo it. Surely it is sensible to encourage full use of existing commercial zones before destroying existing, viable, residential neighborhoods. Please do not allow a creeping flow of unwanted, unneeded commercial stores destroy the unique community of homes that is Saratoga Woods, and, indeed, the city of Saratoga. Sincerely, � 444r" � Edward J. Shaw Petition for Resolution FEB U 31995 FLAN/V OE We, the undersigned, residents of the City of Saratoga, oppose the currently proposedPKrUsich Property . Development Plan and any alternate that suggests commercial use. That area, affecting three parcels commonly known as the Kosich Orchard, is shown by the current General Plan and long standing zoning plan as R -1 (10,000) which allows single family residential development. We therefore petition the Planning Commission and City Council to maintain the current General Plan & Zoning and deny said application(s). Name Address telephone number (optional) �0/4+Kw I�Mxad) / LATiKA MuNTAL 1x-73$ SARAT�rke.RF�I)R (40SPAS -8 +18' Si nature ..................... /............Printname Address SA LATOGki G1f (reLN- Opbonal) rein Mores ICJ C� �, ►�$� Asa �asv Si nettye ..................... /............Print name Address -,rx, � /(p} O�-Y- �C^/I� (Tel * - Optional) 3. U K%rC �d G 1 L2 L �{ \ 1 �J c V (Yyl 781 Sig fur ................... /............Prim Address (Tel. # - Optional) 4.a flol�.K rrf low 1�7G/ r � �1�, C4 Signature ................. /............Prim name Address 1,.-7.e, QQ�� (rel.M- Optional) 1(D .n± .- _ _IN p,I -,- . /n 1 V ALlt,,Ao,' as0.g 447 7 Signature ...... ........:..J .........Prim name Address U (rel.M- Optional d' L - C`" / Z7�� s »��� cum -Lf Signature........... ..../............Prim name Address (Tel.#- Optional) ✓�� .S `' �I'�irtir,���z p /7.Sa,��C ABi' yy6,�9_ Signature ..................... /............Prim named� Address / (rel.M- Optional) nature .............. ............Prim Add ress (rel.M-0pbgml) Signature ................... /............Prim name Address (rel.M9_FZ;�6�c tonal) 10 J) 4yw .Sef/o,r / ?C> 5i�A►r" 40d Ile- Sig . ...... �....... ... /............ Prim m nae- (ral.N- Optional) Sig /....'.......Prim name dress (Tel. - Optional) rJncS S S �D� Fad 2.Szi 33�a nature ......... / ........n.Print name Address / / ,�— (rel.N -0Ptionel) G a 13. � Si lure .......... ....... /. ............Prim name Address (rel.N- Optional) , j4j 7• c el M -0ptwnal) . gnature ..................... /............Prim name Address rr iN41, C1 F 257 -6 26 Sig a1ure.L .................. /............Prim name Address (1914-Optional) 's' ^�e6^ I $9S> ?Z%0 -1�.�c 2S3 —�zo ......Print name Address (TeI.M- Optional) 17. � ts 4NEZ-2 12 14 Oaks Signature ... .................. /............ rim name Address (rel.M- Optiorel) 1a. 4,1— lk27-z At" DgE:s 67. �I:Zr 8172 Signature ...... ............... /............Prim name Address (rel.M- Opttona 973 -�y75- `Signature ..................... /............Prim name Address (rel.M- Optional) 20. �i.r>- (8Z8'I ii t o �'lLcr io c t w c - 22_5' -_,V 7 �V _'_/ ,/ Signature ..................... /............Prim name Address (iel.M Optional) Petition ustodian 46�y / ��- ")ANA &RAs - Name... igned /Printed FEB 0 S 1995 Petition for Resolution PLANNING DEPT. We, the undersigned, residents of the City of Saratoga, oppose the currently proposed Kosich Property Development Plan and any alternate that suggests commercial use. That area, affecting three parcels commonly known as the Kosich Orchard, is shown by the current General Plan and long standing zoning plan as R -1 (10,000) which allows single family residential development. We therefore petition -the Planning Commission and City Council to maintain the current General Plan & Zoning and deny said application(s). Name Address telephone number S;*, 79y4 (optional) b97`! /%'°6- 1-i c 973 178"`7 2. Signature .......... ... . /............Print name Address 5%rFTip-7,D j�i (Tel.N -Optional) 3 ,t6!►, * DZQ R l d 96 7 A4. C7` '7,2S 7 re .... .......... /............Print name Address S (rel.M- Optional) 3. Signature ....... .............. /............Print name Addre (rel..#-' Optional) 4 �1u.�Lisnirss� / / Q9SS'�e C07�S� �iiPdleaO �W. Signs re ....... .............. /............Prin name Address (rel.M -Optional) 5.. �+ • ' Signature .................... J ............ Print name Address (rel.M- optional) s. CAP44,--4 G4,,V4 !Pf,; / P� �c, Ci— ¢4G — /,'Z/ firrinature .... .......... /............Print name Address (Tel.# -Optional) 7. e� S' cIa 19ob3 Co�c Jive ^A igruett ...............Print name Address (rel.M- Optional) Petition Custodian "—� �' 'L, ) -&V Name... Igned /Printed , f.:..r..... tint name Address (rel.M -Optional) 9 �lZY10La 7-q/ -/3 7, Sig ... . ............. /............Prirrt na Address (rel.# -Optional) 3 74; �1Sgapkrp :....:.. ....:........ /............Qtirrt name Address (rel.N- Optional) —�— re .................. /............ Pri name Address (rel.M -Optional) Signature .................... /............Print name Address (rel.# -Optional) 13. Signature ..................... /............Print name Address (rel.N- Optional) 14. c.. signature ..................... / l............ Print name Address (Tel.*- Optional) 15. Signature .................... / J..... ....... Print name Address (relO- Optional) 16. Signature ..................... /............Print name Address (rel.N- Optional) 17. Signature ...... ............... /............Print name Address (rel.N -Optional) 16. Signature .................... J ............ Print name Address (Tel.# -CVx al) 19. Signature ..................... /............Print name Address (re,14- Optional) 20. Signature ..................... /............Print name Address (rel.M -Optional) Petition Custodian "—� �' 'L, ) -&V Name... Igned /Printed , hr-ALTY WORLD® — Moser & Long ` 14363 Saratoga Avenue,- Saratoga, CA 95070 cy Telephone: (408) 867 -3491 Fax: (408) 867 -7758 ( f REALTY WORLD' �'- FEB 0 g 1995 �z.. , PLAIVIVIIV(.i DEPT', 4� f ✓f 1 � f'L .r -� zs✓L� �?- -�� z�- � � � f� ���.�- �=1.� •tom. �= "'j't�� Y;!— wit- L�- ...��'�—' L -��� Tf REACH( WORLD° 1NEmESVLrBVEOPIE° Ellen S. Mastman 18951 Saratoga Glen Place Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga City Council Members '� n 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 F8 6 1995 CITY OF SARATOGA 2/2/95 C ITY MANAGER'S OFFICE Dear Council Members: It is my hope that you will heed the recommendation made by the Planning Council on January 25th, and refuse the change the zoning laws to allow the Kosich property to become a commercial development. The resulting noise and congestion can only serve to lower property values in the surrounding neighborhood, reducing sales prices and ultimately reducing tax revenues. If it hurts Saratoga's pocketbook and mars Saratoga's beauty, what possible purpose could it serve? Please remember that the homes now built on property that originally belonged to the Kosiches were built where they are because the area was represented by the seller (i.e.: Kosich family) as a quiet residential area. If the Kosiches turn around and develop their remaining, adjacent property as commercial property they are not keeping their part of the bargain. It is already time - consuming and dangerous to turn onto Saratoga Avenue from my street during many hours of the day because of the huge increase in the flow of traffic moving towards Highway 85. Adding more commercial property in the vicinity can only make matters worse. Thanking you for your time, I am Sincerely yours, Ellen S. Mastman RESOLUTION NO. GPA -94 -002 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY'OF SARATOGA RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT FOR CERTAIN TERRITORY WITHIN THE CITY IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 386 -23 -041, 042 & 059; 12325 SARATOGA AVENUE WHEREAS, the Kosich Construction Company is requesting to amend the General Plan Land Use Element Designation for that portion of Assessor Parcel Numbers 386 -23 -041, 042 & 059 from Medium Density Residential (M -10) land use to Commercial Retail (CR) land use per Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment on January 25, 1995; and WHEREAS, the'Planning Commission determined that the proposed General Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the City; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga recommends denial of the General Plan Amendment to reclassify that portion of APN 386 -23 -041, 042 & 059 from Medium Density Residential (M -10) land use to Commercial Retail (CR) land use, by making the following findings: 0 The reclassification is inconsistent with the Land Use Policies set forth in the Saratoga General Plan and Triangle North Area Plan. • There are no changed circumstances which would make existing Land Use Policies obsolete to recommend approval of said reclassification. The Planning Commission finds that the general community welfare and good planning practices are best served by retaining the existing Medium Density Residential General Plan designation for this property. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, this 8th day of February, 1995 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick & Siegfried NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Caldwell Chairman, Planning Commission ATTEST: A"4 - LIN A-r -&&,A Z P. S c tary to t Plann ng Commission RESOLUTION NO. AZO -94 -001 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR CERTAIN TERRITORY WITHIN THE CITY IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 386 -23 -041, 042 & 059; 12325 SARATOGA AVENUE WHEREAS, the Kosich Construction Company is requesting an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance for that portion of Assessor Parcel Numbers 386 -23 -041, 042 & 059 from Single - family Residential (R- 1- 10,000) to Commercial Neighborhood (C -N) per Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment on January 25, 1995; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that the Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is contingent on approval of the Amendment to the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that the proposed General Plan Amendment is' inconsistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the City; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga recommends denial of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to reclassify.that portion of APN 386 -23 -041, 042 & 059 from Single- Family Residential (R- 10,000) to Commercial Neighborhood (C -N), by making the following findings: • State zoning law requires that Zoning Ordinances be consistent with the jurisdiction's adopted General Plan. • The request to amend the General Plan designation for a portion of -the property from. Medium Density Residential to Commercial Retail has been denied. Therefore, the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance would be inconsistent with the General Plan designation for the property. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, this 8th day of February, 1995 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick & Siegfried NOES: None , ABSENT: Commissioner Caldwell Chairman, Planning \�Cottimission ATTEST: hL"I- )KI A- "A - a- S r tary to theUlanning Commission PLANNING COMMISSIC MINUTES JANUARY 25, 1995 PAGE - 7 - COMMISSIONERS CALDWELUSIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -94-43 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE ROTUNDA ELEMENT OF THE STRUCTURE BE REVISED AND RETURN TO THE COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL AND THAT IT BE REVISED TO BETTER - INTEGRATE WITH THE REST OF THE STRUCTURE USING ANY VARIETY OF ARCHITECTURAL APPROACHES INCLUDING WINDOWS, TEXTURE, DESIGNS MAKING IT LESS OBTRUSIVE AND MAKING IT MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). 5. GPA -94-002 Kosich; 12325 Saratoga Ave.,request for General Plan Amendment AZO- 94-001 in order to redesignate approximately 3 of the 5 acres, from Medium Density Residential (M -10) to Commercial Retail (CR). The request also involves Amending the Zoning Ordinance in order to rezone the 3 acres from R- 1- 10,000 to Commercial Neighborhood (C -N). An Environmental Initial Study, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has been prepared for this project. Community Development Director Curtis explained the General Plan Amendment process. He informed the Commission that this item would need to be continued following receipt of public testimony unless the Commission decides that this request should not be approved or considered further. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that the City has received significant opposition to the proposal from the area residents. The attached exhibit B includes over 40 individual letters and several petitions signed by area residents opposed to the rezoning from single family to commercial. He noted that the proposal is inconsistent with the City's current land use policies for this area given the policies outlined in the staff report for the , "Triangle North Specific Plan" which clearly encourages the retention of existing single family zoned land as single family and discourages amending single family zoning to commercial zoning. Staff has separated the two applications to get a policy reading or direction from the Commission on the General Plan Amendment itself. He informed the Commission that the initial study has identified the potential environmental impacts associated with the zoning change including increased traffic onto Saratoga Avenue, potential increased traffic into the Kosich Drive neighborhood to the west as well as potential light, glare and noise impacts on surrounding homes as a result of commercial activity on this property. Staff does feel that these impacts could be mitigated or reduced to an acceptable level through the measures outlined in the report. The most significant of these mitigation measures would be the possible installation of a signal at the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Kosich Drive. The other mitigations measures are related to the development itself and would include such measures as soundwalls, landscape buffer strips, restrictions on future uses, etc. While staff does feel that these potential impacts could be mitigated, the overall proposal is still inconsistent with the City's land use policies for this property. Unless the Planning Commission can find that amending the General Plan designation and rezoning the property provides a greater benefit to the community as a whole than the current single family designation, staff would not be able to PLANNING COMMISSIO MINUTES JANUARY 25, 1995 PAGE = 8 - _ support th e amendment.- Staff recommended that the Commission receive the report, open the public hearing and take public testimony on the item. If following closing of the public hearing and Commission discussion, the Planning Commission feels that the proposal warrants further review, or the Commission requests additional information before making a decision, staff would request to be directed accordingly and to continue this item to a later appropriate date. However, if the Commission does not feel that the proposal warrants further review, staff would recommend a motion to deny the application this evening; then a denial resolution would be prepared and presented at the February 8 public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried informed the public that the Commission has read every letter in the petition and that the public does not need to repeat its comments. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that staff randomly verified that the letters were from Saratoga residents and that they were not repeated petitions or letters. Commissioner Caldwell commented that several of the letters received addressed traffic problems that currently exist with the existing land use. She commented that it seemed to her that even if the full five acres of the property were proposed to be developed as R -1 10,000 homes, the City would still need to consider a signal at the intersection. She asked if that was a correct assumption. Planner Walgren responded that a traffic signal may be required. If the land developed as single family development it would most likely have internal circulation which would not be contributing directly onto Saratoga Avenue north of the Kosich intersection. Commissioner Caldwell asked if there were things the city could do to address or mitigate the residents concern regarding u -turns with or without development of the Kosich property. Planner Walgren responded that there could be but how significant those might be was hard to say. He stated that part of the problem with putting a left turn lane at that median strip would be the elimination of the left turn pocket that was put in for the residents of Kosich Drive to come out and, wait for traffic to then enter onto Saratoga Avenue north bound. Commissioner Caldwell stated that one of CEQA guidelines available talks about what effects are normally considered significant. Normally, changes to the General Plan and changes to long standing land use polices for a city are considered significant. She asked why an Environmental Impact report was not required for this project. Community Development Director Curtis responded that once the City identifies a potentially significant impact, CEQA requires mitigation of the impact. Mitigation measures can be applied resulting in a mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report being approved. Staff felt that the impacts were limited because of the size of the property and its specific locality. The conditions to be imposed would be in compliance with CEQA. Commissioner Caldwell felt that it would be helpful to let the public know that if they are interested in addressing the Commission, that they focus on the impacts which cannot be mitigated or alleviated to an insignificant level. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he has not had an office in the vicinity within the past two years so he has no connection at all with the property. He stated that he was familiar with traffic patterns of Kosich Drive. PLANNING COMMISSIC MINUTES JANUARY 25, 1995 PAGE - 9 - Chairman.. Asfour opened this item to public hearing at 8:43 p.m. Virginia Fanelli, representing the Kosich family, informed the Commission that Carl Springer from TJKM, the traffic consultant on this project was also present. 'She presented a history of the land owned by the Kosich family. She informed the Commission that the Kosich family were concerned with the development of single homes along a busy major arterial for the city. The Kosich family is aware of the existing General Plan and zoning of the property. She stated that she understands the expectation of some of the residents of Saratoga Woods that this area remain single family residential. She felt that there should be a reevaluation of the adopted goals as they relate to this site. She has read all the correspondence from the neighbors and has met with the neighbors. The concerns identified by the neighbors were as follows: increased traffic at the intersection of Kosich Drive, an increase in illegal u -turns on Kosich Drive by individuals shopping at the Pier One center, noise, economic impact, and the desire of residential development on this site. She stated that the proposal would mitigate existing problems, would preserve and buffer the existing development, and would provide additional revenue to the City. She addressed the traffic and noise mitigation measures to be provided (installation of a traffic signal at Kosich Drive, the installation of a 16 foot high soundwall along the 500 foot frontage of Saratoga Avenue and the installation of extensive planting proposed around the entire project). She noted that allowing commercial development would bring additional revenue to the City where residential development would require more city services. She did not feel that commercial development would impact home values. The issue of the anticipation of the existing residents of Saratoga Woods that this site would be developed as residential was not ignored. Carl Springer, TJKM, traffic consultant, responded to Commissioners Abshire's and Murakami's question by stating that the noise study was completed in October, before Highway 85 was opened and that no studies have been undertaken to confirm the statistics and the scenarios addressed in the study. Commissioner Caldwell asked about the four scenarios listed on page one of the report. She requested clarification of the fourth scenario. Mr. Springer clarified that the fourth scenario meant that the counts taken were existing conditions as of September 1994. "Approved" are any projects in the area that are not occupied as those projects were not contributing traffic to the traffic counts. It was estimated what the traffic. counts would be once they become operational. He also noted that partially occupied development traffic counts were not included. Marcia Fariss, president of the homeowners association, addressed the nine major categories of objections to the commercial development of the site as follows: violation of the General Plan and zoning regulations; lack of need for additional commercial space; lack of compatibility with the stated vision for Saratoga; noise and traffic factors; loss of privacy to the homes immediately adjacent to the project; increased likelihood of crime; an unattractive gateway to the city; and the adverse effect on the neighborhood and the quality of life. She felt that the General Plan was adopted to preserve the residential character of Saratoga. If this property is allowed to rezone as commercial, it would be a betrayal of the General Plan, zoning regulations and the trust in the City's elected and appointed officials. She urged the PLANNING COMMISSIO MINUTES JANUARY 25, 1995 PAGE - 10 - Commission. to deny the rezoning of the property from R -1, 10,000 to commercial. Jim Shaw, 18735 Kosich Drive, member of the Saratoga Homeowners Association, addressed the need for a traffic light at Kosich Drive and Saratoga Avenue due to traffic associated from Highway 185 and that the requirement of a signal light has nothing to do with the proposed commercial development except to exacerbate the already perilous conditions on Saratoga Avenue. He requested that the encroachment of commercial development be stopped. Ray Simpson, 12300 Radoyka Drive, concurred with the traffic safety concerns previously addressed. He supported residential development behind his property as his property backs up directly to the property in question and would not want to have commercial property that close to him. Arthur Bliss, 12430 Curry Court, Member of the Board of Directors for the Saratoga Homeowners Association, stated that it has been indicated that commercial development would be of economic benefit to the City. He requested that the City consider the economic returns in the adjacent El Paso of -San Jose. It is his understanding that each and every tenant is being asked to vacate by August 1. The Planning Commission and the City Council are being asked to uphold the existing guidelines and the due process to consider variations to the General Plan. He clarified that a single, three acre parcel is being considered is an error. The map identifies three parcels and that the area in question, the 3 acres of the total five acres does impact all three parcels. He expressed concern that the Environmental Initial Study has been characterized as having no impact or median impacts and felt strongly that the impacts are such that would require an EIR. Phil Olsen, 18999 Saratoga Glen Pace, member of Saratoga Woods Homeowners Association, stated his opposition of the rezoning of the Kosich property. Any action to rezone the property to anything other than R -1- 10,000 would not be appropriate. In the earlier discussion, it was mentioned by the proponents that Saratoga needed additional commercial space. He shared his findings with his commercial inventory and the available commercial occupancy. He did not feel that there was a need for additional commercial rezoning. Laurie Inserra, 12370 Radoyka Drive, member of the Saratoga Woods Homeowners Association, expressed concern with the effect that the rezoning. would have on property values of existing homes. She stated that she investigated the surrounding -zones prior to purchasing her home and found that residential zoning was designated in the area. She felt that the zone change would alter the premise of which residents invested a significant portion of ones life savings. Zoning regulations are designed to promote public health, safety and welfare of the community. She requested that the Commission deny the zone change in the overall interest of the neighborhood. Mary Jane Karas, 12752 Saratoga Creek Drive, stated that this development has been proposed because the developer does not believe that anyone would want to live along Saratoga Avenue. Currently there are 140 residents that reside along Saratoga Avenue. In PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 25, 1995 PAGE - 11 - addition, 30 more residences will be constructed at the old Paul Mason property. 'Allowing commercial development would encourage further commercial development on Saratoga Avenue at Lawrence Expressway and Cox Avenue. The neighborhood would soon look like Saratoga Avenue between Highway 280 and Lawrence Expressway where homes have been converted to commercial buildings. She recommended that an EIR be completed on this property prior to zone change because of the significant environmental impacts associated with the rezoning of the site. She identified seven reasons that warrant an EIR as follows: conflict with the adopted environmental plans and community goals, induced substantial growth, increased traffic; substantial increase in noise levels; substantially diminishing habitat for wildlife and plans; environment review of direct or indirect substantial effects on human beings; and socio - economic effects. She felt that only if there are environmental impacts which clearly can be mitigated can the lead agency prepare a mitigated negative declaration. Marie LaForge, 19920 Westview Drive, stated her concurrence with the previous speaker. She added that the problem with noise and the idea that a soundwall could be built does not mitigate noise as has been evidenced with the soundwalls built along Highway 85. She did not agree with the concept that commercial development would be appropriate along the heavily traveled Saratoga Avenue. Robin Maybury, 12440 Curry Court, member of the Saratoga Woods Homeowners Association, stated his support to Mr. Olsen's statement regarding the existing surplus commercial vacancies. He brought to the Commission's attention the vision for Saratoga, specifically Goal 10 which states: "to plan,for an attractive, well maintained and well planned community". He requested that the Commission maintain the adopted goal. He requested that the City maintain and preserve Saratoga's beauty and deny the zone change. Bob James, 12315 Obrad Drive, addressed the grief that this proposal has caused. He felt that the proposal was an intrusion in the rights of people who bought their homes based on the fact that a plan was in place. Many of the residents feel that changing the plan from residential to retail commercial would be a violation to the zoning concept. Regarding the comment made earlier that the adjacent property was zoned commercial, he noted that the property was not part of Saratoga. He also requested that the zoning proposal be denied. Morris Jones, 19472 Riesling Court, representing the Saratoga Area Homeowners Association, stated that the homeowners join with the members of the Kosich neighborhood homeowners association in opposition to this proposal. He listed the concerns of the homeowners as follows: 1) opposed to a process that changes the general- plan through amendments, the general plan was developed to meet the desire of the community, the general plan should not be changed by individuals who have their own desires and needs in place; 2) concern with Saratoga Avenue because it is a major thoroughfare and for the safety of residents; and 3) the impact on the neighborhood itself. The whole Saratoga area has been impacted by the freeway. He requested that the City take a holistic view of the entire Saratoga Avenue area to ensure that it is well cared for. The homeowners association believes that there is no such thing as a zero impact commercial area. The amount of retail space requested would require significant traffic -and circulation' flow to make this area a successful business area. Yet there is a significant amount of vacant commercial property PLANNING COMMISSIO' MINUTES JANUARY 25, 1995 PAGE - 12 - available... There is no reason to change the general plan to create additional commercial area. He requested that this application be denied. John Lundell, 18951 Ansley Place, charter member of the Saratoga Woods Homeowners Association, stated his opposition to the rezone due to traffic and noise impacts. In addition, he felt that the Kosich family was breaking faith with the nearby property owners because they built many homes near this property. The Kosich family now wants to rezone this property to increase their profits and create a negative impact to the nearby homeowners. He stated that the applicant argued that this property should not be zoned R -1 because of the impact of noise from Saratoga Avenue. He reminded the Commission that the City has approved the construction of ninety-two homes on the Paul Mason property adjacent to the new freeway. He addressed a broader concern that he and his neighbors had regarding the temptation of city officials to broaden the tax base of the city by converting the area on the other side of the freeway to an area to the other side of the railroad tracks. He does not want to see that happen and urged the Commission to deny the application and to keep faith with the residents who lived there for many years and retain the R -1 zoning designation. Bob Silverstein, 12441 Curry Court, clarified that the petition covered 340 homes of the 380 homes in Saratoga Woods. Ms. Fanelli felt that it was important to remember that the comments as stated by the neighboring residents have been reviewed and have been kept in mind. In land use planning, the developer must be cognitive of current situations. However, land use planners need to look to the future and what the impacts of future development would be on current development and future users or inhabitants. Her concerns are for the current problems which exist on Saratoga Avenue and Kosich Drive and for the future residents who would be backing onto Saratoga Avenue. Marcia Fariss commented that Ms. Fanelli stated that this property was at the border of San Jose and Saratoga. She clarified that this property was located in Saratoga. Ms. Fanelli has indicated that there were changes to circumstances that could possibly allow the Commission to reconsider zoning. She noted that the neighborhood has not changed at all and probably has improved since the 1950s. The installation of a traffic single at Kosich and Saratoga Avenue would back up traffic to Lawrence Expressway and would impact all traffic trying to get out the Pier One area. She supported the recommendation that the traffic study be updated to include the impacts associated with Highway 85. She did not see a logical reason to approve a rezone of the area. THE COMMISSION RECESSED AT 9:28P.M.THE COMMISSION RECONVENED AT 9:42 p.m. Chairman Asfour requested that staff explain the options available to the Commission this evening. City Attorney Riback informed the Commission that it can discuss this issue further this evening to decide how it should proceed. The Commission can either 1) continue this matter and direct staff to prepare the appropriate environmental review; continue this item PLANNING COMMISSIO' MINUTES JANUARY 25, 1995 PAGE - 13 - to receive additional information (i.e.,traffic studies, etc.); or take action to recommend City Council denial of the project proposal. He informed the Commission that the action taken on the general plan and zoning amendments would be a recommendation to the City Council. ` COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ABSHIRE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:45 P.M. Commissioner Abshire commented that he has listened to public comments. He indicated that there does not appear to be a good reason to change the zoning. The zoning was designated for the area following thoughtful consideration many years ago. If there was a need for additional commercial zoning, he would see a reason for making a zone change. The evidence presented this evening indicates that there is an abundance of vacant commercial properties. He stated that he did not see any reason to change the zoning laws. Commissioner Patrick stated her opposition to the request. It proved to her that Saratoga was incorporated to differentiate itself from San Jose due to its lack of planning or the fact that it was turning itself to commercial. She felt that this was a border and defining line between Saratoga and San Jose. She felt that it was important to show the difference between Saratoga and San Jose and stated her support for retaining the residential zoning designation. Commissioner Caldwell commented that the applicant's representative stated that the property owner took into consideration the overall goals of the General Plan and the long range vision of Saratoga. It became clear to her after reviewing all the material going back to the General Plan, that the applicant has turned his back on the vision for Saratoga that was spelled out so clearly. Saratoga is different from San Jose and that Saratoga was fundamentally a residential community. The long range vision statements that appear in the General Plan, in particular for this area, is one that the applicant wants to change. She felt that there were a number of negative impacts associated with the proposal that the applicant has made including serious public safety issues, vandalism and crime, traffic hazards, serious public and private nuisance issues, noise, odors, and health issues associated with trash and the parking lot. These were dismissed as being ones that can be mitigated. In viewing other commercial areas adjacent to residential areas indicates that the City cannot enforce rules, hours of operation, etc., that would work to the residents' benefit. She felt that the residents spoke eloquently about city vision and how the community should finish building out the community. She agreed that there was an over abundance of commercial vacancies in Saratoga and beyond Saratoga's border in the immediate area. She agreed that property values would decrease if this property is converted to commercial and that it was important to uphold the policies that have been set forth in the General Plan that states that we need to make the gateways to the city indicative of what the city is and what it is all about, a community of residents. Ms. Fanelli stated that the request needs to be looked at purely from a planning stand point. Commissioner Caldwell felt that Ms. Fanelli has done that, but that she has forgotten the human element involved. She recommended that the proposal be rejected. PLANNING COMMISSIO: MINUTES JANUARY 25, 1995 PAGE - 14 - Commissioner Murakami stated that he appreciated that the speakers were organized in the manner that the material was submitted to the Commission for its review and consideration. The discussion was not repetitive and found that the speakers had various reasons to voice their disapproval for the project. He did not see a need for additional commercial zoning. He stated that he has noticed that Highway 85 already has changed traffic patterns and future traffic patterns would be worse than seen now. He did not believe that the noise study addressed the impact of Highway 85. He recommended that a study be conducted to improve the Kosich area to improve the existing problems. He concurred with Commissioner Caldwell's recommendation for denial of the requests. Commissioner Siegfried commented that when he heard that this request was coming before the Commission that it would be a difficult matter, but it turned out to be a simple matter. He indicated that he has served on the Planning Commission off and on since 1978. He was the Chairman of the General Plan Citizens Committee who put together the City's last major revision to the General Plan. For a change to occur, you would have to find that there have been changes in the circumstances. He did not believe that anything has changed to warrant a change to commercial. The General Plan was adopted which designates this area as residential. He did not want to open the gate to extend commercial all the way down Saratoga Avenue to the freeway. He stated his opposition to the request. Commissioner Kaplan concurred with the comments as expressed by her fellow Commissioners. She thanked the homeowners for the decorum and the focus of the presentation. Chairman Asfour congratulated the public for not repeating what was previously stated. He stated that he did not see a clear and present need to change the general plan to accommodate the applicant's request for commercial designation for that lot. He supported rejection of the plan. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /MURAKAMI MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING REQUEST. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). Community Development Director Curtis informed the public that a resolution recommending City Council denial would be scheduled as a consent item for the Commission's February 8 meeting. The item would then be scheduled for City Council public hearing at a future date and would be advertised for public hearing. 6. DR- 94-051 - Bean; Heritage Oak, request for Design Review approval to construct DR -94 -052 - five one -story single family residences ranging in size from 4,497 to DR- 94-053 - 4,542 sq. ft. pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject DR- 94-054 - parcels are located within the Oden Subdivision which will be accessed DR- 94-055 - from a new cul -de -sac off Saratoga Ave. and are within the R- 1- 20,000 zoning district. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 8, 1995 PAGE - 2 - Caldwell /Siegfried moved to direct staff to prepare a resolution approving the proposal which includes approval of the two signs and the guard house making the variance findings that due to the physical txnsEr;tli properties of the neighborhood... . THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER CALDWELL ABSENT. ORAL COMMUNICATION No comments were offered. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 3, 1995. Technical Corrections to Packet Planner Walgren reported that there were two corrections as follows: Item No. 1, the zoning change should be in resolution form and has so been corrected. Item No. 3, Lester /Von Dorsten, 14120 Saratoga Avenue, applicant has requested that this item be continued indefinitely. Staff supports the request because it allows the city to have the map and the design of the new homes reviewed simultaneously by the Heritage Preservation Commission. Staff will send out new public notices to the adjoining properties within 500 feet and readvertise the item for a later date. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the 3 -29 -95 expiration date as listed on the agenda. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the 3 -29 -95 date reflects the time limit that the City has according to state law and the Permit Streamlining Act. Staff is able to extend that date up to 90 days if the applicant requests the City to do so. The applicant has requested the 90 day extension so the new expiration date is June 29, 1995. Should the application not be ready to proceed by the June 29, 1995 date, the City would need to agendize the item and have it heard and recommend denial of the application based on inactivity and the lack of resubmittal. A new application would then need to be filed if that is the case. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. GPA -94 -002 Kosich; 12325 Saratoga Ave., request for General Plan Amend - AZO- 94-001 ment in order to redesignate approximately 3 of the 5 acres, from Medium Density Residential (M -10) to Commercial Retail (CR). The request also involves Amending the Zoning Ordinance in order to rezone the 3 acres from R -1- 10,000 to Commercial Neighborhood PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 8, 1995 PAGE - 3 - (C -N). An Environmental Initial Study, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has been prepared for this project. (Cont. from 1/25/95 to - prepare and adopt denial Resolutions). 2. V -94 -024 - Vineyards of Saratoga Homeowners Assoc.; Saratoga Ave. at Hwy. 85, request for Variance approval to allow an 8 ft. tall soundwall along the Saratoga Ave. frontage of the Vineyards of Saratoga townhomes. The subject property. is located at the northwest corner of Saratoga Ave. and Hwy. 85 and is within a Residential Multiple - Family zoning district. (Cont. from 1/25/95 to amend and adopt the approval Resolution). -------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN /PATRICK MADE A MOTION TO MOVE AGENDA ITEM 3 (SD- 94- 002/DR- 94- 011 /DR -94 -012 TO THE CONSENT CALENDAR BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER CALDWELL ABSENT. 3. SD- 94-002 - Lester /Von Dorsten; 14120 Saratoga Avenue, request for Tentative DR -94 -011 - Parcel Map and Design Review approvals to subdivide a 1.3 acre parcel DR- 94-012 - into separate parcels and to construct two new single - family residences. The subject property is an interior parcel located within an R- 1- 20,000 zoning district. (Cont. from 1/25/95 at the request of the applicant; application expires 3/29/95). COMMISSIONER KAPLAN /MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1, 2 AND 3 (CONTINUING AGENDA ITEM 3 INDEFINITELY) BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER CALDWELL ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. DR -94 -050 - Lewis; 18581 McCoy Ave., request for Design Review approval to construct a 1,768 sq. ft. first and second story addition to an existing 1,348 sq. ft. single story residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is approximately 12,400 sq. ft. and is located within an R -1- 10,000 zoning district. (Cont. from 1/25/95 at the request of the applicant; application expires 5/4/95). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Staff indicated its support of a two story home in this particular site but recommended that the applicant revise the plans to bring the height down, to spread the home out a little bit, and to emphasize the horizontal, reducing the emphasis on the vertical so that it better integrates with the neighborhood. Staff requested Commission indication as to whether there was an agreement with staff's recommendation. File No. GPA -94 -002 & AZO- 94 -601; 12325 Saratoga Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMRY CASE HISTORY• Application filed: 6/17/94 Application complete: 12/28/94 Notice published: 1/11/95 Mailing completed: 1/12/95 Posting completed: 1/05/95 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for General Plan Amendment in order to redesignate approximately 3 of the 5 acres from Medium Density Residential (M- 10) to Commercial Retail (CR) . The request also involves Amending the Zoning Ordinance in order to rezone the 3 acres from R-1-10,000 to Commercial Neighborhood (C -N) . An Environmental Initial Study, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , has been prepared for this project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive the staff report and open the public hearing to take testimony and begin discussion regarding the request. If additional information is required and /or questions arise throughout discussion, direct staff accordingly and continue the public hearing. If the Planning Commission makes a decision on the project, direct staff to prepare the appropriate Resolutions. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analyses 2. Environmental Initial Study 3. Traffic and Noise Impact Analysis 4. Correspondence, Exhibit "B" S. Plans, Exhibit "A" File No. GPA -94 -002 & AZO -94 -001; 12325 Saratoga Avenue STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential (M -10) PARCEL SIZE: 5 acres AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: level 14 Zkom5C•4 �Mel #*6f *XK0Jk1V The subject property consists of three separate parcels totaling approximately 5 acres. One parcel is a 2.18 acre flag lot and the other two are interior lots with site areas of 1.15 and 1.70 acres. All three parcels are located within an R- 1- 10,000 zone district. Presently existing on site are two single- family residences and several accessory structures. The remainder of the site consists of an old, non - productive walnut orchard. This orchard is a remainder of a much larger orchard which was removed to allow for the construction of the surrounding residential development. The property is located at the northeast boundary of the City, which is contiguous to the City of San Jose's boundary. Surrounding sites consists of.residential uses to the south, west and portions of the north, and commercial uses to the northeast. Proposal: The applicants proposal for a General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendment, involving 3 out of the 5 acres, is requested to amend the land use designation and zoning in order to construct a commercial structure on the subject property. The remaining 2 acres would remain single- family residential. Staff has also received a Tentative Map application to subdivide the three (3) existing parcels into five (5) individual lots (SD- 94 -004) and a Design Review application to construct two commercial buildings (DR -94 -029). Staff has expressed concern regarding the proposed lot configurations indicated on the Tentative Map, and has equal concerns regarding the design of the proposed commercial building. However, staff feels that it is first necessary to determine if the City will permit the Amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance prior to continuing staff's review of the remaining two applications. Therefore, the Planning Commission's review is limited to the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA -94 -002), the Amendment to the ?` File No. GPA -94 -002 & AZO- 94 -0b1; 12325 Saratoga Avenue Zoning Ordinance (AZO -94 -001), and the Environmental Initial Study at this time. Planning Procedures and Rectuirements: General Plan The procedure for amending the General Plan requires public. hearings before both the Planning Commission and the City Council. The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing before approving a recommendation on an amendment to the General Plan. The Commission shall make a written recommendation for approval, conditional approval, or disapproval of the proposal to the City Council. The Council shall also hold at least one public hearing for the proposed General Plan amendment, and may approve, modify, or disapprove the recommendation from the Commission. However, any substantial modification proposed by the Council not previously considered by the Commission during its hearings, shall first be referred back to the Planning Commission for its recommendation. If the Council decides to approve the request, an amendment to the General Plan shall be made by Resolution. Zoning Ordinance - The review and approval process for an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is the same as that governed for General Plan Amendments. However, any change of the boundaries of a zoning district, or any reclassification from one district to another, may be subject to conditions which must be satisfied before the amended ordinance becomes effective, such as placing conditions on the proposed project limiting certain uses which are determined to cause greater impacts on the adjoining residential properties. The Commission may also condition the project to require the construction of the proposed commercial buildings within a limited time period. If construction did not, commence prior to the expiration of the set time, the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendment approval would expire. In addition, the land use designation amendment would be limited to this specific development; if this project was not built, the amendment would be rescinded and the property would revert back to single - family residential zoning. General and Specific Plan Goal Statements: The property is located within the Triangle North Area as identified in the City's General Plan According to the guidelines for area development, the site shall remain zoned R- 1- 10,000, single - family detached residential. In order to evaluate the applicant's proposal, the following policies and goal statements derived from the City's Land Use � - File No. GPA -94 -002 & AZO -94 -001; 12325 Saratoga Avenue Element of the General Plan should be considered. It will be necessary to amend the General Plan text as well as the land use designation for the project to proceed. LU 4.2 Non - residential development shall be confined to sites presently designated on the General Plan for non- residential uses. Existing non - residential zoning shall not be expanded nor new non - residential zoning districts added. LU 6.0 Relate new development and its land uses to presently planned street capacities so as to avoid excessive noise, traffic, and public safety hazards... LU 6.2 Proposed land uses and development proposals shall be evaluated against ordinance standards to assure that the related traffic, noise, light, appearance, and intensity of use have limited adverse impact on the area. LU 7.0 LU 7.1 LU 8.0 LU 8.1 Land Use: Promote the long -term economic soundness of the City government through careful analysis of land use decisions and fiscal practices. The City shall consider the economic impacts of all land use decisions on the City. Affirm that the City shall continue to be predominately a community of single - family detached residences. Existing non - developed sites zoned single - family detached residential should remain so designated. The property is currently zoned R- 1- 10,000, single - family residential. Uses which are permitted within this zoning district are the following: * Single - family dwellings * Accessory structures * Raising of fruit and .horticultural specialties * Home occupations * Stables and corrals * Swimming pools nut trees, vegetables and Uses which are conditionally permitted within this zone district, upon the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit, are the following: * Community facilities File No. GPA -94 -002 & AZO- 94 -0DI; 12325 Saratoga Avenue * Institutional facilities * Police and Fire stations, and other public facilities * Religious and charitable institutions * Nursing homes and day care facilities * Public utility and service pumping stations *. Recreational court facilities * Boarding and community stables * Cemeteries * Parking lots 'Staff has recognized that there are many uses which could occupy the subject property, both permitted and conditional, without modifying the zoning classification. Based on the existing policies contained in the General Plan, it would appear that the most appropriate use for the site should remain single - family. Although this obviously is preferable to the area residents who have responded to the proposal, there are several noted disadvantages. Noise associated with traffic on one of the City's major arterial thoroughfares would cause negative impacts to residences which abut Saratoga Avenue. A solution to minimize noise would be to construct a 500 foot long sound wall along the entire eastern property line. Although this would help to mitigate noise, locating a relatively lengthy wall along an arterial street, near a main entrance to the City, may not be aesthetically acceptable. Another noted disadvantage would be the creation of residential sites which front Saratoga Avenue. Proper ingress and egress onto a busy street may create safety concerns. Amending the General Plan designation and the Zoning Ordinance to allow commercial development also contains several advantages and disadvantages. One advantage would be an increase to the City's economic base through the creation of commercial development. Another advantage to this proposal would be the creation of services within walking distance to the surrounding neighborhood. Convenience stores and retail establishments could possibly prove beneficial to this area of the City. The types of uses allowed to exist within the proposed commercial complex and the conditions under which future tenants conduct business, could be monitored and controlled through the mitigation measures of a Negative Declaration. Further, a commercial complex fronting Saratoga Avenue would serve as a sound buffer between the arterial street and the adjacent, rear residential properties. There are also disadvantages of locating a commercial complex in proximity to residential uses. The disadvantages are a result of the use itself such as the increase in traffic and noise impacts associated with commercial activity, an increase in light and glare from the complex's lighting system, and the adjoining neighbors concern of diminished property values associated with a commercial building in proximity to residential structures. File No. GPA -94 -002 & AZO- 94 -0bl; 12325 Saratoga Avenue Alternative Zoning: Staff's review of the application has focused primarily on the applicant's proposal (the creation of a commercial complex) and the neighbors' preference (the continuation of single- family residential development). However, if the Planning Commission is going to consider a zoning change, there may be other land . uses more suitable for this site which justify equal consideration. Alternative land uses the City may wish to consider for comparison purposes are the following: * Multi- family residential * Senior housing * Professional and administrative offices. Environmental Review: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project requires environmental impact review. The CEQA process requires that the potential adverse effects upon private and public .projects be reviewed by decision makers. In order to determine what impacts may occur, an Environmental Initial Study has been completed by staff and is attached for review. Based on this review, staff found that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because conditions of approval, in the form of mitigation measures, would be implemented. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration could be supported. According to the CEQA guidelines, the City shall have the responsibility for determining whether an Environmental Impact Report or a Negative Declaration shall be required. for any project An Environmental Impact document which assesses have on the environmen effects of such a pro alternatives to such a F is a document which esta of conditions /mitigation which it has adopted it effects on the environr effects the project is the increase in traffic concerns and an increa: potential impacts, and a: has recommended the Declaration. Report is cletinect as an intormational :he effect a proposed project is likely to lists ways in which the significant sect might be minimized, and indicates roject. A Mitigated Negative Declaration olishes a monitoring program, in the form measures, for the changes to-the project order to mitigate or avoid significant ent. Staff has identified the obvious ikely to have on the environment such as and circulation, noise impacts, privacy e in light and glare. Based on these discussed within the Initial Study, staff preparation of a Mitigated Negative File No. GPA -94 -002 & AZO -94 -601; 12325 Saratoga Avenue The anticipated mitigation measures identified so far for the proposed project include: * Traffic Signal located at the intersection of Kosich Drive and Saratoga Avenue to correct existing and minimize future traffic and circulation problems; * Sound wall which would be constructed around the perimeter of the commercially zoned parcel to minimize noise and safety concerns; * Landscapincq which would be installed adjacent to the sound wall to further minimize noise impacts; * Condition specific uses which have the potential to emit objectionable odors and create noise; and * Light and glare could be minimized by limiting commercial use hours of operation, limiting light intensities, and controlling their placement. Correspondence: Staff has received numerous letter and petitions expressing objection to the proposal. These are attached as Exhibit "B" for review. SUMMARY The General Plan and Specific Plan Goal Statements, as articulated in the City's Land Use Element, is specific in that it confines non - residential development to sites presently designated as such. It further specifies that existing non - developed sites zoned for single - family detached residences should remain so designated. On the other hand, land'use policies and goal statements exist which allow for the promotion of long -term economic soundness of the City through careful analysis of land use decisions and fiscal practices. Staff has identified advantages and disadvantages to both the existing zoning and the proposed zoning to help facilitate the Commission's consideration. State planning laws require the City to evaluate its General Plan from time to time to determine if previously 'adopted Goals and Policies are still effective. The area needs to be evaluated to determine if there are "changed circumstances" present which makes previously adopted Land Use policies still applicable or whether amendments are warranted. While staff feels that the proposed commercial rezoning and development could be adequately mitigated to minimize impacts on adjoining properties, the proposal is clearly contrary to the City's Land Use policies for the Triangle North area. Unless the Planning Commission can find that the General Plan Amendment and Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance provide a greater community benefit which would warrant amending the General Plan, staff would be unable to recommend approving the proposal. S II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over - crowding of the soil? X 00003'; CITY OF SARATOGA CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (TO BE COMPLETED BY PUBLIC AGENCY) PROJECT: Kosich FILE NO: GPA -94 -002'& AZO -94 -001 LOCATION: 12325 Saratoga Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent: Kosich Agent: Virginia Fanelli 2. Address and phone number of Proponent: Kosich Construction Company 12280 S. Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, Suite 205 Saratoga, CA 95070 Ph: (408) 252 -3615 (Agent) Virginia Fanelli Consulting 10052 Pasadena Avenue, Suite B Cupertino, CA 95014 Ph: (408) 996 -8188 3. Date of Checklist submitted: 6/17/94 4. Agency requiring Checklist: City of Saratoga .5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: N/A II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over - crowding of the soil? X 00003'; 2 YES MAYBE NO C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X d. e. f. a The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of a lake? X Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud - slides, ground failure or similar hazards? Air. Will the proposal result in: a. 0 X Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X The creation of objectionable odors? X The rezoning of the subject property to a commercial land use would allow commercial uses which may have the potential to emit objectionable odors J e.g. restaurants, dry - cleaners, etc.) . Because Use Permits are- considered "discretionary approvals", a restaurant use, for example, may not be deemed an appropriate use for this location. On the other hand, if a restaurant use is approved, conditions may be placed on the project to ensure that the public's health, safety and welfare are protected. Because other uses are considered "permitted uses ", they could still be conditioned as mitigation measures of a Negative Declaration. 00003!'• YES MAYBE NO C. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements in fresh water? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X The construction of a conmercial building on the vacant parcel will require the construction of substantial impervious coverage improvements in order to accommodate construction of the main building, driveways, and the parking lot. However, a drainage system will be constructed in order to divert the majority of surface water into storm drains located on Saratoga Avenue. In addition, the site is proposed to have landscaped areas which will allow natural absorption of surface water. C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X d. Change in the amount of surface water or any water in any water body? X e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow or ground waters? X 0000315) YES MAYBE NO g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations ?` X h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as 'flooding? X j. Significant changes in the temperature, flow, or chemical content of surface thermal springs? X 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result .in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass crops, and aquatic plants)? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? X C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? ►,4 X The proposal will require the removal of a non - productive walnut orchard. The applicant has informed staff that this orchard is a remainder of a much larger orchard which was removed to accommodate construction of the surrounding neighborhoods. 00043, 5 M 7. YES MAYBE NO Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish, or insects)? X b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? X c. Introduction of new species of animals. into an area or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X d. Deterioration to existing wildlife or fish habitat? X Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X The construction of a commercial building may increase existing noise levels associated with the.types of uses which will occupy the site. To mitigate these concerns, conditions should be placed on the project which would limit noise intensive-uses and /or uses which require late night operation. Other noise producing sources such as delivery and garbage trucks can be minimized by requiring the applicant to identify specific delivery and pick -up locations on site which would minimize impacts to surrounding properties. Perimeter landscaping should also be installed to further minimize potential noise impacts. b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X i0000 " M 0 10 The proposal will require the construction of external light sources in order to provide lighting for the parking lot, signage and the building. These light. sources, however, could be minimized by limiting commercial use hours of operation, limiting light intensities, and controlling their placement. Perimeter landscaping would also serve as a buffer between the commercial and residential land uses in order to shield or reflect light away sensitive areas. YES MAYBE NO Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X The proposal will result in the reclassification of an existing residential land use to a commercial land use. Although the proposed commercial use will be in a residential area within the City of Saratoga, the proposal would be an extension of existing commercial land uses located along Saratoga Avenue within the City of San Jose. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited -- to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions. X b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? X 00003' YES MAYBE NO 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? ` X 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? X 13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of , substantial additional vehicular movement? X Although the proposal will generate additional vehicular traffic on Saratoga Avenue, a condition of approval to require the signalization of the intersection at Rosich Drive and Saratoga Avenue could be a solution to control traffic and relieve ingress and egress problems. b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X The construction of a commercial building will require parking for both customers and employees. However, all of this parking will be located on site and will not require the construction of additional off -site parking facilities. C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? X d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? X The construction of a light signal at the intersection of Rosich Drive and Saratoga Avenue would alter the movement of people in that ingress and egress onto Saratoga Avenue, from Rosich Drive, would be made safer than that served by existing facilities. 00003`` YES MAYBE NO e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X The construction of a commercial building on the subject property would involve an increase in automobile traffic within this area of the City. However, a condition requiring the signalization of the intersection at Kosich Drive and Saratoga Avenue should minimize traffic hazards. Pedestrian circulation should also be made easier in that signalized cross -walks would be constructed at the subject intersection. 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? X C. Schools? X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X f. Other governmental services? X 15. Enercly. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X 000040) YES MAYBE NO 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities? a. Power or natural gas? X b. Communications system? X— C. Water? X d. Sewer or septic tanks? X e. Storm water drainage? X f. Solid waste and disposal? X 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view. open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of, or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archeological site? X 00004? YES MAYBE NO b:. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? X C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic culturalvalues? X d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance: a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short - term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? (A short -term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long -term impacts will endure well into the future) . X C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant). X d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X 0000.4°' The City has received numerous letters of opposition to the proposed project from citizens within the surrounding residential neighborhoods. They have all indicated that the project would have direct and indirect negative impacts to their properties and themselves. Conditions placed on the project such as signalizing the intersection of Rosich Drive and "Saratoga Avenue, limiting hours of operation, constructing sound walls, planting perimeter landscaping, and reducing external light sources may minimize the potentially affected neighbor's concerns. III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION While acknowledging that the proposed amendment to the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance will allow for the construction of a commercial building within a residential neighborhood, staff does not find that there will be a substantial adverse environmental impacts.. Rather, noted impacts associated with a commercial development on the property such as increased traffic, noise, light and glare, and increased surface water runoff can all be mitigated to an acceptable level through conditions of approval. IV. DETERMINATION: DATE: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described herein have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. SIGNATURE For: Paul L. Curtis, Community Development Director 000043 LNTmnspomfion Consulhnb A Traffic Study of the Kosich Property Proposed Retail Development In the City of Saratoga OCTOBER 1994 OCT 8 81994 .PLANNING DEPT. P L E A S A N T O N • S A C R A M E N T O • F R E S N O • S A N T A R O S A TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ...... ............................... 1 Introduction..................... ............................... 1 Summary....................... ............................... 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................... 4 RoadwayNetwork ................. ............................... 4 Level of Service Analysis Methodology .. ............................... 4 Results of Level of Service Analysis .... ............................... 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .............. ............................... 13 LandUse ....................... ............................... 13 Level of Service Analysis ............ ............................... 13 ACCESS AND CIRCULATION .......... ............................... 15 Driveway Access Description ......... ............................... 15 Left-tum Access ................... ............................... 15 Inbound..................... ............................... 15 Outbound............... ............................... ... 15 Construction Traffic Impacts ............................... ......... 16 MITIGATION MEASURES ............. ............................... 17 STUDY PARTICIPANTS AND RF.FERENcES .............................. 18 TJKM Personnel .................. ............................... 18 Persons Consulted ........... ............................... .. 18 APPLENDICES A Description of the Intersection Analysis B Results of the Intersection Analysis Existing Conditions C Results of the Intersection Analysis Existing (w/Route 85) Conditions D Results of the Signal Warrant Analysis E Results of the Intersection Analysis Existing (w/Route 85) plus Project Conditions F Results of the Intersection Analysis Existing plus Approved plus Project Conditions 8 PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS .. ............... .................. Project Description ............ .................. .,............. 8 Trip Generation and Assignment ....... ............................... 8 Level of Service Analysis ...... . .... ............................... 8 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .............. ............................... 13 LandUse ....................... ............................... 13 Level of Service Analysis ............ ............................... 13 ACCESS AND CIRCULATION .......... ............................... 15 Driveway Access Description ......... ............................... 15 Left-tum Access ................... ............................... 15 Inbound..................... ............................... 15 Outbound............... ............................... ... 15 Construction Traffic Impacts ............................... ......... 16 MITIGATION MEASURES ............. ............................... 17 STUDY PARTICIPANTS AND RF.FERENcES .............................. 18 TJKM Personnel .................. ............................... 18 Persons Consulted ........... ............................... .. 18 APPLENDICES A Description of the Intersection Analysis B Results of the Intersection Analysis Existing Conditions C Results of the Intersection Analysis Existing (w/Route 85) Conditions D Results of the Signal Warrant Analysis E Results of the Intersection Analysis Existing (w/Route 85) plus Project Conditions F Results of the Intersection Analysis Existing plus Approved plus Project Conditions TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLES I Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Existing Conditions ............... 5 II Project Trip Generation ........................................... 8 III Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Existing (with Route 85) plus Project Conditions..................... ............................... 12 IV Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Cumulative Scenario .............. 13 FIGURES 1 Vicinity Map ................... ..............................2 2 Existing Traffic Volumes ........... ............................... 6 3 Existing Traffic Volumes with Route 85 . ............................... 7 4 Proposed Site Plan ............... ............................... 9 5 Project Trip Distribution Assumptions .. ............................... 10 6 Existing Traffic Volumes (with Route 85) plus Project ..................... 11 7 Existing Traffic Volumes (with Route 85) plus Approved plus Project ........... 14 INTRODUCTION AND SUINMARY Introduction This report presents the results of TJE3rs traffic impact analysis of the proposed retail development to be located north of Saratoga Avenue in the City of Saratoga. The study area is illustrated in Figure 1. The study was conducted in accordance with the requirements set by the City of Saratoga and the Santa Clara County Transportation Authority (SCCTA). The traffic analysis focused on the impact generated by the project on the nearby roadway system. Off-site traffic impacts were evaluated at three study intersections, listed below: • Lawrence Expressway/Saratoga Avenue • Bucknall Road/Saratoga Avenue • Cox Avenue/Saratoga Avenue Four scenarios were addressed in the study: • Existing Conditions - Current (1994) traffic volumes and roadway conditions. • Existing with Route 85 - Current (1994) traffic volumes redistributed to account for the effect of the planned opening of Route 85 (October 1994). • Existing plus Project (with Route 85) - Identical to the Existing plus Project (with Route 85) scenario but with traffic added from the development of the proposed project, • Existing plus Approved plus Project (with Route 85) - Existing land use conditions plus future traffic from approved but unbuilt or unoccupied development near the project in the cities of San Jose and Saratoga. Summary In general, it was found that the project will have no significant impacts to level of service at the study intersections. However, the following mitigation measures are recommended in conjunction with the construction of the proposed project: • It is recommended that the southwest approach to the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Kosich Drive be modified to provide a narrowed three -foot median, an eleven -foot U -turn pocket (100 feet in length), a 13 foot inside through lane, and a 15 foot outside through and right -turn lane. It is recommended that a smooth striping transition be provided back to the intersection of Saratoga Avenue with Lawrence Expressway and that the striping be upgraded and enhanced to more clearly delineate the existing lane drop. Traffic Study of the Page 1 Kosich Property Proposed Retail Development Draft Report TJKM Transportation Consultants October 10, 1994 Vllr VI VCQI aLU a Kosich Property TIS Figure Vicinity Map y 43011 . 9G4. K2 North Not to Scala v TJKM Future operational deficiencies were identified at the intersections of Saratoga Avenue with Cox Avenue and Bucknall Road that may require future improvements but are unrelated to the development of the proposed project.. -Often, new development is assigned -a portion of improvement costs commensurate with its projected share of traffic at an improvement location. The projected weighted peak hour proportion of traffic attributable to the proposed project is 0.25 percent at the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Cox Avenue; it is 0.30 percent at the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Buclmall Road. Traffic Study of the Page 3 Kosich Property Proposed Retail Development Draft Report TJKM Transportation Consuftants October 10, 1994 EXISTING CONDITIONS Roadway Network The proposed project and the surrounding area are illustrated in Figure 1. Important roadways serving the project area are discussed below. Lawrence Expressway is a six lane north -south expressway that, provides access to much of the City of San Jose. . Saratoga Avenue is an east -west arterial that .provides access to much of the cities of Saratoga and San Jose. In the vicinity of the proposed project, Saratoga Avenue is four to six lanes in width. State Route 85 is a major north -south freeway scheduled to be completed in October 1994. In the vicinity of the project, State Route 85 will have an interchange on Saratoga Avenue. Level of Service Analysis Methodology The City of Saratoga's level of service standard is Level of Service (LOS) D. Therefore, LOS D is used as the standard of significance in this traffic study. The operating conditions at signalized study intersections were evaluated using the CAPSSI intersection analysis software based on the "Operations method contained in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Appendix A contains a detailed description of the 1985 HCM methodology. Peak hour intersection conditions are reported as delay estimates with a corresponding levels of service. Level of service ratings are qualitative descriptions of intersection operations and are reported using an A through F letter rating system to describe travel delay and congestion. Level of Service (LOS) A indicates free flow conditions with little or no delay and LOS F indicates jammed conditions with excessive delays and long back -ups. At unsignalized intersections,, level of service was evaluated using the 1985 HCM Unsignalized Intersections analysis methodology. The method ranks level of service on an A through F scale similar to that used for signalized intersections, but uses "reserve capacity" as its measure of effectiveness.. The methodology is described in detail in Appendix A. Results of Level of Service Analysis TJKM conducted peak hour turning movement counts at the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road during the week of September 12, 1994. Existing peak hour turning movements at the remaining study intersections are taken from previously published data. In addition, the effects of the planned opening of State Route 85 (with an interchange at Saratoga Avenue) were evaluated. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the existing peak hour turning movements for the three study intersections with and without State Route 85. The signalized study intersections are currently operating at acceptable levels of service. With State Route 85 open, the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Cox Avenue is projected to operate at LOS E during the a.m. peak hour. The currently unsignalized intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road is operating at unacceptable levels of service during both peak hours and is projected to continue to operate at unacceptable levels with Route 85 Traffic Study of the Page 4 Kosich Property Proposed Retail Development Draft Report TJKM Transportation Consuftants October 10, 1994 open. The peak hour turning movement volumes at the intersection satisfy Caltrans' peak hour warrants for traffic signalization for existing conditions with and without State Route 85. Appendices B and C contain detailed calculations of the existing level of service analyses. Appendix D contains the signal warrant calculation sheets. The results of the- intersection analysis are summarized in Table I for existing conditions both with and without State Route 85.. Table I- Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - ExistinLr Conditions Note: * = Average Vehicle Delay (seconds) for signalized intersections; Reserve Capacity for 2 -way STOP- controlled intersections; and Traffic Study of the Page 5 Kosich Property Proposed Retail Development Draft Report TJKM Transportation Consuftants October 10. 1994 Without Route 85 With Route 85 A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Intersection Control * LOS * LOS * LOS * LOS 1 Lawrence Expressway/ Signal 28 D 24 C 30 D 24 C Saratoga Avenue 2 Bucknall Road/ 2 -way Saratoga Avenue STOP • NB Approach -110 F -5 F -123 F -132 F • SB Approach -7 F 48 E 16 E 55 E • EB Left 249 C 160 D 351 B 139 D • WB Left 38 E 215 C. 29 E 283 C 3 Cox Avenue/ Signal 30 D 27 D 54 E 35 D Saratoga Avenue Note: * = Average Vehicle Delay (seconds) for signalized intersections; Reserve Capacity for 2 -way STOP- controlled intersections; and Traffic Study of the Page 5 Kosich Property Proposed Retail Development Draft Report TJKM Transportation Consuftants October 10. 1994 G2 •�`� /i I ' --- -�. - PRaBPECrRD. + W ; Project- -wo site cc - - - - -- z COX AVE. 3 ' Sri Juw • ,� /eb I Lf i2 lit o �o LEGEND North XX A.M. Peak Hour Volumes Not to Scale (XX) P.M. Peak Hour Volumes City of Saratoga Kosich Property TIS Figure Existing Traffic Volumes 2 4"11 -WW -U v TJKM I PROSPECT RD. COXAVE. W ¢W 4 �8 Project -'► Site t� , , rit FIA �SA` z S �~ LL RD, ]�! San,br Srakp� I O � a tit g y, 4 1 %y tRi , LEGEND North XX A.M. Peat Hour Volumes Not to Scale (XX) P.M. Peat Hour Volumes City of Saratoga Figure Kosich Property TIS Existing Traffic Volumes (with Route 85) 3 4ao11 •Qf" -K2 'PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS Project Description The project. consists of a 30,000 square -foot retail use and four single - family homes on approximately 3 acres. Figure 4 illustrates the preliminary site plan for the proposed project. Per direction from City staff, the traffic analysis focused solely on the impacts of the retail portion of the project. Access to the retail parcel is proposed via a single driveway on Saratoga Avenue. Trip Generation and Assignment The project is expected to generate 1,200 daily trips, 36 during the a.m. peak hour'and 108 during the p.m. peak hour. The trip generation assumptions for the project are based on information contained in San Diego Trip Generators. The estimates include "pass -by " assumptions which quantify the amount of vehicles already travelling on adjacent roadways that will access the project (in contrast to completely new trips). Based on the type of facility proposed and the amount of traffic on Saratoga Avenue, a pass -by rate of 20 percent (p.m. peak hour only) was assumed. Therefore, the project is expected to generate 91 net new trips during the p.m peak hour. Table II illustrates the estimated trip generation for the proposed project. Table II: Project Trip Generation Use size Daily A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In-Out In Out Tat Rate In-Out In Out Tat Retail 31.796 40 1,272 12 60:40 23 is 38 3.6 50:50 57 57 114 ksf Pau -by .11 .12 ' .23 (2o %) TOTAL 23 15 38 46 45 91 Notes: Retail trip rate fnxn San Diego Trip Generators. San Diego Association of Goverment:, "Specialty Retail" category. Project trip distribution assumptions were developed based on existing travel patterns, knowledge of the study area, and information contained in previous traffic studies. Figure 5 illustrates the trip distribution assumptions for the proposed project. Level of Service Analysis Figure 6 illustrates the projected turning movement volumes for Existing (with Route 85) plus Project conditions. Under this scenario, no impacts to level of service are projected at the three study intersections beyond those projected under the Existing (with Route 85) scenario. However, the intersections of Saratoga Avenue with Cox Avenue and Bucknall Road are expected to continue to operate at unacceptable levels of service (with Saratoga Avenue/Bucknall Road continuing to warrant signalization). Traffic Study of the Page 8 Kosich Property Proposed Retail Development Draft Report TJKM Transportation Consultants October 10, 1994 vO I LOLLY OR. .L 1\ SARATOGA AVE. City of Saratoga Kosich Property TIS Wall Buildings '6 Sq. F! [I] To Saratoga Station Shopping Center ,- ' Parking Lot Figure Proposed .Site Plan 4 *0 North Not to scale v TJKM Study Intersection . City of Saratoga Kosich Property TIS Figure Project Trip Distribution Assumptions 5 43.011 -SW -Q . C TJKM r22% G2 . < I 15 %�/ _ -_- - ?ROSPECran__- % % 15% + ku WW �8 Project -�►� ' site � 1 13% 2 2% L L I H COX AVE. I I 9 f15% tit g t i3•,6 , 5% LEGEND N North � N Not to Scale City of Saratoga Kosich Property TIS Figure Project Trip Distribution Assumptions 5 43.011 -SW -Q . C TJKM Jb PROSPECT RD. � s ,�• fir► /'�'�. + W �8 Project -�► - j ' 9 site _ � � 1 2 COXAVE. f 3 � ' g - - --J I ;� �t� LEGEND North XX A.M. Peak Hour Volumes Not to Scale. (XX) P.M. Peak Hour Volumes City of Saratoga Figure IN Kosich Property TIS Existing Traffic Volumes (with Route 85) plus Project 6 4UII -� -Q During the peak hours, the project constitutes approximately 0.25 percent of the Saratoga Avenue/Cox _ Avenue traffic and 0.30 percent of the Saratoga Avenue/Bucknall Road traffic under this scenario. Table III summarizes the results of the level of- service analysis for this scenario. Detailed calculations are contained in Appendix E. Table III: Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Existing (with Route 85) plus Project Conditions Note: • = Delay for signalized intersections; Reserve Capacity for unsignalized intersections. Traffic Study of the Page 12 Kosich Property Proposed Retail Development Draft Report TJKM Transportation Consuftants October 10, 1994 Existing (with Route 85) Existing (with Route 85) plus Project Intersection -AM. Peak P.M. Peak A.M. Peals P.M. Peak Hour Hour Hour Hour • LOS • LOS • LOS • LOS 1 Lawrence/Saratoga 30 D 24 C 30 D 24 C- 2 Bucknall/Saratoga • NB Approach =123 F -132 F -123 F -132 F • SB Approach 16 E 55 • E 16 E 54 E • EB Left 351 B 139 D 350 B 137 D • WB Left 29 E 283 C 29 E 279 B 3 Cox/Saratoga 54 E 35 D 54 E 1 35 D- Note: • = Delay for signalized intersections; Reserve Capacity for unsignalized intersections. Traffic Study of the Page 12 Kosich Property Proposed Retail Development Draft Report TJKM Transportation Consuftants October 10, 1994 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Land Use Cumulative traffic growth data are based on information published for recent traffic study efforts near the proposed project in the City of Saratoga.' The Approved plus Project scenario includes the following approved project: • Kerwin Ranch - this development consists of 16 single family dwelling units, located at the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Fruitvale Avenue southwest of the proposed project. Level of Service Analysis Figure 7 illustrates the projected turning movement volumes for Existing (with Route 85) plus Approved plus Project conditions. Under this scenario, no impacts to level of service are projected at the three study intersections beyond those projected under the Existing (with Route 85) scenario. As under the Existing (with Route 85) plus Project scenario, two study intersections are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service; again, these projected deficiencies are not attributable to development of the proposed project. Table IV summarizes the results of the level of service analysis for this scenario. Detailed calculations are contained in Appendix F. Table IV: Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Cumulative Scenario Note: = Delay for signalized intersections; Reserve Capacity for unsignalized intersections. Draft Traffic Impact Analysis for the Proposed Greenbriar Residential Development, DES Associates, August 1994. Traffic Study of the Page 13 Kosich Property Proposed Retail Development Draft Report TJKM Transportation Consultants October 10, 1994 Existing (with Route 85) Existing (with Route 85) plus Project Existing (with Route 85) plus Project plus Cumulative Intersection A.M. Peak P.M. Pear A.M. Peale P.M. Peale A.M. Peak P.M. Peale Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour • LOS • LOS • LOS • LOS • LOS ' LOS I Lawrence/ 30 D 24 C . 30 D 24 C- 30 D 24 C- Saratoga 2 Bucknall/ Saratoga • NB App -123 F -132 F -123 F -132 F -123 F -132. F • SB App 16 E 55 E 16 E 54 E 16 E 54 E • EB Left 351 B 139 D 350 B 137 D 349 B 136 D • WB Left 29 E 283 C 29 E 279 B 29 E 278 B 3 Cox/Saratoga 54 E 1 35 D 54 E 1 35 D- 55 E 1 35 D- Note: = Delay for signalized intersections; Reserve Capacity for unsignalized intersections. Draft Traffic Impact Analysis for the Proposed Greenbriar Residential Development, DES Associates, August 1994. Traffic Study of the Page 13 Kosich Property Proposed Retail Development Draft Report TJKM Transportation Consultants October 10, 1994 , !; G T T � I , i PR06PECT RD. i W � i Project --q�� site LL RD. I�\ COXAVE. lit g - - - - -J t LEGEND XX A.M. Peak Hour Volumes t10 (XX) P.M. Peak Hour Volumes Not to Scale City of Saratoga Kosich Property TIS Figure Existing Traffic Volumes (with Route 85) 7 + Approved Projects + Project umlu lv i TJKM ACCESS AND CIRCULATION Driveway Access Description The primary. project driveway is proposed on Saratoga Avenue approximately 540 feet west of Lawrence Expressway (approximately 330 feet west. of the existing Saratoga Station driveway). The 50 -foot driveway will consist of one 20 -foot entrance lane, one 20 -foot exit lane, and a 10 -foot solid island. The proposed entrance throat is 50 feet deep. A secondary ac&Wconnection is proposed via the existing Saratoga Station shopping center parking lot adjoining the project site's eastern boundary. The connection will enable the proposed project and the Saratoga Station to operate as a single shopping center in terms of traffic and pedestrian circulation and will maximize convenience for users of the two centers. Left -turn Access Inbound Currently, a solid median prevents any left -turns from Saratoga Avenue between Lawrence Expressway and Kosich Drive. The projected peak hour demand from the southwest on Saratoga Avenue is very light (3 vehicles during the a.m. peak, 7 during the p.m. peak); these vehicles will be able to make a U -tum at Lawrence Expressway and enter the project via a right turn. Additional left -tum treatment will not be necessary due to the light volumes. Outbound The existing solid median also prevents left -turns out of all properties along Saratoga Avenue between Lawrence Expressway and Kosich Drive. Under existing controls, motorists exiting the proposed project wishing to travel northeast on Saratoga Avenue will need to tum right out of the site and make a U -turn on Saratoga Avenue. U -turns are prohibited at both Kosich Drive and Westview Drive; the nearest legal U -tum location is at Bucknall Road. Because of the distance to Bucknall Road (almost one -half mile), it is expected that many motorists may decide instead to complete an illegal U -turn at Kosich Drive or to turn into Kosich Drive, make a U -turn there, and turn left out of Kosich Drive onto Saratoga Avenue. Based on the project trip distribution assumptions, the majority of the motorists exiting the project (a maximum of 39 vehicles during the p.m. peak hour) will wish to travel northeast on Saratoga Avenue. Therefore, U -turn treatment at Kosich Drive would be beneficial to increase both safety and convenience. The southwest -bound travel way on Saratoga Avenue approaching Kosich Drive is currently striped for two travel lanes (a 20 -foot outside lane and a 15 -foot inside lane) and a 7 -foot median. To provide a U- turn pocket at the intersection, the median could be narrowed to 3 feet and Saratoga Avenue could be restriped to provide an 11 -foot U -tum pocket, a 13 -foot inside through lane, and a 15 -foot outside through lane. It is recommended that the U -tum pocket be 100 feet in length A smooth transition would need to be provided back to Lawrence Expressway; there is sufficient width on Saratoga Avenue to do so. In fact, the existing striping on this section of Saratoga Avenue is faded and should be upgraded to provide more clarity for the drop for three to two lanes as well as the "free" right turn from Lawrence Expressway. Traffic Study of the Page 15 Kosich Property Proposed Retail Development, Draft Report TJKM Transportation Consurtants October 10, 1994 Construction Traffic Impacts At the time of this report, the exact nature of construction traffic related to the proposed project (in terns of duration, hours of operation, and projected volumes) was unknown by the applicant Traffic Study of the Kosich Property Proposed Retail Development TJKM Transportation Consultants 4;.. Page 16 Draft Report October 10, 1994 MITIGATION MEASURES Based on the issues raised in previous sections of this report, the following mitigation measures are recommended in conjunction with the construction of the proposed project: It is recommended that the southwest approach to the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Kosich Drive be modified to provide a narrowed three -foot median, an eleven -foot U -turn pocket (100 feet in length), a 13 foot inside through lane, and a 15 foot outside through and right -turn lane. It is recommended that a smooth striping transition be. provided back to the intersection of Saratoga Avenue with Lawrence Expressway and that the striping be upgraded and enhanced to more clearly delineate the existing lane drop. Future operational deficiencies were identified at the intersections of Saratoga Avenue with Cox Avenue and Bucknall Road that may require future improvements but are unrelated to the development of the proposed project. Often, new development is assigned a portion of improvement costs commensurate with its projected share of traffic at an improvement location. The projected weighted peak hour proportion of traffic attributable to the proposed project is 0.25 percent at the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Cox Avenue; it is 0.30 percent at the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road. Traffic Study of the Page 17 Kosich Property Proposed Retail Development Draft Report TJKM Transportation Consultants October 10, 1994 STUDY PARTICIPANTS AND REFERENCES TJKM Personnel: Carl D Springer, Project Manager Christopher S. Kinzel, Transportation Engineer Robert Frazier, Assistant Transportation Engineer Geri Foley, Graphics Specialist Phyllis Portik, Word Processor Persons Consulted: Ms. Virginia Fanelli, Fanelli Consulting Mr. Dewey Kosich, Kosich Construction Mr. James Walgren, Planning, City of Saratoga Mr. Lary Perlin, City Engineer, City of Saratoga Ms. Winnie Pagan, City of San Jose Mr. Mark Spencer, DKS Associates Ms. Michelle Lohr, DKS Associates Traffic Study of the Page 18 Kosich Property Proposed Retail Development Draft Report TJKM Transportation Consurtants October 10, 1994 cat �-_ - L•+F �cW+S.� ".. ._ .. . .,y �r " �,, .a':l'*- rY-'s1- a..4•���pvr'�++ ���`{�m�f'�T -a : �`• - _ � R rNO r , DESCRIPTION OF SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS 1985 HCM OPERATIONS METHOD Background The operations method of intersection capacity analysis found in Chapter 9, "Signalized Intersections," of the Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report No. 209, Transportation Research Board, 1985, was used for this study. This method is used in most analyses of existing conditions or of future situations in which traffic, geometric, and control parameters were well established by projections and trial designs. This method addresses the capacity and level of service of intersection approaches, and the level of service of the intersection as a whole. In this method, capacity and level of service are evaluated separately, and are not related to each other in a simple one -to -one fashion. Capacity is evaluated in terms of the ratio of demand flow rate to capacity (volume -to- capacity ratio), while level of service is evaluated on the basis of average stopped delay per vehicle (sec /veh). The .capacity of the intersection as a whole is not addressed by this method; the design and signalization' of intersections focuses on the accommodation of the major movements and approaches comprising the intersection. Capacity is. therefore, only meaningful as applied to these major movements and approaches. Capacity analysis results in the computation. of volumc -to- capacity ratios for individual movements and a composite volumc -to- capacity ratio for the sum of critical movements or lane groups within the intersection. The volume -to- capacity ratio is the actual or projected rate of flow on an approach or designated group of lanes during a peak 15- minute interval divided by the capacity of the approach or designated group of lanes. Level of Service Level of service is based on the average stopped delay per vehicle for various movements within the intersection. While volume -to- capacity affects delay, there are other parameters that more strongly affect it, such as the quality of progression, length of green phases, cycle lengths, and others. Thus for any given volume -to- capacity ratio, a range of delay values may result, and vice - versa. See the table "Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections" for the relationship between the level of service and stopped delay per vehicle. Because delay is a complex measure, its relationship to capacity is also complex. It is possible, for example, to have delays in the range of Level of Service F while the volume -to- capacity ratios is below 1.00, perhaps -as low as 0.75 -0.85. Very high delays can occur at such volume -to- capacity -ratios when some combination of the following conditions exists: the cycle length is long; the lane group in question has a long red time; and /or the signal progression for the subject movement is poor. The reverse is also possible. A saturated approach or lane group with a volume -to- capacity equal to 1.00 may have low delays if the cycle length is short, and /or the signal progression is favorable for the subject movement. Acceptable delays levels do not automatically ensure that capacity is sufficient. The analysis must consider the results of the capacity analysis module and the level of service module to obtain a complete picture of existing or projected intersection operations. Thus, the designation of Level of Service F does not automatically imply that the intersection, approach, or lane group is overloaded, nor does a level of service in the A to E range automatically imply that there is unused capacity available. The procedures of this methodlogy require the analysis of both eccapacity and level of service conditions to fully evaluate the operation of a signalized intersection. Input Data - The input data necessary to use this methodology are: • lane geometrics • traffic volumes • signal timing • vehicle type distribution •. percent grade • pedestrians • peak hour factors • parking activity • arrival type per approach Reference: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report No. 209, Transportation Rcscarch Board, 1985. hcmopsig.app Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Level of Service Type of Flow Delay Maneuverability Stopped Delay/ Vehicle (sec) A Stable Very slight delay. Progression is Turning movcmcnts are easily <_ 5.0 Flow very favorable, with most made, and nearly all drivers vehicles arriving during the green find freedom of operation. phase and not stopping at all. B Stable Good progression and/or short Vehicle platoons are formed. 5.1 -15.0 Flow cycle lengths. More vehicles Many drivers begin to fee stop than for LOS A, causing somewhat restricted within higher levels of average delay, groups of vehicles. C Stable Higher delays resulting from fair Back -ups may develop behind 15.1 -25.0 Flow progression and/or longer cycle turning vehicles. Most lengths. Individual cycle failures drivers feel somewhat may begin to appear at this level. restricted. The number of vehicles stopping is signii- icant, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. D Approaching The influence of congestion Maneuverability is severely 25.140.0 Unstable becomes more noticeable. limited during short periods Flow Longer delays may result from due to temporary back ups. some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume -to- capacity ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. E Unstable Generally considered to be the There are typically long 40.1 -60.0 Flow limit of acceptable delay. queues of vehicles waiting Indicative of poor progression, upstream of the intersection. long cycle lengths, and high volume -to- capacity ratios. Individual cycle failures are (request occurrences. .F Forced Flow Generally considered to. be . Jammed conditions. Back > 60.0 unacceptable to most drivers.' f ups from other locations Often occurs with oversaturation. restrict or prevent movement. May also occur at high volume- Volumes may vary widely, to- capacity ratios. There arc depending principally on the many individual cycle failures. downstream back -up Poor progression and long cycle conditions. lengths may also be major contributing factors. References: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report No. 209, Transponation Research Board. 1985. Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report No. 87, Highway Research Board, 1%5. TJKW. loscsi.ub DESCRIPTION OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS UNSIGNALIZED METHOD Background The method of unsignalized intersection capacity analysis used in this_study is from Chapter 10, "Unsignalized Intersections" of the Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report No. 209, Transportation Research Road, 1985. This method applies to two -way STOP sign or YIELD sign controlled intersections (or one -way STOP sign or YIELD sign controlled intersections at three -way intersections). At such intersections, drivers on the minor street are forced to use judgment when selecting gaps in the major flow through which to execute crossing or turning maneuvers.. Thus, the capacity of the controlled legs of an intersection is based on two factors: I. The distribution of gaps in the major street traffic stream. 2. Driver judgment in selecting gaps through which to execute their desired maneuvers. It is assumed that gaps in the traffic stream are randomly distributed. For this reason, the methodology will be less reliable in situations in which the conflicting flows are strongly platooned, as would be the case at many urban intersections where the major street is part of a signalized network. This method assumes that major street traffic is not affected by minor street flows. This assumption is generally good for periods when the operation is smooth and uncongested. (When congestion occurs, it is likely that major street traffic will experience some impedance due to minor street traffic.) Left turns from the major street are assumed to be affected by the opposing major street flow, and minor street traffic is affected by all conflicting movements. Input Data The general procedure to calculate the level of service is as follows: 1. Define existing geometric and, volume conditions for the intersection under study. 2. Determine the conflicting traffic through which each minor street movement and the major street left -turn must cross. 3. Determine the size of the gap in the conflicting traffic stream needed by vehicles in each movement crossing the conflicting traffic stream. 4. Determine the capacity of the gaps in the major traffic stream to accommodate each of the subject movements that will utilize these gaps. 5. Adjust the capacities found to account for impedance and the use of shared lanes. 6. Compute the reserve, or unused, capacity for each minor street movement by subtracting the total volume or flow rate using the lane (in passenger cars per hour) from the lane's capacity. Gaps are utilized by vehicles in the following priority order. 1. Right turns from the minor street 2. Left turns from the major street 3. Through movements from the minor street 4. Left toms from the minor street For example, if a left - turning vehicle on the major street and a through vehicle from the minor street are waiting to cross the major traffic stream, the first available gap of acceptable size would be taken by the left - turning vehicle. The minor street through vehicle must wait for the second available gap. In aggregate terms, a large number of such left - turning vehicles could use up so many of the available gaps that minor street through vehicles are severely impeded or unable to make safe crossing movements. Level of Service See the following table "Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections" for the relationship between reserve capacity, delay and level of service. Caution should be used in the interpretation of the levels of service. They are stated in general terms, without specific numeric values. It is, therefore, not possible to directly compare an unsignalized level of service with a signalized level of service in terns of specific delay values without collecting data directly at the subject site. The levels of service described for this methodology are not associated with the delay values cited for signalized intersections in Chapter 9. LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE DELAYS >_ 400 A Little or no delay 300-399 B Short traffic delays 20b - 299 C Average traffic delays 100- 199 D Long traffic delays 0-99 E Very long traffic delays * F ` * When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be encountered along with queuing which may cause severe congestion and affect other traffic movements at the intersection. This condition usually warrants improvement to the intersection and /or a change in the type of traffic control. Reference: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Repot 209, Transportation Research Board. 1985 hcm•uns.app � �t•x° cvi�t� t .t — � } '. Mai: _� Wit• .. - APPENDIX B Results of the Intersection Analysis Existing Conditions �r rtk - C A P S S I 08-05.94 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION • CITY OF SARATOGA 1994 EXISTING CONDITIONS SOLUTION USING PREDETERMINED CYCLE TIMES FLN:SARALAWR SARATOGA/LAWRENCE A.M Peak Hour Scenario 1 Movement EBT ESL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 40 sees X X Phase 2- 19 secs X X X X Phase 3 - 5 secs X X Phase 4- 26 secs X X X X Phase 5 - 0 sees Phase 6 - 0 secs Critical Mvint -rr rrrr rrrr rrrr rrrr Peak 15 Vol -vph 935. 647 10 371 54 297 563' 270 17 1329 50 387 Saturation -vph 5550 1750 Shrd 3800 1750 1750 5700 1750 1750 5700 3200 1750 Lost time -see 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Relative Sat 'X' 0.90 0.88 - 0.37 0.93 0.64 0.52 0.37 0.05 0.87 0.47 0.83 Effective Gr -sec 17 38 - 24 3 24 17 38 17 24 3 24 Move Time -sec 19 40 - 26 5 26 19 40 19 26 5 26 Min /Ped Time -sec 20 5 - 20 5 20 20 5 20 20 5 20 Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AvDelay /veh -sac 35 26 20 . 97 24 25 14 23 28 35 32 Level of Service D D+ - C- F C- D+ B- C• D+ D D Av.101/ lane veh 6 9 - 3 2 5 4 4 0 8 1 7 Veh Stopping % 98 92 - 81 100 88 90 68 82 96 98 94 Do Veh Clear 9 YES YES - YES NO YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) a 28 Level of Service a D+ Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (see) a 31 Level of-Service a D - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) a 0.88 Predetermined Cycle Length is 90 seconds (Min. times say not be satisfied) r CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based con Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual C A P S I 08 -05-94 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS P06GRAN FOR A SINGLE'SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION • CITY OF SARATOGA 1994 EXISTING CONDITIONS SOLUTION USING PREDETERMINED CYCLE TIMES FLN:SARALAWR SARATOGA/LAWRENCE P.N Peak Hour Scenario 2 Movement EBT ESL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR MST MBL NBR Phase 1 - 30 secs X X Phase 2- 21 secs X X X X Phase 3 - 9 sees X Phase 4- 30 secs X X X X Phase 5 - 0 secs Phase 6 - 0 secs Critical Mvmt -•* *•** •••* •'•* •' *• Peak 15 Vol -vph 679 317 31 869 103 386 882 409 42 489 112 295 Saturation -vph 5550 1750 Shrd 3800 1750 1750 5700 1750 1750 5700 3200 1750 Lost time -sec 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2:00 2.00 Relative Sat 'X' 0.61 0.58 - 0.74 0.76 0.71 0.73 0.75 0.11 0.28 0.45 0.54 Effective Gr -sec 19 .28 - 28 7 28 19 28 19 28 7 28 Move Time -sec 21 30 - 30 9 30 21 30 21 30 9 30 Min/Ped Time -sec 20 5 - 20 5 20 20 5 20 20 5 20 Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 _1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AvDelay /veh -sec 25, 21 - 23 45 24 27 25 22 18 31 20 Level of Service D+ C- - C- E+ C- D+ D+ C- C+ D C- Av.'o'/ lane veh 5 5 - 7 2 7 6 7 1 3 1 5 Veh Stopping % 90 84 - 89 98 88 93 90 81 75 96 83 Do Veh Clear 7 YES YES - YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 24 Level of Service C- Critical Movements- Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 26 Level of Service = D+ Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.74 Predetermined Cycle Length is 90 seconds (Min. times may not be satisfied) • CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based an Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual ., LOS Software by TJKM asaasszaaasaaaasssassss aaaaasassss aass::: assaasasasasaasaaszsassasasassa Condition: A.M. Existing 10/03/94 aaaaa :ssassassss aaaa: aaaaasssassaaasssaaaassasaaassasaaassasasassansazaa INTERSECTION 2 Bucknall Road/Sarstogs Avenue Saratoga Count Date Time Peak Hour ------------------•...------------------------------------.....--------- 85 HCM Unsignal AREA POP. <250,000 i IO 12 N/S CONTROL: STOP E/W CONTROL: NONE A A SPEED:N /S =25,E/W =45 14 -- 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 -- 1365 - - -> 2.1 (NO. OF LANES) 2.1< - -- 1084 43 - -- 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 - -- 112 1 " - > I v v CRITICAL GAP ADJUST LEFT THRU RIGHT NB 0.0 0.0 0.0 SB 0.0 0.0 0.0 EB 0.0 - -- - -- WB 0.0 - -- ... N W + E 2 0 30 SIGNAL WARRANTS: S Urb=Y, RuraY ssssasaasassaasassaaasa :aaaa :aass sass: sa s :asaaasaaasssasaaasasasasaasss RIGHT RIGHT ACCEL % X PEAK HOUR X TURN TURN LANE % COMBO MOTOR --- -FACTOR ---- GRADE ANG<60 RAD 3,50 FOR RT SU /RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT NB 0.0• N N N 0 0 0 0.95 0.95 0.95 SB 0.0 N N N 0 0 0 0.95 0.95 0.95 EB 0.0 - - 0 0 0 0.95 0.95 0.95 WB 0:0 - - 0 0 0 0.95 0.95 0.95 sansaaassaasasasasaaassaaaaaaasaaasasaaasasaaasasssasaaaaasasaaaaas :aaaa OR1G ADJ ADJUSTED POTENTIAL ACTUAL RESERVE. MOVEMENT VOL' VOL CRIT GAP CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY LOS NB LEFT (L) 21 24 7.90 52 14 - - -- - THRU (T) 0 0 7.40 64 18 ---- - RIGHT (R) 130 151 6.10 153 153 - - -- - L+T +R 151 175 - - -- - - -- 65 -110 F ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SB LEFT (L) 2 2 7.90 52 0 - - -- - THRU (T) 0 0 7.40 64 18 - - -- - RIGHT (R) 4 5 6.10 238 238 - - -- - L +T +R 6 7 .... 0 .7 F EB LEFT (L) 14 16 5.80 265 265 249 C WB LEFT (L) 112 130 5.80 168 168 38 E saasaaaassss: :saaaaaaa: sass: saasaaasassss :asssasssaasaaasasaassasaaaasaa INT=KOS -EX. INT, VOL aKOS -EX.AMV,CAP =C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM asassassssasss :asa :aa: aaaa: sas: sasaasaaaaaaas :ssaassaaaasaa :aaa :aaaaas :s Condition: P.M. Existing 10/03/94 assasas aaaaa as: asaaaaaaasaaasaassasassasaa :ssasaassassaasss :saasaaaasas INTERSECTION 2 Bucknell Road/Saratoga Avenue Saratoga Count Date Time Peak Hour 85 HCM Unslgnal AREA POP. <250,000 I1 I 1 A N/S CONTROL: STOP E/W CONTROL: NONE SPEEO:N /S=25,E/W=45 814 - - -> 2.1 (NO. OF L 27 - -i 1.1 1.1 1.1 v < -.. I 1.1> kNES) 1:1> I 1.1 ! -- 7 CRITICAL GAP ADJUST 2.1<--- 1380 LEFT THRU RIGHT NB 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 i -- 133 SB 0.0 0_0 0.0 EB 0.0 v WB 0.0 --- --- N W + E 2 1 94 SIGNAL WARRANTS: S Urb=Y, Rur =Y sassaaaseszeaazasaaasazaaaassaaaas saaaaaaa :saaasaaaaaa :sasasaaassssaaaas RIGHT RIGHT ACCEL X X PEAK HOUR % TURN TURN LANE % COMBO MOTOR ---- FACTOR- --- GRADE ANG <60 RAD >50 FOR RT SU /RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT NB 0.0 N N N 0 0 0 0.95 0.95 0.95 SB 0.0 N N N 0 0 0 0.95 0.95 0.95 EB 0.0 - - - 0 0 0 0.95 0.95 0.95 WB 0.0 - - - 0 0 0 0.95 0.95 0.95 aaaasaas saaaaaaa aaaaa: aaaaa: ssaasasaasssaasaaaasaaasasaaasssaasszsasaaaa ORIG ADJ ADJUSTED POTENTIAL ACTUAL RESERVE MOVEMENT VOL VOL GRIT GAP CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY LOS NB LEFT (L) 20 23 7.90 52 33 - - -- - THRU (T) .1 1 7.40 64 41 - --- - RIGHT (R) 94 109 6.10 341 341 . - -- - L +T +R 115 133 - - -- - - -- 128 .5 F ............................. ---------........... =...................... SB LEFT (L) 1 1 7.90 52 25 ---- - THRU (T) 1 1 7.40 64 41 - - -- RIGHT (R) 2 2 6.10 154 154 - - -- - L +T +R 4 4 - - -- .... 52 48 E --------------------------------------------- ---- ---- -=- -------- ........ EB LEFT (L) 11 13 5.80 173 173 160 D ------------------------------------------- ----- ------- --- --- --- -- ------ WB LEFT (L) 133 154 5.80 369 369 215 C aaassasaaaaaassssaa aass: anaaaaazaaassssasssssasaaaasaassaaa :assassassaaa INT= KOS- EX. IMT, VOL =KOS-EX.PMV,CAP =C:..LOSCAP.TAB I: C A P S S I 08 -08 -94 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION • CITY OF SARATOGA 1994 EXISTING CONDITIONS SOLUTICN USING PREDETERMINED CYCLE TIMES FLN:SARACOX SARATOGA /COX A.M Peak Hour Scenario 1 Movement EBT ESL EBR SOT SOL SBR WBT WBL WBR NOT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 17 sees X X Phase 2- 47 secs X X X X Phase 3 - 24 secs X X X Phase 4 - 32 secs X X X Phase 5 - 0 secs Phase 6 - 0 sees Critical Mvmt -•• •••• •••* •••* •••• Peak 15 Vol -vph 957 165 59 144 343 91 682 96 174 262 79 60 Saturation -vph 3650 '1750 'Shrd 3650 Shrd 1750 3650 1750 Shrd 1750 1750 Shrd Lost time -sec 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 - 2.00 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 2.00 - Relative Sat 'X' 0.74 0.75 - 0.73 - 0.28 0.63 0.44 - 0.74 0.18 - Effective Gr -sec 45 15 - 22 - 22 45 15 - 30 30 - Move Time -sec 47 17 - 24 - 24 47 17 - 32 32 - Min /Ped Time -sec 20 5 - 20 - 20 20 5 - 20 20 - Frog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 .1.00 1.00 1.00 - AvDelay /veh -sec 26 48 - 38 - 32 24 38 - 36 27 - Level of Service D+ E - D- - D C- D- - D- D+ Av.'O'/ lane veh 11 5 - 7 - 2 9 3 - 8 2 - Veh Stopping % 87 97 94 86 82 93 - 92 79 - Do Veh Clear t YES YES - YES - YES YES YES YES YES - Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (see) a 30 Level of Service a 0 Critical Movements - Weighted iv Delay (sec) a 32 Level of Service a D is " - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) a 0.74 Predetermined Cycle Length is 120 seconds (Min. times may not be satisfied) • CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based in Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual C A P S S 1 08 -08-94 CCMPRENENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR / SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION • CITY OF SARATOGA 1994 EXISTING CONDITIONS SOLUTION USING PREDETERMINED CYCLE TIMES FLN:SARACOX SARATOGA /COX P.M Peak Hour Scenario 2 Movement EST ESL EBR SST SBL SBA UST WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 12 secs X X Phase 2- 57 secs X X X X Phase 3 - 20 sees X X X Phase 4 - 31 secs X X X Phase 5 - 0 secs Phase 6 0 sees I � I Critical Mvmt-•• •'•• m* •s•• •rr• Peak 15 Vol -vph 651 106 68 229 184 140 1016 98 217 204 124 111 Saturation -vph 3650 1750 Shrd 3650 Shrd 1750 3650 1750 Shrd 1750 1750 Shrd Lost time -see 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 - 2.00 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 2.00 - Relative Sat 1XI 0.43 0.73 0.75 - 0.53 0.74 0.67 0.74 0.29 - Effective Gr -sec 55 10 - 18 - 18 55 10 29 29 - Move Time -sec 57 12 - 20 20 57 12 - 31 .31 - Min/Ped Time -sec 20 5 - 20 - 20 20 5 - 20 20 Prop Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 ' - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 AvDelay /veh -see 17 52 - 41 - 37 21 48 37 28 - Level of Service C+ E - E+ - D- C- E - D- D+ - Av.1O1/ lane veh 6 3 - 6 - 4 11 3 8 3 - Veh Stopping ,% 67 98 96 92 82 97 - 92 82 Do Veh Clear ? YES YES - YES - YES YES YES - Yac Yce - Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) a 27 Level of Service ■ D+ Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) a 29 level of Service a D+ Is " - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) a 0.74 Predetermined Cycle Lenith is 120 seconds (Min. times may not be satisfied) • CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based c-n Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual T x - d yak.- 'r VgU Neqaf r -:: a_ _ y ta _ APPENDIX C Results of the Intersection Analysis Existing (w /Route 85) Conditions i � - T C A P S S I 08 -08 -94 CCMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR / SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION • CITY OF SARATOGA ROUTE 85 NO PROJECT SOLUTICN USING PREDETERMINED CYCLE TIMES FLN:SARALAWR SARATOGA/LAWRENCE A.M Peak Hour Scenario 3 Movement EST EBL EBR SBT SSL SBR WBT WBL WBR MST NBL NBR Phase 1 - 44 secs X X Phase 2- 21 secs X X X X Phase 3 - 4 secs X X Phase 4- 22 secs X X X X Phase 5 - 0 secs Phase 6 - 0 secs Critical Mvmt-'• •••' •••' ffff ffff Peak 15 Vol -vph 1056 730 10 185 27 148 593 285 18 1115 42 325 Saturation -vph 5550 1750 Shrd 3800 1750 1750 5700 1750 1750 5700 3200 1750 Lost time -sec 2.00 2.00 o 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Relative Sat 'X' 0.92 0.90 - 0.22 0.70 0.38 0.50 0.35 0.05 0.89 0.60 0.84 Effective Gr -sec 19 42 - 20 2 20 19 42 19 20 2 20 Move Time -sec 21 44 - 22 4 22 21 44 21 22 4 22 Min/Ped Time -sec 20 5 - 20 5 20 20 5 20 20 5 20 Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001 1.00 1.00 1.00 AvDelay /veh -sec 35 27 - 22 61 23 24 12 22 32 42 37 Level of Service D- D+ - C- F C- C- B- C- D E+ D- Av.'C'/ lane veh 7 10 - 2 1 3 4 4 0 7 1 6 Veh Stopping % 98 92 - 82 99 85 88 64 80 97 99 96 Do Veh Clear ? YES YES - YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (see) ■ 30 Level of Service a D+ Critical Movements Weighted Av Delay (sec) a 32' Level of Service a 0 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) a 0.90 Predetermined Cycle Lenith is 91 seconds (Min. times may not be satisfied) • CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual C A P S S I 08-08 -94 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CITY OF SARATOGA ROUTE 85 NO PROJECT SOLUTION USING PREDETERMINED CYCLE TIMES FLN:SARACDX SARATOGA/COX P.M Peak Hour Scenario 4 Movement EBT EBL EBR SOT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NOT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 12 secs X X Phase 2- 54 sees X X X X Phase 3 - 20 secs X X X Phase 4 - 34 sees X X X Phase 5 - 0 secs .. Phase 6 - 0 secs Critical Mvmt -•• •••• •••• •••• •••• Peak 15 Vol -vph 821 134 86 271 217 166 1191 115 254 272 165 148 Saturation -vph 3650 1750 Shrd 3650 Shrd 1750 3650 1750 Shrd 1750 1750 Shrd Lost time -sec 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 - 2.00 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 2.00 - Relative Sat 'X' 0.57 -0.92 - 0.89 - 0.63 0.91 0.79 - 0.90 0.35 - Effective Gr -sec 52 10 - 18 - 18 52 10 - 32 32 - Move Time -sec 54 12 - 20 - 20 54 12 - 34 34 - Min /Ped Time -see 20 5 - 20 - 20 20 5 - 20 20 - Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - AvDelay /veh -sec 20 78 - 50 - 40 30 57 - 47 27 - Level of Service C+ F - E - D- D E- - E D* - Av.'0'/ lane veh 9 4 7 - 5 14 4 - 10 4 - Veh Stopping % 75 99 - 98 - 94 94 98 - 96 81 - Do Veh Clear 7 YES YES YES - YES YES YES - YES YES - Whole Intersection - W4ighted Av Delay (see) a 35 Level of Service = D Critical Movements - Wighted Av Delay (sec) • 39 Level of Service a D- " " - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.91 Predetermined Cycle Length is 120 seconds (Min. times may not be satisfied) • CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual LOS Software by TJKM Condition: A.M. Existing (w /Route 85) 10/03/94 INTERSECTION 2 Bucknatl Road /Saratoga Avenue Saratoga Count Date Time Peak Hour 85 HCM Unsignal AREA POP. <250,000 4 0 2 N/S CONTROL: STOP " ( I I ^ SPEEDN /Sa25,E/W=45 17 - -- 1.0 1.1 lit 1633 - - -> 2.1 (NO. OF L 51 - -- 1.1 1.1 1.1 I <- -- ^ v 1.1> kNES) 1.1 2.1 < --- 1.0 i -- v 2 CRITICAL GAP ADJUST --------------- - - -- 835 LEFT THRU RIGHT NB 0.0 0.0 0.0 86 SB 0.0 0.0 0.0 EB 0.0 - -- --- WO 0.0 - W + E 0 56 SIGNAL WARRANTS: S Urb=Y, Rur=Y a= sasxaxxaasssssassaaas saasasasasaeasssssaaaaaaaaa =xaasaasaaxaaxxxaaaaea RIGHT RIGHT ACCEL X X PEAK HOUR % TURN TURN LANE % COMBO MOTOR - ---FACTOR - - -- GRADE ANG <60 RAD >50 FOR RT SU /RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT ------------------------------------------------------------------------ NB 0.0 N N N 0 0 0 0.95 0.95 0.95 SB 0.0 N N N 0 0 0 0.95 0.95 0.95 EB 0.0 - - - 0 0 0 0.95 0.95 0.95 WB 0.0 - - - 0 0 0 0.95 0.95 0.95 asxsssxsaassssasaaassass-_ aaasassssaeaseasaasaaasrsaaaaaaxasaaa »aaxaxaa ORIG ADJ ADJUSTED POTENTIAL ACTUAL RESERVE MOVEMENT VOL VOL CRIT GAP CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY LOS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ NB LEFT (L) 70 81 7.90 52 % - - -- - THRU (T) 0 0 7.40 64 18 - - -- - RIGHT (R) 56 65 6.10 113 113 - - -- - L +T +R 126 146 ---- ---- 23 -123 F - ------- ---------- ------ ------------------------------------------------ SB LEFT (L) 2 2 7.90 52 7 - - -- - THRU (T) 0 0 7.40 64 18 - - -- - RIGHT (R) 4 5 6.10 337 337 - - -- - L +T +R 6 7 - --- ---- 23 16 E ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ES LEFT (L) 17 20 5.80 371 371 351 B ------------------------------------------------------------------------ WB LEFT (L) 86 100 5.80 129 129 29 E ssssaasas esaaaaxsasssxasssasassxasaassasaa =asassaaaaseaaaassaxxxxsssaasa INT =KOS -EX. INT, VOL =KOS -ER.AMV,CAP=C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKK =___===== s-_ xxxxxxxxsx_. eaxaaaxxxxxxxxasas ===aasaaaxssaaaxxx == == sassaxxea Condition: P.M. Existing (w /Route 85) 10/03/94 sssxxxxxxxsxaxxxxxxxxx=. xsaxsssasxaaxxsaaasxaxasaasaaaxsss sasaaasssaasxa INTERSECTION 2 Bucknall Road /Saratoga Avenue Saratoga Count Date Time Peak Hour ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 85 HCM Unsignal AREA POP. <250,000 2 1 1 N/S CONTROL: STOP I I I E/W CONTROL: NONE A SPEEO:N /S=25,E/U -45 9 - -- 1.0 1.1 675 - - -> 2.1 (N0. 22 - -- 1.1 1.1 I < - -- v v -> 1.1 1.1 OF LANES) 1.1 1.1 8 CRITICAL GAP ADJUST ------------------- 2.1 < --- 1495 LEFT THRU RIGHT NB 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 i -- 142 SB 0.0 0.0 0_0 EB 0.0 v WB 0.0 W + E 12 1 28 SIGNAL WARRANTS: S Urb=Y, Rur =Y aaaaaaaaaxsaaaasasaxxxaasasaas aaaaaaaaaassaaasaaaaaxaaaaaasssssaxxxsxxxa RIGHT RIGHT ACCEL X % PEAK HOUR % TURN TURN LANE % COMBO MOTOR ---- FACTOR - - -- GRADE ANG<60 RAD >50 FOR RT SU /RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT NB 0.0 N N N 0 0 0 0.95 0.95 0.95 SB 0.0 N N N 0 0 0 0.95 0.95 0.95 EB 0.0 - - - 0 0 0 0.95 0.95 0.95 WB 0.0 - - - 0 0 0 0.95 0.95 0.95; = sssssasxssaaasasaaa: aa�eassaaaaasaaaassaassaassaasassaaaaaaassaaaassska ORIG ADJ ADJUSTED POTENTIAL ACTUAL RESERVE MOVEMENT VOL VOL CRIT GAP CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY LOS NO LEFT (L) 122 141 7.90 52 35 - - -- - THRU (T) 1 1 7.40 64 44 - - -- - RIGHT (R) 28 32 6.10 414 414 ---- L+T+R 151 174 - - -- - - -- 42 -132 F ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SB LEFT (L) 1 1 7.90 52, 34 - - -- - THRU (T) 1 1 7.40 64 44 - - -- - RIGHT (R) 2 2 6.10 132 132 -- -- L+T+R 4 4 - - -- - - -- 59 55 E ----------------------------------------- ------------------- ------------ EB LEFT (L) 9 10 5.80 149 149 139 D ------------------------------------------------------------------------ WB LEFT (L) 142 164 5.80 447 447, 283 C eaxxxxaassxxassxxxxasssxasasxxsssxsaxsssassssaxexaaaeassaaasaasaasasssss INT =KOS -EX. INT, VOL =KOS- ER.PMV,CAP =C:..LOSCAP.TAB C A P S S 1 08 -08 -94 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION • CITY OF SARATOGA ROUTE 85 NO PROJECT SOLUTICN USING PREDETERMINED CYCLE TIMES FLN:SARACOX SARATOGA /COX A.M Peak Hour Scenario 3 Movement EBT EBL EBR SOT SOL SBR WBT WBL WBR NOT NBL NOR Phase 1 - 17 secs X X Phase 2- 46 sees X X X X Phase 3 - 20 secs X X X Phase 4 - 37 sees X X X Phase 5 - 0 secs Phase 6 - 0 secs Critical Mvmt -rr rrrr rrrr rrrr rrrr Peak 15 Vol -vph 1288 222 80 166 396 105 520 73 133 425 128 97 Saturation -vph 3650 1750 Shrd 3650 Shrd 1750 3650 1750 Shrd 1750 1750 Shrd Lost time -sec 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 - 2.00 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 2.00 - Relative Sat 'X' 1.02 1.01 - 1.03 - 0.40 0.49 0.33 - 1.02 0.25 - Effective Gr -sec 44 15 - 18 - 18 44 15 - 35 35 - Move Time -sec 46 17 - 20 - 20 46 17 - 37 37 - Min /Ped Time -sec 20 5 - 20 - 20 20 5 - 20 20 - Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - AvDelay /veh -sec 54 91 - 76 - 36 23 37 - 69 25 - Level of Service E F - F - D- C- D- - F C- - Av.1O1/ lane veh 15 7 - 8 - 3 7 2 - 13 3 - Veh Stopping X. 100 100 - 100 - 90 77 91 - 100 76 - Do Veh Clear ? NO NO NO - YES YES YES - NO YES - »» Intersectior, Oversaturated - Delay Values Not Meaningfull «« Whole Intersection•- Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 54 level of Service = E Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 64 Level of Service = F to is - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) w 1.02 Predetermined Lisle Lenith is 120 seconds (Min. times may not be satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based rn 6 oy Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual C A P S S I 08-08 -94 CCMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION.* CITY OF SARATOGA ROUTE. 85 NO PROJECT SOLUTION USING PREDETERMINED CYCLE TIMES FLN:SARALAWR SARATOGA /LAWRENCE P.M Peak Hour Scenario 4 Movement EST ESL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 29 secs X X Phase 2- 20 secs X X X X Phase 3 - 10 secs X X Phase 4- 32 secs X X X X Phase 5 - 0 secs Phase 6 - 0 secs Critical Mvmt- *• * +rr raa+ rrrr + +++ Peak 15 Vol -vph 535 250 24 930 110 413 839 389 40 459 105 277 Saturation -vph 5550 1750 Shrd 3800 1750 1750 5700 1750 1750 5700 3200 1750 Lost time -see 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Relative Sat 'X' 0.51 0.48 - 0.74 0.72 0.72 0.74 0.75 0.12 0.24 0.37 0.48 Effective Gr -sec 18 27 - 30 8 30 18 27 18 30 8 30 Move Time -see 20 29 - 32 10 32 20 29 20 32 10 32 Min /Ped Time -sec 20 5 - 20 5 20 20 5 20 20 5 20 Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 . - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AvOelay /veh -sec 25 21 - 22 40 23 28 26 23 17 30 19 Level of Service D+ C- - C- E+ C- D+ . D+ C- C+ D C+ Av.101/ ►ane veh 4 4 - 8 3 7 6 7 1 3 1 5 Veh Stopping % 89 82 - 89 97 88 94 90 82 73 94 80 Do Veh Clear ? YES YES - YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) a 24 Level of Service a C- Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 26 Level of Service = D+ " " - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) a 0.74 Predetermined Cycle Leni.th is 91 seconds (Min. times may not be satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual ".APPENDIX D �. R•. .Results of the Signal Warrant Analysis u x. • i � LM r��.•.fr. fi�t�'1f Y l� '1 5d.e mil I r \ � t i t ,T 9 -14 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual Figure 9 -9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) = Seed > qO Saratoga /Bucknell - 500 2 a > 400 2 U ►— Q w � a 300 cn a cc w C) � 200 J 0 IS, = IL6 0 100 0 300 Existing (w /Route 85) plus Project ?M A) * I I * I I 1 i I 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 �b� Z&11 ti MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH * NOTE: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) 2 OR OR MORE LANES 1 LANE (MAJOR) (MAJOR) & 2 & 1 OR MORE LANE (MINOR) LANES (MINOR) noun 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) ?M A) * I I * I I 1 i I 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 �b� Z&11 ti MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH * NOTE: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. 9-14 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 1.199; 500 2 a > 400 2 U E- a Ly a 300 1- a in a ¢w z 2 200 O IS1 > 126 0 100 R Figure 9 -9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) : SrM > 40 Saratoga /Bucknell Existing (w /Route 85) AM r l � r 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 130022624 MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH 23S * NOTE: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOWME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) 2 OR OR MORE LANES 1 LANE (MAJOR) (MAJOR) & 2 & 1 OR MORE LANE (MINOR) LANES (MINOR) 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) AM r l � r 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 130022624 MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH 23S * NOTE: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOWME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. 9 -14 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual Figure 9 -9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) = Speed > 14 0 Saratoga /Bucknell 500 a > 400 LU I- a M cc 300 (a Q ac w z 200 � J 0 ISI - 0 100 Existing (w /Route 85) plus Approved plus Project 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) OR 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) mal. m-- 1 LANE( (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) --r I I I 0 I 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH * NOTE: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. r r � 1200 1300 ti .Results of :the Intersection Analysis Existing (w /Route 85) plus Project Conditions -. ,,a i!"t,1�'�+�'� •Sy T .,S �-t r _ ,� } 'MF lam. _ � �„hZti'.Dra�ti ��'�ri' � ♦ �i . 1 % t, T J_ �� r.�i r` t' t • a. - APPENDIX E - .Results of :the Intersection Analysis Existing (w /Route 85) plus Project Conditions -. ,,a N :? v J . .v —J! ` ..;"' . E ENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A 5IN6L -c SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION i City ar Saratoga 6xis::aa - Project CaLU'iU., :i`ih � - .7 C'vrr T,yE5 Sdratoga�La'JYERCe -.M 'reak H.our S�eRei:, ---------- -°-------------°_-- ----- — ------------- --------------------------------------- I I , Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT 4DL aBR N,3T NBL NER` Phase - 29 =_ecs °9ase 2 - 20 secs X x X Phase 3 - 10 secs X X Prase ; - SA, secs X X X Phase 5 - 0 secs Phase o - i1 secs ----------------- '------------------ '----------------- - - - - -- ----------------- =: itiC4' i vat PCd;: v^ uiJi 2 Z. r 01-.0 .. 4J0 iJ..J v7 40 -64 S3'IiYSti!'_: -1... JvJ1' 17 Snrc :r30 1..,. ..... Z7W vw .I ..vv J 75 0.7V CI-7 _ II '.ry Vi VE !0c Fac'er rAF ,.C,+ •.VC - ,.Oct ..I) ..�'. ..4V .... ..:u ..VO ..U� Level of = erviro f- n C+ J ,oir ..,;ersectior. - "eiihted Av .a: s. arc. = Eves :W2 "`... t_ BteC w'• . -.;J ._zEC = Level c; Service D * ac e -r: ^e� f:Jrie Len;th is Si Eecor." �C;r. ,;E 9d',' COL �e So::Sj:ei: x CATS .r?iease 11) - ased on Delay ."ethC:a'.:y;✓ c:j .:•7ac: "3rJ3, C.FMPREHENSIVE AULYSIS --F.GGRAM F r V 6. IDR -A SINGLE SIGNA17ZED iNTIERSECTION City of claratoaa Existim.c. + projE.", 'iC" USINS PREHTEEFIIINEB r"' T -r-!":S i, �.l & — " . k,66 I i.- N': d :aratoq&;;awrence peak Hour i n ; r c. ------------------------------------ 7 --------- — ----- -- ---------- -------------- --- Movement EBT '-EBL EER SBT SBL SBR �BT WBL WBF NBT ik Fhase 1 - 44 SECS -'hase 2 - Z; secs x A Phase 3 - 4 secs x x Phase 4' - 2 1 ins x x Phase 5 - 0 secs ?Ease 6 secs ----------------- ------------------ ----------------- ---- ------------------------------ 7 U 3hrc 3600 7 Z' Dater ,s7,, 7 Re! at vp 7 .00 ..To,, r 0. V -n 7 eve: tf Se-v-.ce :10 ----------------- ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ..�i it —n A I 131c 32rvlc? sec Prep ?; e ",;: E L2rC"fl is ST sezonas ',Viiil. t: L-es may -.Gt b2 sa,.;Isf -.ed", , ,n' ", , �'21 gas- 3acic. :`al ay I: t.. ". 101cey 1er Q.1wa IDac 4 ly Manua, Ab LOS Software by TJKM = = = =______________ Condition: A.M. Existing (w /Route 85) + Project 10/03/94 INTERSECTION 2 Bucknatt Road /Saratoga Avenue Saratoga Count Date Time Peak Hour ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 85 NCH Unsignat AREA POP. <250,000 4 0 2 N/S CONTROL: STOP E/W CONTROL: NONE SPEED:N /S=25,E /W=45 1636 --- > 2.1 (NO. OF LANES) 2.1 < - -- 837 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 - -- 86 CRITICAL GAP ADJUST LEFT THRU RIGHT NB 0.0 0.0 0.0 SB 0.0 0.0 0.0 EB 0.0 • -- --- WB 0.0 ••- . -- N W + E 0 56 SIGNAL WARRANTS: S Urb=Y, Rur =Y s aaaaassessanssaaznsaaaas aaaaasaas ssaasas :sassasasasasaanaasasasssssaaaa RIGHT RIGHT ACCEL % % PEAK HOUR % TURN TURN LANE X COMBO MOTOR ---- FACTOR - - -- GRADE ANG <60 RAD >50 FOR RT SU /RV VEN CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT ---------------•------•----.........-•-.................-----------•---- NB 0.0 N N N 0 0 0 0.95 0.95 0.95 SB 0.0' N N N 0 0 0 0.95 0.95 0.95 EB 0.0 - - - 0 0 0 0.95 0.95 0.95 WB 0.0 - - - 0 0 0 0.95 0.95 0.95 saasazsaasaaszsssassaaxaszsxzaaeaazaaasaaassassasssssnnsssssaasasaaaaass ORIG AN ADJUSTED POTENTIAL ACTUAL RESERVE MOVEMENT VOL VOL CRIT GAP CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY LOS NO LEFT (L) 70 81 7.90 52 14 - --- THRU (T) 0 0 7.40 64 18 -- -- - RIGHT (R) 56 65 6.10 113 113 - - -- - L +1 +R 126 146 •- -- -- -- 23 -123 F --------•...-•--------------------------- --------------------- •--- - - SB LEFT (L) 2 2 7.90 52 7 =--- THRU (T) 0 0 7.40 64 18 --•- RIGHT (R) 4 5 6.10 336 336 -- -- L+T+R 6 7 ---- .... 23 16 E EB LEFT (L) 17 20 5.80 370 370 350 B ..................•-------------------------•-------------------------•- WB LEFT (L) 86 100 5.80 129 129 29 E sssaassaaasssnassazsaaansassaaanaaaasssasasa :ssassssnnsssassaasssssaaaa INT=KOS-EX. INT, VOL= KOS -ER&P.ANV,CAP =C:..LOSCAP.TAB LOS Software by TJKM a=====______===== xxxxxxxxxaxxxxxxaxaaaa: aaaaas :s : :aa === aaaaazss :zzaxaxaa Condition: P.M. Existing (w /Route 85) + Project 10/03/94 INTERSECTION 2 Bucknatt Road /Saratoga Avenue Saratoga Count Date Time Peak Hour 85 HCM Unsignal AREA POP. <250,000 2 1 1 N/S CONTROL: STOP E/W CONTROL: NONE ^ A SPEED :N /S =25,E/W =45 9 - -- 1.0 1.1 1v 1 1.1 682 - --> 2.1 (NO. OF LANES) 22 - -- 1:1 1.1 1.1 1.1 v < - -- i i - -> 1.1 I -- 8 CRITICAL GAP ADJUST ... ................ 2.1 < - -- 1502 LEFT THRU RIGHT NB 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 - -- 142 SB 0.0 0.0 0.0 EB 0.0 v WB 0.0 - . N I W + E 122 1 28 SIGNAL WARRANTS: S Urb=Y, Rur =Y asaaxaasaaas sans asaaaaeasaasasaessasssaaa saaass :assaas :sszssaaasszsxsaxa RIGHT RIGHT ACCEL % X PEAK HOUR % TURN TURN LANE % COMBO MOTOR ----FACTOR--- - GRADE ANG <60 RAD>50 FOR RT SU /RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT NB 0.0 N N N 0 0 0 0.95 0.95 0.95 SB 0.0 _ N N N 0 0 0 0.95 0.95 0.95 EB 0.0 - - - 0 0 0 0.95 0.95 0.95 WB 0.0 - - - 0 0 0 0.95 0.95 0.95; sss assazaaasssaaaaasaaaaassssasaaasaaseaaaaasass :assaezaasasssasasaxazs ORIG ADJ ADJUSTED POTENTIAL ACTUAL RESERVE MOVEMENT VOL VOL GRIT GAP CAPACITY . CAPACITY CAPACITY LOS NB LEFT (L) 122 141 7.90 52 35 .... THRU (T) 1 1 7.40 64 44 ---- - RIGHT (R) 28 32 6.10 410 410 - -•- L+T+R 151 174 - - -- - - -- 42 -132 F -------- -------... ---... --------------------------- •------ _...---- - - -... SB LEFT (L) 1 1 7.90 52 33 - - -- THRU (1) 1 1 7.40 64 44 - - -- RIGHT (R) 2 2 6.10 130 130 .... - L +T +R 4 4 - -•- • -•- 58 54 E EB LEFT (L) 9 10 5.80 147 147 137 D -----•------•-•----••-----•----------------------------••--------...---- WS LEFT (L) 142 164 5.80 443 443` 279 C ssaxaxaxssssaaaasszaaxxsxasszasaaaaaszsaaaaaaseasnsxas ssaassssaassssaaxs INT =KOS -EX. INT, VOL= KOS -ER3P.PMV,CAP =C:..LOSCAP.TAB C A P S S I C�vecrri- NSit'- ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A ENGLE. SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION! } City of Saratoga Existing plus Project SOLUTI0:+1 USING PREDETERMINED CYC'- 71?4 -2 FLN:1d:2% -a 5aratoaa C.oz A.F, Peal' roar Scenario 2 ----------------- ----- ------------------- ------- -- ----- ------------------------------------ Movement =BT :3L OR S3T 221, -BR ; +3T +BL NBR NBT 416 :ER Phase i - ii secs ?I X . ase 2- 46 secs i A A X Prase 3 -C secs X X Fhase 4 - 37 secs X X X Phase 5 - C' se :! Phase 6 = :� secs ------------------------------------ ----------- - - - - -- ----------- - - - - -- ----------------- =a 1= Vol - ]C: _ 1. "Nil liJl rrr V1i - .jr. L `vr. -vim, - -` r,• �v�, Sa:Srat c. -'w- 'f „6 t,G r. v Shrc t_. _. .C: Shru ., r% CElative Sat .41 - i.0.1,i Efiecr;ve 19 1V MovE Time -5e: 46 '7 - 20 - 2` 46 17 - Mi Yroc ractar FAF ;t i.Nl% - i.�ti - i.Ji i• %i:% 1. �J - i•v l.lw - 1!VJ ?iaVr'8!1 76 L2'iei O CerV:CP AV 2 61 111 i 00 ----- -- ------- - -- ----- --- - --- -- --- --------- - - - -- -----------------'------ --- -------- .,�'ar:eCL:Vn "•Ji °_ ili:t " sec; ior. I2i& Les Ay 1, ay '.sac, = :. rSVe: t °rV;'-= - iiCa , ^V2'5ent5 Ji21G ":eN AV il2lay (neC1 = r'Vei if Ser:';Ce = - 1i�:ersectian ; r. L C A P S S I A-94 LSP RENSIVE ANAMIS PROGRAM FTIR A ENGLE SIGNALIZED INTER SUTTON City of Saratoga Existing plus Project SOLUTMN USING PREEDETRMIKED TIMES U P.M Peak hour. Scenario --------------------------------------------- - - - - -- ------- — ---------- — ----- — -------- lovement Z'12L EiR SBT :.BIL S B—R '-QT ABL R -.:5 T 1EL ,as a X tM t Lec v - I A X F ...ase A. -0 a a 714 sacs X Ph; a a :5 se's =ease sec-- ----------------- ------------------ ----------------- ----------------------------------- Z:- 715--) ro 0 '750 sil r d 361.0 Shru Ch 1 ..:s ze -se: 2.00 2. 045 — 1.:0 .33 17 f).43 - 6.50 M4 0 Z E in . 10 - �'Ove 71 ne -se- 20 Fac W, Av D e a a h E 7+ r .4 4V, Cq T7 vi 'A a T _-:er ciiaa - :eigi-,tad Av Delay I-eve-' '; :-7r•ice = .1 y (sec) .ere; o4 Sevi! ce z D - ---vements - Weign'ted AL De'a ' '.ersection Capacity 6 t; Z r e c E t a , n i n e c Y E L E. -, 9 t. S l2: A_ e C an e S :es n ar r. i s f FS BI .,._lease :?; - 3aszd cn '21ay Met-odo'ogy Per 19B5 ngnw.v 'icac,t. -Iar.L&:, y b i :P:; NT , r _ .,.:.... , •..- '- ,-o•r Al [ #.'„fly f .e r .• d { •i > .A. r - 2: V,: s �. a �� Si,�T ,'�'�.r.,k: _:- ' `S , � t r s. i ( s �,{''jl�i.bp�"�,CMr `�� r�,�,j.�i v r. emu; ,A.l. •,�'••'' - � Y•r�8�� � �� - ' Ks 7 s : � t ''��•`1`.�`.+tyt� "'•! �:�1�. `� _ "• �? • t' •,r i r��, 4 . ;. '• t T t .'�"s �r:.;::x.` ��l _ _ ' aThi•' ✓+*X n- "' ' } ti '• r y ;•,: '�9' .i r.y(xLyjf.P � ff v..� � J x` 'A. •M1 'tT >�': � � M [i=ce •''�� � �'_ .- •'p' ' *" •A.Ci{ y�xy i S .y ( ��' bar t A- I., Y 4 F � NA., { 4(' --f t.C� ^' yJ• a N\ R R to r� � (l'•�y,� l 1., �.I r p. 1� l•O.L� y L: t r >, Y� a r f• �����1 1 1 J ti - r�{y., _,,R ,_ _ :J.. :. ^. -: � •(- Mme'- i. r' :Y.• J:.. 7r. if« _ i,� _ {i ��SikV rtkai�� re�{y Ff's':`IMr••:(+.p: ,: { . '\ 'T K" y r #. f+rl`• fi"• 'x} ♦ 'trey �'�' �1 £c•�.;•i� %tryu"f yc Afelf ;+N 7f<;;,.,ia.4.+,hta. 7�e •(:. y _ _ r C (' •., r,�Y - �i.' S;"' '?s.W y;'s�.. fir. t":�'�' "t,� :' 'r••� % -� '� � ` '::iu.y�ti iyy'.!ii : 1.:!�`.....'.':., ... , _;r'J : t,i r. . �wr •.."cti'!.� )..'r, yc�.. '',� s..�.: ? :chnl.:,x�c.... -- r'° �.,:, a:. c::. T�3:% ��. i ,�_;aY::..�'x;•!�M }'�'iir.;,i,; �.A':!6..... �.. CAPSSI 10 -10 -94 COMPREH- ENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SI3NALIZED INTERSUTION { l.ity of Saratoga Existing * Approved * ProjeCt SOLUTION USING PREDETERMINED CYCLE TIMES FLN:d:e &a &p- Saratoga /Lawrence A.M Peak Hour Scenario 1 -------------------------------- - - - - -- ------------------------------------- Movement EBT• EBL EBR SAT SBL SBR WBT WBL YBR NBT XBL NBR Phase 1 - 44 secs X X Phase 2 - 21 secs X X X A Phase 3 - 4 secs X X Phase 4- 21 secs X X X X Phase 5 - 0 secs ?ease 6 - 0 secs . ----------- - - - - -- ------------------ '---------- - - - - -- ' ----------------'----------------- Critical Freak :: Vol -` :C,i iC0 741 12 05 27 157 E03 5 AS .1i15 44 3325 Saturation -v;n t50 ;150 Shrd 3800 14750 1750 5100 175" 1150 .5700 3200 , :750 Lost time -sec 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.;16 Relative Sat 'X' 0.92 0.91 - 0.23 0.6S 0.12 ;`.3 0.25 0.05 0. 3 0.62 .a8 Ef+,active E!-:_;2c 19 42 - 19 19 :` 42 19 19 iiore ilme -sec 211 44 - 21 4 21 21 2! 21 M in i, " T ,E -3ec 20 5 - 29 5 20 20 5 ::0 20 5 20 Pr" Factor FAF 1.00 1.00 - 1. 0 11.00 1..0 i.;0 1.00 1.00 11.00 1.00 i.00 Weiaylven -SEC 35 27 - 22 59 24 H5 43 41 Lev e_ .; SFr :;. :e D. - t- E- D- E+ E* ;.v.' ;.s ;2h 1J - 2 11 i Thole nv D/eiay (3F:. _ _. _e.'e ..Ca. °;)ve;srt5 - w chte Av Delay !su l _ .. .F' /ei 3f ery e = iBterSBCt1Gn Capacity u.1,1:a►:Gl ( : %J) PredetermineC �Ycle Lenath is 90 Seconds (Lin. tines may rot be _atisiiec) f 0APSSI (Release ii) - Based on Delay :(e?hodolay :0. 11535 'i�,wey 3r =.City 7anuai 777 C A P*S S 1 0-10-94 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM ;0P A SINGLE SlGNA[ll[U INTERSECTION * City of Saratoga -- Existing + Approved + Project SOLUTION USING PREDETERMINED CYCLE TIMES %N:d;s a&�- — Sxratogo/Laorence P.M Peak HOUT Scenario _l ----___-----_'----_._----__ ------------------ | ' _ ���nt �� 31. EDR SBT SBL SBR 40T 8BL 4R %BT '1BL W Phase 1 - 29 secs . X . . . ^ ^ X ^ ^ ^ ^ Phase 2 - 20 secs X Phase 3- 10 secs X , Phase 4 - 32 secs . . . X ;�ee 5 - 0 secs Fhasp 6 - O ass _____-__--'|___-__------'|----------_-----|---------------_|----------------- �eak �5 �ol -�� 554 �5 29 �Q 110 432 G59 %33 10 - Zaturatioo -vnh 5550 "75) Shrd 3300 ;750 1750 5700 1750 17ZV1 "700 I2R :750 -ust time -sec 2.��_ 2.00 - 2.00 2.30 2.30 2.00 2.00 l.00 2'30 2.�3 Relative Sat 'y' ;.V. 0.53 - 0.74 0,72 0,75 0.76 0,7.5 0,1-2 0.24 �.3311 C.4� -- Erxxctive G,-seC 18 27 - 3; 8 3O 18 27 !3 .V Hove Time -sec &: 29 - I% 10 32 20 29 20 32 10 3l Xio,Ppd Tice-sec 2O 5 - �O 5 20 20 5 20 20 5 �� Factor PAF 'M0 11.00 - i..00 !.00 1.00 1.00 i.00 1.00 1.30 1.0,10 !..00 �vDela�/veh -sec �� 21 - 22 ^0 24 2G �� 23 |/ 2� \9 --f Eprvicp DI C- - C- [+ C- 0+ D+ C- C+ D [+ `eh 3 7 6 7 3 90- K. - E3 97 89 '24 10 G2 S� �7 7 ----------------- .------------------ �----------------- |_____-_____|_______________ '4hmle �eighted &v Belay (sec' = �� Level of Bermce = C- Wnia±ed Av Delay (as) = '23 Level of Service = :D+ Intersection Capacity itilbatimm(IC�) = 0.75 ' - . 7re3etau:neo Cyde . i, is 91 seconds (.'-'in. times may not he satisfied! * CAFES! i'Rc&'esa 3aued on 3aloy �eth:do�)gy Fer 1925 Manua., � � LOS Software by TJKM Condition: A.M. Existing(w /Route 85) + Approved• Project 10/03/94 s asaaszzzzass: zassazaazazsasa: asssszazzazza ssxsaaasaaaxxaaasazaasaaszsza INTERSECTION 2 Bucknali Road /Saratoga Avenue Saratoga Count Date Time Peak Hour --------------•--------------------------------------------------------- 85 HCM Unsignal AREA POP. <250j000 I 10 1 2 N/S CONTROL: STOP E/W CONTROL: NONE A SPEED:N /S= 25,E/W=45 17 - -- 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 - -• 2 CRITICAL GAP ADJUST --------------- - - - -- 164) --- 3, 2.1 (N0. OF LANES) 2.14 - -- 838 LEFT THRU RIGHT NB 0.0 0.0 0.0 51 - -- 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 - -- 86 SB 0.0 0.0 0.0 < ... A • - -> 1 ES 0.0 - -- - -- v 1 1 v WB 0.0 - -• - -- N W + E 0 56 SIGNAL WARRANTS: S UrbaY, Rur=Y sasaasaaasasaasssaasasssasssassasassasasas ssssssasaaasaasaaaaa : asassassa RIGHT RIGHT ACCEL % % PEAK HOUR % TURN TURN LANE % COMBO MOTOR ---- FACTOR -- -- GRADE ANG<60 RAD >50 FOR RT SU /RV VEH CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT NB 0.0 N N N 0 0 0 0.95 0.95 0.95 SB 0.0 N N N 0 0 0 0.95 0.95 0.95 EB 0.0 - - - 0 0 0 0.95 0.95 0.95 we 0.0 - - - 0 : 0 0 0.95 0.95 0.95 ssasas ass aasaaassasaas aas asasafas saaaassa= aassassassszssssaaaaasaaasasaa ORIG ADJ ADJUSTED POTENTIAL ACTUAL RESERVE MOVEMENT VOL VOL GRIT GAP CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY LOS NO LEFT (L) 70 81 7.90 52 14 - - -- - THRU (T) 0 0 7.40 64 18 - - -- - RIGHT (R) 56 65 6.10 113 113 - - -- - L +T +R 126 146 ---- .... 23 -123 F ----------------------------•-------------------- •------- .......•- - - - - -- SB LEFT (L) 2 2 7.90 52 7 - - -- THRU (T) 0 0 7.40 64 18 - - -- RIGHT (R) 4 5 6.10 336 336 .... L +T +R 6 7 ---- ---- 23 16 E ES LEFT (L) 17 20 5.80 369 369 349 8 WB LEFT (L) 86 100 5.80 129 129 29 E sassasas:: aass aassaaasaaaassas sas as:s: as xs :esassasssaasaa :aa :a :saassaaas TNT ■KOS -EX. INT, VOLa KOS -ERAP.ANV,CAPvC:..LOSCAP.TAB I F.171 LOS Software bV TJKM z aaaaxasaa asaassaaaaasx aaaaa asaaaasaaaa as aaasaasssaassassasaassssasssaas Condition: P.M. Existing (w /Route 85) +Approved +Project 10/03/94 eaaaazzsszsasasas aasazazzaaasaaansas aaaassassaasaaaa sssasasaasaaassssaa• INTERSECTION 2 Bucknall Road /Saratoga Avenue Saratoga Count Date Time Peak Hour ........................... =............................................ 85 HCM Unsignal AREA POP. 4250,000 2 1 1 N/S CONTROL: STOP E/W CONTROL: NONE " I I ( 8 EEO:N /Sa25,E/wa45 9 -- 1.0 1.1 685 - - -> 2.1 (NO. 22 - -- 1.1 1.1 < - -- v v 1.1 OF L 1.1 A 1.1> kNES) 1.1 8 CRITICAL OAP ADJUST ................... 2.1 < --- 1508 LEFT THRU RIGHT N8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 - -- 142 SB 0.0 0.0 0.0 we 0.0 V w8 0.0 N W + E 122 I 11 128 SIGNAL WARRANTS: S Urb■Y, Rur=Y ss sass: ns: aaaasaaas: a= a:s sasssasssssaass saasasssassssassa :asssasaaunman RIGHT RIGHT ACCEL % % . PEAK HOUR % TURN TURN LANE % COMBO MOTOR - - -- FACTOR -• -- GRADE ANG<60 RAD >50 FOR RT SU /RV VEN CYCLE LEFT THRU RGHT NB 0.0 N N N 0 0 0 0.95 0.95 0.95 . SB 0.0 N N N 0 0 0 0.95 0.95 0.95 EB 0.0 - - - 0 0 0 0.95 0.95 0.95 WB 0.0 - - 0 0 0 0.95 0.95 0.95 sas s: saasaa ssaaaaaaasaaaa :asassssassaass ass sssssssassasassasssssssasss�s ORIG AN ADJUSTED POTENTIAL ACTUAL RESERVE MOVEMENT VOL VOL CRIT GAP CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY LOS -------• ....................•-••---------...._..-----..............----- NB LEFT (L) 122 141 7.90 52 35 THRU (T) (T) 1 1 7.40 64 44 RIGHT (R) 28 32 6.10 408 408 - - -- - L+T +R 151 174 - - -- - - -- 42 -132 F ........ .......... ---... -------._......------.......-------•------------ SB LEFT (L) 1 1 7.90 52 33 - - -- THRU (T) 1 1 7.40 64 44 - - -- - RIGHT (R) 2 2 6.10 129 129 - - -- - L +T +R 4 4 - - -- - - -- 58 54 E ---------••------------------- ............................ EB LEFT (L) 9 10 5.80 146 146 136 D --.........-•--------•------• ............ ............... .......... . . . . .. WB LEFT (L) 142 164 5.80 442 442 278 C saasaa: sas :sa : :asasssss :s :sas :aaasssaaaaasasaaaaa sagas :aaaaasaaaaaaasas�i INT= KOS -EX. INT, VOLsKOS -ERAP.PMV,CAPaC:..LOSCAP.TAB S 'S A -P 09-29-94 C;iMPREHENS19E ANALYSIS PTURAN FU SINSLE SIGNALIJ.-ED INTERET-ICTUN City of Saratoga 'xistinc Ap;rCvEd + Pri.,JV-3 I 3-.601170-N USING CYCLE TIM S L.N: d e a saratoga"Cox .4.1". Peak Hour Scenario ------------------------------------ 'M NBT .4BL NDR ovement ':-BT 'ZEL EBF SBT 32BL 513 20T -ZL phate secs Phase 2 - 46 secs A x A Phase 3 - 217 secs - 37 secs x x x Phase 5 - 0 secs ::,aye C - sacs ----------------- ------------------------------------------------------ ---------------- 222 SO 166 -73E. Sa uratior, -yp.1 3001 !750 Rrd 3E50 ShrG :7110 265C., :7.rlki cn7c 1750 1750 36r,. ist �; .ae -sac 2.00 2.00 - -7.00 - 0 V .2. .10 2. Relative 'oat ?V I . C`3 '.0. &.02 - v.4,1 -;-,'e-tive Ac 4- 2 %LvE Tin -sec 4E 17 1!1� '77 '%ze-sec M 0 D :.00 ."Cl ;v.Ielawv?n -sac Zz 5 2.1 iVE' S2TV',Ce Z - V. :5 C 100 : V a I in U ----------------- ------------------ ----------------------------------- ----------------- .1-.e-SeCti0l. OV2r5at6fateC Delay '.'*3*.,1e5 %:ot Meani.-vul! nle7sec,ion - Weichted A-, EEIaV (SeCC) = 'j 5 eve4 of Bervice a lovemnt s - keic-ned Av ?J'elay -,sac) = a5 L of r-erl;ille - me section Capacity Ut`a"oi U ; CC 71rsL'.=-termi.ied Cyde Lentih is '.20 seconds (M n. times ;:ay no. 2e satli�;ed) '. 1, ';' - Basea or. I;e'&- ay rlethcr,aA 3gy Per .32. hi chwav -,y C A P .S i -25-94 CC'r "REP.ENSIVE'n�ii+�YSiS ?tG;iRa� FOR A SINGLE Si6NLIZE✓ INTE cSECTiui4 -; City of Saratoga Existing + Approved + Project SGL,;TION USING PP,EEcTERMINED %1'CLE TIES 7' ;..1: d: a &a&v- 5aratOga:CGx r.*8 Peak Hour scenario 2 ----------------- -------------------_--____ ��������----------------------- --- - -- �vvement EBT EM EBR S3T 5BL SSR ::BT 4L W NST `13L NSR Phase 1 - 12 secs X t Phase 2 - 35 secs X X Phase s" - 20 secs X X x Phase 4 - 34 secs X X X P!.ase : - 0 secs ----------- - - - - -- ------------ - - - - -- --- ----------- ----------- - - - - -- ----------------- :r:.icai ttfa `eai .5 1!64, -vpn 3P.V 154 36 .7i 2 :5 i3G ._ -..5 272 .bJ :48 uaturativG -voh i.5 1750 Shrd :'vJ0 Shrtl i -50 Zr,L i v 2rrd e7',C 1"1750 Sim ru L.JV L.� ) -. va _J,. ne - ;:e.ativE Jae .Si 6.52 _ G.90 r.E4 .:) J.Si 1.36 fec Yi:e G.--se.- 1i1 .0 - `ovE .,;e -sec :5 - ini�ac v - - ::0 i. =roc iac or 't0 1.00 - 1.00 - ..,. - ..0 i.V: - r.vi;lay;veh -sec 20 30 - -,;e: if Servi :e :•* - - :* •:eh E:, YES ----------- - - - - -- ------------------ '----------- - - - - -- ----------------- ----------------- Y:Ce = �- �,ri:. =a: ;OVEOeiitS - iieiwh:c� idY iaeC) - 4 i.a''e. .. zerY:Ce = 3- - t,.ters.ec :i;n apac :ty 'edC:e -tined Cycle Lengti: is ::, eE:GL:s AML . ..W °_5 rah be 52tisfied) { —iPE57 .7.eieaae .1 - Based on .eiay . "eSC4u?:3-gy 'O_f .: ?1LdV Ca-,ac.; Manua; INDUSTRIAL NOISE - ACOUSTICAL SERVICES (I.N.A.S. ENGINEERING) Noise Control specialists P. O. BOX 3074 Santa Clara, CA 95055 Voice: 408 241 0901. FAX: 408 241 0270 Acoustical Engineering Report Traffic Noise Level Analysis for Kosich Commercial Development at 12325 Saratoga Avenue OCT 2 81994 PLANNING DEPT. Prepared by: James Sidney Mills, Engineer Date: 24 October 1994 Kosich Construction Company 24 October 1994 Commercial Development Summary The result of this acoustical engineering study was that the annual day -night average noise level 'one- hundred feet (100[ft]) from the center line of Saratoga Avenue was seventy A- weighted decibels (Ldp = 70[dBA] for D = 100[ft]). The primary source of noise at the planned building site was surface traffic on Saratoga Avenue. The noise contour lines for sixty -five and sixty A- weighted decibels (65[dBA] and 60[dBA]) were placed at 215[ft] and 400[ft], respectively, from the center line of Saratoga Avenue, see site plan, figure 1, below. Future noise levels increase by about one A- weighted decibel, to Ldn = 71 [dBA] from a current Ldn = 70[dBA], for a ten - percent increase in surface traffic on Saratoga Avenue. If the entire lot, which is four - hundred - thirty five feet deep (435[ft]), were used for residential development only, then this study shows that a sixteen foot high barrier should be constructed near and parallel to Saratoga Avenue. The planned commercial development along Saratoga Avenue would mitigate the noise levels at the rear of this site and for the existing residents behind it. Therefore, the site is ideal, in our opinion, for the planned commercial and residential development shown on the application for this project. Introduction The purpose of this acoustical engineering report is to provide an analysis for a planned site for a commercial development on Saratoga Avenue, in the City of Saratoga. This property has the identification of assessor's parcel number: A. P. N. 386 - 23-59, 41, 42. A location map is given on Sheet P1, a Tentative Map, by Westfall Engineers. In this acoustical engineering study the background A- weighted sound - pressure levels were monitored for a complete twenty -hour period. These observations were all witnessed by a qualified acoustical engineering technical person -- not taken by equipment left at the site. Since most of the background sound - pressure levels were due to surface traffic on Saratoga Avenue, traffic counts were obtained simultaneously with the acoustical data. These data are reported here and analyzed for 'planning purposes. Data was reduced to statistical and equivalent noise level values The following sound - pressure level data was obtained using ANSI standard, type one and type two sound - pressure level monitors, A Cirrus Research Corporation model 702, serial 016490 fitted with a one -half inch diameter microphone, a recording A- weighted sound - pressure -level monitor and a GenRAD model 1993, serial 1011, sound - pressure level analysis- system was-also fitted with a one -half inch diameter microphone were the sound - pressure level monitors used to obtain the data reported here. The sound - pressure levels were only measured on days agreed to be average daily traffic weekdays (Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday), and during weeks with no weekday holidays. The observation dates ranged from 23 August through 7 September 1994. Data was recorded on a strip chart recorder, and/or in a digital memory. The instruments used for this purpose were calibrated before and after any data reported here was obtained with a five frequency 114[dB] microphone calibrator. The vehicles I.N.A.S. Engineering -1- 60 5 Ldn :5 70 Kosich Construction Company 24 October 1994 Commercial Development on Saratoga Avenue, passing in both directions, were counted during the data acquisition times. Table 1., below, summarizes the data resulting from a combination of all of often several individual fifteen minute, and other, time intervals sound - pressure level data samples. Conventional community noise reporting standards have been met here, both statistical noise and intensity averaged noise levels result from analyses'of these data. A site plan, figure 1., below, shows the location on the planned building site where the sound - pressure levels were obtained, about 100[ft] from the center of Saratoga Avenue. The indigenous noise at this site was dominated by the surface traffic, although aircraft fly -overs and some truck traffic for. the local businesses was also present. The data indicate, that if the surface traffic were eliminated completely, then the area would be very quiet. If this surface traffic noise source could be removed from this site, then the night time the ten percent exceeded level would only reach about 42[dBA]. The noise pollution indices, tabulated in table 1, with the statistical and equivalent or intensity averaged noise levels, indicates that mid afternoon traffic noise peak has a great deal of transport traffic, such as trucks and large delivery vehicles. It is also interesting to note that although there is a traffic peak between 0400 and 0500[hr], the noise increase corresponds to auto traffic, not truck or heavy vehicle traffic. The results of this intensive acquisition of sound - pressure level data and hourly traffic counts are summarized in table 1, next. Figure 1. gives a simplified and visual result in terms of the annual average day -night noise levels over the planned building site. Table 2. gives a complete twenty -four hour result, which was derived from the data listed in table 1. modelled with the use of average daily traffic data information. An extensive scaling model was developed by this firm and tested against measured results. Therefore, table 2, is the result of a working model for traffic generated noise levels at this proposed building site. Table 1. Reduced annual averaged hourly A- weighted sound - pressure level information [dBA] versus hour of the day, twenty- four -hour clock, and the vehicle count, both way traffic on Saratoga, [V/hr]. Hour Leq 1.10 L50 L90 LMAx Lnp 2400 53.4 57.0 41.6 41.4 70.3 69.1 0100 49.3 49.4 -41.4 41.4 66.2 57.3 0400 49.9 50.8 41.1 41.0 74.0 59.7 0500 53.0 55.5 46.2 41.0 70.3 67.5 0600 0700 0800 63.6 67.3 59.3 52.8 73.8 78.1 0900 64.4 67.3 62.4 53.1 75.3 78.7 1000 62.3 (Continued next page) 65.5 58.6 50.7 75.0 77.1 Traffic [V/hr] 60 61 606 168 346 2464 2568 2436 2035 I.N.A.S. Engineering -2- . 60 5 Ldn 5 70 Kosich Construction Company 24 October 1994 Hour Leq 1-10 L50 L90 LMAx Lnp 1400 76.4 68.5 53.7 .51.7 107.7 93.2 1500 63.0 66.7 57.4 50.3 76.1 79.5 1600 64.8 67.4 61..2 54.1 80.9 78.1 1700 66.0 67.6 60.3 51.5 83.3 82.1 1800 63.5 66.6 61.3 51.4 73.9 78.7 1900 62.8 66.2 59.6 51.5 75.9 77.4 2000 59.7 62.8 55.7 51.2 70.7 71.2 2100 62.8 65.0 57.0 49.3 84.2 78.5 2200 59.6 63.1 53.2 47.5 71.9 75.2 Ldn = 70.6[dBA] Commercial Development Traffic [V/hr] 2460 2592 2430 3150 2604 2496 1080 1032 The sound - pressure level values listed are all hourly values and were obtained where more than one hourly sample was obtained by using an intensity -like averaging scheme, see the summary of the analyses in the Appendix of this report. This paragraph explains the use subscripts for Lsubscript for the above column headings of Table 1.,above. L is the sound - pressure level indicated and tabulated below it in decibels, in this case A- weighted decibels, [dBA]. The numerical subscripts indicate the percentage of the time the listed sound- pressure level was exceeded. The 'eq' subscript is short for equivalent sound - pressure level which is the way the human hearing is thought to average sound, at least, similar to it, and, therefore, serves as an adequate planning guide to establish the day -night or community equivalent noise levels, which reduces all of the twenty -four hourly equivalent values derived from the above data, Table 2., below, to a single number, day -night average A- weighted sound - pressure level, Ldn. The subscript 'MAX' was the maximum average, not the peak sound - pressure level observed during the time the data samples were recorded, and was averaged the same way as the other data presented here, see the appendix. Finally, the subscript 'np' is short for noise pollution, and is considered to be an index. This is an important planning number because it has the variability and the intensity averaged or equivalent noise combined. Therefore, it provides a reasonably good kind of average maximum noise level adequate for exterior to interior noise reduction design for habitable buildings. It also indicates that, if it is very different from the equivalent noise level, the noise level distribution is subjected to wide variations in noise, a truly bothersome condition for residential areas. The last column in table 1. is the hourly traffic count corresponding to the measured sound - pressure levels, reported in the table. The above sound - pressure level data are very enlightening, but first let us understand what they mean. All measured sound - pressure level data reported is passed through some instrumentation: a microphone; an amplifier; a weighting circuit -- a filter; and so on. The response of these circuits necessarily modify the input data somewhat, and this response causes what is known as integration of the input pulse in time. For example, when sixteen samples per second are recorded, and the sample is, typically, I.N.A.S. Engineering -3- 60 5 Ldn 5 70 Kosich Construction Company 24 October 1994 Commercial Development fifteen minutes results in about fifteen - thousand (15,000) individual data points for each sample. Correspondingly, each data line tabulated here represents about one hour of recording at_th_ the site. By agreement of the International Standards Organization (ISO),. the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), Engineering Societies (like SAE, for example), and the Acoustical Society of America, instrument integration times have been fixed for approved sound - pressure level monitors. For example peak levels, which represent the instantaneous maxima, but are seldom used. So, 'MAX' sound - pressure 1--- ---- -. N 1 LDN= 60[dBA 1 1 ♦ 1 1 ♦ 1 Kosich Building Site 1 LDN= 65[dBA 1 ♦ 1 ♦ 1 Data Site 1 LDN= 70[dBA ♦ - •— •— •• Saratoga Avenue • —•� — •— •- •— •— •— .— • —• —.. b Figure 1. Showing the location where the sound - pressure level data was obtained, 100[ft] from center of Saratoga Avenue, and the noise contour lines Ldn = 65[dBA] is 215[ft], and Ldn = 60[dBA] - is-400[ft] from the center of-Saratoga Avenue. levels were averaged, and have been integrated by a standard smoothing time of one - hundred- twenty -five milliseconds, 125[ms], reference Noise and Vibration Control, 2nd Edition, by Leo .Beranek, Institute of Noise Control Engineering, Wash. D.C., 1988, page 75. Acquired sound -level data was first tabulated in the appendix of this report, then I.N.A.S. Engineering -4- 60 < Ldn < 70 Kosich Construction Company 24 October 1994 Commercial Development analyses produced subsequent tabulations. Each result, or row in a subsequent tabulation, is individual intensity averaged information, weighting toward higher levels, the way the human hearing weights sound. The data was reduced by a technique known as intensity averaging, and arithmetic averaging was also listed to give the user a 'feeling' for how intensity averaged noise level information weights a result, often, to a higher value. Sound - Pressure Levels due to Average Daily Traffic The following tabulation, Table 2., below, was developed from the hourly traffic counts from a manual counter during the witnessed sound - pressure level measurements. This information is useful for consideration of potential residential development of this site. The day -night average values over the site were calculated and are useful for planning purposes. Since the sound - pressure levels as far back as 215[ft] from the center of Saratoga Avenue are Ldp z 65[dBA] are too high to be mitigated in a practical aesthetic manner for residential use, the site is especially suitable for commercial development near Saratoga Avenue, which will provide a noise shield for any future residential development behind such a commercial development. There is always a question about traffic increase and the noise impact it may produce. The engineering department at the City of. Saratoga provided existing average daily traffic count, which was 34,477 both directions for Saratoga Avenue, near Lawrence Expressway. In order that future traffic be reasonably and accurately predicted, the current traffic must be congruent with the established facts. The traffic count for those hours where none was obtained were forced to agree with current (34,477[ADT]). Based on the count, the missing data points for L50, were modelled and calculated by a very careful fit to the existing data using the traffic count to establish a reliable relation for each of the measured fifty percent exceeded noise levels. The average differences both sides of missing data points were used to provide the difference between the fifty - percent exceeded level, L50, and the equivalent noise level, Leq, for each missing data point, a forced conformity with the measured noise level distribution. Table 2. Augmented tabulation of hourly traffic count on Saratoga Avenue. All entries in the row following each asterisk under the column heading Analysis were calculated to best fit the shape of hourly distribution of traffic, six in all out of twenty four hours. Analysis Traff ic Leq L50 Hour [V/hr] [dBA] [dBA] [24hr] 61 49.3 41.4 0100 62 49.3 41.6 0200 103. 52.3 44.6 0300 806 49.9 41.1 0400 (continued next page) I.N.A.S. Engineering - 5 60 <_ Ldn 5 70 Kosich Construction Company 24 October 1994 Commercial Development Analysis Traffic Leq L50 Hour 168 53.0 46.2 0500 348 59.1 53.1 0600 2484 70.0 64.0 0700 2568 63.6 59.3 0800 2436 64.4 62.4 0900 2035 62.3 58.6 1000 * 1281 66.0 60.6 1100 * 1551 68.1 62.2 1200 * 1034 68.3 62.3 1300 2568 76.4 53.7 1400 2592 63.0 57.4 1500 2430 64.8 61.2 1600 3150 66.0 60.3 1700 2604 63.5 61.3 1800 2496 62.8 59.6 1900 1389 59.7 55.7 2000 1080 62.8 57.0 2100 1032 59.6 53.2 2200 * 138 47.8 42.3 2300 60 53.4 41.6 2400 ADT = 34,477[V] Ldn = 69.7[dBA] * These data points were calculated from the data listed, table 1 for a smooth fit to the traffic count distribution, and an internal smooth fit to the hourly sound - pressure level data for the hourly noise levels, as described above. To answer the question raised in the first sentence of the second paragraph of page five, this tabulation, Table 2., allows a fit to be gained for future increased traffic, ADT, on Saratoga Avenue. It is noteworthy that any distances whatever from the center line of Saratoga Avenue may have an hourly average noise level estimated by subtraction of (15)Loglo(D /100) from the above listed A- weighted sound - pressure levels, and where D[ft] is the distance from the center of Saratoga Avenue, for D z 100[ft]. This is true because the prevalent noise is from Saratoga Avenue, which is a line noise source. For example, the day -night average sixty decibel, Ldn = 60[dBA], noise contour line is parallel to the center line of Saratoga Avenue and 400[ft] from it. Similarly the Ldn 65[dBA] noise contour line is 216[ft] from the center line of Saratoga Avenue. See Figure 1., above, these results have been placed on it. Future Sound - Pressure Levels due to Average Daily Traffic Increase A study was completed using the traffic -count noise model briefly described, above, for which the hourly traffic count was used to calculate the exact measured values for the I.N.A.S. Engineering -6- 60 <_ Ldn :9 70 Kosich Construction Company 24 October 1994 Commercial Development fifty percent exceed noise levels, L50, a--procedure developed for highway engineering use, Table 3., and widely used by acoustical engineers to predict noise from traffic flow values. This empirical fit is site dependent, but our experience shows that. it is very reliable on any given project site. Table 3. Future noise levels for a ten - percent average daily increase in surface traffic on Saratoga Avenue, total traffic, both ways. Current V/hr Leq 49.3 49.3 52.3 49.9 53.0 59.1 70.0 63.6 64.4 62.3 66.0 68.1 68.3 76.4 63.0 64.8 66.0 63.5 62.8 59.7 62.8 59.6 47.8 53.4 61 62 103 806 168 348 2484 2568 2436 2035 1281 1551 1034 2568 2592 2430 3150 2604 2496 1389 1080 1032 138 60 ADT= 34,477 L.dn =69.7 ADT= 38,976 Ldn =70.7 The existing traffic counts were increased by ten percent. The result was found for one - hundred feet from the center line of Saratoga Avenue an increase of one A- weighted decibel in 'the day -night average noise to seventy -one A- weighted decibels, Ldn = 71 [dBA] from the current seventy A- weighted decibels, Ldn = 70[dBA]. Correspondingly, the noise will increase by one decibel at each contour line shown in figure 1, above. A ten percent increase in traffic on Saratoga Avenue, which is not very likely due to this planned use, but a ten - percent increase in daily traffic would cause an increase in noise level from Ldn = 70[dBA] to Ldn = 71 [dBA]. This increase is I.N.A.S. Engineering -7- 60 < Ldn :5 70 Future L50 Hour V/hr L50 Leq Hour 41.4 0100 66 42.2 50.1 0100 41.6 0200 68 42.5 50.2 0200 44.6 0300 113 45.5 53.2 0300 41.1 0400 887 41.7 50.5. 0400 46.2 0500 185 47.0 53.8 0500 53.1 0600 382 53.1 59.1 0600 64.0 0700 2732 64.8 70.8 0700 59.3 0800 2825 65.1 69.4 0800 62.4 0900 2680 63.2 65.2 0900 58.6 1000 2239 59.3 63.0 1000 60.6 1100 2463 66.1 71.5 1100 62.2 1200 1706 63.0 68.9 1200 62.3 1300 1137 63.2 69.2 1300 53.7 1400 2825 54.3 77.0 1400 57.4 1500 2851 58.1 63.7 1500 61.2 1600 2673 62.0 65.6 1600 60.3 1700 3465 61.0 66.7 1700 61.3 1800 2864. 62.1 64.3 1800 59.6 1900 2746 60.4 63.6 1900 55.7 2000, 1528 56.4 60.4 2000 57.0 2100 1188 57.7 63.5 2100 53.2 2200 1135 53.9 60.3 2200 42.3 2300 152 43.1 48.6 2300 41.6 2400 66 42.6 54.4 2400 L.dn =69.7 ADT= 38,976 Ldn =70.7 The existing traffic counts were increased by ten percent. The result was found for one - hundred feet from the center line of Saratoga Avenue an increase of one A- weighted decibel in 'the day -night average noise to seventy -one A- weighted decibels, Ldn = 71 [dBA] from the current seventy A- weighted decibels, Ldn = 70[dBA]. Correspondingly, the noise will increase by one decibel at each contour line shown in figure 1, above. A ten percent increase in traffic on Saratoga Avenue, which is not very likely due to this planned use, but a ten - percent increase in daily traffic would cause an increase in noise level from Ldn = 70[dBA] to Ldn = 71 [dBA]. This increase is I.N.A.S. Engineering -7- 60 < Ldn :5 70 Kosich Construction Company 24 October 1994 Commercial Development considered, here, to be a maximum possible increase for planning purposes, and certainly does not produce a significant increase in local noise levels. Traffic increase in average daily trips for a commercial project such as that planned by the Kosich Construction Company typically ranges from two to four percent and most likely will not be greater than four percent (4 %). Therefore the planned commercial development will not impact the local residential noise levels because of local traffic increase. Exterior Noise Levels for any Possible Development of this Property For residential development the exterior use area sound - pressure levels should be at or below fifty -five A- weighted decibels, equivalent noise level. Notice from tables 1. and 2., above, that this hourly equivalent noise level is 76[dBA] at 1400[hrs]. Figure 2. below is the Fresnel model for calculation of the sound waves diffracted over an acoustical barrier. B Hi h X = 10Log( {(30h2)/a,)[A-1 + B -1)) [dB] a Figure 2. A calculational model for a barrier, of height H, noise reduction level. A reduction of 76 - 55 = 21 [dBA] is required. A calculation using the above model resulted in H = 15.7[ft], for a = 2[ft], b = 5[ft]2[inch], A = 50[ft], B = 50[ft], and h =12[ft] 8[inch]. Therefore, for residential use a noise barrier of 16[ft] height should be as close to Saratoga Avenue as is possible -to provide a 21 [dBA] noise level - reduction. b is the listener, or receiver height, a is the typical automobile noise source height, exhaust and fire noise, h is the effective noise barrier height, and H is the overall height of the noise barrier. A is the distance from the source of noise to the noise barrier along a line connecting the top of a to the top of b, and B is a similar distance for the receiver to barrier distance. I.N.A.S. Engineering -8- . 60 <_ L.dn. <_ 70 Kosich Construction Company 24 October 1994 Commercial Development Conclusions _ In our opinion this site is ideal, from a noise environment point of view, for a commercial development built in a fashion as shown on the application by the Kosich Construction Company because of the current high day -night noise level, Ldn = 70[dBA]. If this site were planned as a residential development, a way to meet the residential exterior noise level standard of Ldn 5 60[dBA] would be with a 16[ft] high sound wall. Our acoustical engineering experience for similar projects shows that commercial developments, with the exception of truck delivery noise, create no sound impact for residential neighbors. The commercial buildings will offer the existing and the proposed residences a noise shield from the Saratoga Avenue traffic noise. With truck deliveries restricted to the day -time hours between 0800[hrs] and 1800[hrs], it is our opinion that development of this site would actually be beneficial to the neighbors by decreasing the overall sound - pressure levels within the adjacent residential neighborhood. Respectfully submitted, 19 FESS /��\ O l Q� 5 Ey F California Electrical Engineer C.-3 4 No. E9 7 Aire %30/98 �EXP� mes Sid y Mil ngineer TF OF cA`�FO I.N.A.S. Engineering -9- 60 <_ Ldn 5 70 Kosich Building 24 October 1994 Background Noise Data Appendix Sound pressure levels in A- weighted decibels The following sound - pressure level data was obtained with a Cirrus Research Corporation model 702 sound monitor serial number 016490 factory calibrated 8/15/94 fitted with a remote 1/2' diameter microphone. Event Start Run Time Leq L L L L L Lmax Date Day 01 10 25 50 90 1 0005 09:41 52.7 64.2 55.3 48.3 41.7 41.4 68.8 2 0015 05:07 53.4 65.8 56.8 47.4 41.5 41.4 67.8 3 0043 01:16 54.7 64.4 60.1 50.8 41.7 41.4 65.4 4 0045 13:53 52.6 64.5 52.7 472 41.5 41.4 74.1 5 0104 10 :2348.762.449.241.741.441.466.3 6 0115 05:13 49.8 63.0 49.6 42.0 41.4 41.4 66.1 9/7/94 tue101 1 0454 05:33 49.9 62.8 50.8 45.8 41.1 41.0 74.0 2 0500 14:37 49.8 60.9 52.6 48.9 41.4 41.0 65.6 3 0515 14:08 51.3 62.8 54.1 47.2 41.1 41.0 69.1 4 0545 14:09 55.7 66.3 57.9 54.1 49.9 41.0 73.1 5 0600 01:40 60.9 73.4 63.6 56.7 50.8 41.0 75.0 6 0848 11:02 63.6 70.9 67.3 64.4 59.3 52.8 73.8 7 0913 01:08 66.0 70.7 68.1 67.1 65.6 54.7 71.9 8 0915 13:46 64.2 72.6 67.3 64.5 602 53.3 77.8 9 0938 06:13 62.4 70.2 66.5 62.3 57.6 502 74.0 10 0945 08:53 61.9 69.2 65.8 62.6 57.3 51.0 72.2 11 1003 11:20 64.0 73.5 66.8 64.1 58.8 49.7 79.6 1' 1010 04:40 63.5 69.7 66.6 64.5 60.5 522 75.7 2' 1015 14:36 61.8 68.9 65.5 62.8 57.7 50.0 71.7 8/30/94 tue2 12 1015 03:36 69.5 70.5 66.8 64.4 60.4 53.4 71.7 13 1053 00:07 44.9 52.2 50.7 45.8 42.5 41.1 52.1 8/31/94 wed6a 6' 1400 12:40 76.4 80.5 68.5 60.9 53.7 51.7107.7 9/01/94 6 1515 14:21 62.8 70.0 66.2 63.4 58.4 50.4 77.6 7 1543 01:07 63.9 73.0 68.0 63.8 55.4 50.8 74.0 8 1545 13:52 62.2 69.8 65.7 63.3 57.8 49.5 75.9 9 1614 00:56 65.1 69.1 67.4 66.0 642 57.2 69.8 10 1615 08:54 62.8 69.8 66.1 63.6 59.5 51.0 75.8 11 1630 06:33 62.4 69.5 65.9 63.2 59.4 50.3 72.2 12 1643 01:23 65.3 72.8 69.3 65.3 60.5 55.9 74.1 13 1645 13:42 66.8 76.8 67.2 64.6 60.1 51.2 87.2 14 1713 01:02 60.6 66.2 64.5 62.6 552 50.3 67.6 - 15 1715 13:37 64.1 70.4 67.2 64.9 61.8 52.6 74.5 16 1730 00:40 71.8 85.5 71.6 61.6 55.6 49.4 91.18/31/94 wed6c 1 1700 14:45 63.5 69.7 66.6 64.3 60.0 51.3 79.6 2 1715 15:00 63.3 69.2 66.3 64.5 61.4 52.9 71.6 3 1730 15:00 63.0 68.5 66.2 64.4 61.0 50.9 74.3 4 1745 15:00 63.8 70.0 66.5 65.1 62.0 51.8 74.8 5 1800 15:00 63.6 69.4 66.8 64.8 61.1 51.3 75.7 6 1815 09:26 63.4 69.1 66.4 65.0 61.4 51.5 70.9 8/24/94 koswed5d I. N. A. S. Engineering - 1 - 60 < Ldn < 75 Kosich Building 24 October 1994 Background Noise Data Event Start Run Time LIq L o1 _L Ie L 25 L50 L 90 Lmu Date Day 1 1915 14:56 63.4­69.5 66.7 64.7 60.5 512 73.4 2 1930 15:00 62.5 68.4 65.7 63.7 59.7 52.0 75.7 3 1945 15:00 62.4 68.8 .66.0 62.9 58.4 51.3 77.7 4 2000 1500 62.3 70.1 65.6 62.9 58.0 52.1 73.7 5 2015 00:17 51.7 53.9 52.5 51.5 50.8 50.1 54.4 8/23/94 tues Event Start Run Time Lq L 01 L10 L25 LSO L w LLW Date Day 1 2143 01:33 61.3 67.4 65.2 61.7 58.1 50.7 68.5 2 2145 15:00 63.9 70.0 64.8 60.7 55.5 47.1 87.2 3 2200 01:54 61.8 73.3 64.7 61.7 54.3 49.3 75.3 4 2202 12:48 59.4 67.6 63.8 59.1 53.9 46.9 69.7 5 2215 01:39 55.1 64.5 58.6 53.4 50.6 45.2 65.7 9/01/94 thrb The following data was reduced from the data listed above. Entries below the headings (-subscript are in A- weighted decibels referred to 20VN/m2]. Hour Lsq L10 L50 L90 LMAX Lnp 0005 52.7 55.3 41.7 41.4 68.8 66.6 0015 53.4 56.8 41.5 41.4 67.8 68.8 0043 54.7 60.1 41.7 41.4 65.4 73.4 0045 52.6 52.7 41.5 41.4 74.1 63.9 eqv 53.4 57.0 41.6 41.4 70.3 69.1 arith 53.4 56.2 41.6 41.4 69.0 68.2 01'04 48.7 49.2 41.4 41.4 66.3 56.5 0115 49.8 49.6 41.4 41.4 66.1 58.0 eqv 49.3 49.4 41.4 41.4 66.2 57.3 arith 49.3 49.4 41.4 41.4 66.2 57.3 0400 49.9 50.8 41.1 41.0 74.0 59.7 eqv 49.9 50.8 41.1 41.0 74.0 59.7 arith 49.9 50.8 41.1 41.0 74.0 59.7 0515 49.8 52.6 41.4 41.0 65.6 61.4 0530 51.3 54.1 41.1 41.0 69.1 64.4 0545 55.7 57.9 49.9 41.0 73.1 72.6 eqv 53.0 55.5 46.2 41.0 70.3 67.5 arith 52.3 54.9 44.1 41.0 69.3 66.1 0848 63.6 67.3 59.3 52.8 73.8 78.1 eqv 63.6 67.3 59.3 52.8 73.8 78.1 arith 63.6 67.3 59.3 52.8 73.8 78.1 0913 66.0 68.1 65.6 54.7 71.9 79.4 0915 64.2 67.3 60.2 53.3 77.8 78.2 0945 62.4 66.5 57.6 50.2 74.0 78.7 eqv 64.4 67.3 62.4 53.1 75.3 78.7 arith 64.2 67.3 61.1 52.7 74.6 78.8 1003 64.0 66.8 58.8 49.7 79.6 81.1 Comments 69.6 intensity* ave. of individ. NPi Hourly levels intensity* averaged Hourly levels arithmetic averaged 57.3 intensity* of individual NPi Hourly levels intensity* averaged Hourly levels arithmetic averaged 59.7 intensity* ave. of individ. NPi Hourly levels intensity* averaged Hourly levels arithmetic averaged 68.7 intensity* ave. of individ. NPi Hourly levels intensity* averaged Hourly levels arithmetic averaged 78.1 intensity* of individual NPi Hourly levels intensity* averaged Hourly levels arithmetic averaged 78.8intensity* ave. of individ. NPi Hourly levels intensity* averaged Hourly levels arithmetic averaged I. N. A. S. Engineering -2- 60 < Ldn < 75 Kosich Building 24 October 1994 Background Noise Data Hour Leq L10 L50 L90 LMAx Lip Comments 1010 63.5 66.6 60.5 52.2 75.7 77.9 1015 61.8 65.5 57.7 50.0 71.7 77.3 77.7 intensity* ave. of individ. NPi 1015 63.5 66.8 60.4 53.4 71.7 76.9 1053. 44.9 50.7 42.5 41.1 52.1 54.5 eqv 62.3 65.5 58.6 50.7 75.0 77.1 Hourly levels intensity* averaged arith 59.5 63.3 .56.0 49.3 70.2 73.5 Hourly levels arithmetic averaged 1400 76.4 68.5 53.7 51.7 107.7 93.2 93.2 intensity* ave. of individ. NPi eqv 76A 68.5 53.7 51.7 107.7 93.2 Hourly levels intensity* averaged arith 76.4 68.5 53.7 51.7 107.7 93.2 Hourly levels arithmetic averaged 1515 62.8 66.2 58.4 50.4 77.6 78.6 1543 63.9 68.0 55.4 50.8 74.0 81.1 79.5 intensity* ave. of individ. NPi 1545 62.2 65.7 57.8 49.5 75.9 78.4 eqv 63.0 66.7 57.4 50.3 76.1 79.5 Hourly levels intensity* averaged arith 63.0 66.6 57.2 50.2 75.8 79.4 Hourly levels arithmetic averaged 1614 65.1 67.4 64.2 57.2 69.8 75.3 1615 62.8 66.1 59.5 51.0 75.8 77.9 1630 62.4 65.9 59.4 50.3 72.2 78.0 79.3 intensity* ave. of individ. NPi 1643 65.3 69.3 60.5 55.9 74.1 78.7 1645 66.8 67.2 60.1 51.2 87.2 82.8 eqv 64.8 67.4 61.2 54.1 80.9 78.1 Hourly levels intensity* averaged arith 64.5 67.2 60.7 53.1 75.8 78.5 Hourly levels arithmetic averaged 1713 60.6 64.5 55.2 50.3 67.6 74.8 1715. 64.1 67.2 61.8 52.6 74.5 78.7 1730 71.8 71.6 55.6 49.4 91.1 94.0 1700 63.5 66.6 60.0 51.3 79.6 78.8 86.1 intensity* ave. of individ. NPi 1715 63.3 -66.3 61.4 52.9 71.6 76.7 1730 63.0 66.2 61.0 50.9 74.3 78.3 1745 63.8 66.5 62.0 51.8 74.8 78.5 eqv 66.0 67.6 60.3 51.5 83.3 82.1 Hourly levels intensity* averaged arith 64.3 67.0 59.6 51.3 65.5 80.0 Hourly levels arithmetic averaged 1800 63.6 66.8 61.1 51.3 75.7 79.1 1815 63.4 66.4 61.4 51.5 70.9 78.3 78.7 intensity* ave. of individ. NPi eqv 63.5 66.6 61.3 51.4 73.9 78.7 Hourly levels intensity* averaged arith 63.5 66.6 61.3 51.4 73.3 78.7 Hourly levels arithmetic averaged 1915 63.4 66.7 60.5 51.2 73.4 78.9 1930 62.5 65.7 59.7 52.0 75.7 76.2 77.5 intensity* ave. of individ. NPi 1945 62.4 66.0 58.4 51.3 77.7 77.1 eqv 62.8 66.2 59.6 51.5 75.9 77.4 - Hourly levels intensity* averaged arith 62.8 66.1 59.5 51.5 75.6 77.4 Hourly levels arithmetic averaged 2000 62.3 65.6 58 52.1 73.7 75.8 2015 51.7 52.5 50.8 50.1 54.4 54.1 72.8 intensity* ave. of individ. NPi eqv 59.7 62.8 55.7 51.2 70.7 71.2 Hourly levels intensity* averaged arith 57.0 59.1 54.4 51.1 64.1 65.0 Hourly levels arithmetic averaged I. N. A. S. Engineering -3- 60 < Ldn < 75 Kosich Building 24 October 1994 Background Noise Data Hour Lsq L10 1_50 Lso LMnx Lnp Comments 2143 61.3 65.2 58.1 50.7 6&5 75.8 2145 63.9 64.8 55.5 47.1 87.2 81.6 77.4 intensity* ave. of individ. NPi eqv 62.8 65.0_ 57.0 49.3 84.2 78.5 Hourly levels intensity* averaged arith- 62.6 65.0 56.8 48.9 77.9 78.7 Hourly levels arithmetic averaged 2200 61.8 64.7 54.3 49.3 75.3 77.2 2202 59.4 63.8 53.9 46.9 69.7. 76.3 2215 55.1 58.6 50.6 45.2 65.7 68.5 eqv 59.6 63.1 53.2 47.5 71.9 75.2 Hourly levels intensity* averaged arith 58.8 62.4 52.9 47.1 70.2 74.0 Hourly levels arithmetic averaged * Intensity average = 10log10 { oN(10LJ) /N), where Li is the ith sound pressure level, and N is the total number of levels summed over. The intensity averaged data from this, bold -face, listing was used to create table 1 of the report. Lotus Improv was used for the data reduction, and custom analysis programs were especially written for these data. I. N. A. S. Engineering .4- 60 < Ldn < 75 KOSICH CORRESPONDENCE EXHIBIT B JAN.1 2 1994 Saratoga Woods Park Homeowner' V9.669iation � �"�°` 'sue t r 'JAN 12 1994 Petition for Resoiution PI-MlYING E)EP-r We, the undersigned, residents of the City of Saratoga, oppose the currently proposed Kosich Property Development Plan and any alternate that suggests commercial use. That area, affecting three parcels commonly known as the Kosich Orchard, is shown by the current General Plan and long standing zoning plan as R-1 (10,000) which allows single family residential development. We therefore petition the Planning Commission and City Council to maintain the current General Plan & Zoning-and deny said application(s). Name Address telephone number -2- tdjxAq 1(? cL, (� 4,V t,� k-� ;zoptional) z"?— L&grwwm .................... i ............ Pm arms Addnm (rec#-Opboml) V 2. 2 ffel.#-Opbanal) L 72'�` . .................... i ............ Frint,. A f 9A WLI S 5-rUrt "PIA W- (4144)pborgd) 'St acig-r FAsks Jut -rr-ro Aoder.:;rn 12310 Sari fz (I C"'Ic-11 Cr. sigrabsa .................. W ............Pair[ film Address (rel.#-Opbonal) 4. i 5--tty Yo a,5717 a4r- AL� L�4 53 - 4,�L Z I J ............ FMM rams Address S4AA-M rrpj CrO14-00-1) St 6JIVEN S. IWRMLH, 18665 PL►EOAD� D AjA- : -7 4 7 gnabre ..................... ..........Print nom Address • (r6I.#-0PbMW) 1-/s,4 7-ku,*Ag#, MIj-iIa*7. ....... ......... . i ............ P6M narw Address (TiW.#-CVtk—) L 040 �),W,0. a 5., Alem– Siena .................. I . ............ Pi, MUM Address (TeL#-0pbonW) J............ Whit name r.ss (rat4-0pbonal) I -S7eVE- AVQdtpRW 127 5 :SAk4 fal-A cd ff j name �f Addr� (rel.#-Opbonal) n /J &I-j * /**"*,C,//-- 4 7f-1- /--?- L;----3 42, — J ............ PriM rarer Addf� (rGio-opborud) Fe;7.,-,-i27413 e& .................... j ............ P'lim rs (rel.0-0pbowl) 12. Y &Un wU . .................... J ............ Prk nanm Address (reIA-Optional) SigrMbim .................... i ........ .... Prim na"M Address I, 4-- , . ). I ftnakwe .................... j ............ Prird F%MM Address (TelA-0pbonal) (24 1 (),,u4-A:;14CA 17992 PAII, Sig wU ..................... /............Print name Address 6,60AL� 6� . I-u� yj,'Etj /Y,-I�-,7 PAL& PA14�� C7 ffel.#-Opbanal) L 72'�` Sigrobim 0. 1 rame Address (rel.40-0pbonsJ) 7lya .....Print n&,m Signahm .................. Add� (rel."Pborw) Jut -rr-ro Aoder.:;rn 12310 Sari fz (I C"'Ic-11 Cr. si2rZ da . .................... i ..(........ Address X7 cr . M- ss— r Sig . .......... PViM Address Add 2D- Ito 4) ENNIS 7FAV I-110 t95q I &-IAIE- f AM -161 Ym M (TW4,0pbonid) 9-64–Lt7 f ftrwwm .................... j ............ fIft name Address (rei4-0pbonid) Petition C stodian Name... Signed /Printed Petition for Resolution 'JAN 12 19g4 PLANNING DEPT. We, the undersigned, residents of the City of Saratoga, oppose the currently proposed Kosich Property Development Plan and any attemate that suggests commercial use. That area, affecting three parcels commonly known as the Kosich Orchard, is shown by the current General Plan and long standing zoning plan as R -1 (10,000) which allows single family residential development. We therefore petition the Planning Commission and City Council to maintain the current General Plan & Zoning -and deny said application(s). Name Address telephone number (optional) Sgraturo .................... J ............ Print name Address (iN.N I) 15. Signatiae ..................... /............Print name Address (el.N -Optional) 16. Signature .................... J ............ Print name Address N.N 17 Sign sans ..................... ............ Print name Address (Tel.N-0ptior111) 1s. Signature ....... .............. /............Priori rams Address (rel.0-00-0 19. signa4ae ..................... /............Print name Address (TN.N-0Ptiaol) 20. Signature .................... I ............ Print name Address (TN.N-0ptiaal) Petition Custodian Name ... Sign B /Printed IT MGt�Culrr�l 1�.11�c ��z5�a MEllc>^ �lr' ratios .... ...........j.J ............ Print Mrne Addnesa (TN.N -0ptional) ...... Print nor a Address (Tel.#- Opbaal) Signature .................... J ............ Print name Address (TN.N Optional) J IG+-, An �i4 I A 17 Caounij fir. J............ name Address (Tel.N -0ptional) 5. signature ........ ............. /............Prim name Address (TN.N- optional) 6. slgnatme.................... J ............ Print name Address (rel.N.Optioral) 7. ! Sigrature .................... J ............ Print rams Address (TN.N•OPtiaral) B. Signet. .................... J ............ Print name Addren (Tel.# -0ptioxai) 9. Signatiae .................... J ............ Print nano Address (TN.N-OPeoral) 10. / SgraMS.................... J ............ Print name Address N.N 11. Signature ..................... /............Print name Address (re14-optionW) 12. 1 Sgroture ..................... /............Print name Address N.N- Options 13. Sgrab. ..................... /............Print name Address N.N• 14. Sgraturo .................... J ............ Print name Address (iN.N I) 15. Signatiae ..................... /............Print name Address (el.N -Optional) 16. Signature .................... J ............ Print name Address N.N 17 Sign sans ..................... ............ Print name Address (Tel.N-0ptior111) 1s. Signature ....... .............. /............Priori rams Address (rel.0-00-0 19. signa4ae ..................... /............Print name Address (TN.N-0Ptiaol) 20. Signature .................... I ............ Print name Address (TN.N-0ptiaal) Petition Custodian Name ... Sign B /Printed IT *JAN 12 X994 Petition for Resolution PLAIVIVING DFpT We, the undersigned, residents of the City of Saratoga, oppose the currently proposed Kosich Property Development Plan and any alternate that suggests commercial use. That area, affecting three parcels commonly known as the Kosich Orchard, is shown by the current General Plan and long standing zoning plan as R -1 (10,000) which allows single family residential development. We therefore petition the Planning Commission and City Council to maintain the current General Plan & Zoning and deny said application(s). Name Address telephone number ( (optional) 1 4�iIflAf /89c9...' Signtm .... ..............J............Prnt Address (Tel. # -Optional) C�SG`alc�/H � /Qo9 /��PCf ✓.r- /.Qr. 9 Sig OPW) a. ! AW Z 5a-7-F3C sign ohms .................... J ............ Pft nem Addrrs (r�l.r OpDaW) 4., �.� -Itl�Ca &;tSO / at Aurun C a',5 --rr Dsa -17 33D Signa .................... J ............ Prim rams Addrso Rsl. #-0phoral) s. / Sig rohae .................... J ............ Prird rams Addma (Tel.r- opbonal) 8. / Signftm .................... J ............ Print nano Address (TW.#-0ptioral) 7. Sigrohse ..................... ............ Not narrre Address (Tel.r-)phoral) B. Signahn .................... J ............ Prim name Addros (Tel. # -0ptioml) 9. si mue .................... J ............ Prim rams Adde (Tel. #-Optional) 10. Sigrahas .................... J ............ Print rams Addre (rel. #-0Pil -W) 11. signowm ................. ...J ............ Pmd rams Addn= (Tel.#- Optiorol) 12. SigraMS .................... J ............ Pr" room Address (Tel. # - Optional) 19. Signah..................... / J........:...R" fame Addreo (Tel.r -0ptioral) 14. Sig nshas.................... J ............ Prim rams Address (Tel. #- Optiora) 15. Sig ohm .................... J ............ Pfert rams Address (Te14-0pwW) • 18. Sgrohae .................... J ............ Prad rams Addeo (rel. #-OP*WW) 17. Sgmt. ..................... / ............ Prad rums Addreo (Tel. # -oP* W) 18. Sgrat. .................... J ............ F*d name Addroe (rel. #- Optioroq 19. sgfawm ..................... / ............ Pfaff rams Addma (rel. #-opliorW) 20. Signahas.................... / J ............ Print rams Addre (Te4. #-0pbo W) Petition Custodian MLIVI 5,tL F U1,1s Name... Signed rinted 'JAN 1$1994 Petition for Resolution PLANNING DEp-, We, the undersigned, residents of the City of Saratoga, oppose the currently proposed Kosich Property Development Plan and any alternate that suggests commercial use. That area, affecting three parcels commonly known as the Kosich Orchard, is shown by the current General Plan and long standing zoning plan as R -1 (10,000) which allows single family residential development. We therefore petition the Planning Commission and City Council to maintain the current General Plan & Zoning and deny said application(s). Name Address telephone number (optional) Signs .J............Print rarna Address (Tel. « -OPtiond) ............... 2. >�,, ,IsC�u1v ego �( W�:L /�- 7xry :1 0 2 sipnra4ie ..... ............... J ............ Print name Addreo q G (Tel. «- OPOOnsI) � lip IRA M- !I ! STD n �g 1� 0 �4�CS�'VIPW 1'� -I)�c"� Sigratiae...... .........J............ Print narra Addrew (TN.« Optional) 4. soon SiOnel, ae ....... .............J............Print name Address (Tel. «- OPAond) )SG,c 1 S3 (/C 9 Sig .................... J ............ PrinYrama Address (Tel. « -0P11 -1) 6. C ns4rts.................... J ............ Print rams Address (Tai.« - Optional) 7. AIJ. l/Acta•�e /a30 SA�e.4r� � W57 SigraIIae ... : ................J..�P d nsnr Address (reLiP Dpliond) B. 1 M 1 Sig rahra .................... J ............ Print rams Addrew (Tel. « - Optional) _ r n/l ................ .......... � %�. //� - / 1� I Addrew (Tel. «-0Ptiond) �� Qqm /> CvY- I ff natrae.... ....... .... /.......... Prarl Tana / Addrw ,1. �— 16i)wms P19 Ji /Lf 9 z{, c (Tel. « -OPtiond) reties ..' ............. ...: ....Prvrt rams Address 12. - � 1 (Tel. « -000nal) X57 -3777 ,.....J..........Print name Addren ) 13. r lira r� R (Tel. «- Opticnw) Sgna m " .'.1...........J ............ Print name Addnmr - 14. /, �: < (Tel. « -0ptonal) - SignaUvs .. .... ......... .. /..........Print name Address 5 l q 8 a- (. west \n (TWA-Optional) 2S -5 Sigrature .......:......... J............Print rme Address ,6.._ af'1 l 'P% PQ1?A -14 /2 4Y 5'arc7 (Tel. « - Optional) pJ9._ rAo aS7,,gLy- n. rar 1idF�r6 Ad� . �. ` ............J.........� v�/7t! c�. (NA- 0pts -1) Si@natiee ................ ...........Prird name Address l (Tel. « - Optional) 0 ...� pd, Grvv�JGoeDc i iw* 25 2 'ct!S'%7 Sionsitere ........1............Prim name Addrew ,e. 1 .� (Tel.« -optional) Z S2 - Z Cl Print name Addrew we- in�4�,J 1 u;jv I eu Iga E J91g ..................... /............Print name Addrew (Tel. « -0Ptioral) Petition _Custodian Name... Signed /printed Noy 17 M4 Petition for Resolution PLm'YjjYG DEPT We, the undersigned, residents of the City of Saratoga, oppose the currently proposed Kosict Property Development Plan and any alternate that suggests commercial use. That area, affectin( three parcels commonly known as the Kosich Orchard, ' is shown by the current General Plan anc long standing zoning plan as R-1 (10,000) which allows single family residential development. W( therefore petition the Planning Commission and City Council to maintain the current General Plar & Zoning and deny said application(s). Name Address telephone number (optional) Sc►rJnaa bftmALJI /A311 ka,4n&,-br. .2S Sig w ............... i ............ Print name Address (Tel-0-optorw) 2,r7 —Q S g *nabs* .... .. ........... J ............ Print nerns Address (NIAP-Opbor%W) 3. 4 let& t�'L."T AA svu 4 signou J Print nwits Addrs& . . (rel-"Pbonal) I Q-,, KtRCVC CA NTrDr- 255 '55 Address 0614-00-0 Address I %qqq (ajx,,j-j.jjf Lp 1517 Address .. I (rel-i-optional) Ijq2q 9-14t. - - Address (Tel.#-0PtMW) &'1'12 1-4 5 - fi=' Address (Tel."Ptic-C 25 -? 79- ).$iV- Addreas (Tel."Plionall '0- -.f I JoWili Pin 4 U4 I R f,) I_ k'nS 1 4, of 9 6' - cl - 7 .................... J� ........... "ila Addross (Tel.#-Opbonid) 12. SiRT-11 . .................... /............Prim ram Address (TS14-opt-0 k"�' w �o&g- L. �y�' koS'ILV��r. ;t �- I. - �-" . .................. no" (Tot-#-Opbonaf) 13. PC!"7Z C- 29 (' 4-3 .. ............... .......... Address (rel.#-Opbonid) 14. ............ .......... Addren (Tel.40-Optional) Addison (Fel.#-Opbonal) s. C' Ca 2 S7 17. TSignat . .......... ........ /............ Prim nano Addison (reI44)pbonal) D )< LC- c, Rr' sot . ................ I .............Prim rMindl Address (rsI.#4)pbonaQ 1a310 V- ;i " 9 (-! 7--4- - 13 L; C' Signab". i Print name Address (re14-Optional) A I- D - -7 ?5 X2 1,2 _qY q-iv ; 4 20. t ISignabAe .................... J ............ " name Addy (ral."PtIonal) ftk.j I / TtftIA a firm- rl;&)i Siandkirs-, ................ j ............ Print name Address (reI.#-C"kxwI) Petition Custodian ,&ridp- 0- �rna-i, Name... Signed/Printed -1 - -. Petition for Resolution We, the undersigned, residents of the City of Saratoga, oppose the currently proposed Kosich .Property Development Plan and any alternate that suggests commercial use. That area, affecting three parcels commonly known as the Kosich Orchard, is shown by the current General Plan and long standing zoning plan as R -1 (10,000) which allows single family residential development. We therefore•petition the Planning Commission and City Council to maintain the current General Plan & Zoning and deny said application(s). Name Address telephone number / (optional) 1. ` l [� /� +oHw' /i).GP_C "'c✓G-S.' n signature .................... 1 ............ Prim narns ' . Address ` (rN.N-0pnonal) 2. Signatlae ..................... 1 ............ Print name Address (TN.N -Optional) 3' K'nPA ' Zhen\AEA c:...%— J ............ Print name Address (fel.N Optional) �a�ialLaL• =-�/ ti:..�S �i1 �� �lk% �� �:���l�S �� `' F�'1 rl= Li�.:T " LJ � Y Signa4ue..,. 0 ............ 1............. Print name Address (Tel.N-Optional) 5. I rl /rlu -P'L 3 1--13/7 lZf�1�dv�S'A nQ as- s- c -saf., �......`......Prriint rums Address (re1.40- Opti-1) f-5 signature /..t .......... /............Print name Address (re1.N Optional) 7.- `1 ' AJob,,k- or,�Qm /lF��� C'+� /��t DJ' �cS-��v.� c:,n� - - - - -_ /............Prim nano �' Address (Tel.N-OPOOruo 6. iw/ l �A,2QJ /YI PAi?X��' i.f'� /,P r?�A�8�2a�� t7E. a5�-'�JCIe wA sOr-9 nature .................... 1............P ' name Address (TN.M -Optional) 9 AN/iA_T, 17 4ldf7enl <-r Z_ XQZ -7�- nat re.......... J............Prrst rums Address (T914- Optional) /� Jaxt =o�^ +o`TOb c r✓T D2 2�3- ��i�� l> . Print rums Signature . ....................1.......... Print name Address (rM4-0ptioral) 0 6e�-- /Da,- e CCla- /8106 eab""'PT "S3 -2v Sigralvre..................... / ............ Print name Address (re14- Optional) 12. sgnatire ..................... /............Prim name Address (Te14- optional) 13. ) sgnau. ..................... /............Prim name Address 0614. 00onal) 14. Sigruhas ..................... /............Print name Address (rel.N- Optional) 15. S ignsh. .................... 1 ............. Print name Address (TAIL"ptional) 16 Petition Custodian �Qe'1 Vs''(r I )!A. \yYr Gh.. �..rlti+` � �- ✓2G -�1m w••`. Name... Signed /Printed signature .................... 1 ............ Print name Address gel.N -Optional) 17. signature ..................... /............Print name Address (Tel.#- OpOorul) 18. Signature .................... 1 ............ Print rums Address (ral.N- Optiorul) 19. Sgnstire ..................... /............Prim name Address (Tel.# -Optional) 20. Signature ..................... I ............ Print name Address (TeI.N Optional) Petition Custodian �Qe'1 Vs''(r I )!A. \yYr Gh.. �..rlti+` � �- ✓2G -�1m w••`. Name... Signed /Printed RECEIVED NOV 141994 rLANNING utPT. November 8, 1994 Paul Curtis, Community Dev. Director Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Curtis: We are writing to you to express our strong opposition to commercial development at Saratoga Avenue and Kosich Dr. Residents of Saratoga Woods have relied on the permanence of of residential zoning since the inception of the neighborhood. In addition, an already aggravating and dangerous traffic con- dition will be exacerbated. It is already very difficult to make a left turn onto Saratoga Avenue from Kosich Dr. (partic- ularly since Hwy. 85 opened). Also, many cars use our street to make U Turns, since there is no northbound access to Saratoga Avenue from Kinko's. This situation will certainly increase with any further commercial development. The traffic issues, the zoning commitments that have been made to Saratoga Woods residents, and the abundance of shopping already available in Westgate, Westgate West, El Paseo, and Quito Center make only logical course of action regarding this proposed development .... STOP IT! We request that you do everything in your power to block this development. We would like an answer back in writing regarding your position on this issue. Thank you. Sincerely, Bill & Pam Dempsey 18831 Kosich Dr. Saratoga, CA 95070 865 -1120 �Joje : Wer fe-,.t J ' rejeo"4e HP4144 ,p (,w��4 RECEIVED NOV 141994 11/11/94 MAIVryING DER SARATOGA CITY PLANNING DEPT. Director Paul Curtis Dear Mr.Curtis, About three and a half years ago we moved into the delightful Saratoga Woods community. When we bought our home, we were assured that the small orchard facing Saratoga Avenue and owened by the Kosich family was zoned residential and would remain so.Recently we were informed of a plan that would convert a large section of this land to commercial property. We believe that any expansion in this area would harm the enviroment of our neighborhood,affect the value of our property ,add more noise and traffic, be a danger to our children,an added demand on the police,and would be a basic betrayal of our trust in the Saratoga Planing Commission. We do not want to be an extension of San Jose and it's never ending tacky growth. We expect that you would consider the welfare of .all who would be affected by such a change. Yours truly, to � y - William nd acqueline Kroenung 12317 Radoyka Dr. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 RECEIVED OCT 311994 Martin and Nancy Newman rLHWivii�l; UtPT, 18967 Saratoga Glen Place Saratoga, Ca 95070 October 22, 1994 Dear Mr. Curtis: This letter is to express my concerns about the possible change in zoning for the Kosich property, located at the corner of Lawrence and Saratoga Avenues. When my wife and I purchased property in this area, we did so in great part because of the unique atmosphere that Saratoga neighborhoods provide. Long term zoning plans, such as the R I -10000 zoning of this property, represent a contract between the city and the property owners. We feel strongly that this contract is a commitment that. should be honored. This issue is not a money versus aesthetics issue. The most valuable asset Saratoga has is its neighborhoods, not commercial developments. Although the housing market is not at its strongest, the commercial development market is weak also, with lots of empty buildings. The current structure of government where sales taxes are more valuable than property taxes is not going to last forever. It would be short sighted to allow any further encroachment on our neighborhoods. Sincerely, Martin d Nancy Newman Mr. Paul Curtis RECEIVED court 12440 ­PCT 131994 turn, turn, _ ­_ ibaratoga 02 95070 rLANNiNU UtPT. 12th ®rtober, 1994 Dear Mr. Curtis,. We are concerned to hear there are proposals to apply for commercial zoning and subsequently for commercial planning permission for part of the remaining Kosich orchard property. It is our understanding that this property is currently zoned R- 10,000. It is furthermore our belief that R- 10,000 is the only correct zoning for this section of our beautiful city. The Kosich orchard would be most appropriately developed in keeping with the immediately adjacent Saratoga Woods residential development. It was the beauty and maturity of this area that first attracted us in 1988 when we were looking at many many locations stretching from the Loma Prieta area in the Santa Cruz Mountains to Palo Alto. It would be contrary to the General Plan for Saratoga and contrary to our wishes, to develop the Kosich orchard as anything but residential, single story, family dwellings. A major concern we have is that we observe excess commercial space not being utilised in Westgate, Westgate West, El Paseo and the Quito Centre. We believe it more approriate to maintain these areas at full capacity and promote the Kosich orchard as residential development. The aesthetic beauty of Saratoga Woods is clearly valued by all who live here, new and old residents alike. In the unlikely event of your agreeing to zone the Kosich orchard for commercial development the property values in Saratoga Woods would naturally decline and there would then be a "knock on" effect into other areas of Saratoga causing general annoyance and adverse reaction from the majority residential population. The traffic situation is already such that too many illegal "U' turns are being made by the drivers who miss the turn to the existing commercial properties adjacent to Kinko's. It would be irresponsible to condone further commercial development in that vicinity possibly culminating in loss of life and expensive law suits. My wife and I have, on a number of occasions, experienced drivers making 'U' turns in front of us in the ends of Kosich and West View and have narrowly missed hitting cars doing so. The number of "U" turns has increased dramatically since Kinkos opened. We believe that we can trust you to maintain the best interests of the citizens of Saratoga who pride themselves on the city's residential desirability. If we wanted to live in a city of numerous inappropriately mixed residential and commercial properties with all the undesirable accompanying problems, we might as well go and live in Sunnyvale, or worse still, San Jose! We have faith in your ability and preference to preserve such attractive Saratoga areas as Villa Montalvo, Hakone Gardens, Sobey Road and Saratoga Woods, to name but a few. Yours sincerely, i c Jean and Robin Ma jury OCT 101994 pLANNINU DEPT. Saratoga October 10, 1994 Woods Park Homeowners Association Paul Curtis, Director Paul Kermoyan, Assistant Director Saratoga Planning Department 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, 95070 Dear Mr. Curtis and Mr. Kermoyan:- RE: Proposed commercial development of Kosich property on Saratoga Ave. We, the residents of Saratoga Woods Park, have signed this petition to insist that you honor both the intentions and the stipulations of the Saratoga General Plan and current zoning regulations pertaining to the Kosich property. Analysis of the enclosed petition reveals that 96% of the residences contacted in our neighborhood oinmercial d v .lonm n on that property. Any proposed commercial development for the Kosich property (located on Saratoga ,Avenue between Saratoga Station [Kinko's/Pier I complex] and Kosich Avenue) should have been denied immediately. and firmly upon presentation to your Department. That statment was expressed by a majority of our homeowners during the circulation of this petition; it was based, of course, on the current zoning and General Plan restrictions. As I am sure you are aware, that property has been zoned R -1- 10,000 for over 30 years and the General Plan specifically prohibits any development other than R- 1- 10,000 detached, single family residences on that site. The enclosed petition represents only a portion of our effort. Time constraints have prevented us from presenting you with the entire petition; the remaining portion will be presented to you in less than 10 days. Our neighborhood agrees that the Kosich family has a right to develop their property; however, it is also agreed that all zoning and building restrictions need be complied with in their entirety. We urge you to enforce the specifications of the Saratoga General Plan and the zoning restrictions for that site. Sincerely, Mrs. Marcia Fariss, President Saratoga Woods Park Homeowners Association c/o 18983 Saratoga Glen Place Saratoga, 95070 0 1 400 OCT 101994 PLANNINU DEPT. Petition for Resolution We, the undersigned, residents of the City of Saratoga, oppose the currently proposed Kosich Property Development Plan and any alternate that suggests commercial use. That area, affecting three parcels commonly known as the Kosich Orchard, is shown by the current General Plan and long standing zoning plan as R -1 (10,000) which allows single family residential development. We therefore petition the Planning Commission and City Council to maintain the current General Plan & Zoning and deny said application(s). Name Address telephone number (optional) ( Sipnaiae.................... J ............ Rcrt ne" Address ` (r�1.N-0ptiond) YOAAI,UL -- E- zcoo-) 1 l �Gdlr�Lz, De - Signe4ae .................... J ............ Print nano Addrea (TeI.N-0Pbonsl) p� 3 �rl v� � /GAwtan,cc�0,.�t/ff�Lc 3`I ,ve4,AaYA;4- Y616 -988(0 gnst. .................... J ............ Print name Addeo (rN.N-0ptioral) 14, KE7Zy"Im I)K R - Option. ) J..........�.f.Prartnam�e Addreo eLN I /s++Fi1S,7�M44- !;.3? :%L s. Signed. .................... J ............ Pn nt name s e Addre (T eI.N- optional) Z_- V,- n ignat. .................... J ............ Print name _ Address (740.40 - optional) /8831 keslea oe. 96s -I/� MUM Awdllho (Tel.NOptional) �4AIA) I IQ73S 71Y 2 25 ?-10811 Sig atlas ...................!..... ...Print name A Addren ( (rel.N- opt)"" 10. (Tel.N - K>/ 4 Signshas .................... J ............ Print name A Addreo ( (rdIA- Optional) ,, its 1 o k6 -, ;,h pit.,, 1 15 3 -1110 Sgna Lae .................... J ............ Prim Dams A Addreo ( (re1.N -0PtiorW) 12. S ,Q�, r V,,.4A �ls'aa dos �'mh 2.5 z 33 4 Signaha m e ..................... /............Print nae A Addeo ( (7814-00-1) raLae .................. /............Print rams A Address (Tel.N -optional) � o' rj 15AQT Lr7 / / 87 4 D 4-01ZAI 1* 2 23 3 - E,4-1 L 15�Sna L-ae.. ...A /............Print name A Addro (7.140- Optinl) r SignaLae ..................... /.........,..Print name Addreo (re1.N -0ptiaal) ,s. f Cpl Fly-S-Nc %s / ?C /3 .- .1JLti�.e....(. ..�J�.,..•.......Print name Adds® 17. (ra.N.optionaq -72' -, L Sig. ahae .... ...`, ......J ............ Print name Addreo (rN.N Optical) 1s. / Sigrwwm .................... J ............ Print name Address (re1.N- Optional) 19. SigM6ae ..................... /............Print name Addreo (101.40- optional) Sign* hoe ........ ............. /............Print name Addreo (rel- #-Optional) Petition Custodian Name... Signed /Printed Petition Custodian Name... Signed /Printed Petition for Resoiution We, the undersigned, residents of the City of Saratoga, oppose the currently proposed Kosich Property Development Plan and any aRemate that suggests commercial use. That area, affecting three parcels commonly known as the Kosich Orchard, is shown by the current General Plan and long standing zoning plan as R -1 (10,000) which allows single family residential development. We therefore petition the Planning Commission and City Council to maintain the current General Plan & Zoning and deny said application(s). Name Sigr abr. .................... J ............ Rink — L`� 44,914-- 1 DFE AS I Sierabr. .................... J ............ Print name a. Address telephone number (optional) Address (ra.N-0pti0rraq 0 Sa „� 6 s1 — 1, C/ Address 1 — (ra.N-0pticral) Address (Ta.N Optical) ir�a�.l� (ra.N- Optional) Address fra.N- Opbonso S 444 )e)rA CA ,�6 3 ............ P ink name (ra.N•Optioral) Address /9 G y / 5,4,e A 7`oo -A�a a ) tae Address (ra.N -0pboral) 7 nabaa .... :................1............P Signet 1M name (Tel.M.Opbonel) Address (rd.N- Optical) do PI y Address (Tel.N-Optioral) 1 Address �ielS Address (Tel.N-Optiaral) /p000iCR�E /�N DL. 2sr -37.x/ Address A4,1 DD -v to, 'a r. .— .J Ji (ra.N- Opboral) Z.rS 37�i �r Sip Y ...Print name Address 716cf'/ SA.e.91dF,A C (ra.N- Optional) tae lti iL.j.w,el%c t / , LOAC, (,c.i^46uC S 444 )e)rA CA a SS / 9/ 7 ............ P ink name Print rarra Address /9 G y / 5,4,e A 7`oo -A�a a ) tae A �� 1150'I SFarc0aTOtk � a--=- 3 r = 1 7 nabaa .... :................1............P Signet 1M name (Tel.M.Opbonel) �. ' do PI 9gL- -vay-7 SipnsMe ..... ..............J......_....Prirrt 16 name 1 Address �ielS f el- "ptioral) Mrri� •�CuW Q .�,nr I J�^�L(<<T�^ M) S' airs.. J............Pmrt r \ h(�1.� rams IzS"I I Address S�,g6A c-ea �(A (Ta.N- Optional) ._i Spnsbae..... ..............J............Print rams Address J (r@144pbaraq 18. .ii � �'. fu.rAin IQDSD �Q�NIy/IT?T�il /t �l —! �r/1 Sena sae ........... .........J ............ P ink name Address �rM;M-OPbo al) 4TEA0 A QI LL �� 1150'I SFarc0aTOtk � a--=- 3 r = 1 Signature ..................... /............Part name Address (Tel.M.Opbonel) �. Ac..c.Ea'li' /2-4/ft zrs-o s z k Signabre .................... J ............ Print name Address (Tel. # - Optional) Petition Custodian Name ... Signed/Printed Petition for Resolution We, the undersigned, residents of the City of Saratoga, oppose the currently proposed Kosich Property Development Plan and any alternate that suggests commercial use. That area, affecting three parcels commonly known as the Kosich Orchard, is shown by the current General Plan and long standing zoning plan as R -1 (10,000) which allows single family residential development. We therefore petition the Planning Commission and City Council to maintain the current General Plan & Zoning and deny said application(s). Name Address telephone number (optional) -� ------ - rm" Add (TM.4r orW) 2. k• �/ ,�.,., ,,. G/•�l N iRX_F, ��� nln� ^ %lt'1• )Y �S`i .................... J ............ Print narrA Addr (TeI.I•opboral) -6.1 �At =f'r� % Petition for Resolution We, the undersigned, residents of the City of Saratoga, oppose the currently proposed Kosich Property Development Plan and any alternate that suggests commercial use. That area, affecting three parcels commonly known as the Kosich Orchard, is shown by the current General Plan and long standing zoning plan as R -1 (10,000) which allows single family residential development. We therefore petition the Planning Commission and City Council to maintain the current General Plan $ Zoning and deny said application(s). Name Address telephone number (optional) - ... .............J............Print nine Address (rel."PtIoral) � � !ice /'�if(E7lA L. t ✓tAtrriiw M!'*/ Si ..J. ..........Print rant Address (rel.M-0Optional) �- •7i� /cllt< l2 y y 2 So G sec ,e () r signshes .................... J ............ Print name Address (Td.r43ptionel) c rc.' / 6igr ghee .............. ..J..........Prim nana Address (ra1.N -0ptiaal) J..........Print nines . Address �- (rei. #- Optional) e. f2E5 /uafYaY,e/G PL Sig ohm ...............J ............ Print name Address (Tei.N4)ptioral) mhos .. ..................J............ rtsrrre Addrea (rei.N-0ptionw) /a5-�6d Sa.-� .��- �� a u,, i/ r7Z .� signs oe .................... J ............ Print rang Address (Td.M-OP»al) 9 15. Sgrahoe .................... J ............ Pnort rent Address (Ta1.N -0ptiaal) 10. Signet. .................... / J ............ Print name Address Signet . .................... J ............ Print rams Address (rel.M-Opboral) 11. / signature ... .................J............" Sigrahrs.................... J ............ Pmd name Address (TeI.#4>ptiora1) 12. Sigrahoe.................... J ............ Print rams Address (rel."Ptioral) 13. 18. Signati e .................... J ............ Print rams Address (Tel."Ptiaal) 14. (rel.4114)ptional) 19. Signature .................... J ............ Print rota Address (rel.#-Optioral) 15. Signet. .................... / J ............ Print name Address (ral.d- Optional) / signature ... .................J............" fame Address (TN44)ptioral) 17. Sigratae .................... J ............ Print name Address (ral."Ptioral) 18. / sgnatie. ..................... I ............ Print rams Address (rel.4114)ptional) 19. Signshae .................... J ............ Print narra Address (WO. Optional) 20. Sgrau ..................... I ............ Print rams Address (W44Dptioral) Petition Custodian Name... Signed /Printed .. Petition for Resolution We, the undersigned, residents of the City of Saratoga, oppose the currently proposed Kosich Property Development Plan and any alternate that suggests commercial use. That area, affecting three parcels commonly known as the Kosich Orchard, is shown by the current General Plan and long standing zoning plan as R-1 (10,000) which allows single family residential development. We therefore petition the Planning Commission and City Council to maintain the current General Plan & Zoning and deny said application(s). Name Address telephone number sigrl# ..... ...............J 7. Address (optional) -2 ::frint name Address (Fel.#-Optional) Print nano Address (Tel.40-0pborw) ............ ............ Address (rel.#•Opbonid) SignaMe ............ Rint Address (Tel .#-Optional) signirk me ... ................. J.. Print nano Address (rsI-#-0PWW) sigr"" .................... i ............ Print rams Address (Tel4-0pbonal) 4. Signa tre ..................... /............ name Address (T «.#-Optional) s. 1<2 r---C L 1 ?91 10 tl� Wnsture ............ ..... -j nVnV9 Address (f«.# -Optional) Fig r .................. J ............ Print name Address option. ) 17. 1 1 G -4,00 996 9971 ,Aig. timal) "s ............ p Address '(reco-op .xSigrob". ................. I ............ Prnt name Address (r @14-Optional) . . -41'7"ele-k -:5 peloo IY5.81 4LrAnWC, nakI J5-4 - 9781 . ..................... /............Print name Address j (Tel.#-Opticrud) 2D. i1; 7 $ignatur94 ................ d ............ PnM name Address R «.#-Optional) Petition Custodian -Name..:Sighed/Printed L sigrl# ..... ...............J 7. Address (Tel.#-Opbonal) ::frint name Address (Fel.#-Optional) S- ............ ............ Address (rel.#•Opbonid) cxk. Aqr'� signirk me ... ................. J.. Print nano Address (rsI-#-0PWW) /w A I ............ . ;�j Print name -sid� - '(,( Address (TQI-*IDPWW) 2�, q4q �D.0 PAfL(- LOLIP LLA-L/V Sip ..................... /............Print n Address (fel.#-Optional) ............ Signah".. i Print name Address -11,4 , e (Tel-40-000-1) . . ..................... Print nerve Address (TaI.# -O pb"l) 7 Signahore ..................... ... Print rM une Addrdss (Tel.#•OPWMI) Signature .................... j ............ Print name Address 4A�C,(,A I V43( L1Y Fig r .................. J ............ Print name Address option. ) 17. 1 1 G -4,00 996 9971 ,Aig. timal) "s ............ p Address '(reco-op .xSigrob". ................. I ............ Prnt name Address (r @14-Optional) . . -41'7"ele-k -:5 peloo IY5.81 4LrAnWC, nakI J5-4 - 9781 . ..................... /............Print name Address j (Tel.#-Opticrud) 2D. i1; 7 $ignatur94 ................ d ............ PnM name Address R «.#-Optional) Petition Custodian -Name..:Sighed/Printed - Petition for Resolution We, the undersigned, residents of the City of Saratoga, oppose the currently proposed Kosich Property Development Plan and any alternate that suggests commercial use. That area, affecting three parcels commonly known as the Kosich Orchard, is shown by the current General Plan and long standing zoning plan as R-1 (10,000) which allows single family residential development. We therefore peption the Planning Commission and City Council to maintain the current General Plan & Zoning and deny said application(s). Name Address telephone number (optional) Af 1 JAJ CIt- ..................... / ............ Plin't room Addn= (F@i-#4)pbonsQ kp� 0 U G.- / kj�N- Y—�' rck C—" -+7;-$5 TI.. signorkme ................. 4.J ............ Flint nium Addeo (Tel.#-Optional) Adicirm (TeL#-0pb-1) 4 . ........... J ............ Print MR* Addrm (T014 -optio-1) Sig MU J Print namm Addran (T *44)pbonal) Signahre-qr, .. J... Prik name Addren (fimi.#-Opbanal) 7. sig&hxi ............. .......... Addrm (T«.#-Optional) B. Sqrsatme .. ............ j ............ Print name Addren (Tel.#-Opbonal) 9. a Print name Add. (re14-0pbonW) 10. tin s Ni /�pyy Ar51ch cl C/ el e) Sig ra ......:........a J / ......... Print name Addrm (TsI.#4)pb—Q Sigrahme J ............ Print narne ................ Addeo (re"p-optlix-1) rlk-e-n e- 13. Sign-U . .................... j ............ Print name Addeo (reI44)pborud) K (Z4[0/ kt4L 1---r f-"A- �•5:36 &97.. J ............ Print nerne Addre= . (rel.*-OptionW) Sig ohm .................... j ........... Print nJu"Q Addren (ral.40-Opbanid) 1 "751 o--,, wim Addrom U614-optiorw) ................... i ............ Print r 16. -.-r7 rat. .................... J Print rum Addnm (ral."Ption1d) S Sig .................. . . I ............ Print name Addeo (r4W.4P-OpbonW) I'ef" 7 Ldreft IntIA ............ Print rarne (r@14-OptionW) 20. Signib . .................... i ............ Prnt rani Addnm (ro4-Optos) C- r'• w.. / n A - ", , (� '-'. -;, i4' I J:) I b ! . r �!:L.4 'euS' 1> -)Z.V)ktV Signab . .................... J ............ Print name Addrom (Tel-#-OPWW) Petition Custodian iName ... Signed/F)Hnted �a 7 r \ 4 Petition for Resolution We, the undersigned, residents of the City of Saratoga, oppose the currently proposed Kosich Property Development Plan and any alternate that suggests commercial use. That-area, affecting three parcels commonly known as the Kosich Orchard, is shown by the current General Plan and long standing zoning plan as R -1 (10,000) which allows single family residential development. We therefore petition-the Planning Commission and City Council to maintain the current General Plan & Zoning and deny said application(s). Name Address telephone number (optional) t,jt </r" ) 314 rur�t„, ((,mil L,. r71 " �Jlttl n sgnawm .................... J ............ Prtnt none Addren U614- optional) 2. C'r //�f Sigrlahas ....................J ........Prim rum Address (TeI.N -0ptional) 3/!�c�nav�� ✓.� �}/, L-f r A4 , d �i41J CN r/�d131(. �A", OC -A CA. O/L 4. � Sgns4aa ..... /.�{� J /1! %) '" _ iTN.N -0Ptional) 5. / `Sig .. .... ..........J. ..... Pr�i' �J �,� ') (TeLN OP4onaq ................... J ............ Pr! me Address (Tel.N•Optanal) s'— / 94 N (ULP3 (-0L s nti. A57 -NZ8 Sgna . ..... ..............J............Prea ream Addr.a V (T044- 00ons1) 7 WtC"E IL.J Qto'ALX t13tj- Ko$%(1 Die. 15-5 F3_7 r- _ .............. /............Print name Address gel.N- Optional) 1E 9' 9. tore.....^ ............./............Prim name Adtlrlaq /'l (rsl.N Optional) _!Z J' /)/o* d!E7 c-&EjE & ) "V 2.17:Z --SKIS Z5 Signaturo ) .. Prod name Addre.a (Tel."Pu ra) .L' 10� �3�3 A AlOG� CR K D•2 • �Q6 —(6 Z (p q ' name Address (TeI.N -0ptioral) 11. Srgns ....................J. / 0-3 BSc. 9(Yf09 l' TF}S C4 Ybr- qS6 -36 w3 signatme ...... .............../............Prim name Address (Tel.0-0ptioral) 12. — T.nOTHY Yry 12 10"e ct:rcr (Ya')3/,[ -0� 3 % Sig re ................... /............Prim name Address (Tel.#- 0PWMl) 13. , H�l�'lD Sgnasas .................. J ............ Print name �— Addrs goi.N plioral) 14. Signatwe .................... J ............ Print name Addr ® (rel.N-0pbormd) 15. Sgnahne.................... J ........ _..Prtnt hams Address (rel.N-0ptians1) 16. Sgnalum ..................... / ............ Pft name Address (Tel.N- OP12 -81) 17. Sigrotm ..................... /............Print name Address (Tel.# -0pti0nel) 1 B. / Sigrahae ...... .............../............Prim Fars Address (Tel.*- Opbow) 19. / Sgna4ae ..................... /............Prim name Address (TeI.N -0ptwnal) 2°. Signa ture.................... J ............ Print name Addre (TeI.N•Opboral) Petition Custodian Name ... S' ned /Pri ted Petition for Resolution , We, the undersigned, residents of the City of Saratoga, oppose the currently proposed Kosich Property Development Plan and any alternate that suggests commercial use. That area, affecting three parcels commonly known as the Kosich Orchard, is shown by the current General Plan and long standing zoning plan as R -1 (10,000) which allows single family residential development. We therefore petition the Planning Commission and City Council to maintain the current General Plan & Zoning and deny said application(s). Name Address telephone number n / (optional) raboe ........... .... ..l ...... .... Prvt narra Address (Tel•M-0ptoral) 2 r . �l�l,, Z a 33 lv5-.c (w v - 3 11 �SgnaW .....J............ Print narra Address U614-op�) . .............. 3. P4,647tlYL- 11,91r f* ryc,A if ZST-56ir3 ....... ............. J ............ Print name Address (id.N- Optimal) r1•, QA -� .t' 2 xoo ,,iIyc>vrn biz 7 2 c' - Ir -7 y Sgr)ebee......... J ............ Print name Address (te1.N- Optional) ;tZ 3CC Y,(' /1 s'a Siorutaa ..... ............../............Prim name Address (rel. "PtIonal) 6. Sig ahm .................... J ............ Print narne Address (Te1.40 -optional) 7. Signak. .................... J ............ Print rare Address (Tel.N•Optioral) 6 Petition Custodian Name ... Sign /Printed Sigrmbes .................... J ............ Print name Address (Tel.#- Optional) 9. / Signet. .................... J ............ Print norne Address (Te144>pbonal) 10. Sgna4sa .............. _ .... J ............ Print fame Address (Tel. # - Optional) 11. Sgnab+ a .................... J ............ Pmd rams Address (reco- Optional) 12. / s ..:.... .............J............Print nae Sgrabu m Address (Tel.I.Optoral) 13. Signatlae ..................... /............Print name Address (rel.M -optional) 14. Signshoe .................... J............ Print name Address (TWA-Optiaal) 15. SigraMa .................... J .............. Print rams Address (rel.8 -0pional) 18. / Signature .................... J ............ Print name Address (rel.0-0ptonal) 17. SigrWbA .................... J ............ Print nanne Address (TeIA- Opboral) 19. Signebse ..................... /............Print name Address (WA -0pbanal) 19. Signa Me ........ ............. /............Print name Address (fN.N -Optional) 20. Signet. .................... J ............ Print name Address (rel "Ptional) Petition Custodian Name ... Sign /Printed Petition for Resolution We, the undersigned, residents of the City of Saratoga, oppose the currently proposed Kosich Property Development Plan and any aftemate that suggests commercial use. That area, affecting three parcels commonly known as the Kosich Orchard, is shown by the current General Plan and long standing zoning plan as R -1. (10,000) which allows single family residential development. We therefore petition the Planning Commission and City Council to maintain the current General Plan & Zoning and deny said application(s). Name Address telephone number (optional) ,. �l� .4d/� "�� /�ir =tip S�uJf.11lV IZ1 -"'� f•A�lyn :f . ....�.�,_ ��•���� �<� Sinehas ...... .......J............Prart roar Address (Te1.N- Optional) 2. `i•c.k �k" '..1! BIZ C l /v%y't r1= /al�d[ �i1S7�1)� l�. I J ra , dress (Te1.N Optional) , 3. �I,N ^....�.{: ' ms c U —` 1 t� RBI.« OpEaal) . Sin rah ...... ...........J...•••••••••. ►'nnt rrrra Address 4. .................: J ............ Prird M Ate'- (TaI.N-0phoril) V 1Si os4as ....... .......... J............ Prird rams Address (TsI.N -0pbarl) 7 t. ........... Prbdnem. ! Address (Tel. «OPtioneq 2j ' /, _� y e�l� ice. yip. !4 a✓ rl Y / ........ /............Print rirra Address (Tel.« Optional) Sign r -- . " .. Slid Si ............. ...J ............ PriM name Address (Td.N- Optional) Rfbva r -(Qnrf /99qA( /1r on 142 009) 1I6.71ri3 Sin ....... ....... J ............ Pft rims Address U614-optional) to. SAVL GCLDSTu�JF /,f<9 MEZCoA/ D1L- l'tog) 99`^ 7103 Mcqa / „ ..... �,/. r.........Pred arms Address / (TeI.N• Y- . �-T �' •� 4��(..��`'']r / }-lies l ,�ii�' / °i`r�� �° � � �' ��'3� Signahas ..................... /............Print rime Address (Tel.# -00are1) 12. S ignimm .................... J ............ Print rare Address 13 (Tel.«- Opbonsq Sion. ..................... /............Print rime Address (Tel.#- Optional) 14. - / Sign has ...................... /............ Prird name Address (fel.N -0ptaral) 15. Signature .................... J ............ Print rams Address 18. / Signature .................... J ............ Prirri rime Address 17 (Tel.N-0ptiorrl) (Tel.«-0ptiorrl) Sig ahae .................... J ............ Prim rims Address (Tel. « -0ptioral) Is. / S irrhas ..................... / ............ Pft rime Address (Tel.0-0ptiorr1) 19. S irrhas.................... J ............ Prvrt name Address (Tel.« -optional) 20. S inehae..................... I ............ PriM rime Address Petition Custodian a e ... Si ed/Printed KC (Tel. « - Optional) Petition for Resolution We, the undersigned, residents of the City of Saratoga, oppose the currently proposed Kosich Property Development Plan and any alternate that suggests commercial use. That area, affecting three parcels commonly known as the Kosich Orchard, is shown by the current General Plan and long standing zoning plan as R -1 (10,000) which allows single family residential development. We therefore petition the Planning Commission and City Council to maintain the current General Plan & Zoning and deny said application(s). Name Address telephone number (optional) t.,..t _ (�'l.,ti_..i.�.,cr._._/ 1�naru � � ` -�tunc Ar,�j.- F -s, s�� wI t 1, a -� "7 - •j�'�_ ruhna. .J............Prinni mr Add m t frrrl.i` -0P��) � c ,c n/ '� C 'G- li'`�/ �i�S.�C r " its{- .�i!Rlllar •� `-� 7 -`! %�-�i Sip Print room Addrm (rel.I -0ptimrq c 19j6 / &VMA/ Y' Sgrahre .... {1•i..J............Print mane r Addrm U r� !� 1/ �O �= x _ 1 - �iprahae. ................ J.. ..Print name Addrm (Te14-0ptional) - 11 5. ri F_i.•4., -,l�/ 7C'7_e-ii7 ..:.. .........i....J ............ Print nme Adee dn (Te14' Optional) Simat re i J ............ Pri name Addeo (Tel.#- Optional) .... .......... 7. �W����i.:��k,�,C/ w�ot�o,. D.15.�5�(E tS��o �►�nTcya I��.tV: 996-�e97 Sg ................... /............Print name Addeo (TeI.N Optimal) • i ..... :............J............Print name Addreo (rel *- Optimal) Signal re,. . ........J............Print norm Addeo (re14- Optional) 10. �' 1c113 I Si�nstun .. ................J ............ Print name Address (Tel. #. Optional) sr. -C.0 -ViN`naN Sgnatme.. J............ Print name 12.�t_ tie. _,Y i y �' r'Ft/ �. Addn= +_ �,r,r:.r,," /•: rlf� ^ "�!e/.� (Tel. PAW) .ZJ ?-J /�9 S ignature ............. name Addrm (rel.N -0ptionl) Ywr'rt'rA sgnahre .................... J ............ Print Hems Addrm (NIA -0ptional) <. . \" �x /Js s7Z ITZ ^, Sgnet)pe........ .......... .......... RRrt name Address (r O-OptiorW) ,5. �� . L ko lir S; I �l� �df ,-u Sig MbAe ................ ....J ............ Print name Addrm (TeL*-0pborW) °t1 Nctc. r4 l I A 7 Noov'i Iz6S J ` Sigratire ............... .....J............Prert 17. A ' mamma Addnms eI.A /// Ilr �. %, /yTf, ---r ,. / 61 H1. t /) F1 '.1 E-.`i / .Sci '.i• %i �1 f' l- Jil. p� / / i f. �Signohre .................... J ............ Print name Address (rel."PtiaW) r 4nt, &- 92 s Kz//urj/, -rz plcf Ic/(e ji 5(s Sg J.... .....Print nano I AAjdnw (Tel."P1iaW) 19. 71 rues Wen�� 1 �S! � S Mc / /G� l'rt y� `/e� Y`/G nshre ..... ............::J............Prert name Addrm (Tat .N -0ptioral) 20. ti.r .,Eti%fu� Z. r--- S�1 A%e�c S�y� t &,94 7 a ` L 4 e-t /1°, �� �y73 _J � ``� Signaft. ..................... /............Print name Addrm 5yc (rel.M -0ptioral) Petition Custodian MtRG a e... d /Ptrinted October 30, 1994 Woods Park. Homeowners Association Paul Kermoyan, Assistant Director Planning. Department City of Saratoga Saratoga 95070 Dear Paul: RECEIVED OCT 27 1994 ru IIINU DEPT. RE: Additional Petition Signatures As promised, I have enclosed petitions representing an additional 130 homes in the Saratoga Woods Park neighborhood. As you know, our neighborhood is vehemently opposed to commercial development of the Kosich property (located on Saratoga Avenue, next to Saratoga Station). With the inclusion of the current signatures, 2/3 of our neighborhood has been contacted and 95% of the homes have signed the petition opposing any.commercial development on that site. There are many more signatures than homes, of course, because there is typically more than one resident in a given home. Since no signature count has yet been compiled (only residences), it is my guess that we now have 400 -500 signatures.. In anyone's tablulation, that number of signatures represents a voice to be reckoned with. Considering that an additional 200 -300 signatures will be obtained in the next 7 -10 days, it seems to us that the entire project should be given a negative recommendation by your department, the Planning Commission and the City Council. In reviewing all the negative aspects of commercial development of that site, there appears to be no real basis for approving such a development; that is, unless greed is so powerful that it outweighs any logic. Hopefully, common sense and integrity will prevail. Again, thank you for providing our Association with periodic updates on the status of the Fanelli Construction proposed development. We will remain in close contact with you. Sincere , Mrs. M is Fariss, President Saratoga Woods Park Homeowners Association c/o 18983 Saratoga Glen Pl. Saratoga Petition for Resolution We, the undersigned, residents of the City of Saratoga, oppose the currently proposed Kosich Property Development Plan and any alternate that suggests commercial use. That area, affecting three parcels commonly known as the Kosich Orchard, is shown by the current General Plan and long standing zoning plan as R -1 (10,000) which allows single family residential development. We therefor_e petition the Planning Commission and City Council to maintain the current General Plan & Zoning and deny said application(s). Name Address telephone number (optional) Ik Ail r W 4- [/e =[oa V /,p u 7 Cc�.6or.�etOr. .2 53 0 MS— 2. Sign J............ LLD F Addmas (rei *- Opb"l) /69Z 7 C6Fric t D'- c+EN sgnatir .................. J ............ Print nom. Addis (Tel.�-0401 s. ROG -eg. Cross 18bi0S" to CT 157 -4615 ...........Prod none Addeo (rel."Ptionl) �it,- a l ��n C. C D-W 4� GIB. as -7—g6,� e ....... .............J............ Print name Addis (Tei.#4)Ptianal) 5. 3// CV& 16170 SAN 10A040 -?5-17- 3 ., n. J............Prirt ranre Address (Tel.r -0ptionsl) 6. 'S A1A cat U6 3 U,) >QAI'D Cr- '9y 6 _3/ 2.1 sip eb. ...... ..............J............Pmrt manna Address (Tel."Ptionsl) SrgnsMa ........ ........ J ............ Prcrt nerve Address (Te1.rY W) 6. J� �r -'oil Vre, le:'1: 5._�..I, .�si1'. sipnaW e .................:.../... ' . .....Print name At# res (TeI.N•Optioraq 1 % (*, ':� $.o, %6 C+ /1_-`- .,, ........... Addroe A� CNW - Optional) /........Prvrt ne eases ..................... /............Print name Addis (rel."Ptional) U4►- l3� 1/,y.r 1 P fr f s_, lQ,� cif ......... ....... J ............. Pr t name Address (Tel. / -0ptiora1) 13 Al Coa ",onj / g7/ l SAW Riv 0--, 9%.- 779 $ ;........J..........�./ ort name Address ! < / (rell..# -- Optional) 14./.l✓6i/ 4w J. rLQJ� l4Qj� l G l �t dl'tQ& d -- re 46i- o i l- ✓� ✓/ SipnaOrrd ... ..............J ............ Prod nano Addis (TaI.1-01tionsl) 1. . ...........Print rime Addeo (r@14- Optiarel) 16. - .............. J. ......... Print rarjn Addrba (fell 1) n., 1 . 9p .. ..............J ............ Print Hems Addis (TM.Ar- Optional) Siena m is ..........J ............. Print name Add (Tel.*- Optional) RIO (�6S( Stint (�.le Ck • 155 - o9cl (e Sgnat. .................... J ............ Print nerve Ad' (Tel.l -OpwW) 2D. 1 Signature ..................... /............Print name Address Petition Custodian Name... Signed /Printed (Tel.l-Optio 1) Petition for Resolitt#i We, the undersigned, residents of the City of Saratoga, oppose the currently proposed Kosich Property Develop nt Plan and any alternate that suggests commercial use. That area, affecting three parcels co only known as the Kosich Orchard, is shown by the current General Plan and long standing zo ing plan as R -1 (10,000) which allows single family residential development. We therefore petition the Planning Commission and City Council to maintain the current General Plan & Zoning and deny said application(s). Name Address telephone number (optional) FA.Ess '2s�- s4/ g- .......... ............ Print name Address (rd.I- Optional) 2. ;7;�a�+ 1 -rf a Sc Signature ...... .............J............ Print rarra Address (Tel.rP- Optional) 3. Q 6 /if ? It, p G �4AI�(' �n 1( -% -) Signow i ............ m nae Address (Tel. #- Opbaul) 4 � Yao o CAA« Li,Sq- 6bermef Dr. iST 1 Signabae ............. ... /............Print name Address (Tel.#- Optional) )� / 1PFVPr <A,41 /Y746 G41arwC--f dr, 973. 717 Signet. ......... . ......... J ............ Print name Address (TeLill -Optional) s. � �if?.17 -/ /9 , - S ?� i� - 9 �.i - y � nature ......: ............. J ............ Print name Address (Tei.,Y- Optional) 7. ,'1e .! IS 3 - � L Sign ......J........ 'm name Address (Tel.iY -Optional) Alf- / 87S �� c - 6,A -(jz? Sp less .................. J ............ Print rams Y Address (reCill- Optional) 9�vnx >F �/,�. rQ� � � ! ire � �°q,�,.,r,.,,...e.� n�►- � � - ��-g' Sipnshse.. J ..........Print ranee Address (Tel. # - Optional) \ 10. ANiIAW /ff S 7 'las�D)P J............Print name Address U1114-optional) tt. J,; —ia� �'u !,_ f C<+l,Prnof Or . �o -1 /l e Signature ..... ............. J ............ Print nandf/Address (Tel.ie -Optional) 00 Print rams draw (Tel.iY -Optional) VA S�gnahffe ...... ............... /............Pnm name Address (rel. - Optioal)` Sig /........... .Prin1�tf/ner" �j j� Address (Tel4- Optional) 15. T'�i (7q r n (C 4 Cl C C I/ Sig . . /.....:.....Print rn s Address (TM.M Optional) grabns .. . .............!............Print name d� (Tei.N -Op Deal) 17. / Signshae ..................... /............Print name Address (Tel.401-Optional) 18. Sigrahne ..................... /............Print name Address (Tel. * -Optical) 19. / Signet. ..................... /............Prim name Address (Te14-OPtioral) 20. Signature ..................... /............Prim name Address (Tel.# -Optional) Petition Custodian IL- q-7 Name... Signed/ Printed Petition for Resolution We, the undersigned, residents of the City of Saratoga, oppose the currently proposed Kosich Property Development Plan and any alternate that suggests commercial use. That area, affecting three parcels commonly known as the Kosich Orchard, Is shown by the current General Plan and long standing zoning plan as R-1 (10,000) which allows single family residential development. We therefore petition'the Planning Commission and City Council to maintain the current General Plan & Zoning and deny said application(s). Name J ............ Address telephone number (Tel.#-Optional) 7. Addren (optional) 12. A it LUSAI .1231I Lowy "Ill t j , to_ _ . _ 2 -77 Signlft . ............... J ............ Print rmkfrw AMnm (Tel."Pto-1) 13. C--tTAL j6uskj lZ3,2Li, Lv'tk►� 4c5?- -44 L• g. ............ Z j ............ " name (r61.#-0pb0nW) 3. i 1i -TAL% haoi wL tY 1)e 4M- q -16•-.277y Signatize ..................... I ............ Print rMUM Addrm ffek#-Opbonal) 4. Print narne Addrm (rel."Ptional) Signakwe .................... j ............ Print name Addeo (rel.#-Opbonal) S. Sigrati . .................... J ............ Pfink name Signature .................... J ............ Print name Addrm (rei.#-Optional) 6 Ekgrotm .................... J ............ Print rigum Addren (Tel.#-Optional) 7. Addren (re1.#4)pbanmd) 12. Signsh . .................... j ............ Print name Address (ref.#.Opbonal) 8. 13. Signshwe ....................J- ..........Print name Addrm (Tel."pbonal) 9. . ..................... /............Print name SignfftL . ................... :J ............ Print narne Addrm (rel."Ptional) 10. signah . .................... i ............ " ram Addrm (rel."Ptionw) Sigrati . .................... J ............ Pfink name Addrm (Tel."Pti-1) Petition Custodian Name... Signed/Printed signetwe .................... i ............ Print narne Addren (re1.#4)pbanmd) 12. • Signarture..; ..:.................. /............Feint ............ " film Addn= (r41."Ptionod) 13. signartme ..................... /............Print name Addnm (Tel.*-Optional) 14. . ..................... /............Print name Addnm (Tel-#4)pbonnQ signah . .................... i ............ " ram Addrm (rel."Ptionw) 16. Signarb . ..................... ............ Print name Addrow (T614-0pbonad) 17. Signartm ..................... /............Print name Addrew (tMV-0pbonal) Is. Signak . ..................... I ............ Print name Address g4w.0-opti"i) 19. Sigroture ..................... / ............ Print name Addrm (ral.#-Optionsl) 20. Signarture .................... i ............ Print roam Address (r*144)pbonal) Petition Custodian Name... Signed/Printed Petition for Resolution We, the undersigned, residents of the City of Saratoga, oppose the currently proposed Kosich Property Development Plan and any alternate that suggests commercial use. That area, affecting three parcels commonly known as the Kosich Orchard, is shown by the current General Plan and long standing zoning plan as R-1 (10,000) which allows single family residential development. We therefore petition the Planning Commission and City Council to maintain the current General Plan & Zoning and deny said application(s). Address telephone number I nal) (275_t�;01 1.1 14 & P I/ ell MrILN ............ MUM 2. 4 Qnstwo Address 3. 2 i (Tel."Ptiorw) i Print ems Addrm ..J. MUM Address (rel."Ptiorad) 24L) Signatm ............... . ... J ............ Print name Address ' (Tel.#-Optional) sigratwe .................,.. /............Print name Address (Tel4-optional) 7. C 72 SOW. ..................... j ............ Prim name Addnm (TeL#4)pbanW) s. tan 40"WIV .................... j ............ Print name Address (rel."Pti-1) 1 " -/ I v. ' ­7 A tL ",M -n 1'25"5 '�'a (7,9 ... ........... J ............ Print'rairne Address (r4W.#-oP6cMI) 10. r Signstuq%.,� . ............ / ............ Print fmuTw Addnm ' —, & zs "5 Sig . ........I ............ Prnt rams 17 E r d A dd1n2m 4 A 14 C (reIA.2 0 p-to-nSW) - 3 /I -ftn'd . ...... I ............ J ............ Print name Addran Y,2 3 6 SignaEUe.... � ............ Print rarne Address (riwo-optional) 14. J /z W -17 _72;,lz IL tl�� -�1313(, Sigrokas ................ 4/............Print name Addnm (Tel."Pti-1) is //"LZZ 51 V6 - V . . . .................... /............Print rn. Address (TWA-0pti-1) 16. -'AAAIL, Spratise " 1, 1. ............... :�..j ............ Print Add. (rel.#-Opbonal) 17 Sig Print name Addnm (rel.#-Opbonal) Signature ................ . .. i ............ Prim nano Address (fiW4-0pbonal) 25' .0 sigrwture ................. /J ............ Print naffm Address (rel.•Ptiorw) 20. Signarhue .................... j ............ Print name Addnm (T4W-#4)Pb_Q letitiln Cu di 7 j:.. Name... Signed/Printed Petition for Resolution We, the undersigned, residents of the City of Saratoga, oppose the currently proposed Kosich Property Development Plan and any alternate that suggests commercial use. That area, affecting three panels commonly known as the Kosich Orchard, is shown by the current General Plan and long standing zoning plan as fl-1 (10,000) which allows single family residential development. We therefore petition the Planning Commission and City Council to maintairf the current General Plan & Zoning and deny said application(s). Name Address telephone number (optional) �I �- C,3►4t -2 Addn.o (fei. «- Opeonsn (Te "_0 —1) tr, 72 5 �.aTv,F-u 'DRIvi= 2s -; -s3, 7 ;;–wren (T«.N.Optiord) • / "l� �YrU I4'��'C Sierrhim ------- ----�....J............ Pdnt name Addrow (rel.N- Optiond) MUM Address (fel.N- Optional) signah. ............... <. �....... .PrcR name Address (rel."Ptiond) 7. �CJ9 /L;�� tmo �'(�ILI )l .f iJ �.)i• f/,; iJ %l / Sionahme... .._........J............Pr�t rrma J , I Address (rel.N- Optional) P o Cu od�rr 1 �� 70 I Name ... Signed/Printed ` -2 SlIc Or hrn .Addrw Signe. ...............J............Pmd roars 0914- optiond) 8. 1_ f it ') r, : \:• _ i Sgra J�..........Prim rams '�?!t�'t ` rN, Addre}s , 74 S1 c Jt=�.;; Cy' (Te1.M -0ptiorrd) S /L ; Signsbqa J............Prtid name Addrao r — (rd.N- OptionQ •- –. _ - .. _..rte! Sena .........J..........J _ .......Prim naras Address (TM.N-0PWW) 12c�u, /� fr�i1 /�yiY� <i9 /, W- 2- / �sigrna�liUe. N . ................... 13 sv . � rlJ� i•! ! `P�r- /.a -a .7 A/ d db re J E <�• `� �� �� % 1 4NOp�rd) (k / �.t"` nahre .............. J. '.........Print name 11 f rem �' ' (relo OP uq .. —� ReLN-OPtionet) --,Tc -If ,� Signaswe... r ..... ........... ............ Print nanm Address (rel.0-0ptional) signehas. ...`........J............Pradnam Address (TeI.N -0ptiaW) � ................. J............ PrirR name Address (Td• �) 4 s Signah. ..................... /............Prim name Addrim � (re1.N OPliaral) V E,01 A Ni9Frrt'Ati'i i fLEZ/ Signepae.! . ..............J............Prim rem Address (Tel.*- Optional) 2D. 1 //�� II A ,Mbe. ,// r,fJc ��:. signalise .................... J ............ Print ftelm Address (rel.N- Optiond) P o Cu od�rr 1 �� 70 I Name ... Signed/Printed - -- Petition for Resolution We, the undersigned, residents of the City of Saratoga, oppose the currently proposed Kosich Property Development Plan and any alternate that suggests commercial use. That area, affecting three parcels commonly known as the Kosich Orchard, is shown by the current General Plan and long standing zoning plan as R -1 (10,000) which allows single family residential development. We therefore petition the Planning Commission and City Council to maintain the current General Plan & Zoning and deny said application(s). Name Address telephone number 1. (optional) (-�4 �" �� u� ,�;��G. nnvlNF_ /��3s da (u . 7 -2600 ....... .............. /............Prid rams r.ss (Tel. «- OPtia+d) z. !(,✓(Gl�� 1bE�7r &Lf7r -/i'l Ao/ signat. .................... J ............ Prirrt rams Address (Tel.«- Optional) lzmLt a. TuaP.IF MOPS iyot Kasicu 'he (4v%) 416 Z3gS sign. Wro ....... .............J............Print name Addmn (Tel. «- Optiansl) a. 5 .... ............... J ............ Pmrt name Address (rsl. «- Optional) 5. � i , (f ke— •1'ini�hCiF', /�%1.^ %� 'L•ii7 ii /�i . ���� ��.'�.�^ ... ��• ��, Sigrrhae .................... J ............ PriR nsme Address (rel. «- optional) 1'RTRICIA t3. rr �� .r.��r sA � TcMAS N om' lames DB��� , (5 L' as,2 - o X30 Sq .................... J ............ Print nsna Address (Tel« -0ptio al) l l� D� T S J i .................... J ............ Print Addreo (Tel.« -Optional) 8. 6RZt `1'eu�T /-2 3'/8 OAxAb AR. (yoV .2 S- 3 9ybs . ................J............" name Address (rot.« -Optional) /7ELEN BAS'rt�77' lT7S�i1 C/� / �fT�- �J�9� s7 /b SigO 10. ess 6ss .................... J ............ Print rMin Addr (Tel. « - Optiaal) P.rt,, (r(4-k 0�� _IL3� 06r) 0!))u-i -zS7- 33U Sgnati+ e .................... J ............ Prird rang Addrss (Tsl. «- optiaaq ' �ueRr,� , BAk�,e /�.-�Y 6b�Ad �• % ✓� �� °a. -� mfr- inf.� Print name Addre (TWO-Optiaal) ZI Si at. ..................... / ............ Printnom Address (rsl. «- Optional) r JZ77S'S'Q/ro ?. !; a� 73ofz9 erg ............. .J ............ Print nan,s Addro.a Signffkm....... .. .J. ........... Pmrt rams Address (rsl. «-O 7-7 /� /�3a8'L 0 SigraLm .................... OF .........Pratt rams , Address (Tel.« ptional) 16. 24L, ' / EvAy S,13AKEP /23.24 66cfiD2)r2. 408 -2557— /07;L, 17 naC+ s ...... ..............J ............ Prim name Addmn (Td. «- optical) ... .... .............. J ............ Prim MM Addren (Tet. « -Optioral) _T 18. 1vfes— n7&6eP 12P <yofl,2s -.ZPfT Sigrat. ........ ............./............Print rams Address (Tel. « -Optical) 1�s+,t �'�114(•7CR/euA9 _ /� 3�/�/ �`fs2���e 408 a57 7147—S g . ................J............ name Add,ess ' (Tel. « - Optional) 04" / Stbtith) / 2 3 <I'Y C S73T gn ro ..................... /............Print name Addrem (re4. «-0ptioral) Petition Custodian m a ame... ned /Printed Petition for Resolution We, the undersigned, residents of the City of Saratoga, oppose the currently proposed Kosich Property Development Plan and any aftemate that suggests commercial use. That area, affecting three parcels commonly known as the Kosich Orchard, is shown by the current General Plan and long standing zoning plan as R -1 (10,000) which allows single family residential development. We therefore petition the Planning Commission and City Council to maintain the current General Plan & Zoning and deny said application(s). e Address telephone number (optional) man 1 C'P, male S r .. : ....... ......... :..." name Add naa (re1.N-0pti"0 ls�7E'L- CftcibC i re .................... J............PriM Hems Address (TaI.N-opborW) 3 45 ,M'71 0300 Sip . .....J ............ Prnt name � Addraaa (rN.N-0pDOnal) a. Sl 2O� lA , - ns J............ name / Addraes (rel.• -0paonsl) S. % ZS'7- -4,zm7 .......... J ............ PriM name Address (Tel."Pbors) Try ►Motel /�s�� o-44o 99Io - 9553 ............... .... J............ Prirl rams Addmn (Tel.#- Opboral) . . ..........J............Prort name Address (r91.0-0pbone) S. /•z3i.L,ild air ow304/ ....................J........... /firrt r96M Address (Tel-0-00-1) Sips .................... J ............ PriM rwm Adds (TS1.40-0pborW) ���J Ntl�Yt',�I� M1� ✓ f �3f'6 0� 11 J4 = h • 4.1I i. Sig .J ............ Nim name Addraas (TaI.N OPtiaral) ft ...... .........J............" Hems Address (TN.N-0pDOrral) z -7 3 ./............PV name Address (rel.N- Opboral) PriM name r d Address (rel.N -0ptional) 14. ` r Sgrahie............� ... /3........PriM name Address ffei.N- Optional) 15. S ignsM e .................... J ............ Print nema a Addnas ffe " -opww) 18. Siprwhre.................... J ............ PriM rams Addrp (rei.N- Optional) 17. SigraWn ... .................J............" name Addnas (Td.N- OpbonW) 1 B. Siprratiae .................... J ............ PriM rams Address (Tel.0-0ptionW) 18. Sipraese .................... J ............ PriM name Addnas (NIA- Optical) 2D. S ipnatise .................... J ............ PriM name Address (QI.N-OPtioral) Petition Custodian /loo Name... igned /Printed Petition for Resolution We, the undersigned, residents of the City of Saratoga, oppose the currently proposed Kosich Property Development Plan and any alternate that suggests commercial use. That area, affecting three parcels commonly known as the Kosich Orchard, is shown by the current General Plan and long standing zoning plan as R -1 (10,000) which allows single family residential development. We therefore petition'the Planning Commission and City Council to maintain the current General Plan & Zoning and deny said application(s). Name Address telephone number (optional) Sign .......J.. ..... __Print n rt er Addreo t ( (re1.0 -Optional) Address 3. na ....... .............J............Prtnt arrre (rel.N -0pbonsl) c-- T r W si(gfn(it. t kM Print nam Addres (e.-0Ptiaa) d. &;2,j signature ........... 4"•••••J ............ Prim rams Address vn (TeI.0-00ora1) . .— r1[l,c.tl6wJ.DF.�i[rrw /� %'YO WrS7V/B"' L'iC •� Sigraft" ..— n.J............Print name rr/I Addren (Te1.N•OP�I) � S, pne4re . .................... J............Prrtd r - - - —, _ _ -+ S' t14f1 ae .................... J...... r ..Print name A rp (rN M•Optioral) ... ................1 ............ P PA% rurr�e A Addrem ( (rel.N•Optianel) ................ o. iriGf �a,° .... .............J vel e ,— -- � r- ............Prvrl nafre Address (TeI.N -0ptiond) IV ftnatse..................... /..... ....... Prssname Address (rel.N-)ptioral) 12. Sig .........J ............ Print name Address (rel.N-0pti"l) r J............ Print name Address (rel.N -Optimal) '2.i1�.0 SigneRae/. :. .............J............Print name Address gel.N -0pbo al) . 1 . Signature ..... ....:.......J.......,...Print name Address (rel.N•Optioral) 16. .. c sgnh. ..................... J ... ......... Prim name Addr (rel.N- Optioral) 17. Signature ..................... /............Print name Address (rel.N-0ptima1) 19. Signith. ..................... /............Prim rams Address (rs1.N•Optiorul) 19. / Signalise .................... J ............ Print name Address (re1.40-0pborul) 20. sigra . ..................... / ............ Print name Address (Tel.N -0ptiora1) Petition Custodian nn Name... Signed /Printed Petition Custodian nn Name... Signed /Printed — Petition for Resolution We, the undersigned, residents of the City of Saratoga, oppose the currently proposed Kosich Property Development Plan and any alternate that suggests commercial use. That area, affecting three parcels commonly known as the Kosich Orchard, is shown by the current General Plan and long standing zoning plan as R-1 (10,000) which allows single family residential development. We therefore petition the Planning Commission and City Council to maintain the current General Plan & Zoning and deny said application(s). Name Address telephone number gf (optional) U--P- 'AY, 47 )r9-AYIC#- M �2- t94-17'ftnauve .................... J ............ rw!w Address (TqW-#-0Pb0MI) 2, 0-L' ;Z 5 203X 3.Ij! Sigrm"O, . ............. j ............ R'k name Address (TeL#-0PWW) jcc;7�--�nl Lgakj- &4q 1 D17. 441, -4-405 -%-/ , J ............ " rp" Add� (TWO- optional) ) 4AAV A k2"do /'sf q EM64L---' Dr- �46 -'a4 aE Signature..... j ............ Prink name Addnm (rel.#-Opbonal) Ppiaxa C,+ I U-fD M Wir)C)Y kuL D f-, ............ Print rMLMO Address (raIA-0pbonW) A/A Rim name (TW4.0pbormd) ....................J... Is am Address (Tel.#-Opboml) "--Signshig . ............... Prod rums Address (rel.#-OptormI) a. n . -IT, fag rAL / 1-4 a io, Ir 1. L A u Lno-) i a SOS' I-Ld- iaa D r as P - -7 signffhas .................... j ............ Pft name Address (re"100-W) C - A '5;� - Signet. .................... J ............ Pfird rmm Addraw (Tei.40-0pb—l) -0 r-,, A We A( . .... ............ Print name Address 12. 4X(/f ) NQ Q. -0 t -7 3f'- Lt_ 7 A. t WhS, /VL LA570 Eki Print rarne Address (Tel.#-Opbonal) f.,z L Qq ,, Signature J ........... Pfird name Address (Tel."Pborud) 14. sigrwhA ....... .................Print name Address (rel."Pb-1) Ur- ':Z S7� i.9 Mrit nwne Addrm (r4W.#-OpbonW) 16 (4k, IA"*La 4Y) fl'I'l I-Pfrf I& LL IJ t4y- � -0) - ftn . ................... ��rfffrllm A*dren (rel.#-Opbonal) 511LV "I� 1 : .4 Print Heine Address (TeL#-0pb—Q 3 4 4 ............ Prim ra"M AdOrm (TeI.#,0pbonW) =11� . . .................... \Aegne"e .................... J 1 Rint r. Address (Tel."Pbormd) So* . .................... i ............ FY" name Address (T6144)pb—l) Petition Custodian Name ... Signed/Printed .p, Petition for Resolution We, the undersigned, residents of the City of Saratoga, oppose the currently proposed Kosich Property Development Plan and any afternate that suggests commercial. use. That area, affecting three parcels commonly known as the Kosich Orchard, is shown by the current General Plan and long standing zoning plan as 01-1 (10,000) which allows single family residential development. We therefore petition the Planning Commission and City Council to maintain the current General Plan & Zoning and deny said application(s). Name Address telephone number (optional) i Print rAMM AddnM ..... . ....... 1, Sign emn; I ............. i ............ Piirrt rims Addeo 3K4" Sigrakire .......... Print name Addrm 4 0 64A rT (;w Al_"15 SOW— ..................... / ............ Print rMM Addrew (reI.#-0Vb-1) -hau laij Al sig .... . ......... ........... Print name Addrm (rqW_#-0pb—Q e. Rosm mMBaRy )7,4+U Ciirru Cf,Sara>,,j 'Z63 3631 . /............Pr int nIL" Zdrm (Tel.#-Optional) /-I Oz 8 CVIZPI,- 7 AA*rmAI 7_ Sipriwre......J......... /............Print rams Addnm (T4M.0-Optional) ............ J ............ Print narne draw (Tel."p-W) &' ! 6. ✓ n., 14c, 0 j ............ Prim n4k"Is Addrm (T4M."Ptionad) . . . . . . . . . . nab".... Print nwra Addnm (Te"p-opt-1) 7? S' ftnam .. . ...... -...j ............ Print rMUM Addrow (T9144)pborml) Signab". ............ Print name Addren e71 3. 5,q Si ft . .................... J ............ Print name Addnm (T6i.#-oPb"q 14. F3�-71 rj A..,. 4 X 5- 7_f:5 radre .... ...........................Print name Address (re14-Optional) . ..................... /............Print name Addren (rel."Pti-1) 0, 4CL M157—,1353 signshme i, .............. /............Print rMrrIe Addrew (Tw4-Optional) 17. " -.1 V. ,A . ................ j ............ Pnnt Addrou (Tel."Ptiorw) Is. m-A-V FL'er*i !Y- 0 L_ I Sgn ........ / ............ Prin name Addrw (Te44pbonal) 19. /nldl ell 5jc P. 7't Sigrola . ............ J ............ Nint narna Addn= r (Tel.#-Optional) 2D. \fl(;PA- DXVA� INVC. I RAM4LA 1-2. signiture =777::7j. /............Print name Addnm (7914-Optional) Petition Custodian F_ Name... Signed/Printed Edward J. Shaw 18735 Kosich Drive (408) 257 -1084) October 3, 1994 Saratoga Planning Commission c/o Paul Curtis, Community Development Director 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Sirs and Mesdames, Saratoga, California RECE. VEp OCT 6 1994 FLAW, i l7 utpT I am writing the Saratoga Planning Commission in regard to a change in zoning requested for the Kosich orchard property at 12325 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga. I am concerned over the detrimental impact on the Saratoga Woods neighborhood, and, indeed, on the city itself, if the commercial elements of the proposed development are allowed. The property in question has been zoned for single family homes for good reason. It is part and parcel of a residential tract that has been zoned for single family homes since the inception of the tract development. That represented a strong commitment to the people who decided to settle in an area with the soley residential character of Saratoga Woods. I am concerned with increased traffic congestion, increased noise levels, and increased disruption generated by people activity in the area, should commercial activities be permitted. I ask that the City act to ameliorate as much as possible the impact of increased traffic along Saratoga Avenue between Lawrence and Hwy 85, once 85 is open. Saratoga Ave should be treated as a straight through conduit between these two points. Vehicles should be allowed to move as smoothly and quickly as possible to their final destinations. Do not place strips of stores along the way to congest and endanger movement along this corridor. An indication of the increased level of problems can be observed today in the traffic congestion and disruption incident to vehicles slowing down to turn into the Kinko/Pier One complex, and daredevil exits into traffic rounding the corner from Lawrence Expy or running full throttle down Saratoga Ave across the Lawrence -Quito intersection. Please deny the application to change the zoning for the Kosich orchard property from residential, single family, 10,000 sq. ft. Very truly yours, E.;J. Shaw N RECEIVED OCT 6 1994 October 5, 1994 PLANNhiu oEPT. Paul Curtis, Community Development Director Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Kosich Property /Saratoga Avenue Dear Mr. Curtis: I am a resident of Saratoga Woods and have been for ten years. It is a neighborhood of caring families with a sense of real community spirit. My husband and I have s, of the above property. both of us need to make from Kosich in order to become difficult. When difficult. 3me real concerns We live at the e: a left hand turn get to our jobs. Highway 85 opens about the development ad of Kosich Drive and onto Saratoga Avenue This has already it will be extremely Please honor the General Plan. It is important that we maintain a community environment wit a neighborhood attitude for the safety of our children and the town of Saratoga. Sincerely, Barbara Dionne Saratoga Woods resident. 12320 Obrad Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 October 3,1994 Mr. Paul Curtis, Comm. Development Dir. Saratoga Planning Commission 1377 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Reference: KOSICH Zoning Application Dear Mr. Curtis: RECEIVED OCT 6 1994 rLANNING DEPT. We the undersigned wish to state our opposition to changing " Kosich Property" from Residential (R 1- 10000) to Commercial: 1) There is an overabundance of empty and/or unused retail property in many of the shopping centers near Saratoga Woods, for example: Quito Shopping Center, Westgate; Westgate West; Pier one; El Paseo. There is even an overabundance of unused retail property on Cox and Sunnyvale/Saratoga Road and at the Argonaut Shopping Ctr. Why do we need more retail stores? Do we need empty shopping centers to encourage crime? 2) Making it harder for the residents to exit from Kosich to Saratoga Avenue. 3) Keeping Saratoga Woods a peaceful, quiet residual neighborhood. Please consider us for once. Sincerely, Rita Ort Edward Ort LAW OFFICE OF MARTHA A. UELMEN 416 SovTH MURPHY AvENuE SUNNYVALE. CALIFoRNIA94086 October 7, 1994 Mayor Ann Marie Burger City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor Burger: TELEPHONE (408) 733 -9911 FACsumz (408) 732-0709 We are members of the Saratoga Woods Homeowners Association. We purchased our home on Cabernet Drive in July 1986. We purchased this home with the understanding that the general plan of Saratoga Woods would remain residential (R1- 10000) zoning as it had been since the inception of the neighborhood. We might not have purchased a home in this neighborhood if we had anticipated that commercial development would take place on the Kosich property. Since we have moved to Cabernet Drive we have noticed increased traffic congestion. There is a particularly dangerous situation with cars turning in and out of the Kinko complex and an anticipated increase in traffic once Highway 85 is opened in several weeks. On February 22, 1992, when I was merging from Lawrence Expressway to Saratoga Avenue about 7:00 in the evening, I came to a stop because of the on- coming traffic on Saratoga Avenue was rear- ended at that intersection. I obviously approach this intersection with great caution because I am familiar with the hazard and I am concerned that any further commercial development will significantly increase accidents in .this area. It is already very difficult to exit from Kosich onto Saratoga Avenue northbound and commercial development, including space for over 150 cars would greatly increase the number of people attempting to use Kosich Drive. Already a significant number of people make a right turn onto Kosich and a U -turn in the middle of the street in a very unsafe manner to avoid violating the no U -turn sign at Saratoga Avenue and Kosich Drive. It is imperative that we continue to have our acceleration lane so as to safely merge onto Saratoga Avenue northbound, especially in the morning rush hour. , Our bedroom is quite close to the commercial development at the corner of Lawrence Expressway and Prospect and often I am awakened as 4:00 and 5:00 in the morning with the sound of trash dumpsters from that commercial development. I cringe to think what it would be like to have more dumpsters being emptied during the night at commercial development Mayor Ann Marie Burger 4 October 7, 1994 which would be less than a block from my home. I am told that the impact of lighting on the houses adjacent to the "Kinko development" seriously disturb their peace and I would hate to live any closer new commercial development than I do to the existing development. The last thing that this particular area needs is more commercial development. Witness the exceedingly high vacancy rate in El Paseo, Quito Center, Westgate West, and Westgate. We certainly do not need more shopping facilities in our immediate environs. We were pleased to find such a beautiful home in Saratoga and purchased it because of the residential nature of Saratoga Woods. Because we live right behind Prospect High School we have had trouble with vandalism relating to our outdoor lighting and sprinklers and have had to replace our lamps and sprinkler heads many times. We also experienced a residential burglary in October of 1990. 1 would hate to see any :further increase in pedestrian and vehicular traffic within a block of our home. I truly believe that the peaceful, quiet neighborhood atmosphere we hoped to enjoy will be jeopardized by further commercial development in our area. I specifically voted for members of the City Council on their assurances that the general plan would be honored and that the residential nature of our Saratoga Woods would not be disturbed. Please reject the Kosich commercial development application. Very truly yours, MARTHA A. UELMEN MAU:BS 1' ©cf 6, 1qR 7 AIV- t -iao n i ct ate- o Ll dl(u. l�anicl o�ian�cy BatE1cEE �� �� �e4lf lle� 1447 1 9740 -Woi&g 2WUE S� A — - cSa:aEo9a, eahlotn(a 95070 s 3, d l3 777 ✓� �G� f S S L� � dzc�7,Oeff n� otg l 'P-t ez* IAIC 97 44. ( ecY4.�� �' Ir 70, !A Ir J. OCT 11 1994 U�- 9 y �` rLANNING DEPT. Ch 70 Dal 7/ IVL,2 LJ .-V L Ile , Tz ol V- 40-r.k Cf -8 - If 61 7;7 0 415 SOUTH MURPHYAVENUE SUNNYVALE, CALIMRNIA94086 Paul Curtis Director of Planning City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Paul: LAW OFFICE OF MARTHA A. UELMEN RECEIVED OCT 11 1994 rLMNING 00f, October 7, 1994 TE[,EPHoxE (408) 733 -9911 FACSUAILE (408) 732-0709 We are members of the Saratoga Woods Homeowners Association. We purchased our home on Cabernet Drive in July 1986. We purchased this home with the understanding that the general plan of Saratoga Woods would remain residential (R1- 10000) zoning as it had been since the inception of the neighborhood. We might not have purchased a home in this neighborhood if we had anticipated that commercial development would take place on the Kosich property. Since we have moved to Cabernet Drive we have noticed increased traffic congestion. There is a particularly dangerous situation with cars turning in and out of the Kinko complex and an anticipated increase in traffic once Highway 85 is opened in several weeks. On February 22, 1992, when I was merging from Lawrence Expressway to Saratoga Avenue about 7:00 in the evening, I came to a stop because of the on- coming traffic on Saratoga Avenue was rear - ended at that intersection. I obviously approach this ' intersection with great caution because I am familiar with the hazard and I am concerned that any further commercial development will significantly increase accidents in this area. It is already very difficult to exit from Kosich onto Saratoga Avenue northbound and commercial development, including space for over 150 cars would greatly increase the number of people attempting to use Kosich Drive. Already a significant number of people make a right turn onto Kosich and a U -turn in the middle of the street in a very unsafe manner to avoid violating the no U -turn sign at Saratoga Avenue and Kosich Drive. It is imperative that we continue to have our acceleration lane so as to safely merge onto Saratoga Avenue northbound, especially in the morning rush hour. Our bedroom is quite close to the commercial development at the corner of Lawrence Expressway and Prospect and often I am awakened as 4:00 and 5:00 in the morning with the sound of trash dumpsters from that commercial development. I cringe to think what it would - Paul Curtis, Director of Planning 2 October 7, 1994 be like to have more dumpsters being emptied during the night at commercial development which would be less than a block from my home. I am told that the impact of lighting on the houses adjacent to the "Kinko development" seriously disturb their peace and I would hate to live any closer- new commercial development than I do to the existing development. The last thing that this particular area needs is more commercial development. Witness the exceedingly high vacancy rate in El Paseo, Quito Center, Westgate West, and Westgate. We certainly do not need more shopping facilities in our immediate environs. We were pleased to find such a beautiful home in Saratoga and purchased it because of the residential nature of Saratoga Woods. Because we live right behind Prospect High School we have had trouble with vandalism relating to our outdoor lighting and sprinklers and have had to replace our. lamps and sprinkler heads many times. We also experienced a residential burglary in October of 1990. I would hate to see any further increase in pedestrian and vehicular traffic within a block of our home. I truly believe that the peaceful, quiet neighborhood atmosphere we hoped to enjoy will be jeopardized by further commercial development in our area. I specifically voted for members of the City Council on their assurances that the general plan would be honored and that the residential nature of our Saratoga Woods would not be disturbed. Please reject the Kosich commercial development application. MAU:BS Very truly yours, MARTHA A. UELMEN OCT 111994 PLANIVINC, DEPT. �R/�•aT d� ��! L� %may `--"' „^'i^ i S.('i/Z- o .. /C/o si`�. l�.c�e ,e-Of ' 07 °d -7� h�7 'OL7� des- �•.e.�.� `� �'r��`._"L_`� -0"'Ool 7.t -o r �4 hoe' �/ October 7, 1994 Mr. Paul Curtis . Community Development Director Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga. CA 95070 Dear Mr. Curtis: Having lived in Saratoga for over 25 years, I am appalled at even the consideration of invading the community with more business properties. Saratoga has been a quiet residential setting and incursion of businesses that draw more traffic is an anathema to the resident. At the hearing on the current office complex at Cox and Saratoga Ave, I predicted, as one who's' livelihood depends on accurate traffic counts and predictions, that the car count would measurably increase if that proposal passed. I differed with the developers traffic experts at the time and guess who was right? Saratoga Avenue has difficult entry problems from Saratoga Woods now, and with the opening of Route 85 I predict traffic lights will be needed. We don't need more business generated traffic with its inherent noise and danger to our drivers, children and pedestrians. I'm sure that the taxes to be .generated are a large consideration in the decision but Saratogans would rather 1. ive in Peace. I urge you to reject the Kosich application for the good and peacefulness of Saratoga. Sincerely, Charles and Dorothy Brady cdb /d 18871 Ansley Place Saratoga, CA 95070 SEP s 1994 DEPT. ROBERT E. HISCOX 18749 KOSICH DRIVE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 September 23, 1994 Saratoga City Planning Commission Saratoga City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Commission Members: My wife and I are concerned about the proposed rezoning of the Kosich property on Saratoga Avenue in order to permit commercial development in this presently residential area of Saratoga. Like our neighbors, we purchased our home on the assumption that the area would remain residential. There are compelling reasons why San Jose commercial dev- elopment should not be allowed to spill over into Saratoga. The E1 Paseo de Saratoga shopping center has gone through bankruptcy and has been abandoned. Saratoga Station, the newest construction, has never been fully rented. The entire area is full of vacant offices and stores. Surely there is no need to contaminate the area with still more commercial construction. A few years ago, Mr. J. Lohr built a group of fine homes in the immediate area which are a credit to Saratoga and have attracted the kind of people we like to have as neighbors. The same could be done on the Kosich property. At a meeting of homeowners, Mrs. Fanelli, who is promoting the development, tried to indicate that it is a done deal and that the most she might concede would be some changes to eliminate a few of the more objectionable features. Any commercial development plan is unsatisfactory for the neighborhood. We urge you to put the interests of the community ahead of the desire of the promoter to make a fast buck at the expense of Saratoga residents. cc - Saratoga City Council Yours truly, RECEIVED SEP 2 9 1994 TUNING DEPT. Dear City Council Members, 12388 Radoyka Dr. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 996 -8795 Sept. 29, 1994 I am writing in regards to the property located near the corner of Lawrence Expressway and Saratoga Ave. which is owned by the Kosich family. Plans were recently submitted to the planning commission, by the Kosichs, to build a "small" shopping center at this location. I would like to register my disapproval of this project. There are many reasons to not approve this shopping center. Traffic is already horrendous and dangerous at this location and I'm sure it will only deteriorate after Highway 85 is open for business. Why do we want to create another reason to congest .this area even more? No amount of sound wall will protect the nearby homes from the noise created if this is allowed to be built. Although there are many others, in the interest of brevity, I will state my last but most important reason: THIS LOCATION IS NOT ZONED FOR COMMERCIAL USE. Long time residents have remained, and other people have recently bought homes, near this location with the express understanding that the remaining Kosich property was zoned single family residential. Let's make sure to stick to the city's general plan which you are bound to uphold. This area is still an important part of Saratoga. Sincerely, 44�4 -4xn4v dith Gremer cc Planning Commissioners RECEIVED OCT 4 1994 DEPT. Glenn & Susan Kral 18876 Westview Dr. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 (408) 253 -1436 Paul Curtis, Community Planning Director Oct. 1, 1994 Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 re: Kosich Development Dear Mr. Curtis; Please don't allow the Kosich Development to proceed. It just doesn't make sense. We've been in this neighborhood for 16 years and this piece of property has always been considered future housing. We were appalled that the city ignored our interests several years ago when they tried to eliminate our stacking lane at the Saratoga Ave. end of Kosich Drive for the sake of the new commercial center. Don't repeat your blunder and allow more commercial development to exacerbate an already impacted intersection. The existing combination of the turn off of Lawrence with the reduction of lanes on Saratoga Ave. and the exiting of shopping center customers is already creating minor accidents. Once the freeway opens, well see an increase in traffic to compound the problem. It's the city's responsibility to act rationally where feasible. Also, please honor the General Plan. Sincerely, Glenn & Susan Kral RECEIVED OCT 4 - 1994 October 2, 1994 PANNING DEPT, 12303 Kosich Ct. Saratoga, CA 95070 Paul Curtis Community Development Director Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: As residents of Saratoga Woods since 1980, we are strongly opposed to any change in the present R 1- 10,000 zoning of the area known as the Kosich Orchard. We also oppose any change in the current General Plan. We bought our home with the knowledge that the Kosich Orchard property was zoned for single - family residential dwellings. We would not have bought this home if we thought that any commercial development could take place in our neighborhood. Changes to the General Plan should not take place in order to satisfy the greed of a developer who is seeking to maximize his profits. We strongly oppose any further commercial development on Saratoga Avenue north of the Highway 85 intersection. Traffic is already impacted and people are constantly using Kosich Drive to make illegal U -turns back onto Saratoga Avenue. It is dangerous to access Saratoga Avenue from Kosich Drive and other streets leading out of Saratoga Woods. We do not feel any need to "compromise" on this issue. The Kosich Orchard property is zoned R 1- 10,000 and should stay that way!!! Sincerely, i Paul B. Philp Kathryn C. Philp REALTY WORLD® — Moser & Long RECEIVED 14363 Saratoga Avenue; Saratoga, CA 95070 OCT 7 1994 Telephone: (408) 867 -3491 Fax: (408) 867 -7758 REALTY WORLD` mr. Paul Curtis Community Development P irector Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga; Ca 95070 Dear Paul, As a member on the Board of Directors of the Saratoga Woods Homeowners Assoc., I Kish to convey my thoughts to you on the Kosich Application for Rezoning the proverty at Kosich Drive, Saratoga Avenue and Lolly Court. In order to try to find the best use of the land I propose for a first choice Single Family ?louses without any commercial on Saratoga Avenue. Second Choice is Custom Deluxe Townhouses with the traffic feeding out onto Saratoga Avenue. All of the residents have relied on the permanency of residential (R -1- 10000) since inception of the neighborhood. The integrity of Saratoga's General Plan so states to deny a change in the zoning. Because Traffic flow in and out of Saratoga Woods Area is imperilled due to the opening of Highway 85 on Saratoga Avenue, there is less chance for residents to exit on Saratoga Avenue. We lose acceleration lanes or see an increase in the number of cars which currently violate the posted no "J" Turn signs if it is changed. I believe my w suggestions are the most viable and best use of the land. Please give this your greatest attention. FSincere 1 y, ne Holst Ewhoff=rO *WMW&o CPWMd 12306 Kosich Court, Saratoga, Ca 95070 REALTY WORLD* 7= sass mss,• RECEIVED October 4, 1994 OCT 7 1994 ru►NNiNG DEPT. Paul Curtis Community Development Director Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. - Curtis, We are extremely concerned and unhappy about the proposal introduced by the Kosich family for the development of the open land on Saratoga Avenue between Lawrence Expressway and Kosich Drive. We are very proud of our neighborhood, especially because of its close knit community and quiet, family oriented atmosphere. Despite creeping development over the years from Westgate, the Kinko's shopping center, and the soon to be opened freeway, this neighborhood has fought hard to retain a safe environment for the children living here, so that they may play outside without the risk of accidents from speeding cars, and flow - through traffic. The Kosich proposal would impose a commercial influence into this neighborhood, with cars coming into our streets to turn around, and noise and pollution from the almost 200 proposed parldng spaces right within our neighborhood. This area definitely does not need any additional commercial space! We have Westgate, Westgate West, El Paseo and Kinko's malls within a quarter mile of this neighborhood. El Paseo has been particularly unsuccessful at attracting tenants to its stores, and it has been mostly vacant for a number of years. We feel that the neighborhood should be able to control the type of development within its own borders. This property has been zoned RI - 10,000 since the area was built. We intend that it remain so! This is in accordance with- the City of Saratoga's general plan. Yours very trul , Barbara Roseman and Robert Silverstein 12441 Curry Court Saratoga, CA 95070 September 28, 1994 RECEIVED OCT 7 1994 PLANNINu utvl. Mr. Paul Curtis, Community Development Director Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitdale Ave. Saratoga, CA. 95070 Dear Mr. Curtis: We are writing in opposition to the proposed development plan submitted by the Fanelli Construction Company for the Kosich orchard property located at Saratoga and Kosich Avenues. Two years ago we purchased a new home on Radoyka Drive, which backs up to the Kosich orchard. Although concerned about how the Kosich property would ultimately be developed, our research indicated zoning at R1- 10,000, which we felt was unlikely to change bacause of the Saratoga Master Plan. We are vehemently opposed to commercial development of any kind on Saratoga Avenue. The Saratoga Avenue corridor is a gateway to our community. I hope we would not consider commercial development to add to the noise and congestion, especially since we are not yet sure of the negative impact of the Highway 85 access. I am concerned about the quality of our residential life and our neighborhood. Commerical development will bring more noise and commotion at all hours with delivery trucks and garbage trucks and cars going in and out. The extra traffic will certainly increase hazardous conditions for Saratoga Woods residents trying to gain access onto Saratoga Avenue. We have enough commercial development. -Let's uphold the integrity of the Master Plan and provide more single family homes at reasonable prices. Saratoga Woods is a highly desirable neighborhood in which to live. Let's keep it that way with residential, not commercial development. S' c rely Sandra C. Deagman Patrick J. Deagman 12312 Radoyka Drive Saratoga, CA. 95070 H nJ V RECEIVED OCT 7 1994 S D I A M O N D D O T October 4, 1994 Ray A. Simpson 12300 Radoyka Drive Saratoga, Ca 95070 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca 95070 Re: 12325 Saratoga Avenue Dear Council Members; I and the other homeowners directly adjacent to the undeveloped land at 12325 Saratoga Avenue, were invited to a meeting at the site with the Kosiches (owners of the property) and Ms. Fanelli (developer) where the homeowners were shown a layout of the proposed plan for development. Saratoga Woods is a close knit and concerned group of homeowners and therefor the meeting was attended by far more than just those invited homeowners. We were shown a play which, to our dismay, included a very large portion allocated for commercial property. After some discussion between the homeowners and the developers, there was a "Show of Hands" vote taken to give both the Kosiches and the Developer an indication of our feelings about the proposal. The vote was unanimous in opposition to the plan and, more specifically, with regard to any commercial development at all. I and the others owning the adjacent property, inquired as to the zoning of the property, when we considered purchasing our home, and found it to be zoned R1- 10,000. This was a large factor in our decision to buy and we contend that we have the right that it be kept that way. Aside from our right and majority opposition, there are other factors to consider concerning commercial development on this property. There appears to be an abundance of unoccupied office and retail/commercial space available in the near vicinity deaming it unnecessary to create any more. t 12300 Radoyka Drive Saratoga, California 95070 (408) 725 -8748 FAX (408) 255-1934,j • n 2. The continuous traffic and noise created by a retail complex. 3. Any entrance or exit in this area would exasperate the already treacherous traffic conditions on Saratoga Avenue between Quito Road and Kosich Ave. The Fanelli letter to us mentioned that they had submitted plans to the city and were undergoing a traffic study. I submit to you that any traffic study done befor the openning of the 85 and the interchange at Saratoga Avenue, which will undenyably cause a tremendous increase in traffic in this condor, would be inacrurate if not totally invalid. I would appreciate your response on this matter. Sincerely, Ray Simpson . cc: Planning Commission Mayor Ann Marie Burger San Jose Mercury Newspaper RECEIVED OCT 7 1994 PLAtviv1riU DEPT. October 2, 1994 Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: David & Marjorie McEachron 18966 Saratoga Glen Place Saratoga. CA 95070 Our Saratoga Woods Homeowners Association has recently informed us that a proposal has been submitted to the Saratoga City Planning Department to change the zoning of the property between Kinko's Copies and Kosich Drive from residential to mixed residential and commercial. and to construct 2 commercial buildings on the site. As 10 year residents of Saratoga Woods. we are adamantly opposed to this proposed development for the following reasons: 1. The property in question has been zoned R11-10,000 for over 20 years as part of the master plan for the city of Saratoga. Given that it is bordered on two sides and part of the third side by residential properties, this was and most emphatically is the appropriate designation. 2.. A commercial development that requires 160 parking spaces is sure to significantly increase the traffic on Saratoga Avenue. which already will have to carry an additional burden from Highway 85. 3. Neighbors adjoining the commercial buildings will be subjected to noise from customers during the day and most probably from the sound of dumpsters being emptied early in the morning. 4, It is likely that residents whose homes border the property would also be bothered at night by light from overhead lights in the parking lots. 5, There have been more accidents at the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Lawrence Expressway . since the construction of the Pier 1 /Kinko's shopping center. The additional traffic flowing from the proposed commercial buildings will exacerbate an already dangerous situation. 6. Given the large inventory of vacant commercial space in Saratoga and adjacent areas in other cities, our community has no apparent need for further commercial development. 7. Last. but certainly not least, development of commercial property directly adjacent to our well established neighborhood is certain to reduce the value of our properties and have an adverse impact on our quality of life. We ask that you vote against this proposal should it be submitted for.your consideration. Sincerely, & *4?xn V%�� A SVAO_� David and Marjorie McEachron David & Marjorie McEachron 18966 Saratoga Glen Place Saratoga, CA 95070 October 2, 1994 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Members of the Council: Our Saratoga Woods Homeowners Association has recently informed us that a proposal has been submitted to the Saratoga City Planning Department to change the zoning of the property between Kinko's Copies and Kosich Drive from residential to mixed residential and commercial, and to construct a commercial building on the site. As 10 year residents-of Saratoga Woods. we are adamantly opposed to this proposed development for the following reasons: 1. The property in question has been zoned R1- 10.000 for over 20 years as part of the master plan for the city of Saratoga. Given that it is bordered on two sides and part of the third side by residential properties. this was and most emphatically is the appropriate designation. 2. A commercial development that requires 160 parking spaces is sure to significantly increase the traffic on Saratoga Avenue, which already will have to carry an additional burden from Highway 85, 3. Neighbors adjoining the commercial buildings will be subjected to noise from customers during the day and most probably from the sound of dumpsters being emptied early in the morning. 4. It is likely that residents whose homes border the property would also be bothered at night by light from overhead lights in the parking lots. 5. There have been more accidents at the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Lawrence Expressway since the construction of the Pier 1- Kinko's shopping center. The additional traffic flowing from the proposed commercial buildings will exacerbate an already dangerous situation. 6. Given the large inventory of vacant commercial space in Saratoga and adjacent areas in other cities, our community has no demonstrated need for further commercial development. 7. Last, but certainly not least, development of commercial property directly adjacent to our well established neighborhood is certain to reduce the value of our properties and have an adverse impact on our quality of life. We ask that you, as our elected representatives, vote against this proposal should it be submitted to the Council. Sincerely, of David a d Marjorie McEachron Ellen S. Mastman 18951 Saratoga Glen Place Saratoga, CA 95070 Paul Curtis, Community Development Director Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 October 1, 1994 Dear Mr. Curtis; RECEIVED OCT 5 1994 NLAu414114u U&L As a resident of Saratoga Woods,l am writing to state my opposition to the proposed constuction of a commercial strip on Saratoga Avenue near Kosich. It is clear that traffic on Saratoga Avenue has increased dramatically through the years, making it extrememtly difficult to turn into the stream of traffic on that street from my own. If the proposed commercial project is allowed to proceed, it can only make matters worse. At a time when nearby shopping centers such as El Paseo and Kinko's/Pier One have so many vacancies, it seems wasteful and shortsighted to create even more commercial space while sacrificing the aesthic qualities that make Saratoga so unique and highly valued. When our home was purchased, Saratogans could rely upon zoning laws that protected us from the encroachment of commercial development. Changing residential zoning restrictions is equivalent to the breaking of a promise, reflecting a shameful lack of integrity on the part of city government. Thanking you for your attention in these matters, I am 11Sincerely yours, Ellen S. Mastman cc: Saratoga News October 4, 1994'. Betty A. Bennett -Morse and Duane Morse 16701 Kosich Drive Saratoga, California 95070 Mr. Paul Curtis Saratoga Planning Commission, Director 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 RE CF/ VEO OUT 5 1994 Dear Mr. Curtis We would like you to be aware of our concerns in keeping the so- called 'Kosich Orchard' as it stands) or developed (if may be) into a residential area compatible with our neighborhood. The proposal to develop the orchard into more shopping is ridiculous. We cannot bear the thought of the danger of further development around our home such as this. Saratoga Avenue can't handle the traffic currently traveling on it. We take our lives in our hands each and every time we turn right off the Lawrence Expressway with cars cutting over and slowing down to turn into Pier 1 and Kinkos, not to mention the 'U' turns on Kosich Drive because they missed it. We just won't accept any further commercial development such as proposed by Fanelli Consulting and the Kosich brothers. We know they have owned that property since the depression era and that they acquired it by paying the taxes, we are certain they can't lose no matter what is builtthere. We would like to see them give it back to Saratoga for a park or a school, but certainly not more stores. If it must be developed the only acceptable plan would be as stated in the general plan, and that is as RI-1.0,000, We have children to raise here. We want them to enjoy the beauty of Saratoga as well as the safety that it has provided in the past. We know we face increased congestion on Saratoga Avenue once the freeway opens. How safe will we be backing up to the freeway and Lawrence Expressway? This is our home. We pay a heavy price to raise our children in Saratoga. We want it to continue to be desirable and protected. Please help us maintain the the intergrity of our neighborhood for our children. We do not want a commercial building on that property. Sincerely, Betty nd Duane Morse October 4, 1994 Kimberly Bennett RECEIVED 12335 Obrad-Drive Saratoga, California 95070 OCT 5 1994 DEPT. Mr. Paul Curtis, Director rLANNIN(,' Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mr. Curtis, Mr. Curtis I am writing about the Kosich Property which is currently an orchard located between Lawrence Expressway and Kosich Drive. There has been several meetings and discussions by our neighbors about the orchard being converted into a commercial building. I grew up in this neighborhood and spent many hours playing in that orchard and even in the orchard that now is Prospect High School. I hate to see the last bit of open space be turned into a McDonalds or even a book store. This area has grown too fast as it is. The Lohr homes took away our neighborhood elementary school. Prospect High School took away our apricot orchard. We are faced with an Expressway on one side of us and sandwiched on the other side by 85. What is happenng to the rural appeal that Saratoga has always tried to maintain. We need that school that is now not there. We need the open space. We also need the freeway and Lawrence Expressway. I'm not against progress but somethings are just not necessary. I would like to see it left as it is. If development is inevitable keep it as it has been zoned. I would all like your support on this. Sincerely, �vw Kimberly ennett RECEIVED OCT 5 1994 VUU4NING DEPT, October 1, 1994 Rose Albanese 1 %332 Obrad Drive Saratoga, California 95070 Paul Curtis Community Development Director Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Gear I -Ir, Curtis, 1 feel compelled to make you aware of my thoughts and feelings on the future plans for the Saratoga property owned by the Kosich family. I attended a neighborhood meeting conducted by Virginia Fanelli and the Kosich brothers several weeks ago. They presented a plan to mow down the orchard and to build commercial buildings in its place. I find this to be aesthetically unacceptable, as well as unsafe for the residents. I can't understand why we would want or need more commercial buildings in Saratoga. I see lots of vacant commercial space in Saratoga everyday. I would hate to see us build commercial buildings that would be empty, or worse yet full causing more congestion with a constant flow of cars to this area. I feel this would really degrade my neighborhood. The lighting, the traffic, and the noise would ruin the peace and quiet of my home. I am already fearful that the new freeway will provide access to increase the crime in my neighborhood and a commercial building would just add to our vulnerability. I would much rather see this property left alone. If the Kosich family want to build they must adhere to the original zoning for single- family homes. I personally feel they should give it back to the residents of Saratoga by making it a beautifully landscaped park for our young. I doubt they would be willing to accept my plan just as i will not accept theirs. I believe my neighbors and I stand strong against the Kosich /Fanelli plan and we will fight their proposal. Sincerely Rose Albanese RECEIVED OCT 5 1994 rLmvNING DEPT. October 1, 1994 Joseph J. Albanese 1 2,332 Obrad Drive Saratoga, California 95070 Paul Curtis Community Development Director Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mr, Curtis, As a resident of the Saratoga Woods for over 40 years I feel a grave need to voice my concerns on the proposal to change the "Kosich orchard Property" from R 1000() to a commercially zoned parcel. I strongly oppose this request and the commercial building plan made by the Kosich Brothers and Fanelli Consulting, INC. Highway 85 is encroaching us on one side and the already present commercial ouildings on the corner of Saratoga Avenue and Lawrence Expressway (Pier 1 and Kinvos') is causing hazardous traffic congestion for those of us entering and leaving Kosich Drive, our main thoroughfare into the Saratoga Woods. It is downright aangerous, and highway 85 isn't open yet. The property has been owned by the Kosich's for many, many years. They have promised as well as the city of Saratoga that this property be used for single - family dwellings. This promise is in Saratoga's General Plan, and must be upheld i say let us work together in keeping the general plan intact. We must preserve the beauty of our gateway to Saratoga as well as my home. The purpose of the general plan was to maintain Saratoga's beauty as it was 40 years ago when I chose to make Saratoga my home. Saratoga has always been an especially beautiful place to live. Let us keep it that way! Sincerely, Joseph J. Albanese October 2, 1994 Lucille Bennett 12335 Obrad Drive Saratoga, California 95070 Paul Curtis Community Development Director Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mr. Curtis, RECEIVE OCT s 1994 tUNNlNG DEP7 As a long time resident of Saratoga I would like you to be aware of my concern over the prospect of the Saratoga Avenue orchard being developed into commercial property. I have lived in the Saratoga Woods for over 40 years. Initially on Lolly Court and then we built our home on Obrad Drive in 1961. After living in the neighborhood for several years we needed a larger home but loved it in Saratoga so we built our dream home just two blocks away. I still reside here. My daughter moved back to Saratoga Woods just 5 years ago because of her wonderful memories as a child growing up in our neighborhood. She wanted her family to enjoy the beauty of Saratoga Woods also. I tell you this only to plead with you to help us to maintain the intergrity of our neighborhood by disallowing the Fanelli /Kosich plan to build commercial buildings instead of homes on their property. This area is already congested with the commercial property on the corner of Saratoga Avenue and Lawrence Expressway. That corner is so dangerous with cars slowing to turn into Kinkos it's unthinkable what havoc more stores would create. I have seen this area grow from rural apricot /walnut orchards to suburbia and what it is today. Some of this is progress, but some is just poor planning. I can see that the opening of 85 and the congestion on Saratoga Avenue will worsen. Enough is enought Please back us by voting 'no' on the commercial building proposal. The people of Saratoga deserve better. We need a school, a park, new homes, or just an open orchard, but certainly NO COMMERCIAL BUILDINGSII Si erely, Lucille G. Bennett -- RECEIVED OCT 5 1994 MANNING DEPT. Saratoga City Planning Department 13777 Frultvale Avenue Saratoga, CA re: Kosich Property Development 12388 Radoyka Drive Saratoga, G 95070 October 1, 1994 The Kosich Faml ly owns property fronting on Saratoga Avenue between Lawrence Avenue and Kosich Avenue. This property is zoned Residential R1- 10000. The Kosich Family is requesting that the property be zoned Commercial. This property is at my doorstep and its disposition will effect my family. Building of a commercial site at this location is nothing less then a threat to the safety, severity, and qual ity of I ife of my farm ly. The traff ic at Kosich Avenue and Saratoga is already dangerous. In the part of Saratoga Avenue between Lawrence Avenue and Kosich Avenue. Lawrence merges with Saratoga, the Lawrence Station shopping center exits onto Saratoga Avenue, and three lanes reduce to two. As traffic from Lawrence Avenue is speeding up to merge with Saratoga Avenue traffic, much of the traff ic from Lawrence Station is slowing down to turn onto Kosich Avenue. This extra traff ic on Kosich Avenue is from traffic using Kosich Avenue to turnaround and head north on Saratoga, since u —turns are not permitted on Saratoga Avenue. Adding another commercial area within this part of Saratoga Avenue will exacerbate this problem. With the success of the Westgate Shopping Center renovations, there has been an increase in crime. The San Jose Police Department uses helicopters to patrol the Westgate shopping center at night. Within easy walking distance of my home, amen was stabbed at the entrance of the shopping center. Because of an Increase in crime in our own neighborhood, we have had to institute the Neighborhood Crime Watch program. It requires that we be aware of cars and people that we don't know. This Is almost impossible as traffic from Saratoga Avenue uses our streets looking for short vets or p laces to turn around The quality of life in our area of Saratoga is being assaulted from an increase in noise, pollution, and traffio. The police helicopters fly so ciao to our neighborhood that you cannot hear the people with whom you are conversing. The quiet of Saratoga is often broken with the sounds of pol fee in pursuit and ambulances on their way to accidents. The increased traffic along Saratoga has increased the level of dust in the air. Getting out of our neighborhood onto Saratoga Avenue has become hazardous. This is an impassioned pies to you to help stop the deterioration of the quality of life in Saratoga. In this case, this should be easy. The Kosich property is zoned for residential property. Prevent the encroachment of high traff ic and crime by keeping it that way. . Sincerely, David Gremer 1 i . - M-i O 1 i j SIP- MIL • •111I J� • 1 MOM Vo 6 1 sue: -Mu. 12banizi dladzy . 3azilett RECEIVED �elf� 15740 XosiA T uc 5 cSaaato9a, da(t f,mia 95070 OCT 1994 / /,� �•t r�Hr�lufiVG DEPT. 3 LJ ate, eNS !yF .sf � Za Z�4 h l�- F 4fa.-u 'f-�f Dn c a e f 1�7 S �1c�S /chi S, � f tom, a0' fix s f R E C E I V E 12560 Eallon !rive OCT 5 1994 95070 J. 6L CAL", el "ky tL a AL�..,Xa X, • t3r- H Cam'' ef--6- �F . /Iy4 Masi -�� RECEIVED OCT 12 1994 PLANNING DEPT. 6a. 9, Iqqz D/ �ea4--wA, &,Zzt, — i RECEIVED OCT 3 1994 rL►NNING DEPT. 29 September 1994 City Offices 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. Saratoga, California Attention: /Planning Director Planning Commission City Council I have been informed of a proposed zoning change for 'the area along Saratoga Avenue adiascent to Kinko's, from residential (about. 11 lots zoned for single family dwellings) to commercial, with many parking spaces and the presumption of greatly increased traffic. I urge you not to approve this proposal. Traffic on this portion of Saratoga Avenue is already heavy, and it may well get worse with the opening of Highway 85. I already have significant problems getting onto Saratoga Avenue. The proposed hih- traffic commercial development would greatly increase the overall traffic, and would adversely affect my quality of life and my property Value. Please hold firm to the current residential zoning. Please inform me of any city- meeting dealing with this pro- posal. Sincerely Ma ha Mason 18 10 Cyril Plac Saratoga, Calif. September 29, 1994 Paul Curtis, Planning Director City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, 95070 Dear Mr. Curtis: PGA -�IVED 3 1994 rLml�v w*%u --rf. RE: Commercial development of Kosich property We vigorously oppose any commercial development of the Kosich property, located between Kinko's and Kosich Drive, on Saratoga Avenue. That property, according to the Saratoga General Plan, has been designated R- 1- 10,000. As you are aware, that site has been zoned R- 1- 10,000 for over thirty years and per the 1988 General Plan, is to remain as such. The word "shall" in the General Plan was chosen purposely to ensure that no zoning changes would be granted. I request that you honor the intention of the General Plan. It is our understanding that the Kosich orchard property would support 10 -12 single family, detached residences. Not only would that type of development be concordant with the adjacent neighborhood, but it would adhere to the stated intention in the General Plan. The Area D plan states that the property should provide a clear and distinctive residential boundary to distinguish Saratoga from the commercial development to the north. We urge you to enforce the Saratoga General Plan for that property and deny any applications for zoning changes. Sincerely, Philip and Dorothy Olsen 18999 Saratoga Glen Place Saratoga, 95076 18941 Westview Drive Saratoga CA 95070 -3544 October 1, 1994 RECEIVED Mr. Paul Curtis OCT 3 1994 Community Development Director City of Saratoga Planning Commission t'LANNING DEPT. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga CA 95070 Dear Mr. Curtis: Allowing the Saratoga Station shopping center to be built was a mistake which will be greatly magnified if a zoning change is approved to permit further commercial development in the orchard next door. Since the opening of Kinko•s Copies and other shops at the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Lawrence Expressway, hazardous traffic conditions have developed on Saratoga Avenue and on Kosich and Westview drives, where non - Saratoga residents make illegal U -turns to drive away from Saratoga. No effort has been made to curb these dangerous practices. The tranquility and security of Saratoga Woods would be further compromised by allowing the opening of additional shops, with the attendant traffic, noise, and lighting problems. It is hard to understand how additional commercial space can be justified in Saratoga wtamQuito Center has many vacancies, when E1 Paseo is seriously underutilized, and where Westgate, Westgate West, and other nearby shopping areas have vacancies. Even Saratoga Station has posted a space availability sign. Saratoga Woods was badly treated when Saratoga Station almost took away our acceleration lane out of Kosich Drive onto Saratoga Avenue. We kept the lane, but have suffered from a rash of unchecked illegal U- turnsi. Please do not allow an already- unsatisfactory condition to be aggravated. Please do not allow another zoning change. Sincerely, Dr. Sally Ann Brenner Stanley J renner RECEIVED OCT 12 1994 rLANNING DEPT. Pill 1 �41 2� ,64�e� �J _ RECEIVED OCT 12 1994 rLmNNING DEPT. OCTOBER 7, 1994 PAUL CURTIS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE, SARATOGA, CA 95070 DEAR MR. CURTIS AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: WE ARE WRITING THIS LETTER TO STATE OUR OPPOSITION TO THE KOSICH APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE THREE PARCELS ON SARATOGA AVENUE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: WHEN WE PURCHASED OUR HOUSE ON EASTON PLACE IN 1975 WE WERE LED TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS WAS ZONED PERMANENT RESIDENTIAL (R 1- 10000) AND WE WANT IT TO REMAIN THAT WAY. INCREASED TRAFFIC --WE HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME EXITING ON SARATOGA AVENUE NOW DUE TO THE INCREASED TRAFFIC FROM LAWRENCE EXPRESSWAY AND KINKO'S WITHOUT THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC FROM THE PROPOSED KOSICH COMMERICAL DEVELOPMENT. WE ALSO FEEL THAT IF APPROVED, THIS WOULD OPEN THE DOOR FOR ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON SARATOGA AVENUE WHICH WE STRONGLY OPPOSE. WE TREASURE THE BEAUTY OF OUR HOMES IN SARATOGA WOODS AND ON SARATOGA AVENUE AND WE WANT TO PERSERVE IT. SINCERELY, HAR AN�JE WE NBERG. RECEIVED OCT 121994 rLANNING DEPT. Mr. Paul Curtis Community Development Director Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Curtis: October 8, 1994 I strongly oppose the rezoning of the orchard property adjacent to the "Kinko" complex from Residential to Commercial. This property has been zoned Residential since before the establishment of the adjoining Saratoga Woods residential area with the understanding it would be permanent. Since an abundance of vacant commercial space exists in the immediate area, establishment of additional commercial space as proposed in the Kosich application is unnecessary and undesirable. Additionally, expansion of commercially zoned space in the immediate area would aggrevate the already heavy traffic and noise pollution that we moved here to avoid. We wish to maintain the peaceful and aesthetically pleasing atmosphere treasured by all who live here. I strongly urge you to reject the Kosich application for rezoning of this area. Respectfully, 4. Mrs. Vir inia Andree RECEIVED OCT 12 1994 eLANNING DEPT. Dear Mr. Curtis: October 8, 1994 I am writing to express my opposition to the rezoning of the area from Residential to Commercial as proposed by. the Kosich application in a letter to you. I reside in the adjacent Saratoga Woods area and have relied on the area under consideration to continue with permanent. Residential zoning. A change in this zoning is a violation of the integrity of Saratoga's General Plan and one more unnecessary infringement of business on residential areas. In the immediate vicinity are three large commercial areas where many vacancies exist and which should be more than adequate to serve the needs of this area for the foreseeable future. I strongly object to any change in zoning of the subject area for my commercial use. Maintaining the present status is the only reasonable and conscionable alternative for the Saratoga Planning Commission in ths matter.I hope to congratulate you for your leadership in securing the Commission's rejection of the Kosich application. Sincerely, *$UAV_- Ravy Andree RECEIVED 18829 Westview Drive OCT 12 1994 Saratoga, California 95070 PLANNING . DEPT, October 8, 1993 Paul Curtis Community Development Director Saratoga Planning Commission 1377 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mr. Curtis: I am writing to express my opinion regarding a proposed development near my home. The proposed development to which I refer is at the Kosich orchard properties and consists of 4 residential units and 2 large commercial buildings with associated parking. would like to convince you and the Saratoga Planning Commission that any commercial development of this site is exactly the opposite of what should happen at this location. I'm sure you are aware that the site is currently zoned R1- 10000, and that the proposed development would require a rezoning and a revision to Saratioga's General Plan. I'm also sure that you are aware of the many reasons why this development would be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhoods and the local traffic flow. I will not elaborate on these issues as they are quite obvious. Instead I would like to express my belief that Saratogans cannot stand for this type of change because of it's inevitable detriment to the quality of life in Saratoga. The quality of life in Saratoga is very good, not because of the expensive homes or the tree lined streets, but because of the people who live here. Saratogans live in Saratoga because of the quiet, peaceful and friendly neighborhoods which Saratoga is made up of We must strive to perpetuate this quality and not allow our beloved city to be spoiled by the "mini- malls" and high density housing .projects which are destroying the American way of life. I urge you and the Planning Commission to put an immediate stop to any development proposal of the Kosich properties which does not consist entirely of quality, single family homes, similar in character and size to the adjacent neighborhoods is Saratoga. I do so with full regard to the right of land owners to realize a reasonable profit for assets they own, but without any regard for those who wish to put profit before the future of their children. Sincerely, Mark LaForge M. Suzon Stroud 18911 Ansley Place Saratoga; California 95070 October 11, 1994 Mr. Paul Curtis Community Development Director Saratoga Plannning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Curtis: RECEIVED OCT 12 1994 ruaNiviivG DEPI'. Regarding the Kosich application to change the zoning of property in Saratoga Woods to commerical space, I strongly oppose this zoning change. After the completion of the complex for Kinko and Pier One, etc., I noticed on a number of occasions that automobiles would drive to either Kosich or Westview where the autos would enter the residential street approximately 200 -300 feet and execute a U -turn (rather than proceed on Saratoga Avenue to the appropriate allowable U -turn area) . I have had to at least twice stop upon turning onto Westview. to allow an automobile to complete this illegal U -turn, putting me at risk of being rear -ended by someone turning on to Westview. I complained to the police about this situation and requested that they monitor the situation. I have also observed illegal U -turns on Saratoga Avenue where it is designated "No U -turn allowed ". Further I wish to call to your attention the difficulty for residents to exit out of the neighborhood. We are completely isolated with no exit aided by a stop light. It takes forever in the morning to turn left out of the neighborhood, whether it's left onto Saratoga Avenue from either Westview or Kosich or left onto Cox from Saratoga Creek Drive. It is certainly already an exercise in patience. ANY INCREASE IN TRAFFIC FROM THE CORNER OF SARATOGA AVENUE AND LAWRENCE EXPRESSWAY WILL CAUSE A GREATER POTENTIAL FOR A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT FOR OUR RESIDENTS!! Please deny this petition to change the Kosich zoning. Sincerely, Marilyn on Stroud RECEIVED OCT 12 1994 ~LHIVIVIIV(i VFPI� October 10, 1994 Paul Curtis - Community Development Director Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA. 95070 Dear Mr'. Curtis, My wife and I are writing on behalf of those living near the proposed enlarging of the complex in the vacinity of Kinko's and adjoining buildings. We only live a few blocks from this area but " want to join our neighbors as residents of Saratoga Woods to voice our protest of this potential change. Certainly we have enough commercial space available in this area as we look at Westgate, Westgate West, and El Paseo and even Quito Center. E1 Paseo shopping center is almost empty. The increased traffic flow will certainly be a factor especially with the traffic increase of Hwy #85. My major concern is for those people in the immediate area that have chosen Saratoga because of the quiet, peaceful community it is. Now there is the potential for increased light and noise. We have a responsibility to these people. Our plea is to keep the zoning residential. Our city is unique- lets keep it that way. Sincerely, John D. Condie M.D. 12305 Obrad Drive Saratoga, CA. 95070 January 16, 1995 To: /baratoga Planning Commission Saratoga, Ca. Saratoga City Council Saratoga, Ca. Reference: JAN kLA[Y NG DEPT. Application for a General Plan change and a change of Zoning, property owned by Kosich Construction Company, APN. 386 - 23-41, 42 and 59 (12325 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, Ca. 95070). I would like to point out that members of the Saratoga City Council, individually and acting as a group, have expressed their commitment to support the construction of a senior care facility in our community. The Kosich- site on Saratoga Avenue has been mentioned by the Saratoga Planning Department, in testimony before the Saratoga Planning Commission, as a practical location for a senior facility. There are only a very few sites left in Saratoga with the necessary acreage to support the construction and operation of a senior care facility. I therefore urge that senior care be given careful consideration as an alternative use for the Kosich site. As I am sure you are aware, the existing residential zoning for this property allows senior care as a conditional use. If you reject the use of the 5 acre Kosich site for senior care, then you have a moral obligation to the people of this community to select an alternative site for a senior care program. 'Best regards in your deliberations IrA I I I J 0 Ronald R. Cooke 19263 Brockton Lane FC IlFanelli Consulting, Inc. Land Planning / Property Management / Real Estate Broker March 9, 1995 City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor Burger and Councilmembers: On behalf of Kosich Construction, we are writing this letter to inform you that as a result of the neighborhood opposition and the opinions expressed by the Planning Commission, Kosich Construction will no longer be requesting a Commercial designation and zoning for their 5+ acre property on Saratoga Avenue. While we are confident that from a planning standpoint this is the best use for the property, we understand it is not a political possibility. We continue to believe, based on the sound study and the traffic study, having family oriented homes backing onto Saratoga Avenue at this location is not appropriate. We know there are alternative housing needs within the city which can be met with proper, neighborhood sensitive, planning for this property. Therefore, we are requesting that before you take action on the original application, you schedule a study session either of the City Council or a combination of City Council and Planning Commission to review these alternatives with us. It will provide an opportunity for input from all concerned parties. We sincerely hope that the Kosich decision not to pursue the Commercial designation and zoning will eliminate the acrimony which has arisen over this application. We thank you for your consideration of our request. Very truly yours, Vir ' is L. Fanelli cc: M. Fariss, President Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners' Association Kosich Construction Ron Dick & Associates 10052 Pasadena Avenue, Suite B • Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 996 -8188 Fax (408) 996 -8261 THE VINEYARDS OF SARATOGA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS 19549 VINEYARD LANE SARATOGA, CA 95070 February 23, 1995 City Council . City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Members of the Council: We are writing this letter to let you know that we support the Saratoga Parkwoods Homeowners Association in regard to the development of the Kosich property located on Saratoga Avenue. Saratoga is by its nature a residential community. The General Plan designates the site in question as M -10 (Medium Density Residential). We want to preserve the residential nature of Saratoga. We are concerned about maintaining property values, we are concerned about crime along Saratoga Avenue, we are concerned about adding density to our community, and we don't need additional commercial developments in Saratoga. The existing commercial space is not being fully utilized. The neighborhood supports a residential, single family, development and we want to add our support to theirs. We believe that single family homes will greatly enhance the neighborhood and preserve the character of Saratoga. We urge you to deny the General Plan Amendment to redesignate this site Commercial Retail. Thank you for your consideration. The Vineyards of Saratoga Homeowners Association The Board of Directors 12440 Currt, (court Saratoga (CI 95070 230 fdruart" 1995 Dear Council Members, Having attended the recent Planning Commission Meeting where the Kosich property development proposal was discussed in depth, I was pleased to hear that they intended to recommend to the Saratoga City Council that the commercial development proposal be rejected. I trust that their advice will be viewed by the Council as appropriate to preserving the General Plan for the area and in tune with the conservation of our beautiful city such that we can. continue to attract affluent residents. The way that the Commission dealt with the adjustment to the facade of a potentially ugly residential development gave me great confidence in their ability to preserve one of our city's greatest assets - its beauty. Many residents come to Saratoga based on its lack of industry and undesirable commercial development. My wife and I moved here from Sunnyvale and continue to believe that R- 10,000 is the only correct zoning for the Kosich land. In fact, an excellent suggestion was made that in the necessary lay -back adjacent to Saratoga Avenue suitable landscaping be implemented to enhance the beauty of this entrance to our city. A major concern we have is that we observe excess commercial space not being utilized in Westgate, Westgate West, El Paseo, the Quito Center and other sites throughout the Saratoga city. We believe it more appropriate to maintain these areas at full capacity and promote the Kosich orchard as residential development. The aesthetic beauty of Saratoga Woods is dearly valued by all who live here, new and old residents alike. The traffic situation by the Kosich property is already such that too many illegal "U" turns are being made by the drivers who miss the turn to the existing commercial properties adjacent to Kinko's. It would be irresponsible to condone further commercial development in that vicinity possibly culminating in loss of life and expensive law suits. My wife and I have, on a number of occasions, experienced drivers making "U" turns in front of us in the ends of Kosich Drive and Westview and have narrowly missed hitting cars doing so. The number of "U" turns has increased dramatically since Kinkos opened. Might it be possible to put a 3 or 4" concrete divider in the center of the street to inhibit these "U" turns? Let me add that we are strongly opposed to the rumored idea-of introducing another traffic light at either of these intersections. Please continue to maintain the best interests of the citizens of Saratoga who pride themselves on the city's residential desirability. If we wanted to live in a city of numerous, inappropriately mixed residential and commercial properties, with all the undesirable accompanying problems, we might as well return to Sunnyvale or worse still, go and live in San Jose! We have faith in your ability and preference to preserve such attractive Saratoga areas as Villa Montalvo, Hakone Gardens, Sobey Road and Saratoga Woods, to name but a few. Yours sincerely, Jean and Robin Maybury Mr. Paul Jacoos Saratoga City Council 13777 Frurtvaie Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 March S. 1995 Dear Mr. Jacoos: i nave oeen a reszoent of Saratoga Woods for J7 years and my family and l nave enjoyed the suburban atmospnere. We purcnaseo a nome in an R-1 10,000 nezgnoorn000 and had expected to have that protection in future years. At this time the koszcM family wants to rezone their nearby property for commercial development. l am strongly opposed to tnat change. We are living in Saratoga for all the reasons oromoted in the Vision for Saratoga as outlined in one o! your rown Meetings--a quzet, residential nezgnoorn000 tMat is a nice place to raise a family with as little commercial ouzldzng as possible. We are already being overrun with traffic since the opening of Highway 85 and adding more commercial buildings with the comings and goings of customers and clients would only add more noise and pollutzon and congestion. [his is a oangerous location for any additional traffic. Cars coming off Lawrence Expressway are travelling at a good speed and Saratoga Avenue narrows at that place from three lanes to two. l also feel there are many empty commercial buildings now in Saratoga and I doubt the need for more space. Please adhere to the General Plan for Saratoga and reject the request for rezoning the kocish property on Saratoga Avenue. 6incereiy yours, Marjorie j. C 7q ,/-}/3 2- 653 SARATOGA PARKSIDE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION 18896 Sara Park Circle Saratoga, CA 95070 March 9. 1995 Ms. Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Ms. Cory, Kosich General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Public Hearing - March 15, 1995. The Saratoga Parkside.Homeowners Association voted at the February Board meeting to oppose the rezoning from Medium Density Residential (M -10) to Commercial Retail (CR) at 12325 Saratoga Avenue. Our association agreed Commission to deny the objections put forward Association. with the decision of the Planning change in zoning. We support the by the Saratoga Woods Homeowners The reasons for our decision were: 1. Traffic. Traffic on this section of Saratoga Avenue has greatly increased since the opening of Highway 85. Commercial businesses attracting more traffic and making extra traffic lights necessary would make access to Saratoga Avenue from the Lawrence Expressway even more hazardous. 2. No need for more retail stores. We already have Westgate, Westgate West and E1 Paseo and all these have vacancies. If office space is envisaged, we have office space available at Cox and Saratoga. 3. Retail properties do nothing to enhance a residential neighborhood and lower the value of already established homes. I am unable to attend the March 15 hearing to represent my Association due to a prior commitment. I request that the views of the Saratoga Parkside Homeowners are taken into account in the City Council's deliberations. Thank you for your assistance. i Yours sincerely, A Joan Saratoga Parkside Homeowners A. Hubbard President Association