HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-07-1996 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTSl-
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ~� I AGENDA ITEM v
MEETING DATE: February 7, 1996 CITY MGR.
ORIGINATING DEPT. FINANCE
SUBJECT: UTILITY USERS TAX AUDIT SUBPOENA RESOLUTION
Recommended Motion(s): Approve subpoena resolution allowing release
of tax records to Municipal Resource Consultants (MRC) for the
purpose of auditing compliance of the City's Utility Users Tax
Ordinance by utility providers and users.
Report Summary:
Background- On November 15, 1995, Council awarded a contract to MRC
to perform a wide range, of revenue enhancement services to the
City. Those services included auditing compliance of the City's
Utility Users Tax Ordinance by utility providers and users. This
audit is a critical element of the City's overall plan to operate
within a balanced budget, ensure that all revenues, to which the
City is entitled, are received and that future revenues are
accurately forecasted.
Discussion - MRC is now ready to begin the utility users tax audit
phase of the engagement. They have informed the City that PG &E and
Pacific Bell, in particular, customarily "... refused to release
the data because of concerns of liability on their part in
disclosing customer proprietary information" absent of a resolution
and subpoena from the City.
Attached for Council's consideration are a letter from MRC on the
subject, Resolution, Subpoena for Production of Business Records
and Authorization Letter.
In summary, staff recommends Council approve the subpoena
resolution allowing release of tax records to Municipal Resource
Consultants (MRC) for the purposes of auditing compliance of the
City's Utility Users Tax Ordinance and finalizing negotiations with
the City's utility service providers.
Fiscal Impacts: The City's 1995/96 General Fund Budget was revised
to include a net $5,625 in anticipated recovery from the utility
users tax audit. This amount represent one half of the anticipated
annual total due to the start date of the engagement.
Follow Up Actions: Issue Resolution, Subpoenas and Authorization
Letter to utility providers.
r
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions; MRC will not
be able to complete this phase of their work for the City. The
City will not receive valuable revenue enhancement services, which
promote increased revenues through specialized audit procedures,
and the City's present capabilities in forecasting future revenues
would not be advanced.
Attachments
1. MRC Letter
2. Subpoena Resolution
3. Subpoena for Production of Business Records
4. Authorization Letter
c: \execsumm \exsm02O2.96
C� OUR
MUNICIPAL RESOURCE CONSULTANTS 32107 W. Lindero Canyon Road
R C Suite 233
C y A partnership of John T. Austin, Inc. & Allen W. Charkow, Inc. Westlake village, CA 91361
18800 247 4406
January 11, 1996
Mr. Thomas E. Fil
Finance Director
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mr. Fil:
Municipal Resource Consultants (MRC) appreciates the opportunity to serve the City of Saratoga
by auditing the compliance of utility providers and users with the City's Utility Users Tax
ordinance. In continuing to finalize ongoing negotiations with the utility service providers within
the City, MRC is providing the City with a subpoena resolution for Council adoption. This
resolution will allow the utility service providers to release essential data to effectively complete
the Utility Users Tax Audit. Without this resolution the utility providers have refused to release
the data because of concerns of liability on their part in disclosing customer proprietary
information.
There are example subpoenas attached that will be used once the resolution is adopted. Please
review them and return the signed copies to us as soon as possible so that we can provide them to
the utility companies.
In addition, MRC is providing the City with the attached authorization letter for review and
approval. Once the City has approved the letter, MRC will need a signed copy of that letter, on
City stationary.. This authorization letter will accompany all initial requests for information from
MRC related to utility users tax audits. to be conducted on behalf of the City. A current copy of
the City's utility users tax ordinance is also being requested for our records.
If there are any questions or additional information required, please contact me at your earliest _
convenience.
Sincerely,
James N. Thompson
Attachments
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2- 6 ® AGENDA ITEM 6D
MEETING DATE: CITY MANAGER ✓��
ORIGINATING DEPT. Office of the City Manager
Paula Reeve, Public Services Assistant
SUBJECT: Adoption of County of Santa Clara Integrated Waste
Management Summary Plan and Siting Element (CoIWMP)
Recommended Motion(s):
1. Hold the public hearing.
2. Adopt Resolution approving the County of Santa Clara
Integrated.Waste Management Summary Plan and Siting Element.
Report Summary:
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) and
subsequent legislation requires cities and counties to prepare,
adopt, and implement Source Reduction and Recycling Elements
(SRREs), Household Hazardous Waste Elements (HHWEs), and
Nondisposal Facility Elements (NDFEs). It also requires the County
to develop, and the cities and County to endorse and implement a
Countywide Integrated Waste Management Summary Plan and a
Countywide Siting Element (COIWMP). All of these documents
comprise the CoIWMP package which must be submitted to the
California Integrated Waste Management Board by February 29, 1996.
In compliance with this legislation, County Integrated Waste
Management Program staff prepared the CoIWMP. This document is
available in the Saratoga City Managers Office. The purpose of
the Summary Plan is to consolidate all the elements of the
countywide solid waste management planning process and to identify
programs which will be implemented. The function of the Siting
Element is to establish criteria to be used by the jurisdictions of
this County in siting new, or expanding existing solid waste
disposal and transformation-facilities.
The City of Saratoga has submitted its SRRE, HWWE and NDFE to the
CIWMB.
Fiscal Impacts:
None
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
State law requires that at least one public hearing be held prior
to adopting the CoIWMP. A notice was placed in the Saratoga News
advising the public of this hearing.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
The City of Saratoga will not be in compliance with the
requirements of AB 939 and subsequent legislation.
Follow Up Actions:
Send a copy of the Council Resolution and a copy of the Notice of
Public Hearing to approve the Final CoIWMP to the County of Santa
Clara.
Attachments:
Resolution of the Council of the City of Saratoga approving and
adopting the County of Santa Clara Integrated Waste Management
Summary Plan and Siting Element.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0. �� AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: January 23, 1996 CITY MANAGER
ORIGINATING DEPT. Office of the City Manager
Paula Reeve, Public Services Assistant
SUBJECT: 1996 -97 Human Services Grant Allocation
C� W
Determine whether to allocate additional General Funds to support
Human Services Grants for 1996 -97 prior to grant application
process.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Community Dev_e_l_oAment _ Block Grant Proar
The City of Saratoga, eight other " nonentitlement" cities
(population under 50,000) within Santa Clara County, and the County
itself receive federal Housing and Community Development Act (HCDA)
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, which are
administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), for eligible projects and activities. By regulation,
nonentitlement cities receive funds through a cooperative Agreement
with the Urban County of Santa Clara, the locally responsible grant
recipient.
The City of Saratoga has received an allocation of approximately
$160,000 for project costs, plus $15,,000 for staff administrative
costs, and an additional $15,000 to cover the costs of County
rehabilitation services, totalling $190,000 for 1996 -97. $35, 000
of this amount has been budgeted for 1996 -97 Human Services Grants.
Background - Human Services Grants
A maximum of fifteen percent of the total County grant may be used
for human services activities. Human services include, but are not
limited to: child care, job training, counseling, recreation
programs, and services for senior citizens. Council policy
provides for the use of general funds in making some grants to
human services agencies because of the constraint on using Block
Grant money for this purpose, i.e. the number of proposals which
the City receives each year for providing necessary services to low
income, elderly and disabled residents. The policy sets a maximum
dollar amount to be allocated annually for human services grants at
1.3W of the City's projected general revenues, or $94,536 for 1995-
96, with $35,000 coming from Block Grant money.
Page 2 - 1996 -97 Human Services Grant Allocation
In February 1995, the City Council conducted a public hearing to
receive comments and recommendations on proposed projects for
1995 -96 HCDA funds and other available funding. At the February
21, 1995 adjourned meeting, awards were made for HCDA project funds
and Human Services Grants.
Due to budget constraints in June 1995, however, the City Council
reduced the General Fund allocation for human services grants to
$19,225. This entire amount was allotted to the Senior Center
operations, and all other Human Services Grants previously approved
for 1995 -96 using General Funds were eliminated.
The FY 96 -97 approved budget also allocates $19,225 for Human
Services from the General Fund. In recent years, the City has
allocated the total amount of Block Grant Human Services funding to
SASCC for the Adult Day Care Program, and subsidized the Senior
Center operations with General Fund money. Therefore, the only
Human Services Grants awarded by the City for 1996 -97 are the
approved $35,000 block grant funding for SASCC, and $19,255 General
Fund money for Adult Day Care operations, totaling $54,225.
Staff is in the process of compiling applications to be mailed for
1996 -97 HCDA project proposals and Human Services Grants. Once the
applications are returned to the City a public hearing must be held
and allocations made for 1996 -97. These recommendations are to be
returned to the County by April 4, 1996.
Direction is required from Council as to whether the current
General Fund budget allocation for Human Service Grants for 1996 -97
will be maintained, because there is no reason to mail applications
to these specific petitioners if additional funds are unavailable.
ADVERTISING. NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT.:
None required at.this time.
CONSEOUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON THE RECOMMENDED. MOTIONS:
The HCDA and Human Services Grants allocation will remain the same
and no further capital will be required from the General Fund.
FOLLO11 UP TIONS:
Proceed with Council Recommendation.
ATTACHMENTS: None
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM:
MEETING DATE: February 7, 1996 Ill
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Com unity Development
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
SUBJECT:
GPA 95 -002 - CITY OF SARATOGA
The City of Saratoga is initiating a General Plan Map correction
for the parcel of land identified as APN 517 -36 -008 (Miller, 15001
Bohlman Rd.). The City's current General Plan Map identifies this
parcel as Open Space- Outdoor Recreational; a public park. The
correct designation is Residential -Very Low Density.
An environmental Negative Declaration has been prepared for this
project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the Negative Declaration and approve the General Plan Map
correction.
Report Summary:
The City's current map shows this parcel as being a part of Hakone
Gardens, a City park, and designated as Open Space - Outdoor
Recreational. This one -acre parcel has had a residence on it since
the late 1800's and is not identified as a park site in Saratoga's
Parks and Trails Master Plan.
Saratoga incorporated as a city in 1956 and adopted its first
General Plan Map in 1960. The park designation for the property
appears to be a mapping mistake made when the City's General Plan
Map was updated in 1987. The correct General Plan designation for
this parcel is Residential -Very Low Density.
Discussion:
The Planning Commission heard and approved an application made by
Mr. Silas Miller for a Lot Line Adjustment at their October 25,
1995 public hearing. Because his two parcels subject to the Lot
1
Line Adjustment were located within two different General Plan and
Zoning Districts the application also included General Plan and
Zoning Map amendments. The amendments merely adjusted the district
boundaries to match the new parcel boundaries. The attached Site
Plan locates the two parcels and the General Plan and Zoning Maps
indicate the district boundaries.
The Planning Commission approved the Lot Line Adjustment and
recommended approval of the General Plan and Zoning Map amendments
to the City Council. Upon preparing the staff report to the City
Council it was discovered that the General Plan Map incorrectly
identified Parcel 1 an Open Space- Outdoor Recreational site. The
attached General Plan excerpt describes OSOR sites as public parks.
This parcel has had a residence on it since before the City
incorporated, is not identified as an existing or future park site
in the City's Parks and Trails Master Plan and was clearly never
intended to be designated as a public park. In fact, the property
owner did not know the City's General Plan Map identified the
parcel as a park site.
Staff has researched the City's historic General Plan Maps and
files to provide an explanation. Saratoga adopted its first
General Plan Map in 1960 and then updated it in 1968, 1974 and
1987. In 1987 the General Plan Map was transferred from a
conceptual "bubble- diagram" format to a computer generated parcel -
based format. It was at this point that the Hakone Gardens public
park boundary was drafted to include Mr. Miller's parcel.
The Planning Commission heard this item at their January 10, 1996
public hearing and voted 4 -0 (Asfour, Caldwell & Murakami absent)
to recommend to the City Council that the City's General Plan Map
be amended to correctly designate the parcel, identified as APN
517 -36 -008, from OSOR to RVLD. The RVLD designation is consistent
with the Zoning Map designation for the parcel, so no other action
is necessary.
Environmental Determination:
An environmental Negative Declaration has been prepared for this
project pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act. It is staff's determination that this
correction to Saratoga's General Plan Map will have no adverse
effect on the environment.
Fiscal Impacts:
None.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
A project notice was mailed to property owners within a 500 ft.
radius of the subject parcels and published in the Saratoga News.
2
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
The OSOR land use designation is specifically for land intended for
public recreational use. If the City Council does not approve the
redesignation of the property the land would remain OSOR and the
City would be obligated to purchase the land from Mr. Miller for
use as a public park.
Follow Up Actions:
A GPA Resolution reflecting Council action will be prepared by
Staff and scheduled for the next regular meeting.
Attachments:
1. Resolution GPA 95 -002 & Environmental Negative Declaration
2. General Plan Map & Zoning Map
3. Saratoga General Plan Excerpt
4. Planning Commission Minutes dated January 10, 1996
S. Neighbor Correspondence
6. Property Owner's Site Plan /Location Map
james \exesumm \mi11er2
3
0 •
RESOLUTION NO. GPA -95 -002
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION CORRECTION
WHEREAS, the Saratoga Community Development Department is
recommending a General Plan Map amendment in order to redesignate
the parcel of land identified as APN 517 -36 -008 from Open Space-
- Outdoor Recreational to Residential -Very Low Density; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
proposed amendment on January 10, 1996;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Saratoga Planning
Commission recommends approval of the General Plan Map amendment to
redesignate APN 517 -36 -008 by making the following findings:
• The General Plan designation Open Space - Outdoor Recreational
is intended for sites identified as public parks. This parcel
has had a residence on it since before the City incorporated,
is not identified as an existing or future park site in the
City's Parks and Trails Master Plan and was never intended to
be designated as a. public park. The redesignation will
correct a mapping error made in 1987 when the City
commissioned new parcel -based maps.
• The Planning Commission has determined that the proposed
General Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals, policies
and objectives of the City's General Plan and Area I Plan
Guidelines; and
• The Planning Commission has determined that the proposed
General Plan Amendment is consistent with the existing land
use designations and development patterns in the vicinity.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis-
sion, this 10th day of January, 1996 by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Abshire, Kaplan, Patrick & Siegfried
NOES: None
ABSENT: Asfour, Caldwell & L/e� ice'
Murakami
Chairman, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Secretary to the Planning Commission
DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED
GPA -95 -002 - CITY OF SARATOGA
The undersigned, Director of Community Development of the CITY OF
SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation, has
determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable
provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063
through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative
Code, and Resolution 653 of the City of Saratoga, and based on the
City's independent judgment, that the following described project
will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on
the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Saratoga Community Development Department is initiating a
General Plan Map correction for the parcel of land identified as
APN 517 -36 -008 (Miller, 15001 Bohlman Rd.) . The City's current map
shows this parcel as being a part of Hakone Gardens, a City park,
and designated as Open Space- Outdoor Recreational. This one -acre
parcel has had a residence on it since the late 1800's and is not
identified as a park site in Saratoga' s Parks and Trails Master
Plan. The park designation for the property appears to be a
mapping mistake made when the City's General Plan map was updated
in 1987. The correct General Plan designation for this parcel is
Residential -Very Low Density.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROPONENT
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Based on the environmental Initial Study prepared for this project,
it is staff's determination that the correction to Saratoga's
General Plan Map will have no environmental impact.
Executed at Saratoga, California this day of
1995.
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
GENERAL
PLAN
LEGEND
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
RESIDENTIAL .
HILLSIDE CONSERVATION S.F
RHC
VERY LOW DENSITY
RVLD
LOW DENSITY
RLD
MEUIUM DENSITY
M 10
M 12
M 15
MULTI FAMILY
RMF
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
PDR
COMMERCIAL
RETAIL COMMERCIAL
CR
PROFESSIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE
P A
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
PDM
GATEWAY LANDSCAPING
G
OPEN SPACE
NATURAL RESOURCE PRODUCTION
OSNR
MANAGED RESOURCE PRODUCTION
OSMR
OUTDOOR RECREATION
OSOR
PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
OSPHS
HILLSIDE OPEN SPACE
OSH
PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
OSP
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
SCHOOL OPEN SPACE RESOURCE
PUBLIC FACILITIES
PF
QUASI PUBLIC FACILITIES
QPF
MULTI USE PLANNING DIST. MUPD
MAX DENSITY
DU /NET ACRE
.5
1.09
2.18
4.35
3.48
2.9
14.5
12.45
14.5
10.89
10.89
1.0.89
0.4
0.05
. .........
-os
ESTERLEE AVE OR
x
-J ru R MF
f 1. J LZ
A
1.4
"A tj
CF
RMF
!j:
JACK
...,4 ti LD
U G A
b' OR
Ii Qf
RHC
QPF
C-
777,
y
ZONING
MAP
L E G E N D
ZONING BOUNDARY
AP AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE /
® OPEN SPACE
OVERLAY DISTRICT
A AGRICULTURAL D I ST R 1 CT
5 ACRE MINIMUM SITE AREA
R -1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
R -1- 40.000 40,000 SQ.FT. MINIMUM SITE AREA
R -1- 20,000 20,000
R- 1- 15,000 15,000
R -1- 12,500 12,500
R- 1- 10,000 10,000
HC -RD HILLSIDE CONSERVATION- RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
NHR NORTHWESTERN HILLSIDES RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
R -M MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
R —M -5,000 5,000 SQ.FT. MINIMUM SITE.AREA.
R —M -4,000 4,000
R —M -3,000 3,000
P -C PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT
P -A PROFESSIONAL & ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE DISTRICT
C COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
C —N NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
C —V VISITOR COMMERCIAL
CH -1 do CH -2 HISTORIC COMMERCIAL
MU -PD MIXED -USE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
rlo
I
m
MELEE AV �% rr
ni 4'. 0-
�i 1�t��
4 R DQ
E T i
1
� �J 1
&-1 -.
._�
_.
(,OAACt Use��tMCH�"
C. Gateway Landscaping - The purpose of this category is to
create attractive entrances to the City in conjunction with
commercial development. A minimum of 1,500 square feet of
a site adjacent to a street or streets shall be devoted to
landscaping. The City shall determine the exact configuration
of this landscaped area through the design review process but,
as a guideline, a 10 foot landscaping strip should extend
along any street frontage.
D. P -D (Planned Development) Mixed - 4.35 commercial lots /net
acre 8.7 to 10.89 DU /net acre or 27 =33.8 people /acre. Maximum
intensity of building coverage: 60% of site area. All projects
proposed on sites with this designation shall require use permit
approval as provided for in Article 16 of this zoning ordinance.
Open Space
Open space land use is broken down into seven subcategories.
The first four are taken from the designations suggested in Govern-
ment Code Section 65560(b) regarding the Open Space Element. The
Hillside Open Space subcategory was taken from the Santa Clara County
_General Plan and is used only in the Sphere of Influence area. The last
subcategory was not covered in the Government Code.
These subcategories are further described in the Open Space Element
of this General Plan. The density and intensity of the uses per-
mitted in these subcategories are as follows:
A. Natural Resource Preservation - This subcategory consists
primarily of scenic easements granted upon approval of
several subdivisions in the northwestern hillsides which
protect significant topographic and vegetation features in
that area. Some wildlife habitat is also preserved through
these easements. No structures or paving are allowed in
these areas.
B. Managed Resource Production - This subcategory consists
primarily of the orchard lands and water reservoirs within
the City. Single family dwellings associated with agricultural
use are permitted at a maximum density of 0.4 DU /acre or 1.24
people /acre. Only structures directly related to the maintenance
of these open space uses are permitted on the sites.
C. Outdoor recreation - This subcategory consists of City or
County parks or lands designated for those uses. Only
recreational facilities (i.e. playground equipment, recreational
courts, etc.), structures necessary to support the parks or
structures of particular historic value are permitted in
these areas. These sites are considered to be of particular
value for recreation purposes. Some parks preserve signifi-
cant vegetation features such as Hakone Gardens and Villa
Montalvo County Park.
3 -3
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 1996
PAGE - 13 -
7. GPA -95 -002 - CITY OF SARATOGA; The Saratoga Community Development
Department is initiating a General Plan map correction for the parcel of land identified
as APN 517 -36-008 (Miller, 15001 Bohlman Rd.). The City's current map shows this
parcel as being a part of Hakone Gardens, a City park, and designated as Open Space -
Outdoor Recreational. This one -acre parcel has had a residence on it since the late
1800's and is not identified as a park site in Saratoga's Parks and Trails Master Plan.
The park designation for the property appears to be a mapping mistake made when the
City's General Plan map was updated in 1987. The correct General Plan designation for
this parcel is Residential -Very Low Density.
An environmental Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project pursuant to the
terms and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Planner Walgren presented to the staff report on this city- initiated General Plan Amendment.
Staff recommended that the General Plan Map be corrected to designate the parcel as Residential,
Very Low density and that this recommendation be forwarded to the City Council along with the
Negative Declaration for the General Plan map correction. Should the Commission vote in favor
of this correction, this item would then go to the City Council for action just prior to hearing
Mr. Miller's request for lot line adjustment, General Plan and Zoning designation boundary
amendment which has been put on hold pending this correction. He informed the Commission
that Mr. Miller, the property owner, was present this evening to answer any questions which it
may have. He clarified that the request before the Commission was to correct a map mistake
that appears to have occurred in 1987, removing the public park designation off of a private
parcel that is developed with a residence.
Vice - chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 9:00 p.m.
Ray McMaines, 15015 Bohlman Road, adjacent property owner, furnished the Commission with
a letter which addressed his concerns. He informed the Commission that during the October 24
public hearing relating to the lot line adjustment, that it was determined that a mistake in the
General Plan existed. He requested that the Commission consider his submittal of November
30 that it was his belief that the lot line adjustment approved by the Planning Commission did
not conform to Article 1450 which briefly states that the resulting two new lots were substantially
different in zoning and that the statute requires that the parcels be created from like zones. It
was also his belief that the approval of the lot line adjustment was a correct action in light of the
General Plan/zoning designation and that the approval was in violation of the General Plan. He
felt that the Planning Commission's October 25 decision would have been different had this
discrepancy been brought to light at that time. He requested that the lot line adjustment be stayed
until such time that the issue is fully resolved.
Kristina McMaines felt that the Commission made a decision based on insufficient and/or
incorrect information, noting that the land is designated as open space. She furnished the
Commission with a letter written by Judi Craik. She requested that the open space easement be
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 1996
PAGE - 14 -
corrected. She indicated that it was her recollection that the evening that the Commission
considered the lot line adjustment request, the Commission questioned if it had jurisdiction on
the request. However, the Commission approved the lot line adjustment based on the fact that
the lot conformed to the General Plan. But at the City Council meeting, it was found that the site
was designated as open space.
Vice - chairwoman Kaplan acknowledged the last comment made by Mrs. McMaines but also
noted that staff has indicated that the open space designation was a mistake.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER INPUT, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 9:08
P.M.
Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that staff requested an
interpretation from the City Attorney regarding the action taken by the Commission in October
and how this request is to be considered this evening. He indicated that the City Attorney had
advised staff that the Commission does not have to reconsider the previous applications but that
the City can take action to correct the mapping inconsistency. He explained to the Commission
how the mapping inconsistency occurred.
Vice - chairwoman Kaplan requested that staff clarify - the easement issues as raised by the
McMains.
Planner Walgren indicated that the easement that the McMaines brought up on the second page
of their letter shows an open space easement being recorded through the adjacent parcel which
was once designated as a park and thought to be annexed to the Hakone Gardens. The open
space easement is not similar to designating a parcel as a park site. Open space easements are
recorded through all of Saratoga's subdivisions and that they protect steep terrain, land slides,
creeks, or quarries. They are designed to be "no build zones" and that they are easements placed
on private property. The McMaines were referring to the open space easement that is recorded
on the adjacent subdivision. Therefore, there is no correlation between that easement as the
easement would be retained irregardless of the action to be taken on the lot line.
COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO.
GPA -95 -002 RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION CORRECTION AND THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS
RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0.
DIRECTOR'S ITEMS
Community Development Director Curtis reminded the Commission of its Friday, January 19,
1996 retreat to be held from 8:30 a.m. to approximately 4:00 p.m. An agenda and backup
material would be made available to the Commission on Tuesday. He informed the Commission
that Mark Pearce would be in attendance at that meeting. He indicated that the following items
Judi & Jim Craik
20959 Hidden View Lane, Saratoga, CA 95070 -6344
Phone 408 - 867 -4244 Fax 408 - 867 -0431
January 10, 1996
5aratoga Planning Commission
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
5arato0a CA 95070
Re: GPA -95 -002 (APN 517 -36 -008)
Gentlemen:
We question the Planning Commissions "'correction" to the General Plan
regarding the Open Space Easement on the Lando of Miller. Ao a part of this
correspondence, we submit a copy of a parcel map for our tract #7888 that
borders this property. Our map shows an open space corridor that crosses
Bohlman Road, enters Lot #3 (Jaowa) and is shown ao entering the Lands of
Miller. With the recommended "correction ", the Open Space Easement will
dead -end at Millero' property. We are asking if this was considered prior to
the recommended "correction ".
If this modification io approved, clearly, the General Plan would have more far
reaching significant changes in the near future. Either the Open Space
Easement shown on the Lands of Jaowa, and crossing Bohlman Road io
incorrect, or there should be a corridor shown through the Lands of Miller...
Sincerely,
Planning Commission - January 10, 1996 - Page 1 of 2
M
LOT I a" Nor-
y 2.044 ACRES s''-'a'� day ��` \:,.�•`
b"o �.
lb
y��,r Fria• �/ � ,. � Lh- ,tom ,; •- �.��`� .�
N N A�•y�7r r
�xco. aq37• f
�.. L , a�W.S►% A M MAC". . .�
A,p aAIp c LOT 4
6.365 41 ACRES
co
ro► ..s�,y r.. �� �, °� Sp PCB
0 0
CRpf'K
1 �"�% ?may.' f 1 '°�-s •�
s
LOT X07".
'
2.327 ACRES�''JJ
co rn
Lr 10 0,
C9 f. �� 8 LOT 3
clr °° • • 1 a 4.311 -KCRES
In
rw
O03
b M1L L ER ai - c 00.
............... FOX
U Orrac., �-�C �.1r
E '
Li- ~
,•• ��rf3 1.� M qr
K41L L ER �• c i rn 3r v.
�► ar 4M 7147 -
'N I�►n
H� VWIG
4�T
Ty I
o.R PC
6060---- s
•
n
U ar Z
M� .IV ;
1'.
E��2•
t4
ANpERSEN
f0
N 217473• r
N �J '32 sO pa.
ejts• zJ-
f 39Z
•�2°o.sJ.
i
s • Q
33 ra
• (.3
P
n /
i
oo,
`
i *Y '% '`i �•� P�� A��N foR 1 a
OLL ,n
S � ,
% " '
LOT 4
6.365 = ACRES
1 P p,CE
1=
i
�P
�Q
E)aS -,ING 25• R►n tS ALSO
I °F 40- MVATF. STRFF'
s� I s
' AIO P.S E. AIO P.S .E. ANO F_Ax_ i
t� r.. = 267
ir
pl
I
1 1
, � I
M
N
o! I .
o�
�I
TRACT NO. 79�E 88.
C
-ON5LSTV4 OF TWEE
ry ^
-
�
' C I
'J
BE lIG A PORTION OF P
THAT PARCEL MAP RECO�ROEp H BOOK 3C
I
•
OF MAPS, PAGE 2T. RECORCS OF SANTA
CLARA COUNTY AND
LYING ENTIRELY WITHIN THE
` t
CITY OF SARATOGA, CALIFO
1 1
JENNINGS-MCDERMOTT 3 HEISS, IN,
1'
1 CIVIL ENGUEERS `mo�—UAND PLANERS
925 REGENT STREET. SAN JOSE. CALIF,
SCALE I' - 60' MAY, 198,
i
oo,
`
i *Y '% '`i �•� P�� A��N foR 1 a
OLL ,n
S � ,
% " '
LOT 4
6.365 = ACRES
1 P p,CE
1=
i
�P
�Q
E)aS -,ING 25• R►n tS ALSO
I °F 40- MVATF. STRFF'
s� I s
' AIO P.S E. AIO P.S .E. ANO F_Ax_ i
t� r.. = 267
ir
pl
I
1 1
, � I
M
N
o! I .
o�
�I
.44/Ap
r /
\ � N
�'d0 �OIST14CTiVE BORm
FOX
ly
i
y U7'.
1147
SHEET 2 OF 3 SHEETS 1o2 m
No '
ry ^
-
�
P
.44/Ap
r /
\ � N
�'d0 �OIST14CTiVE BORm
FOX
ly
i
y U7'.
1147
SHEET 2 OF 3 SHEETS 1o2 m
Raymond L. and Kristina Y. McMains
16015 Bohiman Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
January 10, 1996
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: GPA95 -002 & AZ0 -95 -002
15001 Bohiman Road
Dear Honorable Chair and Members of the City Council:
This letter is in response to the memorandum prepared by James Walgren,
Associate City Planner to the City Council. In light of the findings of the
Associate Planner, we respectively request that any further proceedings on this
matter be stayed until confirmation that all required facts and circumstances
have been determined. The following addresses our particular concerns with
respect to this matter.
On October 25, 1995 the Planning Commission (Commission) approved an
application made by Mr. Silas Miller for a Lot Line Adjustment. During the
course of the meeting, the Commission asked several questions of the Associate
Planner with respect the lot line adjustment's compliance with the existing
General Plan and Zoning Maps.
The Associate Planner provided assurances that the proposed lot line
adjustment did not conflict with existing General Plan and Zoning Maps. At such
time, we questioned the validity of such statement. The new findings of the
Associate Planner confirm that certain discrepancies exists with respect to the
history of the subject parcels.
In our letter dated November 30, 1995, we indicated our belief that the lot line
adjustment as approved by the Planning Commission did not conform to Article
14 -50. Specifically, we raised the issue that despite the fact that the number of
lots remained the sum, the resulting new lots were substantially different in their
zoning. The statute appears to require that the newly created parcels be
created in from like zones.
City Council
January 10, 1996
Page 2
The findings of the Associate Planner confirm that approval by the Planning
Commission could not have been correct in that the lots are zoned Open Space -
Outdoor Recreational. Whether their classification as such is in error or not
does not effect the fact that as of October 25, 1995 the approval of the lot line
adjustment would be in violation of the existing General Plan and Zoning Maps.
It is our belief that the Planning Commission's decision would have been
different if the above facts were known that the time of the proceedings. At a
minimum, it would appear reasonable that the approval would have been stayed
pending a reconciliation of the apparent inconsistencies.
Our understanding is that certain conditions must be met before a lot line
adjustments can be granted. In this instant case, it appears that the lot line
adjustment has been granted and then remedial action are being taken to
retroactively meet the required conditions. Such conduct in violation of the
statute and in violation of the rights of the City's residents.
In order to protect the interest of the City and its residents reconciliation of the
discrepancies must be made prior to any additional action. Failure to do so may
result in irreparable harm. All we are asking for is a proper showing that the
approval of the lot line adjustments meets the statutory requirements.
Your attention on this matter is greatly appreciated.
Very truly yours,
R ymond L. McMains
Kristina Y. ains
SARATOGA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 26'-7(-1
MEETING DATE: February 7, 1996
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM:
CITY MGR:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Community Development �LL"
SUBJECT: Cellular Antenna Moratorium - Ordinance extending, for a
period of 10 months and 15 days, Ordinance 2E -26, which temporarily
restricts the acceptance or processing of applications for cellular
telephone facilities at sites in the City during a contemplated
study of cellular telephone facility sites.
Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached Ordinance extending the
Moratorium for a period of 10 months, 15 days.
Report Summary: On January 3, 1996, the City Council adopted an
"urgency ordinance" instituting. a moratorium on the acceptance and
processing of applications for cellular telephone facilities.
The Government Code allows the 45 -day urgency ordinance to be extended
an additional 10 months, 15 days following conduct of a public hearing.
This staff report constitutes the written report required by Government
Code Section 65858 (d) describing measures taken to alleviate the
condition which led to the adoption of the urgency ordinance.
On January 19, 1996, the Planning Commission discussed ordinance and
policy alternatives at their annual retreat. Following discussion, it
was the consensus of the Commission to further discuss alternatives with
the City Council at the joint Work Session scheduled for February 13,
1996.
At the February 13 meeting, staff will request direction as to policy
and /or ordinance changes regarding cellular and other antenna
facilities. It is anticipated that preliminary amendments can be
presented to the Planning Commission at its March 13 Work Session with
public hearings scheduled, as necessary. Pending Planning Commission
action, it is anticipated that the City Council will be reviewing
Planning Commission recommendations in April.
Environmental Determination: The extension of this urgency ordinance
for the purposes of collecting information and evaluating appropriate
land use and procedural alternatives is exempt from the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 6).
Fiscal Impacts: None
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: A public notice was published
in the Saratoga News.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The current
urgency ordinance will expire" and applications will be processed
pursuant to current ordinance and procedural requirements.
Follow Up Actions: Study sessions (and potentially, public hearings)
will be held by the Planning Commission and City Council to evaluate
appropriate evaluation methods of cellular antenna sites.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.: -7 AGENDA ITEM: 6A
MEETING DATE: February 7, 1996
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Comm}x4lity Deyelopment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
SUBJECT: Trinity Development - 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd.
Request for General Plan and Zoning designation amendments to allow the
properties to be reclassified from an Open Space- Outdoor Recre-
ational /Agricultural designation to a Residential -Very Low Density and
Medium Density /R -1- 12,500 and R -1- 40,000 designation. Vesting Tentative
Subdivision Map approval is requested to subdivide the two separate
parcels into nine single - family residential lots. Tentative
cancellation of the properties, Williamson Act agricultural preserve
contract is included in the project description.
An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for this project
pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
Recommended Motion:
1. Certify the Environmental Impact Report as recommended by the
Planning Commission.
2. Approve the General Plan and Zoning District designation amendments
as recommended by the Planning Commission.
3. Approve the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map as recommended by the
Planning Commission.
(Planning Commission made no recommendation on the request for tentative
cancellation of the properties' Williamson Act agricultural preserve
contract since the decision is not under their authority - the
cancellation request is included as part of the project description for
the purposes of the EIR)
Report Summary:
This application was previously heard by the Planning Commission on June
14 and August 9, 1995 and recommended for approval to the City Council.
The applicants withdrew the proposal in order to have an Environmental
Impact Report prepared as requested by the Friends of Nelson Gardens.
The Draft EIR was distributed to the Planning Commissioners and made
available to the public for review and comment on November 22, 1995.
The Planning Commission also held public meetings on the Draft EIR on
December 5, 1995 and January 2, 1996.
At the January 10, 1996 public hearing the Planning Commission concluded
their review of the document and recommended certification of the Final
EIR to the City Council by a unanimous vote.
The request for General Plan and Zoning designation amendments failed to
pass by a 3 -1 vote (Kaplan, Patrick and Siegfried for \Abshire
opposed \Asfour, Caldwell and Murakami absent). General Plan amendments
require a majority vote of the total membership of the Commission. The
proposal was therefor continued to the January 24, 1996 meeting for
reconsideration of the vote. At the January 24th meeting the
Commission voted 5 -1 (Kaplan, Patrick, Murakami and Siegfried
for \Abshire opposed \Pierce abstaining) to recommend approval of the
General Plan and Zoning designation amendments and the Vesting Tentative
Subdivision Map.
The January 10th staff report and January 10th and Draft 24th Planning
Commission meeting minutes are attached for a more detailed project
discussion.
Public Notice:
Public notices were mailed to property owners within 500 ft. of the
subject properties and to individuals who have requested notification
and a notice was placed in the Saratoga News.
Follow -up Actions:
Resolutions and an Ordinance will be prepared reflecting the City
Council's action which will be placed on the agenda of the next regular
City Council meeting.
Attachments:
1. Resolution to Certify Environmental Impact Report
2. Resolution GPA 94 -003, Ordinance AZO 94 -002 & Resolution SD 95 -008
3. Staff Report dated January 10, 1996
4. Planning Commission Minutes dated January 10 & 24, 1996
5. Correspondence
6. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, Exhibit "A"
7. Final Environmental Impact Report
james \exesumm \n1sngrdn.2
Resolution to Certify EIR,
Resolution GPA 94 -003,
Ordinance AZO 94 -002
and Resolution SD 95 -008
Staff Report dated January 10, 1996
and Planning Commission Minutes
dated January 10 & 24, 1996
0 0 item #6
REPORT TO THE PLANNING . COMMISSION
GPA -94 -003, AZO -94 -002 & SD -95 -008;
'Application No. /Location: 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd.
Applicant /Owner: TRINITY DEVELOPMENT
Staff Planner: James Walgren, AICP
Date: 1/10/96
APN: 503 -49 -041 & 042
Director Approval:
M
Z u 6 51 Saratoga riills Kd.,
• •
File No. GPA -94 -003, AZO -94 -002 & SD -95 -008
20851 Saratoga Hills Rd.
EXECUTIVE SU14KARY
CASE HISTORY•
Application filed:
9/27/95
Application complete:
11/01/95
Notice published:
12/27/95
Mailing completed:
12/28/95
Posting completed:
12/21/95
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Request for General Plan Amendment to allow two parcels totalling
5.1 acres to be reclassified from an Open Space- Outdoor Recreation-
al designation to Residential -Very Low Density and Medium Density.
Request includes associated Zoning amendment to allow the two
parcels to be reclassified from an Agricultural designation to R -1-
40,000 and R- 1- 12,500. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map approval
is requested to subdivide the two parcels into nine single - family
lots. Tentative cancellation of the properties' Williamson Act
agricultural preserve contract is also requested.
This application was previously heard by the Planning Commission on
June 14 and August 9, 1995 and recommended for approval to the City
Council. The applicants withdrew the proposal to have an Environ-
mental Impact Report prepared as requested by the Friends of Nelson
Gardens. An EIR has now been prepared and made available for
public review and comment for this project pursuant to the terms
and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Review the staff report and Final EIR and open the public hearing
to take testimony. Unless new information is presented which would
affect the environmental determination, staff is recommending that
the Planning Commission accept the EIR and recommend its certifica-
tion to the City Council.
Staff is further recommending that the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the General Plan and Zoning amendments to the
City Council and conditionally approve the Vesting Tentative
Subdivision Map by adopting the attached Resolutions.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Analysis
2. Resolutions GPA -94 -003, AZO -94 -002 & SD -95 -008
3. Responses to Comments on Draft EIR
4. Plans, Exhibit "A"
•
File No. GPA -94 -003, AZO -94 -002 & SD -95 -008
20851 Saratoga Hills Rd.
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING:
Current: Agricultural
Proposed: R -1- 12,500 & R -1- 40,000
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Current: Open Space- Outdoor Recreational
Proposed: Residential -Very Low Density & Medium Density
PARCEL SIZE:
APN 503 -49 -041: 3.7 acres
APN 503 -49 -042: 1.4 acres
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE:
APN 503 -49 -041: 90
APN 503 -49 -042: 36a
PROJECT DISCUSSION:
Overview:
On November 21, 1994, a Memorandum of Understanding was entered
into between the property owner, the Community Foundation of Santa
Clara County, and the City of Saratoga. The MOU provided for the
processing of a series of applications relating to possible
development of the property. The MOU did not guarantee development
of the property, but it did allow applications to be made to
consider development consistent with Saratoga's General Plan, Area
B Specific Plan and Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The
objective of the MOU was to allow the 5.1 acres to come out of its
agricultural preserve contract early (it would expire automatically
January 1, 2001) in exchange for payments to be made to the City
for recreational open space development.
The first step when considering development of the property is to
establish what type of General Plan and corresponding Zoning
designations the property should be classified. The current Open
Space- Outdoor Recreational /Agricultural General Plan and Zoning
designation was reflective of the property's status under its
Williamson Act contract.
The applicants, Trinity Development Company, are requesting single
family residential land use designations for the two existing
parcels; Residential -Very Low Density /R -1- 40,000 for the upper half
File No. GPA -94 -003, AZO -94 -002 & SD -95 -008
20851 Saratoga Hills Rd.
and Residential - Medium Density /R- 1- 12,500 for the lower half of the
property. A Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map application is also
included representing the proposed development configuration.
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendment:
Sheet 3 of Exhibit "A" represents the applicants proposed General
Plan and corresponding Zoning designation for the property. The
originally submitted 10 -lot map delineated the boundary between R-
VLD and R -MD between Lots #8 and #9; Lot #8 was initially two half -
acre lots. In reviewing the City's existing adjacent land use
designations and considering topographical features of the land,
staff felt that it was appropriate to designate the entire upper
half of the property as R -VLD; 40,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size.
The applicants have agreed with staff's assessment and have revised
the map accordingly. Staff can now make the following findings to
recommend approval of the General Plan and Zoning amendments:
• The proposed General Plan and Zoning amendments are consistent
with the goals, policies and objectives of the City's General
Plan and Area B Specific Plan; and
• The proposed General Plan and Zoning amendments are consistent
with the existing land uses, zoning districts and development
patterns in the vicinity.
Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map:
The proposed residential subdivision is for nine single- family
building sites. The application has been reviewed, and require-
ments and conditions have been generated, by the applicable City
departments and consultants and public and private utility and
safety providers. Clearances have been granted from each of these
responsible agencies.
The proposed lots conform to all applicable Subdivision and Zoning
Ordinance requirements in terms of lot size, depth, width, frontage
and available building envelope. Staff has discussed with the
applicants the possibility of limiting homes within the lower half
of the subdivision to single story construction. Again, the
applicants have agreed to this restriction with the exception of
Lot #7. Because of a tree they have identified as a large Coast
Live Oak at the back corner of Lot #7, they would like to be able
to build a two- story, smaller footprint, home on this site.
The seven lower lots range from 12,500 to 15,000 sq. ft. in size
and would allow homes from 3,710 to 4,050 sq. ft. in size,
including garages. Lots #8 and #9 are 40,000 and 62,300 sq. ft. in
size, respectively, and would allow homes in the 6,000 sq. ft.
range.
File No. GPA -94 -003, AZO -94 -002 & SD -95 -008
20851 Saratoga Hills Rd.
Tree Protection:
Tree removal on the site will be minimized and controlled by the
City under the supervision of the City Arborist. The row of six
Chinese Pistachios and one Italian Stone Pine which may be removed
as a result of new driveway approaches onto Saratoga Hills Rd. have
been identified by the City Arborist as being largely "poor
specimens ". The intermittent drainage system which runs across Lot
#8 will be unaffected by the modified map; the original map would
have created a building site across this feature.
Environmental Review:
A Draft Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for this
project by the environmental consulting firm Michael Brandman
Associates. The Draft EIR was distributed to the Planning
Commissioners and made available to the public for review and
comment on November 22, 1995. The Planning Commission also held
public meetings on the Draft EIR on December 5, 1995 and January 2,
1996. All of the comments recorded at these meetings, as well as
written comments received during the 45 day review period, have
been responded to by the environmental consultants.
The EIR concludes that the net increase of seven single family
homes on this property will not cause any significant and /or
unavoidable impacts on the environment. Laura Worthington- Forbes,
project manager for MBA, will be present at the January 10th
meeting to discuss the EIR and answer questions.
The attached responses to comments on the Draft EIR, together with
the Draft EIR the Planning Commission has already received,
comprise the Final EIR. If the Commission accepts the document as
adequate and recommends its certification to the City Council, the
Draft EIR and responses to comments will be bound into a single
Final EIR for City Council review.
RECOMMENDATION•
Review the staff report and Final EIR and open the public hearing
to take testimony. Unless new information is presented which would
affect the environmental determination, staff is recommending that
the Planning Commission move to:
• Accept the Final EIR as adequate and recommend its certifica-
tion to the City Council.
• Recommend approval of the General Plan and Zoning amendments
to the City Council.
• Approve the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map contingent on
City Council approval of the above.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 1996
PAGE - 5 -
THERE BEING NO FURTHER INPUT, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:52
P.M.
Commissioner Abshire noted that no comments or complaints have been received in the past 18
years and that he would be inclined to go along with the request.
Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he did not have a problem with the variance and did not
want to tie the variance to the fact that the situation which necessitated the variance occurred
over 18 years ago. Because of the configuration of the lot and the fact that this was a minor
encroachment into the rear yard setback, he could support the request.
Vice - chairwoman Kaplan concurred with Commission Siegfried's comments and stated that she
did not feel that longevity was the issue. She indicated that she had a concern as to whether or
not the addition was constructed according to City codes. She stated that she could approve the
variance based on the configuration of the lot and that the addition meets city code requirements.
COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V-
95-013. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR, CALDWELL, AND
MURAKAMI ABSENT).
6. GPA -94 -003, AZO -94 -002 & SD -95 -008; TRINITY DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY; 20851 SARATOGA HELLS RD.; Request for General Plan Amendment
to allow two parcels totalling 5.1 acres to be reclassified from an Open Space - Outdoor
Recreational designation to Residential -Very Low Density and Medium Density. Request
includes associated Zoning District amendment to allow the two parcels to be reclassified
from an Agricultural designation to R- 1- 40,000 and R- 1- 12,500. Vesting Tentative
Subdivision Map approval is requested to subdivide the two parcels into nine single -
family lots. Tentative cancellation of the properties' Williamson Act agricultural preserve
contract is included as part of the project description.
An EIR has been prepared and made available for public review and comment for this
project pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act.
Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He indicated that the primary focus this evening was
that of the final EIR. He stated that all comments recorded during the two public meetings as
well as the written correspondence submitted during the 45-day review period have been
responded to by the environmental consultants in the final EIR and were contained in Volume
3 of the EIR. Staff recommended that the public hearing be opened, public testimony be taken,
and that unless new evidence is presented that alters the environmental determination of the final
EIR, staff would recommend accepting the final EIR and that the Commission recommend its
certification to the City Council. Also recommended was approval of the General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance amendments and Commission approval of the vesting tentative subdivision
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 1996
PAGE - 6 -
map, contingent upon the other actions being accepted by the City Council.
Laura Worthington- Forbes, Michael Brandman and Associates, stated that she was the project
manager.for the preparation of the draft EIR and the response to comments. She indicated that
the environmental issues that were examined in the draft EIR included: land use, traffic,
aesthetics, earth resources, hydrology and historic /recreational resources. As a result of the
environmental analysis, the EIR identified potential significant impacts as follows: the potential
loss of one native oak tree on lot 1; subsurface soil conditions that would impact the structural
integrity of the structures; the potential for ground shaking on the site; and the potential for
drainage impacts to the 100 year storm. She stated that each of these potentially significant
impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the implementation of mitigation
measures that were identified in the document. She further stated that there were residual impacts
that following the implementation of those mitigations measures were identified as significant or
unavoidable.
Ms. Worthington - Forbes indicated that the draft EIR was circulated on November 22, 1995
through January 5, 1996. During the public review period, there were two Planning Commission
workshops and public hearings. She noted that no written comments or oral testimony received
after January 2, 1996. She stated that City staff and the City Attorney have thoroughly reviewed
all of the comments as well as the testimony received on the draft EIR and that it has been
determined that there are no new issues or no new significant information that has not been
previously presented. All issues, since the review of the draft EIR, have been addressed in the
draft EIR or in the response to comments document before the Commission this evening. As
provided for under Section 15088.b of the CEQA guidelines, the focus of the response to
comments is only on the disposition of significant environmental effects that were raised on the
comments provided. Detail responses on the merits of the project were not included in the
document. She indicated that the issues raised during the public review process identified the
following primary areas of concern: consistency with the General Plan, on -site and off -site
drainage, retention of the site as an agricultural preserve or heritage park, consistency of the
project with the surrounding land uses, the site's geotechnical constraints, and the loss of open
space. She stated that these issues have been responded to in detail, particularly responding to
the Shute, Mahaly and Weinberger letter. She referred the Commission to pages 2 -38 through
32 -52 of Volume 3 which provides the responses to comments as identified above. She indicated
that the purpose of tonight's hearing was to take public testimony on the final EIR.
Commissioner Abshire noted that the letter from Shute, Mahaly and Weinberger pointed out that
the General Plan states that "the City shall encourage the use of the Williamson Act contract. "
It also, states that the General Plan discourages the cancellation of Williamson Act contracts as
much as possible. He indicated that the response to this statement in the final EIR was devoted
primarily to agricultural and commercial uses. He stated that it was his believe that the intent was
that the Nelson Gardens be used as a demonstration garden, and was not intended to be used as
an industrial /commercial use. He stated that Saratoga was no longer looking at agricultural uses
but that it was looking at preserving open space. He was not sure that this issue was addressed
i
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 1996
PAGE - 7 -
in the final EIR.
Ms. Worthington - Forbes stated that it was the intent of the policy, as stated in the Shute, Mahaly
and Weinberger letter, to protect the provisions of the Williamson Act contract which stipulates
the preservation of lands for agricultural uses. She did not believe that the policy distinguished
between the agricultural uses for commercial /agricultural production versus agricultural uses such
as natural orchards or open space and conservation. The intent of the policy was to protect a
productive, agricultural use and not necessarily to protect a Williamson Act contract that is not
currently being utilized as productive agricultural uses.
Commissioner Abshire felt that the Williamson Act contract was placed on the property for the
purpose of retaining a garden -type use as opposed to a commercial /agricultural use.
Community Development Director Curtis indicated that the General Plan was amended and the
zoning changed when the property owner entered into a Williamson Act contract. He did not
believe that it was intended to retain property as viable agricultural uses but for the purpose of
recognizing the property as open space. He noted that the site has not been listed in the Parks
Master Plan.
Vice - chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 8:09 p.m.
Allen Pinn, Pinn Brothers, representing Trinity Development, stated that the project was started
in 1988 with two public hearings being conducted. Two additional public hearings were
conducted in 1995 along with two study sessions on this same property. He indicated that this
was now the seventh hearing on this proposal. He requested that right to reserve his comments
following the receipt of public comments.
Vice - chairwoman Kaplan informed the public that the Commission has discussed the draft EIR.
The focus this evening would be on the adequacy of the responses to the questions that were
raised at the January 2, 1996 public hearing by both the public and the Commission. She
indicated that the Commission was not reopening the entire conversation of the EIR. She stated
that an application for a park on this property was not before the Commission this evening. She
requested that the public focus on the adequacy of the responses to the comments raised in
Volume 3 of the final EIR.
Ann Waltonsmith, 21060 Saratoga Hills Road, indicated that she evaluated Volume 3, the
responses to external comments. She raised four points as follows: 1) the document continues
not to address the concerns to issues that have been raised both verbally and in writing. These
were the same issues that were brought up during the review of the draft EIR. Volume 3 does
not provide additional research nor new information to evaluate the original issues of concerns
(i.e. page 2-46, hydrology and drainage - no effort has been made to interview the neighbors to
discuss the problems with drainage). 2) There are references made in Section E -6 that the city
is mandated to develop land to be consistent with surrounding development. It was her belief that
1 .\
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 1996
PAGE - 8 -
this statement was incorrect. The surrounding land is zoned for single family homes. Thus, the
area should not be developed into multi- family or commercial uses but that it should be
developed as a community, educational park or a vacant piece of property to be consistent with
the General Plan for that area. 3) The EIR refers to a 1960 General Plan as a proof of a point
(Section E). It was her belief that the existing General Plan has a newer date than that. 4) The
traffic pattern study is incorrect. She did not believe that you could equate peak traffic patterns
for a community garden with peak patterns for residential homes. Peak traffic patterns for a
community garden would be at non -rush hour times, putting less stress on the neighborhood than
a nine home traffic pattern would. She felt that the City should evaluate what would happen
with a community garden by asking individuals who have experience with a community garden.
She requested that the Commission not take action on the Final EIR until it has adequately
addressed the public's concerns. She felt that it was the Commission's job to preserve the
character of Saratoga.
Donald Macrae, 20679 Reid Lane, stated that he prefers to have the site retained as an
educational park and that he endorsed the comments as expressed by Ms. Waltonsmith. As Dr.
Stutzman was out of town, he agreed to inform the Commission that Dr. Stutzman also supported
Ms. Waltonsmith's comments.
Commissioner Kaplan noted that the letter submitted by Dr. Stutzman has been responded to in
the final EIR.
Betty Peck, 14275 Saratoga Avenue, stated her support to Commissioner Abshire's comments.
She stated that in 1981, this parcel was chosen as a demonstration area for its beauty. She
indicated that the Friends of the Nelson Garden worked hard in the early years to.maintain the
site because of its educational value. She indicated that when the City celebrated its 25th
anniversary, the City chose Nelson Gardens to be on display and be opened to the public.
Mr. Pinn echoed the responses that Ms. Peck made, specifically her recurring theme over the
debate over the use of this property. He indicated that a park site has been tried with no success.
He indicated that a letter had been found dated 1988 from Frank Nelson written to William
Henlock, Jr., Director of the National Park Service and read the letter into the record. The letter
indicates that it has been difficult to dedicate the land for public use because of liability
insurance, cost factors, and other problems. It was felt that it would be in the best interest of
the Foundation to sell the property and to use the proceeds for charitable purposes.
Mr. Pinn felt that keeping the property in open space benefits very few individuals because of
its locality as compared to the many who can benefit from the sale of the property. It was
recognized that the property should be sold because it was too expensive to maintain. He felt
that the City Council recognized this fact when it entered into the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU). This MOU would allow funds to be applied to the balance of the parks
within the City of Saratoga by developing this property as well as providing funds to the
Community Foundation which benefits community organizations. He felt that it was time to pass
i
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 1996
PAGE - 9 -
the benefits of this land to more individuals than just the neighbors who have had the benefit of
open space for 20 plus years.
Community Development Director Curtis indicated that the public hearing this evening was to
receive comments on the adequacy of the final EIR as well as to receive comments on the related
land use applications.
Philip Boyce, 21000 Boyce Lane, indicated that he has been involved with the Community
Foundation. He acknowledged that it was time to develop the property and that thoughtful
development needs to be considered. He felt that the Pinn Brothers thoughtfully planned for
development. He felt that development of the. property would allow for monies to be given to
the City, to be used effectively and recycled back into the community. He requested
Commission support of this proposal.
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
AT 8:25 P.M.
Community Development Director Curtis recommended that the Commission discuss the EIR,
take action on the final EIR and then pursue its discussion on the project.
Commissioner Abshire stated that he reviewed the EIR and felt that it was nicely prepared from
a technical and environmental stand point. He did not see any reason why this property cannot
be developed from an environmental stand point. He indicated that he personally had an
eversion to hillside property with slopes over 30% because of the possibility. of landslides.
However, the civil engineer feels that these lots are buildable. He therefore would support the
environmental report.
Commissioner Patrick stated that she was prepared to certify the EIR as it addressed the issues
that needed to be addressed and that the response to comments were satisfactory.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that he was more than satisfied with the EIR and felt that it
addressed the issues adequately.
Vice - chairwoman Kaplan felt that the responses had been adequately addressed and that she
would support certification to the City Council.
Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he missed the last two hearings on the draft EIR.
However, he has read the minutes and all the documents associated with this item. He felt that
he had sufficient information to make a recommendation on this item.
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO FORWARD ITS
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE FINAL EIR. THE
MOTION CARRIED 4-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR, CALDWELL AND
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 1996
PAGE - 10 -
MURAKAMI ABSENT.
Community Development Director noted that the Commission conducted a public hearing
simultaneously with the final EIR and recommended that the Commission discuss and make
motions on the land use applications.
Vice - chairman Kaplan noted that Resolution No. SD -95 -008 contains a typo that needs to be
corrected on page 13 (last paragraph, replace the word eaff with t basins.
Commissioner Abshire stated that the General Plan supports the Williamson Act and that it
discourages its cancellation. In this case, the request is for an early cancellation of the
Williamson Act. He did not question the City's right to do this. However, if the City was
going to allow for the cancellation of a Williamson Act contract, it should have a good reason
for doing so. He asked if the development of more new expensive executive homes was
something that was needed in Saratoga? He did not believe so as the schools were already
impacted. He was not sure if the proposed houses were needed and asked if these new homes
were worth given up open space for? If the land was to be used for senior housing or low cost
housing, the City can make a strong case in changing the land use designation from open space
to residential. However, he was not sure a strong enough case has been made to change the land
use designation. He recognized that Mr. Nelson was a kind gentlemen who thought of the
future. However, he felt that Mr. Nelson made a mistake in placing this property under the
Williamson Act because it did not work. Although Mr. Nelson made an effort to donate this
land for public use, he could not find any one to match his donation. He was sorry that this has
happened and for the people who tried to make this use work but have not been successful in
their efforts. However, in spite of this, he felt that this was a big action to request early
cancellation of the Williamson Act, an act that would need to be explained to historians. It was
his belief that the City needs to seriously consider what is being done here. He asked if the City
of Saratoga was behind their General Plan? He did not believe that the City was if it continued
with the approval of this development. For this reason, he indicated that he would vote no on
changing the land use designation and zoning applications. He indicated that he was sympathetic
towards the efforts made by the applicant but that he did not feel that this was the right time to
consider the request.
City Attorney Fabian indicated that she wanted to comment on Commissioner Abshire's
comments because it raised a very important issue. She stated that a question would need to be
asked. That question being whether this amendment would set a precedent and whether there
were other properties that are currently under the Williamson Act that have similar circumstances
that would cause the Commission to set in motion a landslide of similar requests. Or, on the
other hand, is the situation before the Commission so unique that it feels it would not set a
precedent. She felt that it would be helpful to articulate any questions which the Commission
may have regarding the policy that has been addressed.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 1996
PAGE - 11 -
Commissioner Siegfried inquired as to the penalties that would be levied for early cancellation
of the Williamson Act.
City Attorney Fabian explained that the non - renewal of a Williamson Act contract would result
in the tax benefits being phased out during a period of time. Cancellation of a Williamson Act
contract would result in penalties that would result in back taxes having to be paid.
Vice - chairwoman Kaplan requested clarification as to City Attorney Fabian's comment regarding
the need for a "super majority" of the Commissioners present this evening to act on the General
Plan amendment or adoption of a General Plan.
City Attorney Fabian clarified that a positive vote on a recommendation of approval would
require a majority of the Commission (body), not just the majority of a quorum. Therefore, it
would take the four votes of the four Commissioners present this evening to make a
recommendation on the General Plan amendment.
Vice - chairwoman Kaplan asked if it would be prudent to take a vote on the General Plan
amendment request at this time to see how the vote would result or should the Commission
continue these applications to allow the presence of a full Commission?
City Attorney Fabian indicated that it would be a good idea to hear what each of the
Commissioners have to say.
Commissioner Patrick stated that she supported the request the last time it was before the
Commission and that she was inclined to approve it again. She noted that California
encourages /subsidizes agricultural uses in the state. However, she did not believe that this site
was. a working farm, noting that it was a small parcel. There was no one willing or able to
continue its use as a non -profit use. She indicated that the farm was in need of extreme repair.
If agricultural was to be undertaken, the site would need to be stripped and than restarted all over
again. She felt that the City of Saratoga needs to evaluate what kind of open space it can
continue to maintain and keep. Also, the quality of open space needs to be evaluated. She felt
that the failure to maintain the site as open space was a good reason to amend the General Plan.
She felt that the quality of open space needs to be considered as a General Plan policy and that
it needs to be reviewed for its benefit. She felt that this site only benefited the neighbors.
Because of the sites proximity to an existing park and its lack of agricultural interest at this time,
she indicated that she would support the development of the 9 building sites as well as the
General Plan amendment.
Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he has been involved with this issue off and on for several
years. He stated that it was his belief that the intent of the City of Saratoga was to abide by the
General Plan, noting that it was just that, a general plan with guidelines for the future, one that
changes. He felt that this was a unique 5 + acre site surrounded by residential property. It has
been noted that the site is adjacent to an existing park and the fact that the site is not used very
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 1996
PAGE - 12 -
much. He felt strongly about protecting open space to the extent that the City can do so but that
it has to be. recognized that this is a small piece of property, completely surrounded by residential
properties. He stated that there was an attempt by the neighbors to purchase the property with
no success. Just because the City made a mistake in placing this land under the Williamson Act,
he did not believe that it was fair to have the neighbors not allow the property to be removed
from the Williamson Act and to maintain it as open space at the City's expense. He felt that the
property should be developed in a manngr that is compatible with the neighborhood. The City
will be given a large fee to be used on City parks. He felt that the design review process would
ensure that the homes are compatible with the existing homes. He noted that the property owner
would be penalized with back taxes for early Williamson Act cancellation. He did not believe
that retaining the General Plan designation would be of benefit to the community as the property
is surrounded by a cyclone fence, the garden has not been taken care of for many years and that
the site has become an eyesore. He supported moving forward in a meaningful fashion as he did
not believe that a precedent would be set as this was no longer a viable piece of land for working
agricultural land uses.
Vice - chairwoman Kaplan concurred with the comments as expressed by Commissioners Siegfried
and Patrick. She felt that it was time to move forward with the request as a request for a park
was not before the Commission.
Commissioner Abshire agreed that it has been almost 25 years since this issue has been trying
to come to fruition, but that he felt that miracles do happen. He felt that maybe in another five
years or so, someone would be able to preserve the open space and the historical significance of
the site. He stated that he would like to leave this possibility open.
Community Development Director Curtis recommended that action first be taken on the General
Plan Amendment as it requires a "super" majority vote. If there was not a 4-0 vote, he
recommended that the Commission make another motion to continue these applications to the
January 24, 1996 meeting to allow the presence of the other Commissioners who were absent
this evening.
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO.
GPA -94 -003. THE MOTION FAILED 3 -1 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: KAPLAN, PATRICK,
SIEGFRIED; NOES: ABSHIRE; ABSTAIN: NONE; ABSENT: ASFOUR, CALDWELL,
MURAKAMI.
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO
JANUARY 24, 1996 FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING A SECOND VOTE ON THIS ITEM.
THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR, CALDWELL AND
MURAKAMI ABSENT.
City Attorney Fabian was excused from the remainder of the meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DRAFT
JANUARY 24, 1996
PAGE - 2 -
Technical Corrections to Packet
No corrections were noted.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. GPA -94 -003, AZO-94 -002 & SD -95 -008; TRINITY DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY; 20851 SARATOGA HELLS RD.; Request for General Plan Amendment
to allow two parcels totalling 5.1 acres to be reclassified from an Open Space - Outdoor
Recreational designation to Residential -Very Low Density and Medium Density. Request
includes associated Zoning District amendment to allow the two parcels to be reclassified
from an Agricultural designation to R- 1- 40,000 and R- 1- 12,500. Vesting Tentative
Subdivision Map approval is requested to subdivide the two parcels into nine single -
family lots. Tentative cancellation of the properties' Williamson Act agricultural preserve
contract is included as part of the project description.
This application was heard by the Planning Commission at the 1/10/96 public hearing but
failed to pass by a 3 -1 vote (Commissioners Asfour, Caldwell and Murakami absent).
General Plan amendments require a majority vote of the total membership of the
Commission. The proposal was therefore continued to the 1/24/96 meeting for
reconsideration of the vote.
Community Development Director Curtis presented the staff report on this item. He noted that
at the January 10, 1996 Planning Commission meeting, there was a 3 -1 vote in favor of
forwarding to the City Council approval of the general plan amendment. As a general plan
amendment requires 4 affirmation votes of the majority of the seated Commissioners. He
indicated that there were not four affirmative votes given to carry the motion. Therefore, the
Commission continued this item for reconsideration by the full Commission. He indicated that
the public testimony portion for the applications has been closed. He indicated that it was his
understanding that the two Commissioners who were not present at the January 10, 1996 meeting
have since listened to the tapes of that meeting. He recommended that these two Commissioners
enter into the record any comments that they may have on the project and that the Commission
reconsider the vote taken on the general plan amendment request. He further recommended that
the Commission proceed with its discussion and consideration of the zoning ordinance
amendment and the tentative subdivision application.
Commissioner Asfour indicated that he read the minutes and listened to the tapes from the last
meeting and that he was apprised of the situation. He indicated that he was not pleased
regarding the manner in which this project came to the Planning Commissioner via the City
Council. However, he indicated that he would base his decision on the facts presented. He
indicated that development of this site has been before the City for a number of years and that
every time the issue comes up, it is indicated that a park is to be built and acquired. He felt that
if the energy that was spent in opposition to this project was spent in raising funds, that the site
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 24, 1996
PAGE - 3 -
of�`} • J
would have developed as a public park. He noted that the request before the Commission was
not for a park. He indicated that he was satisfied with the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
that was prepared and approved for the site and that he would have voted to forward its
certification to the City Council had he been present at the last meeting. Regarding the status
of the property under the Williamson Act, he stated that when someone enters into a contract,
he would like to have the individual(s) live up to the terms of the contract. However, he
recognized that in a few years that this site would come out of the Williamson Act and that early
release from the contract would not make that much of a difference. If the property is removed
from the Williamson Act Contract, he felt that the City would benefit substantially from its
removal from the Williamson Act. Therefore, he indicated that he would support forwarding a
recommendation to the Council.
Chairman Murakami stated that after reading the minutes and participating in all of the study
sessions on this item, he had some mixed feelings about the project. However, he understands
that this is a unique piece of land and that the location does not lends itself to be a practical place
for a park as far as its accessibility to all Saratoga residents. He could not see having the land
sit for five years with the hope that someone would come along and help fund this park in the
manner that the Friends of Nelson Garden would like to see happen. He stated that the Friends
of Nelson Garden have not presented evidence that this could be a possibility. Therefore, he
would like to see the request forwarded to the City Council and to see the land improved from
its current state. He indicated that at time of design review, the City would make sure that
whatever is built is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. He stated that he too was
satisfied with the EIR. Had he been present at the January 10 meeting, he would have voted to
forward its certification to the City Council.
Commissioner Kaplan noted that corrections would need to be made to Resolution No. SD.95-
008 upon its adoption.
Commissioner Abshire indicated that the decision that is made tonight would be a land mark
decision. He stated that if the City supports its recently adopted open space element, that the
element contains some clauses that specifically states that there is to be an avoidance of pre-
cancellation of Williamson Act property. He indicated that he has not seen or heard of a need
for expensive, executive homes in Saratoga. He did not believe that this project justifies
accelerating the already rapid decline in Saratoga's open space inventory. He felt that the
Williamson Act was a very important part of the City's inventory and that fifty percent of
Saratoga's open space is covered by the Williamson Act and that it would disappear over the next
10 years.
Commissioner Abshire stated that a well organized teaching demonstration garden would be
preferred over executive homes on this property because it could bring to the City many
historical amenities and that it would provide for the education of future generations, in addition
to preserving open space. He recognized that much has been said about the uncertainty of
finding financial support to purchase and to operate the property as a garden. He felt that it
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 24, 1996
PAGE - 4 -
should also be acknowledged that the purchase of substitute open space by the City is not a sure
thing as the supply of suitable open space in Saratoga is limited and fixed. For the reasons stated,
he would vote to deny approval of GPA- 94-003. He felt that the Community Foundation may
benefit financially by waiting a few years and Saratoga may also benefit if a few more years
were made available to find a garden benefactor.
COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF GPA -94 -003. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -1 -1 AS FOLLOWS: AYES:
ASFOUR, KAPLAN, MURAKAMI, PATRICK, SIEGFRIED; NOES: ABSHIRE; ABSTAIN:
PIERCE; ABSENT: NONE.
COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN /PATRICK MOVED TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF AZO-94 -002. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -1 -1 AS FOLLOWS: AYES:
ASFOUR, KAPLAN, MURAKAMI, PATRICK, SIEGFRIED; NOES: ABSHIRE; ABSTAIN:
PIERCE; ABSENT: NONE.
Commissioner Kaplan recommended the following amendments to Resolution No. SD -95 -008:
Condition 2, last paragraph (page 6 of the staff report), be amended to restrict vehicle
parking underneath the trees.
Condition 28, last paragraph, line three (page 12 of the staff report), be amende to read:
"...appropriate illustrations, and submitted to the City to W. reviewed and approved by
the City Engineer and City Geotechnical Consultant...."
Condition 34 (page 13 of the staff report) amended to read: "All funds required by the
Memorandum of Understanding to be paid to the City oi'Saratoga €tom u0#1 the City
0 granting approval of a final Subdivision Map...."
Community Development Director Curtis clarified that the general plan amendment and zoning
amendment are recommendations of approval to the City Council. He indicated that normally,
on a vesting tentative subdivision map, the Planning Commission would be the reviewing
authority as the final decision maker unless the applicant appeals the decision to the City
Council. He noted that the EIR was prepared for-the general plan amendment, zone change, and
the vested tentative map as well as the cancellation of the Williamson Act contract. He indicated
that staff would recommend that the Commission forward a recommendation to approve the
subdivision map to the City Council so that all the applications go to the City Council as a
packet, along with the certification of the EIR.
COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF SD -95 -008, INCORPORATING THE AMENDMENTS AS STATED BY
COMMISSIONER KAPLAN. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -1 -1 AS FOLLOWS: AYES:
ASFOUR, KAPLAN, MURAKAMI, PATRICK, SIEGFRIED; NOES: ABSHIRE; ABSTAIN:
L' 4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 24, 1996
PAGE - 5 -
PIERCE; ABSENT: NONE.
Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission and the public that these
applications have been advertised and would be considered by the City Council at its meeting of
February 7, 1996.
2. DR -95 -051 - BEAM; 18843,,WONTEWOOD CT.; Request for Design Review
approval to demolish an existing 1,881 sq. ft. single story house in order to construct a
new 5,985 sq. ft. single story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject
property is a 41,075 sq. ft. parcel located within the R -1- 40,000 zoning district.
Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item.
Commissioner Kaplan asked if the resolution of approval included a condition which would
require the use of impervious material for the driveway and whether the city arborist's
recommendations regarding paving were included in the resolution of approval? She asked if the
interlocking pavers were of impervious material? Planner Walgren clarified that the interlocking
pavers were shown on the plan and that the pavers would allow water to permeate and to allow
ventilation of the roots. As interlocking pavers were depicted on the plans, this would address
Commissioner Kaplan's concern.
Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 7:50 p.m.
Scott Cunningham, project designer, stated his concurrence with the staff report and that he did
not find that the arborist's conditions unreasonable. He indicated that the proposal was for a 20
foot, single story residence and that the design matches the adjacent single story, ranch -style
properties. He indicated that the floor area was exceeded by 126 feet. He noted that there was
a portion of the roof that would be greater than 18 feet in height. He requested that the
Commission approve the design of the home and indicated that he would comply with the City
arborist's pre - construction and post- construction recommendations and conditions.
COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT
7:52 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR -95-
051. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0).
3. DR -95 -045 - GLENROCK BUILDERS; 14118 SARATOGA AVENUE; Request for
Design Review approval to construct a new 4,302 sq. ft. single story residence on a
22,685 sq. ft. parcel located within the R- 1- 20,000 zoning district. The subject property
is the front parcel of a 2 -lot subdivision approved in April of 1995.
Correspondence
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL:
As a friend of the Nelson Gardens, I wish
to the proposal to cancel the Williamson
entered into between Frank Nelson and the
19, 1971, and to the proposed sale
the Community Foundation for subdivision
RECEIVED
FEB -11996
PLANNING DEPT.
to express my objection
Act provision which was
City of Saratoga on May
of this property by
development.
Logic would appear to require that each member of this decision -
making council would have read the final report of the City of
Saratoga Nelson Gardens Task Force Ad Hoc Committee, December.
21, 1988, a.c; well as the Williamson Act. I will not dwell on the
specific i,!strictions and findings of the Williamson act
certified: by the Court in Sierra Club vs. Hayward, 1981. Our
attorney will cover those provisions.
My own remarks are directed toward the preservation of the Nelson
Gardens, as was the original intent of the owner Frank Nelson.
Frank Nelson began deeding portions of his property to the Nature
Conservancy in December of 1971. In an article in the San Jose
Mercury News on December 2, 1977, he stated, "My present wife
(Helen) and I want to preserve a bit of land and protect it from
development, so people can be educated in the way a working
orchard operates. Some people have never seen an apricot
orchard."
By law, to the best of my knowledge, the original intent for
deeding rides along with the land for perpetuity.
Sometime later, records of the Nature Conservancy indicated that
Frank Nelson was interested in transferring it to the California
State Parks and Recreation Department to be preserved as a model
of traditional agricultural land use of Santa Clara Valley and to
use it to provide public use and education of the area's
agricultural values.
The transfer to the California State Parks Foundation occurred
October 11, 1977, with the provision that a reverter clause be
included to protect the natural area qualities of the property.
Despite explicit directions to do so, no reverter clause was
executed. The clear intent of the parties involved was evident
by two letters, one from Frank Nelson, July 18, 1977, to the
Nature Conservancy, the second, dated October 14, 1977, from
Henry Little, Western Regional Director of The Nature
Conservancy, to William Penn Mott, Jr., president 'of the
California State Parks Foundation. Both emphasized the
protection and enhancement of the natural beauty, while allowing
the citizens of the Santa Clara Valley and the entire State to
benefit from its use.
Steve McCormick, director of the California Field Office of the
Nature Conservancy, wrote August 10, 1988, "It is clear to me
from reading the file that the Conservancy's intention in
accepting the property and eventually, oonveying it to the State
Parks Foundation, was that the land be kept in the condition that
existed when Frank Nelson. deeded the land to the Conservancy.
Our assumption, in conveying the land to the Foundation, was that
the organization would maintain the open space, undeveloped
quality of the property."
Budgetary problems within the Foundation induced the Foundation
to return it to the Nelson Foundation on March 1, 19840
A brochure about the Nelson Gardens put out by the California
State Parks Foundation contained the following statement:
"A Link With the Past"
"There are still a few small islands of fruit trees left in the
valley. The Saratoga Nature Center is one. This property has
been donated to preserve a portion of this once great fruit -
growing region and to serve as an educational center for senior
citizens, school children, and the general public. Here the
care, growing and processing of apricots is demonstrated. The
area is of particular interest because there is a small arboretum
on the property containing exotic plants, and -the upper slopes,
in natural vegetation, reflect the ecology of the coastal
mountains."
Frank Nelson at this time was very elderly, in poor health,
deemed incompetent, and no longer in control of the destiny of
his very special orchard.
The City of Saratoga attempted, unsuccessfully, to acquire the
Gardens, but rather than donate it to the City, the Nelson
Foundation gave it to the Santa Clara County Community
Foundation. The latter organization has no concerned local
representation on its board and appears to be primarily
interested in liquidation of the property to enhance their forty
million re serve fund.
To determine whether or not there was public support in Saratoga
for the preservation of Nelson Gardens in the same or similar
context as it existed, one must look at this in several
perspectives.
i
The General Plan of Saratoga envisioned many small community
parks. These were to be areas for the very young, for mothers
with children, and for the elderly. Only a few of these
materialized, but, those that have";.1. proved to be highly
successful. We need more of these. Unfortunately, we need not
only more of the small parks; we also need more large parks or
areas of open space. We, by state standards, should have three
acres of park land for each one thousand residents. We have less
than one half of that, and where are we going to make up the
deficit?
A public opinion survey was conducted in 1988 as part of the work
of the Ad Hoc Committee. The results of the survey were clear.
The majority of those polled felt that the city ,should pursue
some form of open space preservation and most.of them indicated
they would like to see some form of specialty parks -- educational,
agricultural, historical - -in Saratoga.
A separate poll was taken involving 113 physicians living within
Saratoga. Sixty percent favored retaining Nelson Gardens as a
park.
In 1994, in an effort to once again determine public support for
acquisition of the Nelson Gardens, over 800 signatures were
obtained on petitions in a one week effort by a handful of
volunteers.
One other neglected need is that of a community garden. One such
existed at the Odd Fellows Home site for 15 years. It was a
focal point for teaching Saratoga students about the cultivation
of plants and making them realize that their fruits and
vegetables arise from the soil, and not from supermarket shelves.
When the volunteer staff who had nurtured this project were
forced out of the Odd Fellows location, they were assured by the
City Council that an alternative site would be forthcoming. This
has never materialized.
The Nelson Gardens would be an ideal location.
The final question is - -what is the vision for Saratoga? The
current City Council has drafted such a vision. Among the
provisions are:
1) Where the natural beauty of the city and its hillsides is
preserved.
2) Where the historic assets are preserved and promoted.
3) Where desirable recreational and leisure opportunities are
provided.
4) Where value is placed on an attractive well- maintained and
well - planned community.
These provisions do indeed reflect desirable goals, but somehow
they do not mesh with the reality of the present situation where
the city seems intent on trading one of its few really historic
sites for nine more unneeded houses and a fistful of dollars.
There appears to be a parallel between this vision and the_
Republicans' contract with America.
High sounding platitudes have been voiced, but, many fear there is
an underlying intent to destroy the environment and its protective
laws that-have evolved over the past 20 years.
As you look about Saratoga, it appears that every acre of
remaining open space is being replaced by large homes on small
lots. Our schools are being overcrowded and underfunded.. Our
athletic and open space requirements are inadequate,, so we now
have to encroach on school sites; our infrastructure is
deteriorating.
Still, the Council seems to have but one objective: the sacrifice
of existing space, which, once lost, can never be regained.
Instead, the city will have more houses, more congestion, more
people - -all this, for short term financial gain.
Those controlling the destiny of the city are a part of the aging
segment of Saratoga. We do, however, have generations behind us
who still have the same needs we once had. WhX not give them
a chance to enjoy at least a few of the beauties of nature that
once were ours:
The Nelson Gardens is one of our few remaining historic segments.
It is small, but it is important. Let us not offer it up as one
more sacrifice to so- called progress.
F.L. Stutzman, M.D.
15195 Park Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
RECEIVED
FEB -11996
Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Committee:
PLANNING DEPT. _
I am appearing this evening to oppose the submitted plan for subdivision of the
Nelson Garden. I do so as a concerned Saratoga resident who wishes to see
some of the ambiance which made Sarato ra a desirable residential area preserved
instead of impacting it and downgrading it by packing more large houses on small
lots.
We do not need more houses, more cars, more burden on our schools and
libraries, more demand on police and fire departments, and more strain on our
infrastructure.
I also appear as a former Council member who personally witnessed past errors
on the part of planners and developers, which created increased profit to the latter
but also increased cost to the City, and decreased the quality of the environment.
I feel that our Planning Department has the capability to realize that CEQA
demands more of an initial environmental study for a tract such as this, rather
than the one submitted. This area demands an EIR for the following reasons:
(1) This parcel is designated as a high impact earthquake area on the ABAG map
issued in 1995.
(2) The upper area of this parcel is extremely rugged, and I seriously question the
accuracy of the slope density as submitted. I would strongly suggest an
independent survey of the area.
(3) The upper area reportedly has a large; amount of fill material and would be
subject to sliding, not only due to the unstable fill but the underlying clay, which,
when wet, has a tendency to slip.
(4) The past history includes a natural spring on the hillside, which indicates a
potential serious building problem.
(5) Denuding the area would create erosion, and the plan as submitted would do
just that.
(6) Another aspect is the effect of the loss of a major number of mature trees and
shrubs, many of which are rare and irreplaceable, and many now in poor health
due to deliberate neglect on -the part of the caretaker of the property. These
could be rehabilitated. It also will take 10,. to 20 years to replace equivalent
vegetation.
(7) The adverse effect on bird ' and native animal life will be virtually total. Once
houses are built and the native ecosystem is destroyed, the original residential
creatures are excluded.
(8) An impact will be made on the history of the Saratoga area, by destroying one
of her last remaining apricot orchards.
(9) The neighborhood will be deprived of its one last chance for a small
community park and garden. This totally ignores the original intent of the General
Plan for such parks.
(10) The lot and house size proposed is not compatible with the neighborhood,
nor is it in keeping with the community's expectations for how this land should
be developed.
In closing, the mitigations, proposed are inadequate, and they would merely
expedite the desires of the developer. The mitigations carry no assurance that
they would accomplish their desired end, nor any adequate penalties in the event
that these projected consequences would ensue..
c--
F.L. Stutzman, M.D., Ph.D.
F.L. STUTZMAN, M.D.
15195 PARK DRIVE
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 RECEIVED
DOCTOR OF GENERA SURGERY SURGERY FEB 1 1996 TELEPHONE CODE
54 3420
AM. BOARD GENERAL SURGERY ,
AM. BOARD THORACIC SURGERY
FELLOW AM. COLL. SURG. /�A' (�
FOUNDING MEMBER BAY AREA VAS. SURG. PLANNING DEPT
1) What is the basis for stating that this tract of land if
used as an orchard or a park would be economically impractical?
2) Is it not true that the city has an obligation to provide
parks and open space for its citizens?
3) What size does an orchard have to be i properly cared for
to be economical?
4) What is the basis for assuming that having houses on this site
would be.economical?
5) What is the cost pr house in Saratoga for the city to provide
all of the infrastructure and utilities to maintain each house?
6) If houses are revenue generating, why is Saratoga in financial
distrees?
7) Why is this tract considered too small to be a park in view
of the fact that the city has less than 50 acres of park land?
Doesn't this parkland amount to only 10 times the size of the
Nelson Gardens?
8) Wouldn't this park be a valuable asset to Saratoga as a
teaching aid for the schools?
9) Do any schools or teaching centers, e.g.9 churchesv museums -2
Hakone Gardens, senior centers , generate income for the city?
10) Is there any area in Saratoga that has a community garden?
11) What is the basis for the contention in the DEIR that the
use of this land as a park would be in direct conflict with*the
development of area B guidelines?
12) Where did MBA obtain a City Park's policy that all park fees
would be used to maintain and improve existing parks and not for
acquiring additional land for park use?
13) Is MBA aware that the state recommends 3 acres of parkland as
a minimum for each 1000 residents and that Saratoga has only h of that
amount?
14)Were MBA aware that the Saratoga General Plan recommends small
parks in all areas of the community?
15)What is the basis for the statement that nothing of historical
importance ever happened in this tract?
16)Is not the fact that it being one of the last apricot orchards
existing in Santa Clara Valley which was world renown for such
orchards of historical significance?
17)Where in Saratoga are there other sites which could substitute
for this tract? '
18)What would it cost to replenish this tract which has been
deliberately neglected by one of the board members of the now
non existent Nelson Foundation?
19) Why has the issue of community volunte?rism to replenish
and maintain this site as a garden not been addressed?
20) How many hours were devoted to actual on site observations
of the ecology of this tract?
21) Was all or most of the data used to evaluate the ecology
derived from generalized reportsq several of which are out of
date and unreliable?
22), What are special status plant species? _
23) What direct information do you have that such species are not
present on this site?
24)- How many rare species of plants that Frank Nelson imported from
around the world are still viable on this site?
25)The Deir stated that wildlife species found in this tract are
common in the surrounding area and therefore their loss of
habitat would be less than significanti Doesn't the displacement
of a species cause territorial disruption in the area into which
the displacement occurs?
26) What is the meaning of less than significant?
27) What would species displacement have to be to be significant?
28)What is the basis for the statement that other undeveloped areas
of Saratoga contain better habitat for special status species?
29) In what sense are they better?
30) If such an argument is valid here, would it not be true for
every undeveloped area of Saratoga until no such areas any longer
existed?
31)What assurance is there that only one oak tree would be removed
and the remainder protected in view of the recent gutting of our
tree ordinances by the present city council?
32)Would there be any assurances of monitoring for the preservation
of residual vegetation?
33)What is the basis for the statement that there is no known fault
in the region of this site in view of the activation of the Berrocal
a
Fault which became active in the 1989 earthquake, a fault which
is very near to this site and which because of the angle of this
fault to this site would impact this area very severely?
34) What is the significance of the thrust fault emerging at Pontiac.
Avenue?
35) Is it not true that Freeman -Kern Associates in a 1995 letter
to the Pinn :Brothers Construction Company made the statement that
they had not done a complete seismological and geological
investigation?
36) Is it not true the statement was also made that they had been
compromized in their site soil profile by the ground being wet
and soft?
37) In the same letter did they also not recommend that a complete
geological report addressing faulting, slope stability, seismic
setting of the site, study of the fills, colluvium, alluvium,
and bedrock units on the site with appropriate soil testing be done?
38) Were these tests nat done as part of the DEIR?
39) Who were the specific families contacted in the area regarding
basement flooding?
40). What data was obtained regarding the spring which has existed
in the past at times when the water table has been high?
41) How many species of wildlife did the investigators see and what
were they?
42) Is it surprizing that nesting raptors were not seen on the
site in view of the tendency of such birds to flee when predators.
such as people appear?
43) Why does this report take the position that $585,000 paid to
the city by the Community Foundation would make all other consid-
erations such as open space, park land, recreation, congestion,
impact on infrastructure, impact on hillside view of less than
significant impact?
44) Why is it essential for the Community Foundation with its
57 million in reserves to sell this property to fund its charitable
contributions?
45) Why does the Community Foundation allocate only 2% of its
contributions to ecology?
r
46) Did the Community Foundation receive the Nelson Gardens from the
Frank Nelson Foundation as a free gift or did they in turn have
to assume some of the liabilities of the latter?
Respectfully submitted to the Saratoga Planning Commission
on January 2, 1996 by F. L. Stutzman, 15195 Park Drive, Saratoga
E. CLEMENT SHUTE, JR.
MARK I. WEINBERGER
MARC B. MIHALY, P.C.
FRAN M. LAYTON
RACHEL B. HOOPER
ELLEN J. GARBER
CHRISTY H. TAYLOR
TAMARA 5. GALANTER
ElIISON FOLK
RICHARD S. TAYLOR
REED W.SUPER
JOSEPH E. JARAMILLO
WILLIAM J. WHITE
Via Federal Express
SHUTE, MIHALY 8 WEINBERGER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
396 HAYES STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102
TELEPHONE: (415) 552 -7272
TELECOPIER: (415) 552 -5816
LAUREL L. IMPETT, AICP
URBAN PLANNER
ELIZABETH M. DODD
OF COUNSEL
rn
January 31, 1996 [ R L" ►�
CITY IrI T`� `,GE-'I'S OFF ICE
Mayor Jacobs and Members of the City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Nelson Gardens Project (GPA -94 -003, AZO -94 -002, SD -95 -008)
& Tentative Cancellation of a Williamson Act Agricultural
Preserve Contract (APN 503 -49 -41 & 42)
Dear Mayor Jacobs and Members of the City Council:
This letter is submitted on behalf of the Friends of the Nelson Garden
Foundation for consideration by the City of Saratoga City Council at its February 7,
1996 hearing on the Nelson Gardens project. The purpose of this letter is to inform
the Council that the environmental impact report ( "EIR ") for the Nelson Gardens
project is inadequate to approve a general plan amendment, rezoning, tentative
subdivision map and tentative cancellation of a Williamson Act contract for the Nelson
Gardens project.
The Friends of the Nelson Garden Foundation submitted two extensive
letters documenting the environmental impacts that would result from the development
of the Nelson Garden site with a residential subdivision and the legal inadequacies of
the environmental documentation prepared by the City of Saratoga. See letters to the
Saratoga Planning Commission dated August 2, 1995 and January 2, 1996, attached
hereto as Exhibit A and B respectively.
The January 2, 1996 letter specifically identifies the deficiencies in the
draft EIR's analysis of impacts relating to land use, transportation, visual resources,
earth and biological resources, recreational, historical and cultural resources and the
Mayor Jacobs and Members of the Saratoga City Council
January 31, 1996
Page 2
loss of open space. Despite our repeated request for additional information and impact
analysis, the responses to comments contained in the final EIR merely restate the text
of the draft EIR, failing to provide any additional analysis of environmental impacts.
The result is that the public and decision - makers have very little understanding of the
array of impacts associated with the project and the extent to which measures can and
will mitigate or avoid those impacts.
For example, the final EIR continues to fail to disclose the existing
flooding problems which occur every rainy season in the residential neighborhood
located immediately downslope from the project site. Although homeowners provided
extensive documentation of existing drainage problems and expressed their strong
concerns that development of the site will worsen the neighborhood's flooding
problems, the final EIR fails to provide any additional information regarding this
serious environmental impact. See Response to Comment Number E -31.
Furthermore, the final EIR makes a mockery of the City's General Plan
when it asserts that the General Plan requires that all vacant sites within the Area B
Development area be developed with single family detached residential homes. See
Response to Comment Number E -2. Clearly the General Plan's intent is to ensure that
that any development of vacant lands is done in a manner that is compatible with the
surrounding residential area. Contrary to the statements in the final EIR, the goal of
the General Plan is to restrict the development of intensive land uses such as multi-
family residential or commercial uses on lands that are currently vacant. It belies
common sense to assert that the General Plan's Area B Guidelines mandate that any
development on open space land must be residential in nature.
The tone of the responses to comments in the final EIR clearly
expresses the City's intent to develop this site with a residential subdivision. Yet, it is
the City's responsibility to design a project which serves the public, and one that
balances environmental values with other public values. The planning process thus far
has responded only to the needs of a particular development and ignored the needs of
the greater community, as well as the original intent of Frank Nelson when he
dedicated this property for public use.
Mayor Jacobs and Members of the Saratoga City Council
January 31, 1996
Page 3
For all of the reasons described in the Friends of the Nelson Garden
Foundation's previous letters, we urge the City not to consider further the Nelson
Gardens project until the City prepares a legally adequate EIR that fully informs the
public of the environmental impacts associated with the development of this unique
site.
Very truly yours,
SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER
LAUREL L. IMPETT
Urban Planner
TAMARA S. GALANTER
encl.
cc: Ann Waltonsmith
PAFONGNATIU..LI00 LLET
EXHIBIT A
E. CLEMENT SHUTE, JR.
MARK 1. WEINBERCER
f
MARC B. MIHALY. P. C.
FRAN M. LAY ?ON
RACHEL B. HOOPER
ELLEN J. GARBER
CHRISM H. TAYLOR
TAMARA S. GALANTER
ELLISON FOLK
RICHARD S. TAYLOR
HANK BATES
SUSANNAH T. FRENCH
REED VC. SUPER
.SHUTE, MIHALY 8 WEINBERCER
A170RNEY5 AT LAW
396 HAYES 5TT.EET
5AN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102
TELEPHONE: (415) 552 -7272
TELECOPIER: (415) 552 -5816
August 2, 1995
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
13777 Fruit-vale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
LAUREL L. IMPETT, AICP
URBAN PLANNER
ELIZABETH M. DODD
OF COUNSEL
Re: Nelson Gardens Property Subdivision; GPA -94 -003, AZO-
94 -002 & SD -94 -005: 20851 Saratoga Hills Road
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
This firm represents The Friends of The Nelson Garden
Foundation on matters related to environmental review of the
Trinity Development Company's (IlTrinityll) application for a
general plan amendment (GPA -94 -003), zoning change (AZO -94 -002),
and subdivision approval (SD -94 -005) for property. at 20851
Saratoga Hills Road ( "Nelson Gardens Property "). ' The Nelson
Garden Foundation is an organization formed to protect open space
in Saratoga. it is our conclusion, based on a review of the
project and environmental documentation, that approval of the
proposed project and adoption of the current mitigated negative
declaration would violate the California Environmental Quality
Act ( "CEQAII) (Public Resources Code § 21000 et sea.) , State
Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code § 65300 et sea.), and
the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code §66410 et sea.).
The City has already granted tentative permission for
early termination of the Williamson Act contract for the Nelson
Gardens Property. Project applicant Trinity now seeks to
subdivide two hillside parcels totaling 5.1 acres - -a substantial
portion of which is on steep hillside- -into nine single - family
residential building sites. The project consists-,of two
"Phases." Phase one, the subject of the pending - ubdivision
application and the Planning Commission's Initial Study, involves
construction of seven single - family homes ranging from 3,710 to
4,050 sq. ft. in size on lots ranging from 12,500 to 15,000 sq.
ft. on the lower portion of the Nelson Gardens Property. Phase
two, the subject of an intended future subdivision application,
would involve construction of two homes on lots of 40,000 sq. ft.
minimum on the steep hillside portion of the Nelson Gardens
Property.
CEQA prohibits the City of Saratoga from adopting a
mitigated negative declaration for this two -phase project without
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 2
ensuring that all potentially significant environmental effects
are mitigated to a level of insignificance. California Public
Resources Code § 21080(c)(1); see also 14 California Code of
Regulations § 15063(b)(2)( 110EQA Guidelines ") . Despite this legal
mandate, the Initial Study and accompanying documentation reveal
that the proposed project has many potentially significant
environmental impacts which have not been identified or
adequately mitigated. These include impacts on native plant
species (particularly oak trees) and wildlife; subjection of
people and property to geologic hazards and flooding;
exacerbation of existing traffic circulation problems; aesthetic
impacts; and inconsistency with Saratoga's General Plan.
Compounding its error in failing to adequately analyze
each of these impacts, Saratoga has impermissibly segmented its
analysis of project impacts by analyzing the Williamson Act
cancellation, Phase 1, and Phase 2 of the project separately.
This approach ignores CEQA's requirement to analyze the "whole of
the action" in one environmental document. CEQA Guidelines
§ 15378(a). The Williamson Act cancellation was a necessary
prerequisite to development, and there are significant cumulative
impacts of these three intimately related development phases that
Saratoga ignores by dividing the project into three separate
components.
In addition to these substantive violations of CEQA,
the City has violated CEQA's procedural requirements. CEQA
mandates that a lead agency send notice of its intent to adopt a
negative declaration, together with a copy of a proposed negative
declaration, "to every . . . Trustee Agency concerned with the
project and every other public agency with jurisdiction by law
over resources affected by a project." Guidelines § 15073(b).
The Guidelines define a "Trustee Agency" as "a state agency
having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a
project which are held in trust for the people of the State of
California." Guidelines § 15386. By failing to send notice to
the California Department of Fish and Game, trustee of the
State's fish and wildlife resources, the City has'violated this
CEQA requirement.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration currently proposed
for the project thus fails to comply with numerous CEQA
requirements. As detailed below, because substantial evidence
demonstrates that development of the Nelson Gardens Property will
have significant environmental impacts, CEQA requires that
Saratoga prepare an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") before
approving the project. The Commission should accordingly direct
the planning staff to prepare an EIR on the significant
environmental impacts that may result from Phase 1 and Phase 2 of
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 3
the proposed subdivision.
Finally, the proposed project is inconsistent with the
Saratoga General Plan and the relevant Area Plan, such that
project approval would violate both State Planning and Zoning Law
and the Subdivision Map Act.
I. THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
FAILS TO COMPLY WITH CEQA.
CEQA provides that the City may issue a Negative
Declaration only if "[t]here is no substantial evidence before
the agency that the project may have a significant effect on the
environment." California Public Resources Code § 21080(c)(1);
see also CEQA Guidelines § 15063(b)(2). In making this
determination, the City must consider both the direct and
indirect effects of the project (Guidelines § 15064(d)) as well
as its cumulative effects. Citv of Antioch v. Citv Council of
Pittsburgh, 187 Cal.App.3d 1325 (1986) .
Both the courts and the CEQA Guidelines make clear that
even when there are conflicting opinions regarding the \.
significance of an impact, the City must treat the impact as
significant. Guidelines § 15064(g)(1). The California Supreme ,
Court has held that an EIR must be prepared whenever an agency is
presented with a "fair argument" that a project may have a
significant effect on the environment, even if there is also
substantial evidence to indicate that the impact is not
significant. No Oil Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 13 Cal.3d 68,
75 (1974).
As discussed below, the Mitigated Negative Declaration
prepared for the project is based on a wholly inadequate Initial
Study which failed to consider the numerous adverse environmental
impacts associated with this project. In addition, the project
conditions seek to improperly defer cons ideration'of important
environmental effects until after project approvali. To remedy
these shortcomings, the City must prepare an EIR before further
considering the project.
A. The Initial Study Is Inadequate.
CEQA requires a government agency to prepare an EIR
whenever a proposed project "may have a significant effect on the
environment." Public Resources Code § 21100. Where an agency
ultimately decides not to prepare an EIR, the Initial Study must
"[p]rovide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in
a Negative Declaration that a project will not have a significant
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 4
effect on the environment." Guidelines § 15063(c)(5).
The Initial Study prepared for this project hardly
provides such "documentation." The Study consists largely of an
environmental checklist declaring all potential impacts to be
insignificant, or mitigable to a level of insignificance, with
barely any discussion or supporting material to substantiate its
conclusions. As such, the Initial Study fails to support the
Planning Commission's decision not to prepare an EIR.
The courts have made clear that a checklist alone will
not satisfy CEQA's requirements. In Citizens Association for
Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Invo, for
example, the court held that a checklist approach was an
acceptable first step, but that agencies "must also disclose the
data or evidence upon which the person(s) conducting the study
relied." 172 Cal.App.3d 151, 171 (1985). See also Sundstrom v.
Mendocino County, 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 305 (1988) (checklist
initial study did not demonstrate good faith effort to comply
with CEQA). The existing Initial Study's superficial and
conclusory notations regarding possible project impacts do not
substantially distinguish it from the initial studies rejected by
these courts.
Given the wide range of potential environmental impacts
discussed below, such as project impacts on trees, wildlife,
geology, hydrology and traffic, as well as project inconsistency
with the Saratoga General Plan, the failure of the Initial Study
to address such effects and to provide documentation supporting
the Initial Study's conclusions clearly violates the requirements
of CEQA. The existing Initial Study thus provides no basis for
certifying a Negative Declaration.
B. The Project Requires an EIR Because There is
Substantial Evidence That it May Have a Significant
Impact.
The CEQA Guidelines itemize impacts norfially considered
"significant" in Appendix G. Courts have repeatedly found that
where a project may have one or more of the impacts identified in
Appendix G, an agency must prepare an EIR. See, e.g., City of
Antioch v. Citv Council of Pittsburgh, 187 Cal.App.3d 1325, 1337
(1986) (extension of a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new
development); Pistoresi v. City of Madera, 138 Cal.App.3d 284,
288 (1982) (growth inducing impacts); Lewis v. Seventeenth
District Agricultural Association, 165 Cal.App.3d 823, 829 n.7
(1985) (increased noise levels).
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 5
The Nelson Gardens subdivision project has several
potential impacts that are specifically itemized in Appendix G as
presumptively "significant," including the following:
(1) The subdivision
environmental plans and goals
located." Appendix G(a).
will "[c]onflict with adopted
of the community where it is
(2) The subdivision will "[h]ave a substantial,
demonstrable negative aesthetic effect." Appendix G(b).
(3) The subdivision will "[c]ause an increase in
traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system." Appendix G(1).
(4) The subdivision will "[e]xpose people or structures
to major geologic hazards." Appendix G(r).
(5) The subdivision will "substantially diminish
habitat for . . . wildlife [and] plants." Appendix G(t).
As discussed below, the approval of the project as
currently conceived will result in significant adverse
environmental impacts, including, but not limited to, impacts on
vegetation, wildlife, geologic stability, hydrology, traffic
flow, aesthetics, and incompatibility with the General Plan and
Area B Specific Plan.
1. Vegetation
The Initial Study checklist contains a woefully
superficial and misleading analysis of the proposed project's
impacts on plant life, and particularly, potential project
impacts on'native trees. The checklist notes only that there
"may be" a "[c]hange in the diversity pf species, or number of
species of plants," and states that although "some" of the 3.1
acres of native and ornamental planting will be removed, this
vegetation "will be replaced with native planting and will not
result in a long term adverse change in the environment." The
Study fails to even consider vegetation impacts on the remaining
2.0 acres that will be affected by Phase 2 of the subdivision
project. The checklist indicates there will be "no" reduction in
numbers of "any unique, rare or endangered species of plants."
This is emphatically not the case. To the contrary,
substantial evidence demonstrates that the project may
significantly impact vegetation. The subject property is home to
more than 120 trees, including eight healthy Valley Oak trees. A
ninth Valley Oak is very close to the property line of proposed
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 6
Lot 6. Of California's nine species of tree oaks, the Valley Oak
is described as "the monarch of California oaks by virtue of its
size, age, and beauty." Bruce M. Pavlik, et. at., Oaks in
California at 10 (Cachuma Press, 1991). Abundant until the
1880s, "Valley Oaks have [since] been victims of widespread
agricultural and residential development on prime, lowland real
estate." Id. at 11. Extensive habitat conversion combined with
poor regeneration rates has made Valley Oaks one of three
California oak species that oak experts consider to be "oaks of
special concern." Id. at 125. Today, groves of Valley Oak are
scarce enough that without aggressive oak preservation efforts,
"[this] regal California heritage may soon be lost." Id.
The City of Saratoga General Plan clearly recognizes
the importance of oak conservation. The Plan's statement,of
"Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures" for its
Conservation Element states that "in the process of all new
development, particular care should be taken to preserve native
oaks, measuring at least ten inches in diameter at twenty -four
inches above the ground." Section C.O. 2.5 at 2 -17. The plan
further identifies as an "Important" goal that the City "[m]odify
the Tree Preservation Ordinance to require tree removal permits
for native oaks measuring 10 inches in diameter or greater." Id.
Despite the critical importance of preserving
California's remaining Valley Oaks, and the City of Saratoga's
express embracement of that goal, the Initial Study and Negative
Declaration fail to acknowledge that the project will have a
significant impact on vegetation due to development of the
property and associated construction. Nor do the Negative
Declaration or Initial Study propose adoption of mitigation
measures to reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
The proposed project will have a significant impact on
Valley Oak trees. The proposed building footprints and driveway
configurations (particularly the driveways for lots 8 and 9) will
result in direct destruction of oaks as well as nEgative impacts
associated with construction of the subdivision. 'Construction
activities themselves often kill oaks. Oaks are extremely
vulnerable to construction damage because 90% of their roots are
found within the first three feet of soil, and up to 70% of those
are found within the top 8 -12 inches. Further, landscaping
typically associated with subdivisions often disturbs much of the
root system and competes for available water and minerals.
The Saratoga General Plan's oak policy requires that
care be taken to preserve all of the subject property's Valley
Oaks. Proposed mitigation measures do not adequately protect
these trees -- either from removal or from destruction by
41111
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 7
construction activities. The vague mitigation condition in the
"Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga
Approving Tentative Map" to the effect that "[f]uture homes shall
be sited and designed to minimize . . . the removal of
significant existing native trees" is insufficient to guarantee
protection of the 8 on -site and one near -site Valley Oaks, or
even preservation of Valley Oaks #11 and r12, the two trees
explicitly recommended for protection in the horticultural report
recently prepared by Barrie D. Coate and Associates on which the
Initial Study relied. The proposed mitigation clearly does not
reduce project impacts on Valley Oaks to a level of
insignificance.
Any mitigation conditions should include a requirement
that all Valley Oaks be preserved. In addition to prohibiting
cutting of any Valley Oaks, the Planning Commission should
specify how oaks are to be preserved during construction.
Mitigation requirements should include, for example, erection of
barriers around all oak trees during construction, no
interference or landscaping within the dripline of an oak tree,
no compaction from construction activities, no introduction of
non - native species, preconditioning prior to construction,
prevention of grade changes or stand ng.water, and tunneling for
utilities to prevent root damage.
Oaks are not the only native species potentially
adversely impacted by the proposed Nelson Gardens Property
subdivision., however. In addition to the large native Valley
Oaks, there is "evidence that [other] native species are
recolonizing the site . . . [such that] the garden is slowly]
returning to the Coast Live Oak [Quercus aQrifolia] Community
found in the nearby hills." Harvey & Stanley Associates, "Nelson
Foundation Property Wildlife Assessment" at 6 (1988). Thus,
there is substantial evidence that the project will have
significant impacts not only on oaks but on other native species.
The existing Initial Study fails to identify or mitigate these
significant impacts. ,
2. Wildlife
There is substantial evidence that the proposed
subdivision will have significant effects on wildlife. CEQA
mandates that where a project will "substantially reduce"
habitat, the impacts to wildlife must be considered significant.
CEQA Guidelines § 15065, Appendix G(d) & (t). Conversion of 5
acres of open space habitat known to contain deer and numerous
other wildlife species is a substantial reduction of local
wildlife habitat.
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 8
The Initial Study and Negative Declaration assert that
the project will not have a significant effect on wildlife.
However, the Initial Study admits that there may be
"[d]eterioration to existing wildlife or fish habitat." Without
any analysis of possible project impacts on species diversity or
on the number of individual animals, the City has no basis for
concluding that wildlife impacts can be mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
The Initial Study relied on a seven -year -old, extremely
superficial biological survey (the "Nelson Foundation Property
Wildlife Assessment" conducted by Harvey and Stanley Associates
in 1988) prepared for a developer in conjunction with another
project proposed for this site, and inaccurately characterized
that assessment's few findings.
The 1988 Wildlife Assessment was recently updated by
the same consultants. Although the updated assessment represents
a substantial improvement on the earlier version, and indicates
the presence of several wildlife species on the property that
were previously overlooked, the updated assessment does not
correct the dubious premises of the earlier one.
For example, the recent assessment, like the earlier
assessment, concludes that wildlife impacts are not likely to be
significant because other deer habitat can still be found in the
vicinity of the proposed project. See 1995 Assessment at 16.
The assessment does not discuss the possibility that deer
relocation (if such indeed occurs) may cause wildlife over-
crowding on other properties, so the assessment cannot support
the Initial Study's statement that there will be no "[c]hange in
the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals"
as a result of developing this 5.1 -acre parcel. Initial Study,
Section II(5)(a). It is impossible to tell with current data
whether there would be an aggregate change in the "numbers of any
species of animals."
More fundamental, however, is that deer' are not the
only fauna using the site. Appendix A to the 1988 Wildlife
Assessment lists more than fifty species predicted to occur on
the subject property, and more than twenty -five actually
observed. The 1995 study lists additional species likely to
occur on the Nelson Gardens Property. Saratoga residents have
observed grey foxes and their young on the Property, as well as
other wildlife. Nowhere, however, are the habitat requirements
for any of these other species addressed.
A further, critical problem with the existing
"analysis" of wildlife impacts is that treating all of Saratoga's
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 9
"woodland habitats" as fungible ignores the requirements for
maintaining a viable ecosystem on the unbuilt portions of the
subject property. As an example, Stellar's Jays, Scrub Jays and
Yellow - billed Magpies - -which researchers determined probably
occur on the subject property - -can be critical to oak
regeneration. These are the only three California bird species
that cache acorns in the ground; when they forget some of their
buried acorns, these have a chance to sprout into oak seedlings.
Even if nearby habitats may provide habitat for these birds
(which has not been demonstrated) , these species would cease to
play their vital role in helping to sustain the Nelson Gardens
oak community. See Oaks in California, p. 85.
Beyond the failure to adequately consider impacts to
deer, impacts to other wildlife, and secondary impacts to
vegetative communities due to ecosystem alterations, the Initial
Study assessment of,wildlife impacts is implicitly based on an
incorrect, and indeed legally impermissible premise: that
incremental destruction of habitat is not significant, so long as
some suitable wildlife habitat remains. This violates CEQA's
command that cumulative impacts be factored into environmental
decision making.
Finally, neither the Initial Study, the 1988 Wildlife
Assessment, nor the 1995 update of that assessment identifies the
precise location of the supposed "deer habitat" nearby. Further,
even if such currently undeveloped "habitat" still exists, unless
it is dedicated open space, it too will be vulnerable to
development. It is thus unclear whether other, nearby woodland
will be able to provide the long -term surrogate habitat claimed.
3. Geoloav
The Initial Study Checklist states that the proposed
project will result in no "[e]xposure of people or property to
geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure or similar hazards." Initial Study.., Section
II(1)(g). This conclusion is entirely unsupporte$ by evidence,
having been reached in advance of conducting a geological
evaluation of the entire property involved in Phase 1 and Phase 2
of the proposed project. This objection to the Initial Study's
approach was raised repeatedly in the Planning Commission meeting
of June 14, 1995. For example, Commissioner Caldwell queried how
the staff could check "no" in the initial study under
geotechnical sections la and lb if the Commission did not know
whether the upper lots would receive geotechnical clearance,
given that geotechnical impacts on the lower lots may be affected
by what is found on the upper lots. Planning Commission Minutes
at 23. Commissioner Patrick and Commissioner Kaplan expressed
t=
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 10
similar concern over the "piecemeal" manner in which 'the entire
geotechnical evaluation was being conducted. Id.
This piecemeal approach is particularly troubling
because earthquake hazards associated with the subject property
may expose people and property to serious risk. A 1995 map
produced by the Association of Bay Area Governments ( "ABAG")
indicating Modified Mercalli Intensity for an earthquake of
Richter magnitude 7.1 shows that the subject property would be
subject to "Heavy" shaking and damage in such an earthquake. See
Exhibit A, attached hereto. More significant, the property is
immediately adjacent to one of the very few areas in Saratoga
designated as vulnerable to "Extreme" damage in such a quake.
Given the ABAG map's caution that "[i]ntensities may be incorrect
by one unit higher or lower," it is quite conceivable that the
"Extreme" hazard area actually extends below the subject
property. An EIR must be prepared to analyze the potential
impacts of building a subdivision in such a geologically unstable
area.
Landslides, mudslides, or ground failure may also occur
on the subject property as a result of slope destabilization
induced by hillside construction, and /or increased surface water
runoff (see "Hydrology," below). These hazards should similarly
be the subject of full investigation before project approval.
4. Hvdrolocv
Landowners adjacent to the proposed subdivision
property have long complained of basement flooding problems. The
Initial Study admits that "[w]ater run -off will increase as a
result of increased impervious surfaces associated with the
development of homes, driveways, patios, etc.," but concludes
this project impact is insignificant because it will be
"controlled to an acceptable level by the City's lot coverage
limitations." Initial Study, Section II(9)(b). Given the
already existing drainage problems in the immedia -te vicinity of
the proposed development, however, the City has filed to provide
any support for its belief that this impact is mitigable. For
example, runoff from lot 8 will drain into a drain pipe already
insufficient to accommodate existing runoff.
The City should accordingly require a thorough hydrologic
assessment of the subject property prior to project approval.
5. Traffic
When assessing the impacts of the proposed project, the
City must assess not only the impacts of the individual project
at hand, but also the "incremental impact of the project when
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 11
added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from
individually minor but collectively significant projects taking
place over a period of time." CEQA Guidelines § 15355(b). As
one court wrote:
The purpose of this requirement is obvious:
consideration of the effects of a project or projects as if
no others existed would encourage the piecemeal approval of
several projects that, taken together, could overwhelm the
natural environment and disastrously overburden the man -made
infrastructure and vital community services. This would
effectively defeat CEQA's mandate to review the actual
effect of the projects upon the environment.
Las V raenes Homeowners Fed'n. Inc. v. County or Los Angeles,
177 Cal.App.3d 300, 306 (1986). See also, Kings County, 221
Cal.App.3d 692 (EIR for coal fired cogeneration facility must
analyze other similar though independent projects planned in the
San Joaquin Valley).
The Initial Study erroneously failed to identify the
proposed project's significant effect on traffic congestion in
the immediate vicinity, as well as cumulative traffic impacts
resulting from traffic generation from the project in conjunction
with other existing and future projects. The Specific Plan for
Area B, the area containing the proposed project site, is an area
already plagued by congestion problems. The Area B Plan
expresses concern over "through traffic in the neighborhoods
which seem[s] to be a result of extensive hillside development"
(id.)-- precisely the type of development currently proposed. The
principal access to the subject property is via Saratoga
Sunnyvale Road, a road described in the Area Plan as already
having "intolerable traffic." Area B Plan at 4 -4. The Area B
Specific Plan indicates that even at current development levels,
"residents are concerned with the noise, pollution and safety
hazards presented by the ever - increasing traffic "'on Saratoga
Sunnyvale Road, and states explicitly that "[f]or this reason,
there is opposition to development that will create more trips tc
and from Saratoga Sunnyvale Road." Id.
The proposed project, by generating approximately 90
additional vehicle -trips per day (based on an average of 10 trips
per day per household), would markedly aggravate these problems.
The cumulative effect of this project in conjunction with traffic
from existing development and other approved or pending
subdivision applications in the area, such as that submitted for
a 12 -unit subdivision at 13121 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, will be
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 12
significant. In light of the long- recognized and likely
worsening.traffic problem, the City must identify traffic impacts
as potentially significant, analyze the traffic impacts in an
EIR, and propose mitigation measures to address this project's
contribution to cumulative traffic impacts.
6. Visual Imnacts /Aesthetics
Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines states that. "[a]
project will normally have a significant effect on the
environment if it will . . . (b) Have a substantial, demonstrable
negative aesthetic effect." A California appellate court has
specifically held that the visual impact of a proposed
residential subdivision can constitute such an effect. In Ouail
Botanical Gardens v. Encinas, 29 Cal.App.4th 1597 (1994), the
court stated that "the CEQA Guidelines essentially establish a
rebuttable presumption [that] any substantial, negative aesthetic
effect is to be considered a significant environmental impact for
CEQA purposes." The court held that because defendant City could
not have concluded (based on the record before it) that "its
mitigation measures clearly would reduce impacts below a level of
significance," the City erred in certifying a mitigated negative
declaration. Id. at 1604.
The development of the Nelson Gardens property will
result in unavoidable visual impacts that the City of Saratoga
has similarly failed to identify or mitigate. The Nelson Gardens
Property provides acres of open space in the midst of residential
development. See Exhibit B, attached hereto. Clearly,
conversion of 5.1 acres of agricultural land containing more than
120 mature trees and abundant wildlife to a residential
subdivision will have a negative aesthetic impact. This loss of
local open space adds to the cumulative effect of subdivision
approvals on Saratoga's visual character. Recent subdivision
approvals for parcel 397 -16 -141 (2.96 acres) and parcel 397 -16 -6
(10.79 acres) on Douglass Lane, and the pending subdivision
application for 13121 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road if approved, are
making green, open spaces a scarce commodity in Saratoga.
Approval of the Nelson Gardens subdivision application
will also specifically negatively impact the views of surrounding
neighbors and the community as well as block sweeping views of
the Santa Clara Valley and mountains beyond. The planned
subdivision houses, which will have footprints considerably
larger in relation to lot size than existing homes on adjacent
properties, will be discordant with the layout of the area.
Further, the proposed subdivision will be aesthetically
incompatible with adjacent properties by allowing construction of
three two -story houses (lots 7, 8, and 9) in a neighborhood
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 13
consisting almost exclusively of one -story houses.
Potential aesthetic impacts have been described in
correspondence submitted by and oral testimony by members of the
community. For example, Gary L. Nemetz told the Planning
Commission that the number of proposed parcels and type of homes
the project applicant proposes would be "out of character with"
and "incompatible with" existing homes to the South and East on
Trinity Avenue and Pontiac Avenue, providing an "unaesthetic
contrast." Letter to the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
June 4, 1995 (appended to Staff Report). Bud Alexander, who
resides across the street from the proposed development,
testified that he "did not believe that the construction of
compatible homes to that of the existing single family homes in
terms of massing, size and styling would be possible." Planning
Commission Minutes, June 14, 1995, at 27.
The Initial Study fails to identify, and the Mitigated
Negative Declaration fails to adequately mitigate these aesthetic
impacts. These project- specific and cumulative impacts must be
considered in an EIR.
7. Inconsistencv with the General Plan
Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines provides that "[a]
project will normally have a significant effect on the
environment if it will: (a) Conflict with adopted environmental
plans and goals of the community where it is located." Because
the Nelson Gardens subdivision does not comply with the Saratoga
General Plan (see Section II, below), the project will have a
significant effect, thus requiring preparation of an EIR.
8. Construction impacts
The noise and traffic from constructing nine homes in a
residential neighborhood is a potentially significant impact to
adjacent landowners. The increased traffic associated with
transporting materials and workers to the construction site will
compound the traffic congestion problem identified above.
Furthermore, construction will create significant noise impacts
in this quiet residential neighborhood. The City has failed to
identify or mitigate either of these potentially significant
impacts.
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 14
C. Mitigation Measures Incorporated Into the Negative
Declaration are Not Supported by Substantial Evidence,
and Do Not Reduce Impacts to a Level of Insignificance.
When a lead agency relies on mitigation measures to
find that project impacts will be reduced to a level of
insignificance, there must be substantial evidence in the record
demonstrating that the measures are feasible and will be
effective. Public Resources Code § 21051.5; Guidelines
§ 15125(c) ; Kings County, 221 Cal.App.3d at 726. The negative
declaration for the proposed project purports to rely on a number
of mitigation measures to reduce project impacts below a level of
significance, but the document provides no information
demonstrating why these measures would be effective or feasible.
Further, the Initial Study erroneously concludes that in many
categories there will be no significant environmental impacts,
and thus fails to analyze ways to mitigate probable impacts.
The few mitigation measures currently referenced in the
negative declaration are extremely vague, and do not adecrsately
mitigate the numerous significant impacts identified in Section
I(B), above. For example, the mitigation measures state that
future homes shall be sited and designed to "minimize . . .
removal of significant Frees," implying that some significant
trees may be removed, and further failing to identify how many
trees are cpnsidered "significant."
The vague condition recruiring "landscape plans" for
each new home aonlication fails to address the need to make
landscaping compatible with existing vegetation so as to avoid
resource competition between existing oaks and new plantings.
The provision that individual lot coverages "may" be reduced to a
level lower than the maximum allowable for the assigned zoning
district designation is too indefinite to guarantee that new
houses will be compatible with existing houses. The proposed
limitation on fencing does not mitigate wildlife impacts to a
level of insignificance.
Conspicuously omitted from consideration are the need
to mitigate the potentially significant impacts on noise and
traffic, and the increase in surface water runoff that was
explicitly identified in the Initial Study. There is also no
discussion of geologic hazards mitigation, despite evidence that
this area is subject to heavy shaking in a major earthquake.
Although it is doubtful that currently proposed
mitigation measures could adequately address the impacts of the
project identified in the Initial Study, and those that should
have been identified, the Initial Study's approach suffers from a
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 15
more fundamental problem. CEQA requires the completion of all
environmental studies and the proposal of specific mitigation
measures before project approval. Guidelines section 15070(b)
provides that preparation of a mitigated negative declaration is
only permissible where:
The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects
but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by
or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed Negative
Declaration is released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no
significant effects would occur. [Emphasis added].
See also Sundstrom v. Mendocino County, 202 Cal.App.3d 296 (1988)
(needed or proposed mitigation measures must be incorporated into
a proposed negative declaration and the project revised
accordingly before a negative declaration is released for public
comment); Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of
� !94 (CEQA prohibits a city from
Encinitas, 2g Ca1.App.4�. h 1597 ( -- 0 )
relying on post - approval mitigation measures adopted during
subdivision design review process.to validate a negative
declaration).
The Saratoga City Planning Commission has impermissibly
deferred both significance determinations (such as determination
of any effects of hillside geologic hazards on the lower lots)
and design of mitigation measures (such as requiring preservation
of all oaks and protection of trees from construction damage).
An additional problem with this approach, which permits post -
approval study and mitigation- design, is that it undermines
CEQA's requirement that there be an opportunity for public review
of impacts analysis and proposed mitigation.
Because the City has failed to require full pre -
approval analysis of potential project impacts, and has failed to
identify specific mitigation measures that will address all known
and knowable potential impacts, the existing negative declaration
is legally inadequate.
D. The Initial study Does Not contain a Mitigation
Monitoring Program.
CEQA requires that agencies
monitoring program" for any mitigation
a project or imposed as a condition of
§ 21081.6(a). The Initial Study for t
legally inadequate insofar as it fails
monitoring program.
adopt a "reporting or
measures incorporated into
approval. CEQA
he proposed project is
to include a mitigation
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 16
E. The Environmental Review is Impermissibly Segmented.
The proposed negative declaration for the Nelson Gardens
subdivision project illegally segments the City's environmental
review process. CEQA defines "project" to mean "the whole of an
action" that may result in a direct or indirect physical change
in the environment. CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a). CEQA "mandates
that environmental considerations do not become submerged by
chopping a large project into many little ones - -each with a . . .
potential impact on the environment - -which cumulatively may have
disastrous consequences." Citv of Santee v. Countv of San Diecro,
214 Cal.App.3d 1438, 1452 (1989). By considering the Williamson
Act cancellation, Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the development project
separately, the City has run afoul of this mandate.
The prohibition on project segmentation has both a
spacial and a temporal dimension. Spacially, two logically
related contiguous land uses must be analyzed as a single
project. For example, in Plan for Arcadia, Inc. v. Arcadia City,
Council, 42 Cal. App. 3d 712, 736 (1974) , the court held that
proposed shopping center and parking lot projects were related
and should be regarded as a single project for purposes of CEQA.
Temporally, CEQA reauires that a project be analyzed in full at
the outset, rather than in small sequential bites such that the
magnitude of the project's impacts may only become evident once
the project has gained irreversible momentum.
CEQA thus dictates that all steps of the proposed
project- -the Williamson Act cancellation, and phases 1 and 2 of
site development- -must be analyzed in one environmental document
for CEQA purposes, and the analysis must take place before the
first step (Williamson Act cancellation) is permitted. Instead,
however, the City has chopped up its analysis both temporally
(considering the Williamson Act cancellation and site development
as separate) and spacially (considering development of flat land
( "Phase 111) and adjacent hillside land ( "Phase 211) as separate
projects). ,
The City Council justified failure to analyze the
environmental impacts of its tentative cancellation of the
Williamson Act Contract on the logic that there is no potential
for a single negative environmental impact to result from such a
decision, because:
In this case, the project consists only of the consideration
of the cancellation of the Williamson Act contract. The
cancellation (i.e. the project) only affects the tax status
of the site and does not, in [and] of itself, approve any
development of the site.
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 17
Paul L. Curtis, Community Development Director, letter to
Saratoga City Council (April 5, 1995).
The City planning staff then compounded the
segmentation problem by deciding that Phase 1 of the development
could be evaluated even before Phase 2 geotechnical studies were
completed. The staff report stated that staff had "no concerns
with doing this," implying that Phase 1 and Phase 2 could also be
treated as separate projects for analytic and CEQA purposes.
James Walgren, "Report to the Planning Commission" (June 14,
1995) , p.000 S8.
The City's analytic approach is clearly proscribed by
the City's own "Project Description" in the Negative Declaration
for the Williamson Act Tentative Cancellation, however. In the
Negative Declaration, the City Council describes the whole
"project" as consisting of:
Tentative cancellation of Williamson Act Contract. . . in
order to consider a General Plan and Zoning-Ordinance-
designation amendment and subdivision.-of the property into
nine (9) residential lots. (Emphasis added.).
Declaration That Environmental Impact Report Not. Required
( "Negative Declaration ") , March 16, 1995.
Thus, the Declaration flatly acknowledged that the
Williamson Act cancellation is a necessary precursor to site
development, and would be granted specifically for that purpose.
Similarly, In "Exhibit C" ( "Proposed Facts and Findings Under the
Williamson Act Supporting Cancellation "), the City Council noted
its "finding" that "[tlhe property cannot be sold for residential
development until the agricultural restrictions are lifted."
The City's own documents and CEQA point in the same
direction: because the Williamoson Act cancellation, Phase 1 and
Phase 2 of the proposed subdivision are integrally related parts
of a process that will convert agricultural land into a
residential subdivision, they may not be treated as separate
projects for environmental review purposes.
The Question is not merely whether any one of the
project components by itself has substantial impacts; it is
whether there is "substantial evidence that any aspect of the
project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a
significant effect on the environment" so as to trigger the
requirement of EIR preparation. Guidelines § 15063(b) (emphasis
added). Without analyzing all project components together, the
City has no basis for concluding that the totality of project
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 18
impacts are not of sufficient magnitude to require an EIR.
Indeed, as a result of the impermissible segmentation of the
project, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration underestimate
the totality of the project's vegetation, wildlife, geological,
hydrological, traffic, and aesthetic impacts.
Furthermore, as a result of segmentation, the City will
accept the Williamson Act contract cancellation as a given, and
consider whether, in light of the fact that there is no longer a
Williamson Act contract, a residential development is
appropriate: In City of Carmel -By- The -Sea v. Board of
Supervisors of Monterey, 183 Cal.App.3d 229 (1986), a court
stated that a zoning change to an environmentally sensitive area
should not be made without a full environmental analysis, even if
an EIR would ultimately be prepared for any development project,
because:
[a] later EIR regarding a development project on the
property would treat the zoning as a fait accompli, and
would not need to address either the density designation or
the definition and demarcation of the wetlands.
Id. at 251 -52. Similarly, in the present case the City's inquiry
should have been framed comprehensively at the outset: "What will
be the combined environmental effects of permitting premature
cancellation of a Williamson Act contract and conversion of 5.1
acres of agricultural open space to residential development in a
City that, according to its own General Plan, is already 85%
developed ?"
F. Conclusion.
In sum, the City's superficial and conclusory Initial
Study checklist failed to identify many of the above - identified,
potentially significant impacts as even "maybe" significant. The
Study also summarily discounted the need for fundamental project
redesign to mitigate the few potential impacts it did identify.
An agency cannot hide behind its own failure to i�5entify impacts,
however. Nor can it postpone analysis of potentially significant
impacts until after the tentative map is approved. CEQA requires
a thorough, early consideration of all potential environmental
impacts before a lead agency may even contemplate adopting a
negative declaration. See Guidelines § 15070(b). The City of
Saratoga must thus prepare an EIR that analyzes the project's
significant impacts, proposes mitigation measures to minimize
those impacts, and considers alternatives to the proposed
project.
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 19
II. APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT WOULD VIOLATE GENERAL PLAN LAW
BECAUSE THE PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN.
The heart of State Planning and Zoning Law is its
requirement that land use projects approved by a local government
be consistent with that government's adopted general plan.
deBottari v. Norco City Council, 171 Cal.App.3d 1204, 1213
(1985). A city's general plan serves as the "constitution" for
all future development in that City. Lesher Communications, Inc.
v. Citv of Walnut Creek, 52 Cal.3d 531, 539 -40 (1990). Thus, any
subdivision or other development project that the Saratoga
Planning Commission approves must be consistent with the City's
general plan.
The proposed Nelson Gardens subdivision is inconsistent
with the Saratoga General Plan, and most conspicuously, with its
recently updated Open Space Element (1993). The Element notes
that through use of a community survey, "[t]he City of Saratoga
has recently confirmed the community's appreciation and desire to
preserve and enhance the City's existing character and open
spaces in and around the City." Open Space Element at 1. The
Element states that agriculture preserves under the Williamson
Act "add not only to the perception of open spaces within the
City, but also serve as a vital link between the modern City and
its agricultural past." Id. at 6.
Most significant, the Element states as an explicit
"Policy" that "[t]he City shall discourage the early cancellation
of Williamson Act contracts." Id. at 12. Indeed, the Element
contains a discussion of various "Incentives to Agricultural Land
Owners" to encourage them to continue such uses. Id. at 14.
Cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract for and
development on land that includes steep hillsides is a
particularly egregious General Plan violation. The General Plan
states that "hillsides and the valley provide Saratoga with its
prime macroscale views. Therefore, development mist include
careful study of the effect on scenic open space." Id. at 15.
The Conservation Element similarly stresses the need to
"[c]ontrol the density of development in hill areas . . . to
protect . . . the aesthetic qualities of the city." Conservation
Element at 2 -26. Given that 850 of Saratoga is already developed
(General Plan at 3 -36), the cancellation of the Williamson Act
Contract for a 5.1 -acre tract is a non - trivial conflict with the
open space preservation philosophy and policies embodied in the
General Plan.
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 20
As expressed by Saratoga resident F.L. Stutzman, M.D.:
The General Plan of Saratoga envisioned many small community
parks. These were to be areas for the very young, for
mothers with children, and for the elderly . . We need
more of these . . . . we also need more large parks or areas
of open space. We, by state standards, should have three
acres of park land for each one thousand residents. We have
less than one half of that, and where are we going to make
up the deficit?
Testimony to the City .Council re: Williamson Act Contract
cancellation.
Beyond a general desire to preserve what little open
space remains in Saratoga, the community's opposition to.this
particular proposed subdivision stems from decades of legitimate
expectation that the Nelson Gardens Property would never be
developed. Frank Nelson deeded his 5.1 -acre parcel of land to
The Nature Conservancy between 1971 and 1976, at which time both
parties determined that the highest and best use of the property
was for agricultural purposes. The,Conservancy owned the
property and maintained it in its natural state until 1977, when
it transferred the property to the California State Parks
Foundation. That Foundation continued to own the land until
1984. During this entire period, the property was maintained as
an agricultural preserve open to the public. When financial
pressures induced the State Parks Foundation to transfer Nelson
Gardens to the Florence Nelson Foundation, the transferee passed
a resolution indicating that it would maintain and preserve the
property in a manner consistent with Mr. Nelson's intentions.
After more than two decades of efforts to keep this property in
its agricultural preserve use, it would be a tragedy for Saratoga
to allow the project applicant to undermine the presevation
intent of the grantor and successi r
ve grantees.
Subdivision of the Nelson Gardens Property is also
inconsistent with the Land Use element's express 40al of
preserving native species of plants. The Land Use Element-
explicitly states that "[t]he preservation of native and other
vegetative species indicative of Saratoga's cultural heritage
shall be given priority over development and provide for the
perpetuation of such species." Id. at 15, item 12
(1993)(emphasis added).
Furthermore, as already discussed above, the proposed
subdivision violates key goals and policies of the City's General
Plan relating to preservation of oak, trees and minimization of
traffic impacts. Thus, the proposed project not only violates.
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 21
grantor Frank Nelson's initial wish to see this parcel maintained.
as agricultural open space, decades of stewardship of the site in
this manner, and the community's desire to see this parcel
protected: it violates the letter of the Saratoga General Plan.
The City should consider use of the property as a
public garden, which would be consistent with both Mr. Nelson's
vision for the property and the City's General Plan.
III. APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT WOULD VIOLATE THE SUBDIVISION MAP
ACT BECAUSE THE PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL
PLAN.
Government Code section 66473.5, a section of the
Subdivision Map Act, provides that:
No local agency shall approve a tentative map, or a parcel
map for which a tentative map was not required, unless the
legislative body finds that the proposed subdivision,
together with the provisions for its design and improvement,
is consistent with the general plan. A proposed subdivision
shall be consistent with a general plan. . .•only if. . .
the proposed subdivision is compatible with the objectives,
policies, general land uses and programs specified in such a
plan.
Because the proposed Nelson Gardens subdivision is inconsistent
with the Saratoga General Plan (see Section II, above), approval
of this project would violate the Subdivision Map Act.
For the foregoing reasons, The Friends of The Nelson
Garden Foundation requests that the City of Saratoga defer action
on this subdivision application and request for a general plan
amendment and zoning change until the City prepares an EIR that
fully complies with CEQA.
Yours truly,
SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER
Tamara S. Galanter
TSG : dj p
cc: The Friends of The Nelson Garden Foundation
002.fon0.djp
i
J 1 la 1j y •J7 rrl�i +,j
•fi I! 1;r':'I. 1! :re -)* §* �1:r;rt�cn.a'
tA
�y1 ��' g ►y fI% Yi 7` + :3r':rr' f..C!C•. r;i ;:: ; Y
I' , (!i ?' �• �Y {,y'K4 �'r'{'r �� +�.h_n►�` � A►�hd,, y��;,..r;;.:''. {'.:± .:,�{::�,j'.: ;''
�S''( ,��/Y►.�,.�,l�p ��i4t �,�y,^!r,� �A7tAit -•:� , ti' +� j� y, 'rf ,i�;.; �r. +,:�'f•�,'.y`
,. , •� All 7.nea�i l'�Y,'t. �?i -;, ',', , •;,'. �" T
f� ��;.1 i�. ^.�,rtq.n.r, ��t ^!yF' `A�J!M�t,,; 1.,^.ru: •r "I. '') �'.i' r.� { � .�
N.Iy�.tii:.'
�, ,.."' des'•`' ?�.`.�'y � W, 4r,. I {' ;��.:�• � '
"N..1
F � ^..:y�'�Ac�r.0 E'TMV�iat•''�c�,r,>rPC � ''r;- ,i:1;•(.� 'I'`
+ �q - Ycx�3aR► «et.,y� . .fr,t�''��it'�,�_` r�},,, 1,'�1'F f,F;, t ; }:;;;; .,.
'�,�'� +•'- vVL.','. "C tiara
isit• �'� ^ty�1 -',t_A 1 �,td�+!!{ �'- ,;��•,', ...r fi ,�! , y+y: F�; iff,,i � :� 4
b < . .fi ,.
Jos
woy1�V Pq
i,.� �. 1�v•.G.
.,. ±�'I� #�''Fb'• a ,`i' r.fl +,- fir:; F c.�. .
�- 1�`,�I�r� q i. •a:�1�� tir G. � + ����nl•�.1�.'t9: l:rf� � Ix -&
4 Pt J{ �•� i yt'p,4�r � x i y •rL,� ,:.:d•:d
i.f ►1f,t,t jr * , f�tT r�Sr.r 1 f ;N. Z .�n�•:'; +_..rl•:i',yt 1 '�': ,
0 wtt.7'� i „A,�
�:r�±}�i E ►�`'f��� r fi +.4
j P'�-., i• � Abp i� `bF.r�tlG t {11.� .{�.'r "r7'• rltrk � rr.i`.
Rr
oil f0i
L '
S1.1AK' I NG I N T E N S I T
man Andreas Eq.
Peninsula Segment
Hagn i tude = 7.1
Modified Herra I l i
IntensitU
Damage Level
X - Exf,re. rne
�'. IX - Neav�
V I I I - Moderflte
_ '1I I - Nori r'uCLur,a
VI- Wler,L3 Fa 1 1
V -1-' i C.Lur'e.3 Hove
' ourree: nl)nG, 1995
IJn Shal;u Ground
the map i a i rntended
For, p I ann i n0, on l y.
I:r{L-en3 i L i es maU be
i rlc orrect hw one
llll i % Il iIIf?r' C)r'
rlwer. (.ur' rent
version of (flap
ova i I ab I e can
Internet at httpi //
www. abag. ca. gov
Jt
Vt
IL-
iz 4
X"s
416 j
'47, OF
p •t1 •, 'V' - i'i. ^'�. ..j � !� {�! J�
INT •
41k Cr r •
t. -4,
.40.0
0 lbw
441
of
fA
ol
.90
klW A L
Am
-qj
i. 17
rp
WIA
O's
AV—
AN
Al
LS4 L
AM
;11
401.
As
Sot$
10
j! Vk q 'All
Vi
: '-A
,fit
JL
Ali
mm
EXHIBIT B
E. CLEMENT SHUTE, JR.
MARK 1. WEINBERGER
MARC B. MIHALY, P.C.
FRAN M. LAYTON
RACHEL B. HOOPER
ELLEN J. GARBER
CHRISTY H. TAYLOR
TAMARA S. GALANTER
ELLISON FOLK
RICHARD S. TAYLOR
REED W. SUPER
HAND DELIVERED
SHUTE, MIHALY 8 WEINBERGER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
396 HAYES STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102
TELEPHONE: (415) 552 -7272
TELECOPIER: (415) 552 -5816
January 2, 1996
Chair Murakami and Members of the Saratoga
Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
LAUREL L. IMPETT, A1CP
URBAN PLANNER
ELIZABETH M. DODD
OF COUNSEL
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report Nelson Gardens
Protect
Dear Chair Murakami and Members of the Commission:
We submit this letter on behalf of The Friends of The
Nelson Garden Foundation, an organization formed to protect open
space in Saratoga. The purpose of this letter is to inform the
City that the draft environmental impact report (11DEIR11) for the
proposed Nelson Gardens Project (hereinafter "project ") fails to
comply with the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000 et sea. (IICEQA11), and
the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, title 14, §
15000 et sea.) ("CEQA Guidelines ").
As discussed further below, the DEIR for the proposed
project, both in process and in product, is wholly inadequate,
with the result that decision - makers and the public are deprived
of information they require to reach an informed decision about
the appropriateness of the project. The DEIR fails to adequately
describe the proposed project and fails to recognize the
historical intent of the community to preserve the site as a
public garden. In addition, the DEIR inadequately analyzes
environmental impacts. For example, the DEIR concludes, despite
strong evidence to the contrary, that land use and visual impacts
are insignificant. Further, the DEIR fails to adequately analyze
impacts relating to the loss of open space despite the fact that
Saratoga falls far short of the State's per capita open space
standard.
Because the DEIR understates the severity of
environmental impacts, it also fails to identify feasible
mitigation measures and alternatives capable of eliminating the
Chair Murakami and Members of the Saratoga
Planning Commission
January 2, 1996
Page 2.
project's environmental impacts. As described more fully below,
the EIR falls below minimum standards of adequacy in many other
respects as well.
Unfortunately, many of the issues raised in our
previous letter on the Initial Study /Negative Declaration dated
August 2, 1995 were left unaddressed in this EIR. For example,
the DEIR, like the Initial Study, fails to recognize visual
impacts as significant and also fails to analyze the impacts
relating to existing flooding in the neighborhood surrounding the
project. A copy of the August 2nd letter is attached and is
incorporated by reference into this letter.
A revised draft EIR must be prepared and circulated for
public comment to remedy the DEIR's many deficiencies. Only that
way can the public and the agencies be adequately informed of the
environmental repercussions of the project.
Furthermore, Friends of Nelson Garden is concerned that
approval of this project will set a deleterious precedent by
dramatically altering the City's well - established policies
concerning the protection of open space. The General Plan
amendment and the rezoning required for approval of this project
would allow a level and intensity of development far beyond that
contemplated by the City when it adopted its General Plan. The
proposed project would result in urban housing densities on land
which has long been intended to be preserved as a community
garden. In addition, the Nelson Gardens project is inconsistent
with numerous goals and policies of the City General Plan's
Conservation and Open Space Elements. Finally, the proposed
cancellation of the Williamson Act contract is directly
inconsistent with the City's General Plan.
I. The DEIR Fails to Satisfy the Requirements of CEOA
1. The DEIR Contains An Incomplete Project Description.
The DEIR provides a legally inadequate analysis of the
potential impacts of the project because it is based on an
incomplete project description. Normally, an EIR provides a
factual description of the specific project, including
information relating to the placement of building pads,
driveways, streets and utilities, grading information, and the
extent of cut and fill. The DEIR for this project does not
contain sufficient information to identify and assess
environmental impacts, to select appropriate mitigation measures
Chair Murakami and Members of the Saratoga
Planning Commission
January 2, 1996
Page 3.
and /or alternatives, or to allow the public and City decision -
makers to review the project.
The preliminary plans and data which form the basis of
the project description are insufficiently detailed to allow an
adequate analysis of the environmental impacts of the final
development proposal. More importantly, the lack of any
information regarding the siting, design and construction plans
for houses to be developed as part of the project renders the EIR
useless for evaluating that aspect of the project. As explained
more fully below, neither an adequate assessment of the
significant environmental impacts of the Nelson Gardens project,
nor an intelligent discussion of appropriate mitigation measures
is possible without a better description of the development
project itself.
2. The DEIR Contains An Inadequate Description of the
Environmental Setting.
A DEIR "must include a description of the environment
in the vicinity of the project, as it exists before the
commencement of the project, from both a local and a regional
perspective." CEQA Guidelines § 15125; see also Environmental
Planning and Info. Council v. County of El Dorado, 131 Cal.App.3d
350, 354 (1982). The environmental setting discussion of the
Nelson Gardens DEIR is deficient because it fails to acknowledge
the historical uses and importance of the site as a model of
traditional agricultural land use of Santa Clara Valley. Indeed,
the DEIR merely mentions in passing the fact that Mr. Frank
Nelson deeded his property to the Nature Conservancy. He did
this "to preserve a bit of land and protect it from development
so people can be educated in the way a working orchard operates."
City of Saratoga Nelson Gardens Task Force Ad Hoc Committee at 2.
In addition, the DEIR fails to disclose that the City explicitly
recognized the importance of this site when the City Council
appointed the Nelson Gardens Task Force as an Ad Hoc Committee in
1988 to explore the preservation of the site as a community
garden.
By failing to recognize Mr. Frank Nelson's and the
community's long standing intent to pursue a public garden, and
the lengthy process undertaken by the Nelson Gardens Task Force
Ad Hoc Committee, the DEIR fails to objectively describe the
local and regional importance of this land.
Chair Murakami and Members of the Saratoga
Planning Commission
January 2, 1996
Page 4.
3. The DEIR Does Not Adequately Disclose or Analyze
Significant Environmental Impacts; Nor Does it Identify
Sufficient Mitigation Measures.
In judging the legal sufficiency of an EIR, the focus
is on adequacy, completeness and a good faith effort at full
disclosure. The document should provide a sufficient degree of
analysis to allow decision - makers to make intelligent judgments.
CEQA Guidelines § 15151. A number of court decisions have
developed criteria for determining what constitutes a
"reasonable" effort to analyze projects' potential impacts.
Kings County Farm Bureau et al. v. City of Hanford, 221
Cal.App.3d 692 (1990) is particularly instructive on this point.
That opinion emphasizes that an EIR must support with rigorous
analysis and substantial evidence the conclusion that
environmental impacts will be insignificant. The DEIR for the
Nelson Gardens project lacks such support for its conclusions.
A. Land Use Impacts
By developing one of, if not the last potential public
gardens in the City of Saratoga, the Nelson Gardens project is
clearly inconsistent with the intent of the City's General Plan
which calls for the protection of the City's parks and open space
lands. The City's Open Space Element adopted in November 1993,
clearly states that the City has been able to retain its identity
and uniqueness by controlling the density and intensity of
development, and by preserving the greenery of private and public
gardens and yards, parks and hillside open spaces. City of
Saratoga General Plan, Open Space Element at 1 (emphasis added).
The General Plan goes on to state that "very few orchards and
minimal agricultural lands have survived as reminders of the
City's past." The City of Saratoga has recently confirmed the
community's appreciation and desire to preserve and enhance the
City's existing character and open spaces in and around the City.
Open Space Element at 1.
The development of Nelson Gardens with a residential
subdivision flies in the face of the General Plan which sets
forth a standard for local public parks and recreation
facilities. The General Plan asserts that "the City shall
maintain, and where possible improve, the existing inventory of
three (3) acres per 1000 local public park and recreation
facilities. The City should achieve five (5) acres per 1000
population standard by the year 2001." General Plan Open .Space
Element at 22.
Chair Murakami and Members of the Saratoga
Planning Commission
January 2, 1996
Page 5.
The proposed cancellation of the Williamson Act
Contract is also clearly inconsistent with the City's General
Plan. The General Plan specifically identifies lands under
Williamson Act contract as "adding not only to the perception of
open spaces within the City, but also serve as a vital link
between the modern City and its agricultural past." General Plan
Open Space Element at 6. In addition, the General Plan contains
numerous policies including the following which identify the
importance of maintaining active Williamson Act contracts.
CO.2.2 The City shall encourage renewal of Williamson Act
Contracts.
CO.2.3 Williamson Act contract cancellations shall be
discouraged to the maximum extent feasible.
Other inconsistencies with Saratoga's General Plan are detailed
in Section II below. The project's inconsistency with the goals
and policies of the City's General Plan must be considered a
significant impact. See CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G(a). The
revised EIR should include an objective analysis of the project's
relationship to the General Plan and should include mitigation
measures or alternatives capable of eliminating these
inconsistencies.
B. Transportation Impacts
The DEIR fails to adequately depict the extent of the
effect of the project- related traffic upon adjacent residential
neighborhoods. The DEIR relies solely on a level of service, or
"LOS" analysis in assessing whether this project would have a
significant traffic impact. Yet, such an analysis provides only
one measure of a project's true traffic impact (e.g., how many
cars can pass through an intersection). While a LOS analysis is
a necessary tool for determining impacts in an urban area, it is
not particularly useful in determining the effect of traffic in a
semi -rural residential neighborhood.
The DEIR should be revised to include a quantitative
residential neighborhood traffic analysis. One such index
measures a resident's perception of the effect of street traffic
on the safety and comfort of activities such as walking, cycling,
and playing on or near a street, as well as on daily tasks such
as maneuvering a car out of a residential driveway or small
Chair Murakami and Members of the Saratoga
Planning Commission
January 2, 1996
Page 6.
street.' A given change in street traffic volume would result
in a greater impact on the residential environmental where a
street has low pre- existing volumes. Had a residential traffic
analysis been undertaken by the DEIR preparers, it would have
determined that any increase in traffic would be unacceptable in
the area. Without this second type of traffic analysis, neither
the public nor decision - makers can accurately gauge this
project's impact on the residential neighborhood.
Because the DEIR relied solely on a LOS analysis, the
DEIR assumes that a level of service C constitutes acceptable
operations. DEIR at 4.2 -5. However, LOS C involves a
substantial level of delay and is certainly not acceptable given
the semi -rural nature of the project setting. The CEQA
Guidelines recognize that "an activity which may not be
significant in an urban area may be significant in a rural area."
CEQA Guidelines § 15064(b). The revised EIR must analyze the
traffic impacts of the project in light of the quiet, semi -rural
character of the adjoining residential neighborhood. Introducing
additional traffic into this tranquil Saratoga neighborhood is a
significant impact.
The DEIR's traffic analysis is also deficient in the
following respects. First, the DEIR erroneously concludes that
since the traffic generated by the proposed project would
represent less than one percent of the existing daily traffic on
major arterials, the project would not result in significant
traffic impacts. DEIR at 4.2 -6. This approach to impact
analysis is unacceptable. As the court in Kings County Farm
Bureau v. City of Hanford, 221 Cal.App.3d at 720 noted:
"environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety
of small sources. These sources appear insignificant, assuming
threatening dimensions only when considered in light of the other
sources which they interact." It is only by considering the
traffic generated by this project together with existing traffic
that the DEIR can accurately evaluate project impacts.
Second, the DEIR concludes, without analysis that
construction impacts would not be significant. DEIR at 4.2 -5.
Development of the Nelson Gardens project is projected to occur
over an 18 month period with consequent effects on residents of
the adjoining neighborhood. DEIR at 5 -1. Streets in the project
' Donald Appleyard, Professor of Urban Planning at the
University of California at Berkeley developed the TIRE Index
(Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment).
Chair Murakami and Members of the Saratoga
Planning Commission
January 2, 1996
Page 7.
vicinity are curving two lane roads and Saratoga Hills Road is
substandard and narrow. The revised EIR should identify the
increase in light and heavy duty construction vehicles, include
these volumes in the traffic analysis and prepare an accident
analysis which assesses potential conflicts between heavy duty
equipment and motorists on these semi -rural roads.
Third, the DEIR fails to adequately analyze the
project's cumulative traffic impacts. The DEIR analyzes traffic
impacts only through 1997 which is when the project is expected
to be fully built and occupied. DEIR at 4.2 -6. CEQA defines a
cumulative impact as the change in the environment which results
from tie incremental impact of the project when added to other
closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable probable
future projects. CEQA Guidelines § 15130(1)(A) (emphasis added).
Given the fact that the landowners of over 100 acres of land
within the City have filed for nonrenewal of their Williamson Act
contracts (DEIR at 4.1 -4), and the City's General Plan clearly
asserts that these lands are under development pressure (General
Plan at 8), the revised EIR should assume that these lands will
be developed over the next ten years. The revised EIR should
include an analysis of the traffic impacts associated with the
development of these Williamson Act lands based on the assumption
that they will be developed at similar densities and intensities
as the Nelson Gardens project.
Finally, the DEIR's cumulative impact analysis fails to
include the traffic from the Vidamage Property (five homes) and
the Kennedy property (twelve homes), despite the fact that
applications have been submitted and /or pending on these
properties. DEIR at 5 -3. Both of these projects must be
considered reasonably foreseeable and evaluated in the cumulative
impact analysis.
C. Visual Resources and Aesthetics Impacts
The.DEIR fails to adequately analyze the visual impacts
resulting from the development of the proposed project. There
should be no debate that the transformation of an apricot orchard
into a residential subdivision will dramatically alter the views
that area residents have long been afforded. Existing views of
an apricot orchard will be replaced by extensive grading, massive
cuts in a steep hillside and the development of a prominent
ridgeline to accommodate buildings, foundations, slabs on grade,
streets and driveways.
Chair Murakami and Members of the Saratoga
Planning Commission
January 2, 1996
Page 8.
The project would specifically impact the views of
surrounding neighbors and the community as well as block sweeping
views of the Santa Clara Valley and mountains beyond. The
planned subdivision houses, which will have footprints
considerably larger in relation to lot size than existing homes
on adjacent properties, will be discordant with the layout of the
area. Further, the proposed subdivision will be aesthetically
incompatible with adjacent properties by allowing construction of
three two -story houses (lots 7, 8, and 9) in a neighborhood
consisting almost exclusively of one -story houses.
Potential aesthetic impacts have been described in
correspondence submitted by and oral testimony by members of the
community. For example, Gary L. Nemetz told the Planning
Commission that the number of proposed parcels and type of homes
the project applicant proposes would be "out of character with"
and "incompatible with" existing homes to the South and East on
Trinity Avenue and Pontiac Avenue, providing an "unaesthetic
contrast." Letter to the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
June 4, 1995 (appended to June 14, 1995 Staff Report). Bud
Alexander, who resides across the street from the proposed
development, testified that he "did not believe that the
construction of compatible homes to that of the existing single
family homes in terms of massing, size and styling would be
possible." Planning Commission Minutes, June 14, 1995, at 27.
Despite this evidence, the DEIR concludes that the
impacts upon the surrounding residential land uses would be
insignificant. DEIR at 4.3 -10. This determination not only
defies common sense but is flatly inconsistent with the DEIR's
own threshold of significance for determining visual impacts.
The DEIR asserts that an aesthetic effect is significant if it
substantially alters significant visual features. DEIR at 4.3 -8.
Clearly, the development of a subdivision on prominent open space
lands represents a dramatic departure from existing views. The
revised EIR should recognize this and identify mitigation
measures or alternatives capable of minimizing this impact.
D. Earth Resources
Friends of Nelson Garden is particularly concerned
about inadequacies of the geotechnical analysis of the DEIR. The
project contemplates development on very steep slopes some of
which are in excess of 300. DEIR at 3 -1 and 4.3 -1. Given the
topography of the project site, the project will undoubtedly
result in extensive grading. Yet, the DEIR fails to identify the
Chair Murakami and Members of the Saratoga
Planning Commission
January 2, 1996
Page 9.
extent of this grading nor its effect on erosion, wildlife
habitat modification and soil stability.
Further, preliminary geological studies found the
presence of a thrust fault emerging at the surface just east of
the property and aerial photographs depict a strong lineation
crossing the site. DEIR at 4.4 -2. In addition, the geotechnical
report makes reference to the fact that a large fault known as
the Berrocal fault is located one mile southwest of the project
site.2 The DEIR does not provide any analysis of the effect of
locating a subdivision directly on top of a thrust fault and only
one mile away from another large active fault. Nor does the DEIR
provide an explanation of the significance of the distinct
lineation on the project site.
Despite the identification of these troubling site
characteristics, the DEIR is hobbled in its analysis by lack of
information on the project design and the need for more extensive
geologic investigation. In fact, the Technical Appendix raises
more questions than it answers when it admits that the consultant
did not even have access to the steep, upper portion of the
project site nor was he able to investigate the importance of the
thrust fault. DEIR at Appendix D, March 28, 1995 and July 14,
1995 letters. Clearly, a thorough site investigation is
necessary to enable the geotechnical consultant to identify and
analyze the project site's numerous potential geological
constraints.
The DEIR's geotechnical analysis suffers from numerous
other deficiencies. For example, the DEIR admits that subsurface
soil conditions such as differential compaction could impact the
structural integrity of the proposed buildings; yet the DEIR does
not identify the extent or magnitude of this impact. DEIR at
4.4 -10. In another instance, the DEIR states that, due to the
topography and related slope and soil conditions of the site, the
potential for erosion during construction is significant. DEIR
at 4.4 -10. The DEIR does not identify the extent or magnitude of
this impact; nor does it describe on -going potential erosion
problems. Because this EIR provides the only opportunity prior
to project construction for disclosure of project impacts and
comment by the public, it is essential that a thorough analysis
be undertaken.
2 It should also be noted
storm caused a large slump to form
line along Saratoga Hills Road.
that the December 11th and 12th
just beyond the western property
Chair Murakami and Members of the Saratoga
Planning Commission
January 2, 1996
Page 10.
Because the DEIR clearly documents that "a complete and
full geologic and geotechnical investigation of the entire
property is necessary" (Appendix D at March 28, 1995 letter),
approval of this project in no way assures that all adverse
geotechnical impacts have been identified. Until the EIR is
revised to include a full geotechnical evaluation of project
impacts, the EIR cannot identify appropriate mitigation measures.
E. HydroloQv and Drainage
The DEIR's analysis of hydrological and drainage
impacts is one of the document's most deficient areas.
The applicant proposes extensive development on steep hillside
lands in an area already known to have flooding problems. DEIR
at 4.5 -1 and 4.5 -2. Local residents have long experienced
basement flooding problems due to high groundwater and water
seepage. The DEIR provides no explanation, let alone analysis,
of these existing problems.
In addition to the failure to analyze existing
hydrological constraints, the DEIR's analysis is flawed in
numerous respects. First, the DEIR fails to adequately analyze
impacts resulting from storm events despite the fact that local
flooding has been known to occur. Specifically, the DEIR
acknowledges that local ponding occurs at the intersection of
Trinity /Malcolm Avenue during 100 year storm events. DEIR at
4.5 -8. The DEIR does not identify the amount of such ponding,
the effect of ponded water; nor does it disclose how much worse
the ponding would be as a result of the development.
Second, although the project would result in a 20
percent increase in impervious surfaces within the Northwestern
Subbasin and a 43.5 percent increase in the Eastern Subbasin
(DEIR at 4.5 -6), the DEIR concludes that the project would result
in only a "marginal increase" in surface water runoff. DEIR at
4.5 -8. The DEIR then concludes that this runoff would be
conveyed by an onsite drainage system. The DEIR does not explain
how the increase in surface water runoff would impact existing
drainage; nor does it describe this drainage system. The only
drainage system identified in the DEIR has been deemed to be
inadequate. DEIR at 4.5 -8.
Third, typical of urban uses, the project will result
in substances which have the potential to adversely affect
surface and groundwater sources on site and in the surrounding
area. These substances include oil and deposits from
automobiles, fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, cleaning
Chair Murakami and Members of the Saratoga
Planning Commission
January 2, 1996
Page 11.
solvents, and gasoline. Of particular concern is the problem of
such pollutants being washed into either Saratoga or Calabasas
Creek. While the DEIR identifies the fact that the project could
result in an increase in non -point source pollutants as a
significant impact (DEIR at 4.5 -8), the document contains no
analysis of the severity of the impact. The revised EIR must
provide this analysis.
Fourth, the DEIR states that the Santa Clara Valley
Water District ( "District ") requires project applicants to
prepare stormwater prevention plans (DEIR at 4.5 -8); yet the DEIR
provides no information as to how the project applicant would
comply with the District's requirements. The revised EIR should
identify the programs or design criteria which would be
implemented to ensure compliance with the District's
requirements including a water quality analysis of existing
runoff in order to establish the constituency of surface waters
entering and leaving the project site.
In addition to the flaws in the hydrological analysis,
the DEIR fails to adequately identify or analyze mitigation
measures capable of minimizing the project's significant
hydrological impacts. Specifically, the DEIR relies upon further
geotechncial engineering to allegedly mitigate the project's
impacts. DEIR at 4.5 -9. This approach is unacceptable. The
geotechnical and hydrological studies must be completed prior to
project approval so that decision - makers and the public are fully
informed of the project's impacts and available mitigation
measures.
F. Biological Resources
The DEIR is fundamentally deficient in its analysis of
the impacts upon wildlife resulting from the development of this
important piece of open space. Appendix A to the 1988 Wildlife
Assessment lists more than fifty species predicted to occur on
the site, and more than twenty -five actually observed. The
biological appendix states that "because of the proximity of the
site to a large, relatively natural parcel of oak woodland, it is
thought that many species of wildlife use the property at
different times of the year." DEIR, Appendix F at 3. Saratoga
residents have observed grey foxes and their young on the
property as well as other wildlife. Despite this evidence, the
DEIR concludes that impacts to wildlife are not significant. The
development of this biologically rich land is a significant
impact; the revised EIR must provide a full analysis of these
Chair Murakami and Members of the Saratoga
Planning Commission
January 2, 1996
Page 12.
impacts and identify mitigation or an alternative capable of
offsetting these impacts.
G. Loss of Open Space
The DEIR's failure to analyze the impact resulting from
the loss of open space is perhaps the document's most serious
flaw. The DEIR simply concludes, absent any analysis, that
monetary compensation will reduce the City -wide impact of the
loss of open space. DEIR at 4 -1 and 4.3 -10. Without an analysis
of the impacts resulting from the development of this open space,
in the context of the City's overall open space and park
resources, the DEIR cannot conclude that open space impacts have
been adequately mitigated.
Clearly, this project would have substantial impacts on
open space, both by placing development in an area which is open
space, and by bringing more residents to the area which will
increase demands on remaining open space. The development of
five acres of open space in a City that already falls short of
meeting the state's standard of per capita open space is a
significant impact. See City of Saratoga General Plan, Open Space
Element at 22. Furthermore, the DEIR itself documents the fact
that "one half of the City's lands which are under Williamson Act
contract have filed for non renewal of the contract." DEIR at
4.1 -4. The trend toward the development of City open spaces
lands cannot be denied.
The revised EIR must analyze the. cumulative effect of
recent subdivision approvals on Saratoga's loss of open space.
The City's approvals for parcel 397 -16 -141 (2.96 acres) and
parcel 397 -16 -6 (10.79 acres) on Douglass Lane, and the pending
subdivision application for 13121 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road if
approved, further decreases open space, making open space a
scarce commodity in Saratoga. The revised DEIR must also take
into account the closing of the Saratoga Community Garden at the
Odd Fellows property in 1987, especially since one of the options
proposed by the Ad Hoc Mayor's Committee was for" the development
of the Nelson property into a combination historical orchard
park- community." Nelson Gardens Task Force Ad Hoc Committee
Report at 11.
H. Impacts to Recreational /Historic /Cultural
Resources
The DEIR fails to adequately address impacts to
recreational and historic resources. As discussed above, the
Chair Murakami and Members of the Saratoga
Planning Commission
January 2, 1996
Page 13.
DEIR glosses over the historical importance of the site as a
community garden and does not even mention that the land had been
deeded to the Nature Conservancy for preservation.
The intent of Mr. Frank Nelson to preserve the site is
best demonstrated by a quote contained in a brochure about the
Nelson Gardens put out by the California State Parks Foundation
contained the following statement:
"A Link With the Past"
"There are still a few small islands of fruit trees left in
the valley. The Saratoga Nature Center is one. This
property has been donated to preserve a portion of this once
great fruit - growing region and to serve as an educational
center for senior citizens, school children, and the general
public. Here the care, growing and processing of apricots
is demonstrated. The area is of particular interest because
there is a small arboretum on the property containing exotic
plans, and the upper slopes, in natural vegetation, reflect
the ecology of the coastal mountains."
Clearly, the City has long.considered this property to
be a recreational and a historic resource. The EIR should be
revised to reflect this fact and provide an analysis of the
impacts that would result from the development of a subdivision
on this important piece of property.
I. Growth Inducing Impacts
The DEIR fails to adequately discuss the growth
inducing impacts of this project. The project poses a level and
intensity of development not contemplated by the City when it
adopted its General Plan. Clearly, the City designated these
lands as open space outdoor recreational and agricultural because
of a commitment the City wished to make to support continued
agricultural and open space uses of the land.
If approved, this project will encourage the conversion
of other lands within the City with similar land use
designations. As discussed above, the landowners of over 100
acres of land within the City have filed for nonrenewal of their
Williamson Act contracts. DEIR at 4.1 -4. The DEIR also admits
that the parcel known as the "Horticulture Foundation" is
identified in the DEIR as having potential for significant
development. DEIR at 4.1 -2. The revised EIR must analyze the
impacts associated with the conversion of these other City lands
Chair Murakami and Members of the Saratoga
Planning Commission
January 2, 1996
Page 14.
to similar densities and intensities as currently contemplated by
the Nelson Gardens project. The development of these lands will
result in numerous significant impacts including traffic, air
quality, loss of open space and biological resources, and
inadequate provision of public services.
4. The DEIR Does Not Adequately Discuss Alternatives to
the Proposed Project.
CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of
reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, and to its
location, that would feasibly attain the project's basic
objectives with reduced environmental impacts, and evaluate the
comparative merits of each alternative. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21002,
21100(a)(6); CEQA Guidelines § 15126(d). The City must formulate
alternatives for inclusion in the EIR (Laurel Heights Improvement
Association of San Francisco v. Regents of the University of
California, 47 Cal.3d 576, 406 (1988)), and the selection and
discussion of alternatives should foster informed decision - making
and informed public participation (CEQA Guidelines
§ 15126 (d) (5) ) .
The requirement to set forth and analyze impacts of
alternatives within the EIR is crucial to CEQA's mandate that
avoidable significant environmental damage be substantially
lessened or avoided where feasible. Pub. Res. Code § 21002; CEQA
Guidelines §§ 15002 (a) (3) , 15021 (a) (2) , 15126(d); Citizens for
Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta, 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 443-
45. (1988). "Without meaningful analysis of alternatives in the
EIR, neither the courts nor the public can fulfill their proper
roles in the CEQA process. . . .[Courts will not] countenance a
result that would require blind trust by the public, especially
in light of CEQA's fundamental goal that the public be fully
informed as to the environmental consequences of action by their
public officials." Laurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at 404.
Because the Nelson Gardens project DEIR fails to
provide an adequate or accurate discussion of the environmental
impacts that would result from the proposed project, every
alternative identified in the DEIR results in equivalent, if not
greater, impacts than the proposed project. In other words, the
alternatives are not evaluated against an accurate representation
of the Nelson Gardens project. For example, the DEIR fails to
recognize obviously significant impacts (i.e., impacts to visual
resources and the loss of open space) and assumes incorrectly
that mitigation measures will reduce impacts to an insignificant
level (i.e., impacts relating to hydrology).
Chair Murakami and Members of the Saratoga
Planning Commission
January 2, 1996
Page 15.
CEQA requires that an EIR identify a range of
alternatives that are capable of eliminating the significant
effects of the project. Because the Nelson Gardens project DEIR
fails to identify many of the project's impacts as significant,
it does not identify a range of alternatives that are capable of
eliminating the project's impacts. Instead it focuses on the
erroneous conclusion that the "project" alternative is the
environmentally superior alternative. A proper identification
and analysis of alternatives is impossible until project impacts
are fully disclosed.
The DEIR's alternatives analysis is further deficient
in that it does not provide sufficient information regarding the
impacts of the alternatives to allow a meaningful comparison of
alternatives. In many instances, the DEIR provides no more than
a sentence or two of text even on issues as important as visual
resources, hydrology and earth resources. DEIR at 7 -3.
Nor does the DEIR identify a reasonable range of
alternatives. Indeed, the DEIR merely identifies two
alternatives both of which are immediately eliminated as
infeasible. DEIR at 7 -7 and 7 -9. The DEIR incorrectly asserts
that the City has no obligation to analyze a reduced density
alternative because the project is "already low density."
Certainly the revised EIR should consider an alternative which
would allow for development on only a portion of the site. The
EIR should, at a minimum, consider an alternative that would
eliminate development on the steep hillside.
Clearly the revised EIR should also identify and
analyze an alternative which would restore Nelson Gardens to its
originally intended use. The development of a community garden
would result in significantly less severe impacts to traffic,
geology, hydrology and traffic and would preserve the sites
important aesthetical values. Most importantly, the restoration
of the site to a community garden would eliminate the project's
numerous inconsistencies with the City's General Plan (discussed
more fully below).
J. The EIR Should Be Recirculated.
CEQA requires preparation and recirculation of a
supplemental draft EIR "[w]hen significant new information is
added to an environmental impact report" after public review and
comment on the earlier draft EIR. Public Resources Code §
21092.1. The opportunity for meaningful public review of
significant new information is essential "to test, assess, and
Chair Murakami and Members of the Saratoga
Planning Commission
January 2, 1996
Page 16.
evaluate the data and make an informed judgment as to the
validity of the conclusions to be drawn therefrom." Sutter
Sensible Planning, Inc. v. Sutter County board of Supervisors,
122 Cal.App.3d 813, 822 (1981); City of San Jose v. Great Oaks
Water Co., 192 Cal.App.3d 1005, 1017 (1987). An agency cannot
simply release a draft report "that hedges on important
environmental issues while deferring a more detailed analysis to
the final [EIR] that is insulated from public review." Mountain
Lion Coalition v. California Fish and Game Comm'n, 214 Cal.App.3d
1043, 1053 (1989).
In order to cure the panoply of EIR defects identified
in this letter, the City will have to obtain substantial new
information to adequately assess the proposed project's
environmental impacts, and to identify effective mitigation and
alternatives capable of alleviating the project's significant
impacts. CEQA requires that the public have a meaningful
opportunity to review and comment upon this significant new
information in the form of a recirculated draft EIR.
II. The Project Is Inconsistent with the City of Saratoga
General Plan
In addition to violating CEQA, approval of this project
will violate both the State Planning and Zoning Law, Government
Code Section 65000 et sea., and the Subdivision Map Act,
Government Code Section 66410 et sea. The heart of the State
Planning and Zoning Law is its requirement of consistency among
planning and development decisions. City of Santa Ana v. City of
Garden Grove, 100 Cal.App.3d 521, 531 -32 (1979). With respect to
subdivision map approvals, the legislature has explicitly stated:
No local agency shall approve a tentative map
. . . unless the legislative body finds that
the proposed subdivision, together with the
provisions for its design and improvement, is
consistent with the general plan required by
[the State Planning and Zoning Law].
Government Code § 66473.5.
The Nelson Gardens project is inconsistent with the
City's General Plan. The General Plan could not be more'clear in
its intent to preserve and acquire open space and parkland.
General Plan Open Space Element at 2. The General Plan sets
forth numerous criteria to assist the City in evaluating parcels
for open space value. The Nelson Gardens' site fits many of the
Chair Murakami and Members of the Saratoga
Planning Commission
January 2, 1996
Page 17.
criteria making the site worthy for preservation. These criteria
include:
o Serving ecological and other scientific studies and
environmental education. Open Space Element at 4.
Cultivated lands or orchards, vineyards or tree farms.
Id. at 4.
o Areas with inherent qualities that humans find visually
pleasing, beautiful, relaxing, stimulating or
enjoyable. Id. at S.
o Slopes over 30 percent. Id. at 5.
Fault zones and the land on either side of known fault
zones. Id. at 5.
o Parcels which contribute to the perception of open
space. Id. at 5.
Clearly, the Nelson Gardens' site should be considered
a valuable piece of open space. The development of the site as a
residential subdivision would be inconsistent with the intent of
the City's General Plan.
In addition to the inconsistencies identified above,
the Nelson Gardens project is also inconsistent with numerous
goals of the City's Open Space Element including the following:
o To provide and maintain open space resources of local
and regional.significance accessible to the public.
To encourage preservation of land uses for open space
and agriculture.
o To preserve and protect existing view sheds, view
corridors and scenic open spaces.
To encourage the awareness, appreciation and use of the
City's open space resources in Saratoga's residents,
particularly its youth.
The project is also inconsistent with the following
goals and policies as identified in the City's Conservation
Element.
Chair Murakami and Members of the Saratoga
Planning Commission
January 2, 1996
Page 18.
CO.2.0 Conserve natural vegetative and significant
topographic features which exist in Saratoga and
its Sphere of Influence.
CO.2.2 The City shall encourage renewal of Williamson Act
contracts.
CO.2.3 Williamson Act contract cancellations shall be
discouraged to the maximum extent feasible.
CO.6.0 Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga
by carefully considering the visual impact of new
developments.
Since, for all of the above reasons, the Nelson Gardens
project is inconsistent with the City's General Plan, the City
may not approve the project. de Bottari v. City of Norro, 171
Cal.App.3d 1204 (1985); Gov. Code §§ 66473.5, 66474.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, The Friends of The
Nelson Garden Foundation requests that the City defer action on
the proposed Nelson Gardens project until the project is revised
to comply with existing goals and policies of the General Plan
and the City prepares and circulates for public comment an EIR
that fully complies with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
Yours truly,
SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER
TAMARA S. GALANTER
'LAUREL L`. IMPETT
Urban Planner
11i001.doc
January 31, 1996 r' C1 LF 0
Mayor Jacobs and Members of the City Council ; 6 D
City of Saratoga 1996.
13777 Fruitvale Avenue C1' :► :':SA . ir11`O ,
Saratoga, CA 95070 CITY AIANIAGI11' s 0 A
Re: Nelson Gardens Project (GPA -94 -003, AZO -94 -002, SD -95-
008) and Tentative Cancellation of the Williamson Act
Contract (APN- 503 -49 -41 & 42)
Dear Mayor Jacobs and Members of the City Council:
My husband and I continue to be disappointed in your
apparent decision to cancel the Williamson Act Contract on the Nelson
Garden early so that the owners may develop the Garden into a nine
home housing tract.
Both in the manner in
you quickly cancel the Williamson
our concerns, it is apparent that 1
dwindling Open Space /Park acreai,
focus only on facilitating the deve
Saratoga.
which the EIR was handled and
Act Contract without evaluating
rou are not protecting Saratoga':
3e. The City Council continues
lopment of the remaining empty
now as
any of
to
lots in
Early cancelation of the Williamson Act Contract is supposed
to be done only under extraordinary circumstances. There are no such
circumstances here in Saratoga. Without much investigation on our part,
we are aware of the 15 new houses on the old Kerwin Ranch, the 5 new
houses on the old Saratoga Nursery property, the 50+ new houses on the
Odd Fellows property, the 90+ new homes on the Masson Champagne
site, and the 8+ new houses on the Saratoga Courtyard site. In addition,
there are for sale signs up all over Saratoga on older homes. Why are
you rushing to build more homes when the market is soft and there are a
large number of new homes being built as we speak?
Why have you rushed through the EIR report without
investigating our concerns? One particular concern is the amount of
flooding and drainage problems that already exist in the neighborhood.
Development of the Nelson Garden may very well exacerbate the
problems. There is a new slump forming on top of an old slump area just
up the hill from the Nelson Garden. It is on the Shiro property. Large
quantities of dirt have slid onto Saratoga Hills Road in the past from that
slump area. Development of the Nelson Garden may open up other
potential areas of concern. We neighbors continue to struggle with
periodic large quantities of moving water as well as chronic underground
springs. However, you seem to just ignore the voiced concerns because
you don't want to find a real problem that you would have to deal with.
We are again asking you to not allow early cancelation of the
Williamson Act Contract on the Nelson Garden. We are asking you to do
your job of protecting the dwindling acreage of open space /parks in
Saratoga. We are asking you to protect the Nelson Garden as a special
historic and educational public garden.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Ann and Richard Waltonsmith
21060 Saratoga Hills Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
Donald S. Macrae
February 1, 1996
City Council �I 1� L,,:)� �.:t (� t1,� in DD
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070 C11 �; 3r^�.�3, "a���,3Q.1
C.IT'' 1��lY;viaC�] i'a �T4F1
Rt: Public Hearing on Nelson Gardens Project
GPA -94 -003, AZA94.0 -002, SD -95 -008 & Tentative Cancellation of a
Williamson Act Agricultural Preserve Contract (APN 503- 49 -41 & 42)
Applicant: Trinity Development Company: 20851 Saratoga Hills Road.
Once again the City Council is considering cancellation of the Williamson
Act Agricultural Preserve Contract for the Nelson Property on Saratoga
Hills Road.
This property has been designated as an Open Space /Nature Preserve as
provided by the terms of the Williamson Act and should only be withdrawn
if there is a demonstrated urgent need for such property for housing.
What is this urgent need for housing ? for single family units?
We have identified numerous tracts of open land within a 2 -3 mile radius
of the Nelson Garsens which are potential building sites. And where does
this need for more homes exist when we see many advertisements for the
sale of existing homes within the Saratoga community? We have noted
94 homes being built on the Paul Masson property; 15 homes onthe Kerwin
Ranch; units being built on the former Haven Nursery land on the Saratoga -
Su4nyvale Road; the former Johnson lumber hardware has homes being built
on the property on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. Also, there are new homes
on the Odd Fellows land, homes on Saratoga Avenue, Peach Hill Road,.
Cox Avenue, Glen Una area, and so forth.
We are perplexed to note that the Kevin Moran Park has been zoned for
single family units.
In view of the City's avowed policy of preserving openspace it is hard
to reconcile this with the home building frenzy going on within the
boundaries of the City of Saratoga. This is inconsistent with the stated
Open Space Element of the General Plan.
For the record, I have included copies of letters previously submitted
to both the City Council and the Planning Commission.
Sincerely,
oa S. acae
20679 Reid Lane
Box 447 Saratoga, CA 95071 (408) 867 -3155
Donald S. Macrae
20679 Reid Lane
Saratoga, California 95070
City Council
City Hall
Saratoga, California 95070
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Realizing that this Council has already determined to allow the
withdrawal of the Nelson property from the Williamson Act protection,
and has agreed to allowing the development of up to 10 lots and houses
on the property, I will proceed, in good faith, to make my
presentation.
1. I believe the removal of the property from the Williamson Act
protection at this time is inappropriate and improper.
2. I believe the property is not free and clear to be developed.
3. C.E.Q.A. provisions have not been properly followed in determing a
Negative Declaration when considering the preparation of an EIR.
a. Respondents failed to require preparation of an EIR when
,substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument
that the subdivision could have significant adverse
environmental impacts, including, but not limited to, the
following:
Aesthetic impacts, including an impact to the viewshed on the
hilltop from which one has a sweeping view of the Santa Clara
Valley and the mountains beyond.
Impacts to the existing vegetation species, including Valley
Oaks, an apricot orchard and Chinese Pistachio trees imported
to the property from the Sacramento Valley by Frank Nelson and
his wife in 1940.
Impacts resulting from the subdivision's destruction of five
acres of park land in a city that meets less than half the
requirements for the state standard for acreage devoted to
parks.
Impacts resulting from the displacement of wildlife.
Geological impacts resulting from the development of houses on
a steep hillside, and in an area subject to severe earthquake
damage.
Traffic and noise impacts occcurring during the construction
of the subdivision.
Mayor and City Council
Page 2
Hydrological impacts resulting from additional impervious
surfaces and the diversion of flowing ground water from
hillside property above the Nelson Garden, water which,is now
absorbed by the roots of the trees in the orchard and the pine
forest.
Impacts resulting from the Williamson Act Cancellation and the
subdivision's inconsistency with the Saratoga General Plan.
Respectfully,
f ' GrYUz'�
Donald S. Macrae
Donald S. Macrae
December 5, 1995
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
RE: Public Hearing on Nelson Gardens Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
I have received and analyzed the DEIR Report and have conferred with
Dr. Stutzman and Mrs. Waltonsmith and our attorney, Ms. Galanter,
regarding the contents of the report and the conclusions set forth
therein. I concur with the concerns and issues raised by my
associates.
Dr. Stutzman has written a detailed and thoughtful analysis with which
I agree. Because of this, I will not duplicate his comments in this
letter. However, I would like to address some additional concerns.
The DEIR is clearly written from the point of view and bias of the
developer who wishes to subdivide the property and nowhere is there
shown any concern for retaining this property for a special kind of
community park that is devoted to the concept of a historical/
heritage /open space preserve which would be devoted to showing how
this area of the Santa Clara Valley looked when farming and orchards
reigned supreme. The Valley of Hearts Delight is what it was called.
Here, on the Nelson property, would be demonstrations of: a working
apricot orchard; a vegetable and flower garden; an herb garden for
fragrance, medicinal and culinary purposes; an area for native plants
and shrubs; a demonstration of small animals and birds (selected so as
not to be offensive to the surrounding neighbors) so young people
could observe a life cycle.
The seasonal stream could be reactivated with a circulating pump to
keep it functioning all year. The two houses on the property could be
rehabilitated and devoted to arts and crafts of an earlier time with
docents to explain how these arts and crafts were utilized by the
inhabitants of the area.
This would be a quiet contemplative type of park where young and old
could come and reflect, meditate, learn and enjoy. It would not be
devoted to the typical busy, aggressive type of recreation so common
in this valley. It would be an indigenous, historical /preserve
devoted to keeping alive some of our past heritage. It would be
specialized as is Hokene Garden which tells of Japanese culture and of
which we are justifiably proud.
Box 447 Saratoga, CA 95071 . (408) 867 -3155
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
Public Hearing on Nelson Gardens Project
Page 2
I am deeply concerned, angered and hurt that there seems to be no
visible concern on the part of either the City Council or the Planning
Commission for having such a park as I have described above.
In an era when we are concerned with diversity and multiculture, there
seems to be no concern for our indiginous culture. A great pity!
Sincerely,
G�vt�
Donald S. Macrae
20679 Reid Lane
Saratoga, California 95070
(408) 867 -3155
Donald S. Macrae
DATE: June 13, 1995
TO: Planning Commission
SUBJECT: G.P. 94- 003,AZO -94 -002 & SD -94 -005 (APN 503 -49 -41 & 42) Trinity
Development Company: 20851 Saratoga Hills Road
I live at 20679 Reid Lane - a short distance from the Nelson Garden property.
I served on the committee that developed the City of Saratoga's Master Plan
in the 1960's. I strongly believe in doing whatever is possible to retain what is
left of Saratoga's fast - disappearing open spaces. I believe in fostering,
wherever possible, small neighborhood parks.
When the City of San Jose was in its expansion and annexation program in
the 1950's and 1960's, concerned Saratoga citizens incorporated to retain, in
this area, a community that fostered a pleasant rural atmosphere safe from
crowded subdivisions and shopping centers. I am deeply distressed to see the
current trend towards more subdivisions and larger homes on small lots.
The San Jose syndrome is infecting this beautiful community.
These are my comments regarding this matter that is now before the
Planning Commission:
1. I strongly believe that the Nelson Property should not be subdivided but,
instead, should be retained as the Nature /Contemplative Demonstration
Park as originally intended by owner, Frank Nelson, who deeded the
property to the Nature Conservancy for this purpose. This area is currently
so indicated in the City of Saratoga's Master Plan.
2. Since the current City Council has made the decision to now allow the
property to be withdrawn from the Williamson Act protection and
developed into a subdivision my comments relate to the matter of proper
zoning in the public interest.
3. I strongly endorse the comments and recommendations made by:
A. Former Mayor Francis L. Stutzman
B. Mr. Gary Nemetz whose property is opposite the Nelson property on
Pontiac Drive.
C. Mrs. Ann Waltonsmith whose property is on Saratoga Hills Road and
in close proximity to the Nelson Property.
Box 447 Saratoga, CA 95071 (408) 867 -3155
Donald S. Macrae
4. The Nelson Property consists of two parcels of approximately 3 acres and 2
acres for a total of 5.1 acres. The lower 3 acre - parcel is on level ground but
the sizes of the lots, the building area and the placement of the lots need
to be reconsidered and modified.
5. The upper 2 -acre parcel is on unstable land, has very steep slopes and
presents serious problems in time of earthquake activity. The lot that is
adjacent and higher up on Saratoga Hills Road shows very clearly how the
hillside has slid away in recent times.
6. The extreme removal of trees, the unnecessary disturbance of land and
wildlife in the area requires a much more extensive and realistic
environmental impact report than the one submitted.
7. The Planning Commission needs to take time to seriously study the area
by actually visiting the property. It also needs to examine the written
report of the Ad Hoc Committee which thoroughly studied the matter in
1988.
Respectfully submitted,
Donald S. Macrae
Box 447 Saratoga, CA 95071 (408) 867 -3155 2
_ Donald S. Macrae
Atsof/
% 8
i
/f 4
Af la"-�
A -, ae� ';Zt
Box 447 Saratoga, CA 95071 (408) 867 -3155
0'
Donald S. Macrae
lo,
e2�
Box 447 Saratoga, CA 95071 (408) 867 -3.155
Cz�
Donald S. Macrae
.�
U C
Box 447 Saratoga. CA 95071
D
(408) 867 -3155
Correspondence
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL:
As a friend of the Nelson Gardens, I wish
to the proposal to cancel the Williamson
entered into between Frank Nelson and the
191- 1971, and to the proposed sale
the Community Foundation for subdivision
RECEIVED
FEB -11996
PLANNING DEPT.
to express my objection
Act provision which was
City of Saratoga on May
of this property by
development.
Logic would appear to require that each member of this decision -
making council would have read the final report of the City of
Saratoga Nelson Gardens Task Force Ad Hoc Committee, December
21, 1988, 24S well as the Williamson Act. I will not dwell on the
specific i,�strictions and findings of the Williamson act
certified: by the Court in Sierra Club vs. Hayward, 1981. Our
attorney will cover those provisions.
My own remarks are directed toward the preservation of the Nelson
Gardens, as was the original intent of the owner Frank Nelson.
Frank Nelson began deeding portions of his property to the Nature
Conservancy in December of 1971. In an article in the San Jose
Mercury News on December 21 1977, he stated, "My present wife
(Helen) and I want to preserve a bit of land and protect it from
development, so people can.be educated in the way a working
orchard operates. Some people have never seen an apricot
orchard."
By law, to the best of my knowledge, the original intent for
deeding rides along with the land for perpetuity.
Sometime later, records of the Nature Conservancy indicated that
Frank Nelson was interested in transferring it to the California
State Parks and Recreation Department to be preserved as a model
of traditional agricultural land use of Santa Clara Valley and to
use it to provide public use and education of the area's
agricultural values.
The transfer to the California State Parks Foundation occurred
October 11, 1977, with the provision that a reverter clause be
included to protect the natural area qualities of the property.
Despite explicit directions to do so, no reverter clause was
executed. The clear intent of the parties involved was evident
by two letters, one from Frank Nelson, July 18, 1977, to the
Nature Conservancy, the second, dated October 14, 1977, from
Henry Little, Western Regional Director of The Nature
Conservancy, to William Penn Mott, Jr., president of the
California State Parks Foundation. Both. emphasized the
protection and enhancement of the natural beauty, while allowing
the citizens of the Santa Clara Valley and the entire State to
benefit from its use.
Steve McCormick, director of the California Field Office of the
Nature Conservancy, wrote August 10, 1988, "It is clear to me
from reading 'the file. that the Conservancy's intention in
accepting the property and eventually, conveying it to the State
Parks Foundation, was that the land be kept in the condition that
existed when Frank Nelson deeded the land to the Conservancy.
Our assumption, in conveying the land to the Foundation, was that
the organization would maintain the open space, undeveloped
quality of the property."
Budgetary problems within the Foundation induced the Foundation
to return it to the Nelson Foundation on March 11 1984.
A brochure about the Nelson Gardens put out by the California
State Parks Foundation contained the following statement:
"A Link With the Past"
"There are still a few small islands of fruit trees left in the
valley. The Saratoga Nature Center is one. This property has
been donated to preserve a portion of this once great fruit -
growing region and to serve as an educational center for senior
citizens, school children, and the general public. Here the
care, growing and processing of apricots is demonstrated. The
area is of particular interest because there is a small arboretum
on the property containing exotic plants, and -the upper slopes,
in natural vegetation, reflect the ecology of the coastal
mountains."
Frank Nelson at this time was.very elderly, in poor health,
deemed incompetent, and no longer in control of the destiny of
his very special orchard.
The City of Saratoga attempted, 'unsuccessfully, to acquire the
Gardens, but rather than donate it to the City, the Nelson
Foundation gave it to the Santa Clara County Community
Foundation. The latter organization has no concerned local
representation on its. board and appears to be, primarily
interested in liquidation of the property to enhance their forty
million re serve fund.
To determine whether or not there was public support in Saratoga
for the preservation of Nelson Gardens in the same or similar
context as it existed, one must look at this in several
perspectives.
The General Plan of Saratoga envisioned many small
forcommunity
thers
parks. These were to be areas for.the very young,
with children, and for the.elderly. Only a few of these
materialized, but, those that have'; proved to be highly
successful. We need more of these. Unfortunately, we need not
only more of the small parks; we also need more large parks or
areas of open space. We, by state standards, should have three
acres of park thateacandnwhereuaredweegoingtto have less
h
than one h the
deficit?
A public opinion survey was conducted in 1988 as part of the work
of the Ad Hoc Committee. The results of the survey were clear.
The majority of those polled felt that the city should pursue
some form of open space preservation, and most of them indicated
they would like to see some form of specialty parks -- educational,
agricultural, historical - -in Saratoga.
A separate poll was taken involving 113 physicians living within
Saratoga. Sixty percent favored retaining Nelson Gardens as a
park.
In 1994, in an effort to once again determine public support for
acquisition of the Nelson Gardens, over 800 signatures were
obtained on petitions in a one week effort by a handful of
volunteers.
One other neglected need is that of a community garden. One such
existed at the Odd Fellows Home site for 15 years. It was a
focal point for teaching Saratoga students about the cultivation
of plants and making them realize that their fruits and
vegetables arise from the soil, and not from supermarket shelves.
When the volunteer staff who had nurtured this project were
forced out of the Odd Fellows location, they were assured by the
City Council that an alternative site would be forthcoming. This
has never materialized.
The Nelson Gardens would be an ideal location.
The final question is - -what is the vision for Saratoga? The
current City Council has drafted such a vision. Among the
provisions are:
1) Where the natural beauty of the city and its hillsides is
preserved.
2) Where the historic assets are preserved and promoted.
3) Where desirable recreational and leisure opportunities are
provided.
4) Where value is placed on an attractive well - maintained and
well - planned community.
r
These provisions do indeed reflect desirable goals, but somehow
they do not mesh with the reality of the present situation where
the city seems intent on trading one of its few really historic
sites for nine more unneeded houses and a fistful of dollars.
There appears to be a parallel between this vision and the
Republicans'.contract with America.
High sounding platitudes have been voiced, but many fear there is
an underlying intent to destroy the environment and its protective
laws that-have evolved over the past 20 years.
As you look about Saratoga, it appears that every acre of
remaining open space is being replaced by large homes on small
lots. Our schools are being overcrowded and underfunded. Our
athletic and open space requirements are inadequate, so we now
have to encroach on school sites; our infrastructure is
deteriorating.
Still, the Council seems to have but one objective: the sacrifice.
of existing space, which, once lost, can never be regained.
Instead, the city will have more houses, more congestion, more
people - -all this, for short term financial gain.
Those controlling the destiny of the city are a part of the aging
segment of Saratoga. We do, however, have generations behind us
who still have the same needs we once had. WhX not give them
a chance to enjoy at least a few of the beauties of nature that
once were ours?
The Nelson Gardens is one of our few remaining historic segments.
It is small, but it is important. Let us not offer it.up as one
more sacrifice to so- called progress.
F.L. Stutzman, M.D.
15195 Park Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
RECEIVED
FEB -11996
Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Committee: PLANNING DEPT.
I am appearing this evening to oppose the submitted plan for subdivision of the
Nelson Garden. I do so as a concerned Saratoga resident who wishes to see
some of the ambiance which made Saratoga a desirable residential area preserved
instead of impacting it and downgrading it by packing more large houses on small
lots.
We do not need more houses, more cars, more burden on our schools and
libraries, more demand on police and fire departments, and more strain on our
infrastructure.
I also appear as a former Council member who personally witnessed past errors
on the part of planners and developers, which created increased profit to the latter
but also increased cost to the City, and decreased the quality of the environment.
I feel that our Planning Department has the capability to realize that CEQA
demands more of an initial environmental study for a tract such as this, rather
than the one submitted. This area demands an EIR for the following reasons:
(1) This parcel is designated as a high impact earthquake area on the ABAG map
issued in 1995.
(2) The upper area of this parcel is extremely rugged, and I seriously question the
accuracy of the slope density as submitted. I would strongly suggest an
independent survey of the area.
(3) The upper area reportedly has a large amount of fill material and would be
subject to sliding, not only due to the unstable fill but the underlying clay, which,
when wet, has a tendency to slip.
(4) The past history includes a natural spring on the hillside, which indicates a
potential serious building problem.
(5) Denuding the area would create erosion, and the plan as submitted would do
just that.
(6) Another aspect is the effect of the loss of a major number of mature trees and
shrubs, many of which are rare and irreplaceable, and many now in poor health
due to deliberate neglect on - the part of the caretaker of the property. These
could be rehabilitated. It also will take 10 to 20 years to replace equivalent
vegetation.
(7) The adverse effect on bird ' and native animal life will be virtually total. Once
houses are built and the native ecosystem is destroyed, the original residential
creatures are excluded. '
(8) An impact will be made on the history of the Saratoga area, by destroying one
of her last remaining apricot orchards.
(9) The neighborhood will be deprived of its one last chance for a small
community park and garden. This totally ignores the original intent of the General
Plan for such parks.
(10) The lot and house size proposed is not compatible with the neighborhood,
nor is it in keeping with the community's expectations for how this land should
be developed.
In closing, the mitigations proposed are inadequate, and they would merely
expedite the desires of the developer. The mitigations carry no assurance that
they would accomplish their desired end, nor any adequate penalties in the event
that these projected consequences would ensue..
F.L. Stutzman, M.D., Ph.D.
F. L. STUTZMAN, M.D.
15195 PARK DRIVE
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY. SURGERY
AM. BOARD GENERAL SURGERY
AM. BOARD THORACIC SURGERY
FELLOW AM. COLL. SURG.
FOUNDING MEMBER BAY AREA VAS. SURG.
RECEIVED
FEB -11996
PLANNING DEPT.
AREA CODE 408
TELEPHONE 354 -3420
1) What is the basis for stating that trils tract of land if
used as an orchard or a park would be economically impractical?
2) Is it not true that the city has an obligation to provide
parks and open space for its citizens?
3) What size does an orchard have to be ii properly cared for
to be economical?
4) What is the basis for assuming that having houses on this site
would be economical ?.
5) What is the cost per house in Saratoga for the city to provide
all of the infrastructure and utilities to maintain each house?
6) If houses are revenue generating, why is Saratoga in financial
distrees?
7) Why is this tract considered too small to be a park in view
of the fact that the city has less than 50 acres of park land?
Doesn't this parkland amount to only 10 times the size of the
Nelson Gardens?
8) Wouldn't this park be a valuable asset to Saratoga as a
teaching aid for the schools?
9) Do any schools or teaching centers, e.g., churches, museum,
Hakone Gardens, senior centers , generate income for the city?
10) Is there any area in Saratoga that haz a community garden?
11) What is the basis for the contention in the DEIR that the
use of this land as a park would be in direct conflict with'the
development of area B guidelines?
12) Where did MBA obtain a City Park's policy that all park fees
would be used to maintain and improve existing parks and not for
acquiring additional land for park use?
13) Is MBA aware that the state recommends 3 acres of parkland as
a minimum for each 1000 residents and that Saratoga has only 'h of tha-
amount?
14)Were MBA aware that the Saratoga General Plan recommends small
parks in all areas of the community?
15)What is the basis for the statement that nothing of historical
importance ever happened in this tract?
16)Is not the fact that it being one of the last apricot orchards
existing in Santa Clara Valley which was world renown for such
orchards of historical significance?
17)Where in Saratoga are there other sites which could substitute
for this tract?
18)What would it cost to replenish this tract which has been
deliberately neglected by one of the board members of the now
non existent Nelson Foundation?
19) Why has the issue of community volunteerism to replenish
and maintain this site as a garden not been addressed?
20) How many hours were devoted to actual on site observations
of the ecology of this tract?
21) Was all•or most of the data used to evaluate the ecology
derived from generalized reportsq several of which are out of
date and unreliable?
22)' What are special status plant species?
23) What direct information do you have that such species are not
present on this site?
24)- How many rare species of plants that Frank Nelson imported from
around the world are still viable on this site?
25)The Deir stated that wildlife species found in this tract are
common in the surrounding area and therefore their loss of
habitat would be less than significantr Doesn't the displacement
of a species cause territorial disruption in the area into which
the displacement occurs?
26) What is the meaning of less than significant?
27) What would species displacement have to be to be significant?
28)What is the basis for the statement that other undeveloped areas
of Saratoga contain better habitat for special status species?
29) In what sense are they better?
30) If such an argument is valid here, would it not be true for
every undeveloped area of Saratoga until no such areas any longer
existed?
31)What assurance is there that only one oak tree would be removed
and the remainder protected in view of the recent gutting of our
tree ordinances by the present city council?
32)Would there be any assurances of monitoring for the preservation
of residual vegetation?
33)What is the basis for the statement that there is no known fault
in the region of this site in view of the activation of the Berrocal
Fault which became active in the 1989 earthquake, a fault which_
is very near to this site and which because of the angle of this
fault to this site would impact this area very severely?
34) What is the-significance of the thrust fault emerging at Pontiac
Avenue?
35) is it not true that Freeman —Kern Associates in a 1995 letter
to the Pinn.Brothers Construction Company made the statement that
they had not done a complete seismological and geological
investigation?
36) Is it not true the statement was also made that they had been
compromized in their site soil profile by +:he ground being wet
and soft?
37) In the same letter did they also not recommend that a complete
geological report addressing faulting, slope stability, seismic
setting of the site, study of the fills, colluvium, alluvium
and bedrock units on the site with appropriate soil testing be done?
38) Were these tests nat done as part of the DEIR?
39) Who were the specific families contacted in the area regarding
basement flooding?
40) What data was obtained regarding the spring which has existed
in the past at times when the water table has been high?
41) How many species of wildlife did the investigators see and what
were they?
42) Is it surprizing that nesting raptors were not seen on the
site in view of the tendency of such birds to flee when predators
such as people appear?
43) Why does this report take the position that $5859000 paid to
the city by the Community Foundation would make all other consid-
erations such as open space, park land, recreation, congestion,
impact on infrastructure, impact on hillside view of less than
significant impact?
44) Why is it essential for the Community Foundation with its
57 million in reserves to sell this property to fund its charitable
contributions?
45) Why does the Community Foundation allocate only 2% of its
contributions to ecology?
i
46) Did the Community Foundation receive the Nelson Gardens from the
Frank Nelson Foundation as a free gift or did they in turn have
to assume some of the liabilities of the latter?
Respectfully submitted to the Saratoga Planning Commission
on January 21 1996 by F. L. Stutzmang 15195 Park Drive, Saratoga
E. CLEMENT SHUTE, JR.
MARK I. WEINBERGER
MARC B. MIHALY, P.C.
FRAN M. LAYTON
RACHEL B. HOOPER
ELLEN J. GABBER
CHRISTY H. TAYLOR
TAMARA S. GALANTER
ELLISON FOLK
RICHARD S. TAYLOR
REED W. SUPER
JOSEPH E. JARAMILLO
WILLIAM J. WHITE
Via Federal Express
SHUTE, MIHALY 8 WEINBERGER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
396 HAYES STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102
TELEPHONE: (415) 552 -7272
TELECOPIER: (415) 552 -5816
LAUREL L. IMPETT, A1CP
URBAN PLANNER
ELIZABETH M. DODD
OF COUNSEL
Mayor Jacobs and Members of the City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Nelson Gardens Project (GPA -94 -003, AZO -94 -002, SD -95 -008)
& Tentative Cancellation of a Williamson Act Agricultural
Preserve Contract (APN 503 -49 -41 & 42)
Dear Mayor Jacobs and Members of the City Council:
This letter is submitted on behalf of the Friends of the Nelson Garden
Foundation for consideration by the City of Saratoga City Council at its February 7,
1996 hearing on the Nelson Gardens project. The purpose of this letter is to inform
the Council that the environmental impact report ( "EIR ") for the Nelson Gardens
project is inadequate to approve a general plan amendment, rezoning, tentative
subdivision map and tentative cancellation of a Williamson Act contract for the Nelson
Gardens project.
The Friends of the Nelson Garden Foundation submitted two extensive
letters documenting the environmental impacts that would result from the development
of the Nelson Garden site with a residential subdivision and the legal inadequacies of
the environmental documentation prepared by the City of Saratoga. See letters to the
Saratoga Planning Commission dated August 2, 1995 and January 2, 1996, attached
hereto as Exhibit A and B respectively.
The January 2, 1996 letter specifically identifies the deficiencies in the
draft EIR's analysis of impacts relating to land use, transportation, visual resources,
earth and biological resources, recreational, historical and cultural resources and the
January 31, 1996 t. ;r
CITY
Mayor Jacobs and Members of the City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Nelson Gardens Project (GPA -94 -003, AZO -94 -002, SD -95 -008)
& Tentative Cancellation of a Williamson Act Agricultural
Preserve Contract (APN 503 -49 -41 & 42)
Dear Mayor Jacobs and Members of the City Council:
This letter is submitted on behalf of the Friends of the Nelson Garden
Foundation for consideration by the City of Saratoga City Council at its February 7,
1996 hearing on the Nelson Gardens project. The purpose of this letter is to inform
the Council that the environmental impact report ( "EIR ") for the Nelson Gardens
project is inadequate to approve a general plan amendment, rezoning, tentative
subdivision map and tentative cancellation of a Williamson Act contract for the Nelson
Gardens project.
The Friends of the Nelson Garden Foundation submitted two extensive
letters documenting the environmental impacts that would result from the development
of the Nelson Garden site with a residential subdivision and the legal inadequacies of
the environmental documentation prepared by the City of Saratoga. See letters to the
Saratoga Planning Commission dated August 2, 1995 and January 2, 1996, attached
hereto as Exhibit A and B respectively.
The January 2, 1996 letter specifically identifies the deficiencies in the
draft EIR's analysis of impacts relating to land use, transportation, visual resources,
earth and biological resources, recreational, historical and cultural resources and the
Mayor Jacobs and Members of the Saratoga City Council
January 31, 1996
Page 2
loss of open space. Despite our repeated request for additional information and impact
analysis, the responses to comments contained in the final EIR merely restate the text
of the draft EIR, failing to provide any additional analysis of environmental impacts.
The result is that the public and decision - makers have very little understanding of the
array of impacts associated with the project and the extent to which measures can and
will mitigate or avoid those impacts.
For example, the final EIR continues to fail to disclose the existing
flooding problems which occur every rainy season in the residential neighborhood
located immediately downslope from the project site. Although homeowners provided
extensive documentation of existing drainage problems and expressed their strong
concerns that development of the site will worsen the neighborhood's flooding
problems, the final EIR fails to provide any additional information regarding this
serious environmental impact. See Response to Comment Number E -31.
Furthermore, the final EIR makes a mockery of the City's General Plan
when it asserts that the General Plan requires that all vacant sites within the Area B
Development area be developed with single family detached residential homes. See
Response to Comment Number E -2. Clearly the General Plan's intent is to ensure that
that any development of vacant lands is done in a manner that is compatible with the
surrounding residential area. Contrary to the statements in the final EIR, the goal of
the General Plan is to restrict the development of intensive land uses such as multi-
family residential or commercial uses on lands that are currently vacant. It belies
common sense to assert that the General Plan's Area B Guidelines mandate that any
development on open space land must be residential in nature.
The tone of the responses to comments in the final EIR clearly
expresses the City's intent to develop this site with a residential subdivision. Yet, it is
the City's responsibility to design a project which serves the public, and one that
balances environmental values with other public values. The planning process thus far
has responded only to the needs of a particular development and ignored the needs of
the greater community, as well as the original intent of Frank Nelson when he
dedicated this property for public use.
Mayor Jacobs and Members of the Saratoga City Council
January 31, 1996
Page 3
For all of the reasons described in the Friends of the Nelson Garden
Foundation's previous letters, we urge the City not to consider further the Nelson
Gardens project until the City prepares a legally adequate EIR that fully informs the
public of the environmental impacts associated with the development of this unique
site.
Very truly yours,
SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER
LAUREL L. IMPETT
Urban Planner
TAMARA S. GALANTER
encl.
cc: Ann Waltonsmith
PAFONGMAT I U.LIOO LLET
EXHIBIT A
SHUTE, MIHALY 8 WEINBERGER
E. CLEMENT SHUTE, JR. ATTORNEYS AT LAW
MARK 1. WEINBERCER
396 HAYES STT.EET
MARC B. MIHALY. F. C.
N FRANCISCO. CALIFOF.NiA 94102
SS A
FRAN M. LAYTON
RACHEL B. HOOPER
TELEPHONE: (415) 552 -72:2
ELLEN J. CARBER
TELECOPIEI'.: (415` 552 -5816
G- IRISTY H. TAYLOR
TAMARA S. GALANTER
ELLISON FOLK
RICHARD S. TAYLOR
HANK BATES
SUSANNAH T. FRENCH
August 2, 1995
REED W. SUPER
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
LAUREL L IMPETT, AICP
UIM*.N PLANNER
ELIZABETH M. DODD
OF COUNSEL
Re: Nelson Gardens Property Subdivision; GPA -94 -003, AZO-
94 -002 & SD -94 -005: 20851 Saratoga Hills Road
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
This firm represents The Friends of The Nelson Garden
Foundation on matters related to environmental review of the
Trinity Development Company's ( "Trinity ") application for a
general plan amendment (GPA -94 -003), zoning change (AZO -94 -002),
and subdivision approval (SD -94 -005) for property at 20851
Saratoga Hills Road ( "Nelson Gardens Property "). The Nelson
Garden Foundation is an organization formed to protect open space
in Saratoga. it is our conclusion, based on a review of the
project and environmental documentation, that approval of the
proposed project and adoption of the current mitigated negative
declaration would violate the California-Environmental Quality
Act (IICEQAII) (Public Resources Code § 21000 et sea.), State
Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code § 65300 et sea.), and
the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code § 66410 et sea.).
The City has already granted tentative permission for
early termination of the Williamson Act contract for the Nelson
Gardens Property. Project applicant Trinity now seeks to
subdivide two hillside parcels totaling 5.1 acres - -a substantial
portion of which is on steep hillside- -into nine single - family
residential building sites. The project consists ..of two
"Phases." Phase one, the subject of the pending subdivision
application and the Planning Commission's Initial Study, involves
construction of seven single - family homes ranging from 3,710 to
4,050 sq. ft. in size on lots ranging from 12,500 to 15,000 sq.
ft. on the lower portion of the Nelson Gardens Property. Phase
two, the subject of an intended future subdivision application,
would involve construction of two homes on lots of 40,000 sq. ft.
minimum on the steep hillside portion of the Nelson Gardens
Property.
CEQA prohibits the City of Saratoga from adopting a
mitigated negative declaration for this two -phase project without
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 2
ensuring that all potentially significant environmental effects
are mitigated to a level of insignificance. California Public
Resources Code § 21080(c)(1);. see also 14 California Code of
Regulations § 15063(b)(2)( 110EQA Guidelines ") . Despite this legal
mandate, the Initial Study and accompanying documentation reveal
that the proposed project has many potentially significant
environmental impacts which have not been identified or
adequately mitigated. These include impacts on native plant
species (particularly oak trees) and wildlife; subjection of
people and property to geologic hazards and flooding;
exacerbation of existing traffic circulation problems; aesthetic
impacts; and inconsistency with Saratoga's General Plan.
Compounding its error in failing to adequately analyze
each of these impacts, Saratoga. has impermissibly segmented its
analysis of project impacts by analyzing the Williamson Act
cancellation, Phase 1, and Phase 2 of the project separately.
This approach ignores CEQA's requirement to analyze the "whole of
the action" in one environmental document. CEQA Guidelines
§ 15378(a). The Williamson Act cancellation was a necessary
prerequisite to development, and there are significant cumulative
impacts of these three intimately related development phases that
Saratoga ignores by dividing the project into three separate
comaonents.
In addition to these substantive.violat- ions of CEQA,
the City has violated CEQA's procedural requirements. CEQA
mandates that a lead agency send notice of its intent to adopt a
negative declaration, together with a copy of a proposed negative
declaration, "to every . . . Trustee Agency concerned with the
project and every other public agency with jurisdiction by law
over resources affected by a project." Guidelines § 15073(b).
The Guidelines define a "Trustee Agency" as "a state agency
having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a
project which are held in trust for the people of the State of
California." Guidelines § 15386. By failing to send notice to
the California Department of Fish and Game, trustee of the
State's fish and wildlife resources, the City has violated this
CEQA requirement.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration currently proposed
for the project thus fails to comply with numerous CEQA
requirements. As detailed below, because substantial evidence
demonstrates that development of the Nelson Gardens Property will
have significant environmental impacts, CEQA requires that
Saratoga prepare an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") before
approving the project. The Commission should accordingly direct
the planning staff to prepare an EIR on the significant
environmental impacts that may result from Phase 1 and Phase 2 of
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 3
the proposed subdivision.
Finally, the proposed project is inconsistent with the
Saratoga General Plan and the relevant Area Plan, such that
project approval would violate both State Planning and Zoning Law
and the Subdivision Map Act.
I. THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
FAILS TO COMPLY WITH CEOA.
CEQA provides that the City may issue a Negative
Declaration only if "[t]here is no substantial evidence before
the agency that the project may have a significant effect on the
environment." California Public Resources Code § 21080(c)(1);
see also CEQA Guidelines § 15063(b)(2). In making this _
determination, the City must consider both the direct and
indirect effects of the project (Guidelines § 15064(d)) as well
as its cumulative effects. Citv of Antioch v. Citv Council of
Pittsburah, 187 Cal.App.3d 1325 (1986).
Both the courts and the CEQA Guidelines make clear that
even when there are conflicting opinions regarding the
significance of an impact, the City must treat the impact as
significant. Guidelines § 15064(g)(1). The California Supreme
Court has held that an EIR must be prepared whenever an agency is
presented with a "fair argument" that a project may have a
significant effect on the environment, even if there is also
substantial evidence to indicate that the impact is not
significant. No Oil Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 13 Cal.3d 68,
75 (1974)
As discussed below, -the Mitigated Negative Declaration
prepared for the project is based on a wholly inadequate Initial
Study which failed to consider the numerous adverse environmental
impacts associated with this project. In addition, the project
conditions seek to improperly defer consideration' of important
environmental effects until after project approva'1. To remedy
these shortcomings, the City must prepare an EIR before further
considering the project.
A. The Initial Study Is Inadequate.
CEQA requires a government agency to prepare an EIR
whenever a proposed project "may have a significant effect on the
environment." Public Resources Code § 21100. Where an agency
ultimately decides not to prepare an EIR, the Initial Study must
"[p]rovide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in
a Negative Declaration that a project will not have a significant
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 4
effect on the environment." Guidelines § 15063(c)(5).
The Initial Study prepared for this project hardly
provides such "documentation." The Study consists largely of an
environmental checklist declaring all potential impacts to be
insignificant,•or mitigable to a level of insignificance, with
barely any discussion or supporting material to substantiate its
conclusions. As such, the Initial Study fails to support the
Planning Commission's decision not to prepare an EIR.
The courts have made clear that a checklist alone will
not satisfy CEQA's requirements. In Citizens Association for
Sensible'Development of Bishop Area v. County of Invo, for
example, the court held that a checklist approach was an
acceptable first step, but that agencies "must also disclose the
data or evidence upon which the persons) conducting the study
relied." 172 Cal.App.3d 151, 171 (1985). See also Sundstrom v.
Mendocino County, 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 305 (1988) (checklist
initial study did not demonstrate good faith effort to comply
with CE-QA). The existing Initial Study's superficial and
concluscry notations regarding possible project impacts do not
substantially distinguish it from the initial studies rejected by
these courts.
Given the wide range of potential environmental impacts
discussed.below, such as project impacts on trees, wildlife,
geology, hydrology and traffic, as well as project inconsistency
with the Saratoga General Plan, the failure of the Initial Study
to address such effects and to provide documentation supporting
the Initial Study's conclusions clearly violates the requirements
Of CEQA. The existing Initial Study thus provides no basis for
certifying a Negative Declaration.
B. The Project Requires an EIR Because There is
Substantial Evidence That it May Have a Significant
Impact.
The CEQA Guidelines itemize impacts norhally considered
"significant" in Appendix G. Courts have repeatedly found that
where a project may have one or more of the impacts identified in
Appendix G, an agency must prepare an EIR. See, e.g., City of
Antioch v. Citv Council of Pittsburgh, 187 Cal.App.3d 1325, 1337
(1986) (extension of a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new
development) ; Pistoresi v. City of Madera, 138 Cal.App.3d 284,
288 (1982) (growth inducing impacts); Lewis v. Seventeenth
District_ Agricultural Association, 165 Cal.App.3d 823, 629 n.7
(1985) (increased noise levels).
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 5
The Nelson Gardens subdivision project has several
potential impacts that are specifically itemized in Appendix G as
presumptively "significant," including the following:
(1) The subdivision will "[c]onflict with adopted
environmental plans and goals of the community where it is
located." Appendix G(a).
(2) The subdivision will "[h]ave a substantial,
demonstrable negative aesthetic effect." Appendix G(b).
(3) The subdivision will "[c]ause an increase in
traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system." Appendix G(1).
(4) The subdivision will "[e]xpose people or structures
to major geologic hazards." Appendix G(r).
(5) The subdivision will "substantially diminish
habitat for . . . wildlife [and] plants." Appendix G(t).
As discussed below, the approval of the project as
currently conceived will result in significant adverse
environmental impacts, including, but not limited to, impacts on
vegetation, wildlife, geologic stability, hydrology, traffic
flow, aesthetics, and incompatibility with the General Plan and
Area B Specific Plan.
1. Veaetation
The Initial Study checklist contains a woefully,
superficial and misleading analysis of the proposed project's
impacts on plant life, and particularly, potential project
impacts on native trees. The checklist notes only that there
"may be" a "[c]hange in the diversity of species, or number of
species of plants," and states that although "some" of the 3.1
acres of native and ornamental planting will be removed, this
vegetation "will be replaced with native planting' and will not
result in a long term adverse change in the environment." The
Study fails to even consider vegetation impacts on the remaining
2.0 acres that will be affected by Phase 2 of the subdivision
project. The checklist indicates there will be "no" reduction in
numbers of "any unique, rare or endangered species of plants."
This is emphatically not the case. To the contrary,
substantial evidence demonstrates that the project may
significantly impact vegetation. The subject property is home to
more than 120 trees, including eight healthy Valley Oak trees. A
ninth Valley Oak is very close to the property line of proposed
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 6
Lot 6. Of California's nine species of tree oaks, the Valley Oak
is described as "the monarch of California oaks by virtue of its
size, age, and beauty." Bruce M. Pavlik, et. at., Oaks in
California at 10 (Cachuma Press, 1991). Abundant until the
1880s, "Valley Oaks have [since] been victims of widespread
agricultural and residential development on prime, lowland real
estate." Id. at 11. Extensive habitat conversion combined with
poor regeneration rates has made Valley Oaks one of three
California oak species that oak experts consider to be "oaks of
special concern." Id. at 125. Today, groves of Valley Oak are
scarce enough that without aggressive oak preservation efforts,
"[this] regal California heritage may soon be lost." Id.
The City of Saratoga General Plan clearly recognizes
the importance of oak conservation. The Plan's statement of
"Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures" for its
Conservation Element states that "in the process of all new
development, particular care should be taken to preserve native
oaks, measuring at least ten inches in diameter at twenty -four
inches above the ground." Section C.O. 2.5 at 2 -17. The plan
further identifies as an "Important" goal that the City "[m]odify
the Tree Preservation Ordinance to require tree removal permits
for naive oaks measuring 10 inches in diameter or greater." Id.
Despite the critical importance of preserving
California's remaining Valley Oaks, and the City of Saratoga's
express embracement of that goal, the Initial Study and Negative
Declaration fail to acknowledge that the project will have a
significant impact on vegetation due to development of the
property and associated construction. Nor do the Negative
Declaration or Initial Study propose adoption of mitigation
measures to reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
The proposed project will have a significant impact on
Valley Oak trees. The proposed building footprints and driveway
configurations (particularly the driveways for lots 8 and 9) will
result in direct destruction of oaks as well as negative impacts
associated with construction of the subdivision. 'Construction
activities themselves often kill oaks. Oaks are extremely
vulnerable to construction damage because 90% of their roots are
found within the first three feet of soil, and up to 70% of those
are found within the top 8 -12 inches. Further, landscaping
typically associated with subdivisions often disturbs much of the
root system and competes for available water and minerals.
The Saratoga General Plan's oak policy requires that
care be taken to preserve all of the subject property's Valley
Oaks. Proposed mitigation measures do not adequately protect
these trees -- either from removal or from destruction by
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 7
construction activities. The vague mitigation condition in the
"Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga
Approving Tentative Map" to the effect that "[f]uture homes shall
be sited and designed to minimize . . the removal of
significant existing native trees" is insufficient to guarantee
protection of the 8 on -site and one near -site Valley Oaks, or
even preservation of Valley Oaks #11 and r12, the two trees
explicitly recommended for protection in the horticultural report
recently prepared by Barrie D. Coate and Associates on which the
Initial Study relied. The proposed mitigation clearly does not
reduce project impacts on Valley Oaks to a level of
insignificance.
Any mitigation conditions should include a requirement
that all Valley Oaks be preserved. In addition to prohibiting
cutting of any Valley Oaks, the planning Commission should
specify how oaks are to be preserved during construction.
Mitigation requirements should include, for example, erection of
barriers around all oak trees during construction, no
interference or landscaping within the dripline of an oak tree,
no cornaction from construction activities, no introduction of
non - naive species, preconditioning prior to construction,
prevention of grade changes or standing water, and tunneling for
utilities to prevent root damage.
Oaks are not the only native species potentially
adversely impacted by the proposed Nelson Gardens Property
subdivision, however. In addition to the large native Valley
Oaks, there is "evidence that [other] native species are
recolonizing the site . . . [such that] the garden is slow[ly]
returning to the Coast Live Oak [Ouercus.agrifolia) Community
found in the nearby hills." Harvey & Stanley Associates, "Nelson
Foundation Property Wildlife Assessment" at 6 (1988). Thus,
there is substantial evidence that the project will have
significant impacts not only on oaks but on other native species.
The existing Initial Study fails to identify or mitigate these
significant impacts. ,
2. Wildlife
There is substantial evidence that the proposed
subdivision will have significant effects on wildlife. CEQA
mandates that where a project will "substantially reduce"
habitat, the impacts to wildlife must be considered significant.
CEQA Guidelines g 15065, Appendix G(d) & (t). Conversion of 5
acres of open space habitat known to contain deer and numerous
other wildlife species is a substantial reduction of local
wildlife habitat.
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 8
The Initial Study and Negative Declaration assert that
the project will not have a significant effect on wildlife.,
However, the Initial Study admits that-there may be
11[d]eterioration to existing wildlife or fish habitat." Without
any analysis of possible project impacts on species diversity or
on the number of individual animals, the City has no basis for
concluding that wildlife impacts can be mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
The Initial Study relied on a seven - year -old, extremely
superficial biological survey. (the "Nelson Foundation Property
Wildlife Assessment" conducted by Harvey and Stanley Associates
in 1988) prepared for a developer in conjunction with another
project proposed for this site, and inaccurately characterized
that assessment's few findings:
The. 1988 Wildlife Assessment was recently updated by
the same consultants. Although the updated assessment represents
a substantial improvement on the earlier version, and indicates
the presence of several wildlife species on the property that
were previously overlooked, the updated assessment does not
correct the dubious premises of the earlier one.
For example, the recent assessment, like the earlier
assessment, concludes that wildlife impacts are not likely to be
significant because other deer habitat can still be found in the
vicinity of the proposed project. See 1995 Assessment at 16.
The assessment does not discuss the possibility that deer
relocation (if such indeed occurs) may cause wildlife over-
crowding on other properties, so the assessment cannot support
the Initial Study's statement that there will be no "[c]hange in
the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals"
as a result of developing this 5.1 -acre parcel. Initial Study,
Section II(5)(a). It is impossible to tell with current data
whether there would be an aggregate change in the "numbers of any
soecies of animals."
More fundamental, however, is that deer'are not the
only fauna using the site. Appendix A to the 1988 Wildlife
Assessment lists more.than fifty species predicted to occur on
the subject property, and more than twenty -five actually
observed. The 1995 study lists additional species likely to
occur on the Nelson Gardens Property. Saratoga residents have
observed grey foxes and their young on the Property, as well as
other wildlife. Nowhere, however, are the habitat requirements
for any of these other species addressed.
A further, critical problem with the existing
"analysis" of wildlife impacts is that treating all of Saratoga's
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 9
"woodland habitats" as fungible ignores the requirements for
maintaining a viable ecosystem on the unbuilt portions of -the
subject property. As an example, Stellar's Jays, Scrub Jays and
Yellow- billed Magpies - -which researchers determined probably
occur on the subject property - -can be critical to oak.
regeneration. These are the only three California bird species
that cache acorns in the ground; when they forget some of their
buried acorns, these have a chance to sprout into oak seedlings.
Even if nearby habitats may provide habitat for these birds
(which has not been demonstrated) , these species would cease to
play their vital role in helping to sustain the Nelson Gardens
oak community. See Oaks in California, p. 85 -.
.Beyond the failure to adequately consider impacts to
deer, impacts to other wildlife, and secondary impacts to
vegetative communities due to ecosystem alterations, the Initial
Study assessment of wildlife impacts is. implicitly based on an
incorrect, and indeed leaally imne`-missible premise: that
incremental destruction of habitat is not significant, so long as
some suitable wildlife habitat remains. This.violates CEQA's
command that cumulative impacts be factored into environmental
decision raking.
Finally, neither the Initial Study, the 1988 Wildlife
Assessment, nor the 1905 update of that assessment identifies the
precise location of the supnosed "deer habitat" nearby. Further,
even if such currently undeveloped "habitat" still exists, unless
it is dedicated open space, it too will be vulnerable to
development. It is thus unclear whether other, nearby woodland
will be able to provide the long -term surrogate habitat claimed.
3. Geoloav
The Initial Study Checklist states that the proposed
project will result in no "[e]xposure of people or property to
geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure or similar hazards." Initial Study,, Section
!1(1)(g). This conclusion is entirely unsupporte$ by evidence,
having been reached in advance of conducting a geological
evaluation of the entire property involved in Phase 1 and Phase 2
of the proposed project. This objection to the Initial Study's
approach was raised repeatedly in the Planning Commission meeting
of June 14, 1995. For example, Commissioner Caldwell queried how
the staff could check "no" in the initial study under
geotechnical sections la and lb if the Commission did not know
whether the upper lots would receive geotechnical clearance,
given that geotechnical impacts on the lower lots may be affected
by what is found on the upper lots. Planning Commission Minutes
at 23. Commissioner Patrick and Commissioner Kaplan expressed
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 10
similar concern over the "piecemeal" manner in which the entire
geotechnical evaluation was being conducted. Id.
This piecemeal approach is particularly troubling
because earthquake hazards associated with the subject property
may expose people and property to serious risk. A 1995 map
produced by the Association of Bay Area Governments ( "ABAG")
indicating Modified Mercalli Intensity for an earthquake of
Richter magnitude 7.1 shows that the subject property would be
subject to "Heavy" shaking and damage in such an earthquake. See
Exhibit A, attached hereto. More significant, the property is
immediately adjacent to one of the very few areas in Saratoga
designated as vulnerable to "Extreme" damage in such a quake.
Given the ABAG map's caution that "[i]ntensities may be incorrect
by one unit higher or lower," it is quite conceivable that the
"Extreme" hazard area actually extends below the subject
property. An EIR must be prepared to analyze the potential
impacts of building a subdivision in such a geologically unstable
area.
Landslides, mudslides, or ground failure may also occur
on the subject property as a result of slope destabilization
induced by hillside construction, and /or increased surface water
runoff (see "Hydrology," below) . These hazards should similarly
be the subject of full investigation before project approval.
4. uvdro1oav
Landowners adjacent to the proposed subdivision
property have long complained of basement flooding problems. The
Initial Study admits that "[w]ater run -off will increase as a
result of increased impervious surfaces associated with the
development of homes, driveways, patios, etc.," but concludes
this project impact is insignificant because it will be
' .'controlled to an acceptable level by the City's lot coverage
limitations." Initial Study, Section II(9)(b). Given the
already existing drainage problems in the immediate vicinity of
the proposed development, however, the City has flailed to provide
any support for its belief that this impact is mitigable. For
example, runoff from lot 8 will drain into a drain pipe already
insufficient to accommodate existing runoff.
The City should accordingly require a thorough hydrologic
assessment of the subject property prior to project approval.
5. Traffic
When assessing the impacts of the proposed project, the
City must assess not only the impacts of the individual project
at hand, but also the "incremental impact of the project when
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 11
added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from
individually minor but collectively significant projects taking
place over a period of time." CEQA Guidelines § 15355(b). As
one court wrote:
The purpose of this requirement is obvious:
consideration of the effects of a project or projects as if
no others existed would encourage the piecemeal approval of
several projects that, taken together, could overwhelm the
natural environment and disastrously overburden the man -made
infrastructure and vital community services. This would
effectively defeat CEQA's mandate to review the actual
effect of the projects upon the environment.
Las Vi -aenes Homeowners Fed'n. Inc. v. County of Los Angeles,
177 Ca1.App.3d 300, 306 (1986). See also, Kings County, 221
Cal.App.3d 692 (EIR for coal fired cogeneration facility must
analyze other similar though independent projects planned in the
San Joaquin valley).
The Initial study erroneously failed to identify the
proposed project's significant effect on traffic congestion in
the immediate vicinity, as well as cumulative traffic impacts
resulting from traffic generation from the project In conjunction
with other existing and future projects. The Specific Plan for
Area B, the area containing the proposed project site, is an area
already plagued by congestion problems. The Area B Plan
expresses concern over "through traffic in the neighborhoods
which seem[s] to be a result of extensive hillside development"
(id.) -- precisely the type of development currently proposed. The
principal access to the subject property is via Saratoga
Sunnyvale Road, a road described in the Area Plan as already
having "intolerable traffic." Area B Plan at 4 -4. The Area B
Specific Plan indicates that even at current development levels,
"residents are concerned with the noise, pollution and safety
hazards presented by the ever - increasing traffic "'on Saratoga
Sunnyvale Road, and states explicitly that "[f]or this reason,
there is opposition to development that will create more trips to
and from Saratoga Sunnyvale Road." Id.
The proposed project, by generating approximately 90
additional vehicle -trips per day (based on an average of 10 trips
per day per household) , would markedly aggravate these problems.
The cumulative effect of this project in conjunction with traffic
from existing development and other approved or pending
subdivision applications in the area, such as that submitted for
a 12 -unit subdivision at 13121 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, will be
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 12
significant. In light of the long- recognized and likely
worsening traffic problem, the City must identify traffic impacts
as potentially significant,.. analyze.. the traffic impacts in an
EIR, and propose mitigation measures to address this project's
contribution to cumulative traffic impacts.
6. Visual Imloacts /Aesthetics
Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines states that "[a]
project will normally have a significant effect on the
environment if it will . . . (b) Have a substantial, demonstrable
negative aesthetic effect." A California appellate court has
specifically held that the visual impact of a proposed
residential subdivision can constitute such an effect. In Ouail
Botanical Gardens v. _ncinas, 29 Cal.App.4th 1597 (1994), the
court stated that "the CEQA Guidelines essentially establish a
rebuttable presumption [that] any substantial, negative aesthetic
effect i's to be considered a significant environmental impact for
CEQA purposes." The court held tha" because defendant City could
not have concluded (based on the record before it) that "its
mitigation measures clearly would reduce impacts below a level of
significance," the City erred in certifying a mitigated negative
declaration. 14_ at 1604.
The development of the Nelson Gardens property will
result in unavoidable visual impacts that the City of Saratoga
has similarly failed to identify or mitigate. The Nelson Gardens
Property provides acres of open space in the midst of residential
development. See Exhibit B, attached 'hereto. Clearly,
conversion of 5.1 acres of agricultural land containing more than,
120 mature trees and abundant wildlife to a residential
subdivision will have a negative aesthetic impact. This loss of
local open space adds to the cumulative effect of subdivision
approvals on Saratoga's visual character. Recent subdivision
approvals for parcel 397 -16 -141 (2.96 acres) and parcel 397 -16 -6
(10.79 acres) on Douglass Lane, and the pending subdivision
application for 13121 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road if approved, are
making green, open spaces a scarce commodity in Saratoga.'
Approval of the Nelson Gardens subdivision application
will also specifically negatively impact the views of surrounding
neighbors and the community as well as block sweeping views of
the Santa Clara Valley and mountains beyond. The planned
subdivision houses, which will have footprints considerably
larger in relation to lot size than existing homes on adjacent
properties, will be discordant with the layout of the area.
Further, the proposed subdivision will be aesthetically
incompatible with adjacent properties by allowing construction of
three two -story houses (lots 7, 8, and 9) in a neighborhood
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 13
consisting almost exclusively of one -story houses.
Potential aesthetic impacts have been described in
correspondence submitted by and oral testimony by members of the
community. For example, Gary L. Nemetz told the Planning
Commission that the number of proposed parcels and type of homes
the project applicant proposes would be "out of character with"
and "incompatible with" existing homes to the South and East on
Trinity Avenue and Pontiac Avenue, providing an "unaesthetic
contrast." Letter to the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
June 4, 1995 (appended to Staff Report). Bud.Alexander, who
resides across the street from the proposed development,
testified that he "did not believe that the construction of
compatible homes to that of the existing single family homes in
terms of massing, size and styling would be possible." Planning
Commission Minutes, June 14, 1995, at 27.
The Initial Study fails to identify, and the Mitigated
Negative Declaration fails to adequately mitigate these aesthetic
impacts. These project- specific and cumulative impacts must be
considered in an EIR.
7. Inconsistencv with the General Plan
Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines provides that "[a]
project will normally have a significant effect on the
environment if it will: (a) Conflict with adopted environmental
plans and goals of the community where it is located." Because
the Nelson Gardens subdivision does not comply with the Saratoga
General Plan (see Section II, below), the project will have a
significant effect, thus requiring preparation of an EIR.-
8. Construction impacts
The noise and traffic from constructing nine homes in a
residential neighborhood is a potentially significant impact to
adjacent landowners. The increased traffic associated with
transporting materials and workers to the construction site will
compound the traffic congestion problem identified above.
Furthermore, construction will create,significant noise impacts
in this quiet residential neighborhood. The City has failed to
identify or mitigate either of these potentially significant
impacts.
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 14
C. Mitigation Measures Incorporated Into the Negative
Declaration are Not Supported by Substantial Evidence,
and Do Not Reduce. Impacts to -a Level of Insignificance.
When a lead agency relies on mitigation measures to
find that project impacts will be reduced to a level of
insignificance, there must be substantial evidence in the record
demonstrating that the measures are feasible and will be
effective. Public Resources Code § 21051.5; Guidelines
§ 15125(c) ; Kings County, 221 Cal.App.3d at 726. The negative
declaration for the proposed project purports to rely on a number
of mitigation measures to reduce project impacts below a level of
significance, but the document provides no information
demonstrating why these measures would be effective or feasible.
Further, the Initial Study erroneously concludes that in many
categories there will be no significant environmental impacts,
and thus fails to analyze ways to mitigate probable impacts.
The few mitigation measures currently referenced in the
negative declaration are extremely vague, and do, not adequately
mitigate the numerous significant impacts identified in Section
I(B), above. For example, the mitigation measures state that
future homes shall be sited and designed to "minimize . . .
removal . cf significant trees," implying that some significant
trees may be removed, and further failing to identify how many
trees are cpnsidered "significant."
The vague condition recruiring "landscape plans" for
each new home application fails to address the need to make
landscaping compatible with existing vegetation so as to avoid
resource competition between existing oaks and new plantings.
The provision that individual lot coverages "may" be reduced to a
level lower than the maximum allowable for the assigned zoning
district designation is too indefinite to guarantee that new
houses will be compatible with existing houses. The proposed
limitation on fencing does not mitigate wildlife impacts to a
level of insignificance. ,
Conspicuously omitted from consideration are the need
to mitigate the potentially significant impacts on noise and
traffic, and the increase in surface water runoff that was
explicitly identified in the Initial Study. There is also no
discussion of geologic hazards mitigation, despite evidence that
this area is subject to heavy shaking in a major earthquake.
Although it is doubtful that currently proposed
mitigation measures.could adequately address the impacts of the
project identified in the Initial Study, and those that should
have been identified, the Initial Study's approach suffers from a
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 15
more fundamental problem. CEQA requires -the completion of all
environmental studies and the proposal of specific mitigation
measures before project approval. Guidelines section 15070(b)
provides that preparation of a mitigated negative declaration is
only permissible where:
The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects
but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by
or agreed to by the aaplicant before the proposed Negative
Declaration is released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no
significant effects would occur. [Emphasis added].
See also Sundstrom v. Mendocino County, 202 Cal.App.3d 296 (1988)
(needed or proposed mitigation measures must be incorporated into
a proposed negative declaration and the project revised
accordingly before a negative declaration is released for public
comment) ; Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation Inc. v. City of
Encinitas; 29 Cal.App.4th 1597 (1994) (CEQA prohibits a city from
relying on post - approval ritigation measures adopted during
subdivision design review process to validate a negative
declaration).
The Saratoga City Planning commission has impermissibly
deferred both significance determinations (such as determination
of any effects of hillside geologic hazards on the lower lots)
and design of mitigation measures (such as requiring preservation
of all oaks and protection of trees from construction damage).
An additional problem with this approach, which permits post -
approval study and mitigation- design, is that it undermines
CEQA's requirement that there be an opportunity for public review
of impacts analysis and proposed mitigation.
Because the City has failed to require full pre -
approval analysis of potential project impacts, and has failed to
identify specific mitigation measures that will address all known
and knowable potential impacts, the existing negative declaration
is legally inadequate.
D. The Initial Study Does Not Contain a Mitigation
Monitoring Program.
CEQA requires that agencies adopt a "reporting or
monitoring program" for any mitigation measures incorporated into
a project or imposed as a condition of approval. CEQA
§ 21081.6(a). The Initial Study for the proposed project is
legally inadequate insofar as it fails to include a mitigation
monitoring program.
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 16
E. The Environmental Review is Impermissibly Segmented.
The proposed negative declaration-for the Nelson Gardens
subdivision project illegally segments the City's environmental
review process. CEQA defines "project" to mean "the whole of an
action" that may result in a direct or indirect physical change
in the environment. CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a). CEQA "mandates
that environmental considerations do not become submerged by
chopping a large project into many little ones - -each with a . . .
potential impact on the environment - -which cumulatively may have
disastrous consequences." Citv of Santee v. County of San Diego,
214 Cal.App.3d 1438, 1452 (1989). By considering the Williamson
Act cancellation, Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the development project
separately, the City has run afoul of this mandate.
The prohibition on project segmentation has both a
spacial and a temporal dimension. Spacially, two logically
related contiguous land uses must be analyzed as a single
project. For example, in Plan for Arcadia, Inc. v. Arcadia City.
Council, 42 Cal. App. 3d 712, 736 (1974), the court held that
proposed shopping center and parking lot projects were related
and should be regarded as a single project for purposes of CEQA.
Temzorallv,, CEQA requires that a project be analyzed in full at
the outset, rather than in small secruential bites such that the
magnitude of the project's impacts may only become evident once
the project has gained irreversible momentum.
CEQA thus dictates that all steps of the proposed
project - -the Williamson Act cancellation, and phases 1 and 2 of
site development- -must be analyzed in one environmental document
for CEQA purposes, and the analysis must take place before the
first step (Williamson Act cancellation) is permitted. Instead,
however; the City has chopped up its analysis both temporally
(considering the Williamson Act cancellation and site development
as separate). and spacially (considering development of flat land
( "Phase 111) and adjacent hillside land ( "Phase 211) as separate
projects). ,
The City Council justified failure to analyze the
environmental impacts of its tentative cancellation of the
Williamson Act Contract on the logic that there is no potential
for a single negative environmental impact to result from such a
decision, because:
In this case, the project consists only of the consideration
of the cancellation of the Williamson Act contract. The
cancellation (i.e. the project) only affects the tax status
of the site and does not, in [and] of itself, approve any
development of the site.
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 17
Paul L. Curtis, Community Development Director, letter to
Saratoga City Council (April 5, _1995).
The City planning staff then compounded the
segmentation problem by deciding that Phase 1 of the development
could be evaluated even before Phase 2 geotechnical studies were
completed. The staff report stated that staff had "no concerns
with doing this," implying that Phase 1 and Phase 2 could also be
treated as separate projects for analytic and CEQA purposes.
James Walgren, "Report to the Planning Commission" (June 14,
1995), p.000b88.
The Citv's analytic approach is clearly proscribed by
the City's own "Project Description" in the Negative Declaration
for the Williamson Act Tentative Cancellation, however. In the
Negative Declaration, the City Council describes the whole
"project" as consisting of:
Tentative cancellation of Williamson Act Contract. . . in
order to co::sider a General Plan and zoning ordinance.
designation amendment and subdivision of the property into
nine (9) residential lots. (Emphasis added.)
Declaration That Lrivironmental Impact Report Not Required
( "Negative Declaration "), March 16, 1995.
Thus, the Declaration flatly acknowledged that the
Williamson.Act cancellation is a necessary precursor to site
development, and would be granted specifically for that purpose.
Similarly, In "Exhibit C" ( "Proposed Facts and Findings Under the
Williamson Act Supporting Cancellation ") , the City Council noted
its "finding" that "[t]he property cannot be sold for residential
development until the agricultural restrictions are lifted."
The City's own documents and CEQA point in the same
direction: because the Williamson Act cancellation, Phase 1 and
Phase 2 of the proposed subdivision are integrally related parts
of a process that will convert agricultural land into a
residential subdivision., they may not be treated as separate
projects for environmental review purposes.
The Question is not merely whether any one of -the
project components by itself has substantial impacts; it is
whether there is "substantial evidence that any aspect of the.
project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a
significant effect on the environment" so as to trigger the
requirement of EIR preparation. Guidelines § 15063(b) (emphasis
added). Without analyzing all project components together, the
City has no basis for concluding that the totality of project
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 18
impacts are not of sufficient magnitude to require an EIR.
Indeed, as a result-of the impermissible segmentation of the
project,-the Initial Study and Negative Declaration underestimate
the totality of the project's vegetation, wildlife, geological,
hydrological, traffic, and aesthetic impacts.
Furthermore, as a result of segmentation, the City will
accept the Williamson Act contract cancellation as a given, and
consider whether, in light of the fact that there is no longer a
Williamson Act contract, a residential development is
appropriate: In City of Carmel -Bv- The -Sea v. Board of
Sunervisors of Monterev, 183 Cal.App.3d 229 (1986), a court
stated that a zoning change to an environmentally sensitive area
should not be made without a full environmental analysis, even if
an EIR would ultimately be prepared for any development project,
because:
[a] later EIR regarding a development project on the
property would treat the zoning as a fait accompli, and
would not need to address either the density designation or
the definition and demarcation of the wetlands.
Id. at 251 -52. Similarly, in the present case the Citv's incruiry
should have been framed comprehensively at the outset: "What will
be the combined environmental effects of permitting premature
cancellation of a Williamson Act contract and conversion of 5.1
acres of agricultural open space to residential development in a
City that, according to its own General Plan, is already 850
developed ?"
F. conclusion.
In sum, the City's superficial and conclusooy Initial
Study checklist failed to identify many of the above - identified,
potentially significant impacts as even "maybe" significant. The
Study also summarily discounted the need for fundamental project
redesign to mitigate the few potential impacts it did identify.
An agency cannot hide behind its own failure to identify impacts,
however. Nor can it postpone analysis of potentially significant
impacts until after the tentative map is approved. CEQA requires
a thorough, early consideration of,all potential environmental
impacts before a lead agency may even contemplate adopting a
negative declaration. See Guidelines § 15070(b). The City of
Saratoga must thus prepare an EIR that analyzes the project's
significant impacts, proposes mitigation measures to minimize
those impacts, and considers alternatives to the proposed
project.
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 19
II. APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT WOULD VIOLATE GENERAL PLAN LAW
BECAUSE THE PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN.
The heart of State Planning and Zoning Law is its
requirement that land use projects approved by a local government
be consistent with that government's adopted general plan.
dePottari v. Norco C?tv Council, 171 Cal.App.3d 1204, 1213
(1955). A city's general plan serves as the "constitution" for
all future development in that City. Lesher Communications. Inc.
v. City of Walnut Creek, 52 Cal.3d 531, 539 -40 (1990). Thus, any
subdivision or other development project that the Saratoga
Planning Commission approves must be consistent with the City's
general plan.
The proposed Nelson Gardens subdivision is inconsistent
with the Saratoga General Plan, and most conspicuously, with its
recently updated Open Space Element (1993). The Element notes
that through use of a community survey, "[t]he City of Saratoga
has recently confirmed the community's appreciation and desire to
preserve and enhance the City's existing. character and open
spaces in and around the City." Open Space Element at 1. The
Element states that agriculture preserves under the Williamson
Act "add not only to the perception of open spaces within the
City, but also serve as a vital link between the modern City and
its ac:icultu =al past." Id at 6.
Nest significant, the'Element states as an explicit
"policy" that "[--)he City shall discourage the early cancellation
of Williamson Act contracts." I'? at 12. Indeed, the Element
contains a discussion of various "Incentives to Agricultural Land
Owners" to encourage them to continue-such uses. Id. at 14.
Cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract for and
development on land that includes steep hillsides is a
particularly egregious General Plan violation. The General Plan
states that "hillsides and the valley provide Saratoga with its
prime macroscale views. Therefore, development mi}st include
careful study of the effect on scenic open space." Id. at 15.
The Conservation Element similarly stresses the need to
"[c]ontrol the density of development in hill areas . . . to
protect . . . the aesthetic qualities of the city." Conservation
Element at 2 -26. Given that 850 of Saratoga is already developed
(General Plan at 3 -36), the cancellation of the Williamson Act
Contract for a 5.1 -acre tract is a non - trivial conflict with the
open space preservation philosophy and policies embodied in the
General Plan.
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 20
As expressed by Saratoga resident F.L. Stutzman, M.D.:
The General Plan of Saratoga envisioned many small community
parks. These were to be areas for the very young, for
mothers with children, and for the elderly . . . We need
more of these . . . . we also need more large parks or areas
of open space. We, by state standards, should have three
acres of park land for each one thousand residents. We have
less than one half of that, and where are we going to make
up the deficit?
Testimony to the City Council re: Williamson Act Contract
cancellation.
Beyond a general desire to preserve what little open
space remains in Saratoga, the community's opposition to this
Particular proposed subdivision stems from decades of legitimate
expectation that the Nelson Gardens Property would never be
developed. Frank Nelson deeded his 5.1 -acre parcel of land to
The Nature Conservancy between 1971 and 1976, at which time both
parties determined that the highest and best use of the property
was for agricultural purposes. The-Conservancy owned the
property and maintained it in its natural state until 1977, when
it transferred the property to the California State Parks
Foundation. That Foundation continued to own the land until
property 1904. During this entire period, the "' p y was maintained as
an agricultural preserve open to the public. When financial
pressures induced the State Parks Foundation to transfer Nelson
Gardens to the Florence Nelson Foundation, the transferee passed
a resolution indicating that it would maintain and preserve the
property in a manner consistent with Mr. Nelson's intentions.
After more than two decades of efforts to keep this property in
its agricultural preserve use, it would be a tragedy for Saratoga
to allow the project applicant to undermine the preservation
intent of the grantor and successive grantees.
Subdivision of the Nelson Gardens Property is also
inconsistent with the Land Use element's express 4oal of
preserving native species of plants. The Land Use Element
explicitly states that "[t]he preservation of native and other
vegetative species indicative of Saratoga's cultural heritage
shall be given priority over development and provide for the
perpetuation of such species." Id. at 15, item 12
(1993)(emphasis added).
Furthermore, as already discussed above, the proposed
subdivision violates key goals and policies of the City's General
Plan relating to preservation of oak, trees and minimization of
traffic impacts. Thus, the proposed project not only violates
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
August 2, 1995
Page 21
grantor Frank Nelson's initial wish to see this parcel maintained
as agricultural open space, decades of stewardship of the site in
this manner, and the community's desire to see this parcel
protected: it violates the letter of the Saratoga General Plan.
The City should consider use of the property as a
public garden, which would be consistent with both Mr. Nelson's
vision for the property and the City's General Plan.
III. APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT WOULD VIOLATE THE SUBDIVISION MAP
ACT BECAUSE THE PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL
PLAN.
Government Code section 66473.5, a section' of the
Subdivision Map Act, provides that:
No local agency shall approve a tentative map, or a parcel
map for which a tentative map was not required, unless the
legislative body finds that the proposed subdivision,
together with the provisions for its design and improvement,
is consistent with the general plan. A proposed subdivision
shall be consis tent with a general plan. only if. . .
the p_cposed subdivision is compatible with the objectives,
policies, general land-uses and programs specified in such a
plan.
Because the proposed.Nelson Gardens subdivision is inconsistent-
with the Saratoga General Plan (see.Sec -ion II, above), approval
of this project would violate the Subdivision Map Act.
For the foregoing reasons, The-Friends-of The Nelson
Garden Foundation requests that the City of Saratoga defer action
on this subdivision application and request for a general plan
amendment and zoning change until the City prepares an EIR that
fully complies -with CEQA.
Yours truly,
SHUTE, MTHALY & WEINBERGER
Tamara S. Galanter
TSG:djp
cc: The'Friends of The Nelson Garden Foundation
0C2.fonq.d;p
,.�ae'..j,t' ".•. D +S !J a �+ , rtrPit rir....y',,.�'..,• r.
.i ✓i.jM41, , �%., t i•' L! J` r,. fir,. :�, �( 1. �; i y• .r. 1: if
`ii:' {ti�!'•'h � 4k � � yY bi', �•, �M�'�' "R'f��� �r•1� 't, .j!'It. 4''1.� ` 1:.,
NMI fr. JxiP� TtA r
f !� � i�'�.�}�i k+���tt ^:a 1�' ��} Y�•CK,•rNAr,��,��M`'���itl't�' ��li,:.,.'/ ,.� �;,;tr .,. .. .,
I. 6f>1! 1tN' "'�n�ry�:Fn, /j
M I ,
,
• {t
y,
H � r
;�-���+ t ��; }�'It,•►�+tr F" .v,i.t •ti's "�c4,rfCi a•.� ,!.•� 1•'i,, ''i' .
Ij1,17 � � 1E'9 �"R+rJ'1�R'`t?�a��f'I'�''�'t:4l '�1r� �k: � ':'�. °`°t) �•i:.• ;•,.
i1 1' tl
�S�RY.�1 r►,a��t''.. "G �11� �tllft .�f ,.,.,.1....:' :.,•
` . • r 1.
���M.f�.l'�i °��Ih.1 '} �fa! �• �" eI "• I'f .r t �•ti
4
if I
Hl r4 j�;t4 t _ �4 {++j •1 .. i - w,k?}ti.1 ti,r. {t; t'F f
�� ,'
1'r
tit
z �'t t 1 ,k�� ,I ,,tip � � }�:, � � • �f : ,;� .R a: =' It.,,,,t,;, ' .
t'. �) �.�.' ":�.'1f!'t'bI: !',iFl �r ,•; :�f {•'ty }fi '''•t fir-4 �.;
I , ,i.r G �,'i ~�, �n�� � �� ;ilk: � ,�'i�! '�1' •'tF�! �'p'i'!� :1 r:.,
J, �r .fix � � 1 '. 'i ` �'' •� � � 1 � 1 � Z' •• �
•, I f�14iTi ;��'� r r Mt•.1 „.6t +r:�i)
,A� �•''.`• Asps 11I'i�Y
,ter • ,� Rot ► „ ..; !
y , • -e
l
S1.1AK' I hlG I N T E N S I T
Sari hnd'reas Eq.
Peninsula Segment
flagniLude = -.7.1
H ud i f i'ed Mer:c a I I i
I n'tens L
Damage level
R X - Ext,rerne
`. I X - Ilpavw
VIII -
Mod.eraLe
_ VII- Pl0r•i�I;r0 cLuP6l
V - P i C.Lure8 110vP,
' ol.Jrce: G 1995
LIn Shahu G -round
fhe map is intended
In r' pIanning onIW.
I:nLens i L i es maU be
i ncorrect b!!j one
wn i t higher, cw
I r_Iwer.. G,ur'r'enL
vorrs;on of map
available on
Internet aL httpi //
www.abag.ca.gov
1
ki
OCR
;�� {, '..3tr ,- �t -:r.'- - �r'P t�k.. l'rY ��� "�• .YwI t '•► r� •,'•
I
'.� ��;� fr ;j''''? • � '' r '•� I• ��.1•� •+ � •� I./ M _ #� T J.
Ov ,.. 1jj �1 .``•' • � 1 • • OF i`17 • 8.
��; ; •'.. �7 } •� tf •� �.,_1 1 � +i.11i 1 t f) .r i ifs, '' .Ij .�- ��11 !• .. Y ' 4.• a �•.
'.�� r.},.' ,1j�J tt �'! •�I � �� / � ���� ".'�y �• .1:. Ate.!..
•� ♦. '.. !`Y :.�� ii 1! +1. , �t,,•},ir 1 .��j II' i .1'-', �' V '..1�/1�-- ' ♦• .t. - 1 •': •` i + aw' ;•• �t� '`• �►`
• 1 1 I 1 .. 1�. T i /'S , 1 �' ,'I\ ,. ..l rt +� .�,.. r:c � +,' 4.,���(�t 1 •�, •'.�� •w."•.: •� a�•• �•''
-�.�P _•�., .�._• ;'.`A,••;. ',. :. ., ✓1: ���1'.. ��/1\YY: .. 'lJ'� ... j. .I - • -r l� JAI: •.)•. f+ • ►/ • .r• •M �•
':' .1t 1 � - . ' ' ' ., 111 �•� -, � ,. :�� , r a•
. �'� • '•,'- ' . ` t' �� . �;;'� ', J .'�:. .� _ • .. - Vii. ,r• 4
•
♦.�'� ,,'. + t :' + :• �' w •1/�1 '!qtr[- t•• ; :•tip?
pj
reJv
ti+ r,. t iti!E��dY ••1 � \. ,'• �.761f.A 11�1':.h + /,,Tl�{Y`- �/ /•1 .r•.Y I'. !• 1 ,..J ` , r Y .. �r ♦•
`'','`.1+ • . .' V . , t S .. •.: ";: 4.ti � �:'• � ••, �{' � �1 t� •��, d / tw i:,���y�' • �.' c =. � ' • . ., 1. '1. •• •_ •r ,
�• •'�r.M..,..t•:S- ��.�f�'� }v,�•��.• ••'J�:. I.Ir,�i \ w' tr ,'1 T��1� ��;1..1 :t -`•' Y�` ♦//��)���(• �.
ve
IMF
All
4 Y6
'.!1' °' t ' - .;, .:rti; _ - -- ti >•.
At
S44 lk 6.
4 00
d j -
'i. ''r: I' � 1 1 � • - � - � • \• '1• '•�'t.. � �'.�• �, ,. •Mrs *.rt►ti�.Y -, ,.Y.
- ..'.i .j •• 1 ',. '.�. �. •...Cfyr• •1 '• .•r:i :ftis`y!�'= '�`'•.:•t�t� _. :.r'i•"�:
.ti•' 1 1 • .' ` ., .. � ... , II, � '� •' - ^. "'.i..j•� � r .�J I •:••. = tir•'•� ; -i�.st 'i4',.�: a".�'.,:.
� I � r... . 1% i 11 �1• � , , . r� • I , .' ►� • � ' • , • t ' � : i . •' �• t /" , ; %'_� .f � '4' }�'c: i'f
• r �' r ' i1� 1•' � I try 1 ••• .. , J•. �� .R '
• ..: r / �" r 1•• j,%��#:. ►�� `�{�.� ' • III ! y..•..;..: �R � � �; � r �' r
jj;�.
WW ..44A4 WA
art ��&o
Ae
WIT
•M�
IWO
• %i�,� -. .' _ r •'..1 i,.,•c .` t M'- ....,,,fir •
&Ad let k.,h 1-4 - 'A '
i•:
r. •
EXHIBIT B
E. CLEMENT SHUTE, JR.
MARK I. WEINBERGER
MARC B. MIHALY, P. C.
FRAN M. LAYTON
RACHEL B. HOOPER
ELLEN J. GARBER
CHRISTY H. TAYLOR
TAMARA S. GAIANTER
ELLISON FOLK
RICHARD S. TAYLOR
REED W. SUPER
HAND DELIVERED
SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
396 HAYES STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102
TELEPHONE: (415) 552 -7272
TELECOPIER: (415) 552 -5816
January 2, 1996
Chair Murakami and Members of the Saratoga
Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
LAUREL L IMPETT, AICP
URBAN PLANNER
ELIZABETH M. DODD
OP COUNSEL
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report Nelson Gardens
Protect
Dear Chair Murakami and Members of the Commission:
We submit this letter on behalf of The Friends of The
Nelson Garden Foundation, an organization formed to protect open
space in Saratoga. The purpose of this letter is to inform the
City that the draft environmental impact report ( "DEIR") for the
proposed Nelson Gardens Project (hereinafter "project ") fails to
comply with the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000 et sea. ( "CEQA"), and
the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, title 14, §
15000 et sea.) ( "CEQA Guidelines ").
As discussed further below, the DEIR for the proposed
project, both in process and in product, is wholly inadequate,
with the result that decision- makers and the public are deprived
of information they require to reach an informed decision about
the appropriateness of the project. The DEIR fails to adequately
describe the proposed project and fails to recognize the
historical intent of the community to preserve the site as a
public garden. In addition, the DEIR inadequately analyzes
environmental impacts. For example, the DEIR concludes, despite
strong evidence to the contrary, that land use and visual impacts
are insignificant. Further, the DEIR fails to adequately analyze
impacts relating to the loss of open space despite the fact that
Saratoga falls far short of the State's per capita open space
standard.
Because the DEIR understates the severity of
environmental impacts, it also fails to identify feasible
mitigation measures and alternatives capable of eliminating the
Chair Murakami.and Members of the Saratoga
Planning Commission
January 2, 1996
Page 2.
project's environmental impacts. As described more fully below;
the EIR falls below minimum standards of adequacy in many other
respects as well.
Unfortunately, many of the issues raised in our
previous letter on the Initial Study /Negative Declaration dated
August 2, 1995 were left unaddressed in this EIR. For example,
the DEIR, like the Initial Study, fails to recognize visual
impacts as significant and also fails to analyze the impacts
relating to existing flooding in the neighborhood surrounding the
project. A copy of the August 2nd letter is attached and is
incorporated by reference into this letter.
A revised draft EIR must be prepared and circulated for
public comment to remedy the DEIR's many deficiencies. Only that
way can the public and the agencies be adequately informed of the
environmental repercussions of the project.
Furthermore, Friends of Nelson Garden is concerned that
approval of this project will set a deleterious precedent by
dramatically altering the City's well - established policies
concerning the protection of open space. The General Plan
amendment and the rezoning required for approval of this project
would allow a level and intensity of development far beyond that
contemplated by the City when it adopted its General Plan. The
proposed project would result in urban housing densities on land
which has long been intended to be preserved as a community
garden. In addition, the Nelson Gardens project is inconsistent
with numerous goals and policies of the City General Plan's
Conservation and Open Space Elements. Finally, the proposed
cancellation of the Williamson Act contract is directly
inconsistent with the City's General Plan.
I. The DEIR Fails to Satisfy the Requirements of CEOA
1. The DEIR Contains An Incomplete Proiect Description.
The DEIR provides a legally inadequate analysis of the
potential impacts of the project because it is based on an
incomplete project description. Normally, an EIR provides a
factual description of the specific project, including
information relating to the placement of building pads,
driveways, streets and utilities, grading information, and the
extent of cut and fill. The DEIR for this project does not
contain sufficient information to identify and assess
environmental impacts, to select appropriate mitigation measures
Chair Murakami and Members of the Saratoga
Planning Commission
January 2, 1996
Page 3.
and /or alternatives, or to allow the public and City decision -
makers to review the project..
The preliminary plans and data which form the basis of
the project description are insufficiently detailed to allow an
adequate analysis of the environmental impacts.of the final
development proposal. More importantly, the lack of any
information regarding the siting, design and construction plans
for houses to be developed as part of the project renders the EIR
useless for evaluating that aspect of the project. As explained
more fully below, neither an adequate assessment of the
significant environmental impacts of the Nelson Gardens project,
nor an intelligent discussion of appropriate mitigation measures
is possible without a better description of the development
project itself. .
2. The DEIR Contains An Inadequate Description of the
Environmental Setting.
A DEIR "must include a description of the environment
in the vicinity of the project, as it exists before the
commencement of the project, from both a local and a regional
perspective." CEQA Guidelines § 15125; see also Environmental
Planning and Info. Council v. County of E1 Dorado, 131 Cal.App.3d
350, 354 (1982). The environmental setting discussion of the
Nelson Gardens.DEIR is deficient because it fails to acknowledge
the historical uses and importance of the site as a model of
traditional agricultural land use of Santa Clara Valley. Indeed,
the DEIR merely mentions in passing the fact that Mr. Frank
Nelson deeded his property to the Nature Conservancy. He did
this "to'preserve a bit of land and protect it from development
so people can be educated in the way a working orchard operates."
City of Saratoga Nelson Gardens Task Force Ad Hoc Committee at 2.
In addition, the DEIR fails to disclose that the City explicitly
recognized the importance of this site when the City Council
appointed the Nelson Gardens Task Force as an Ad Hoc Committee in
1988 to explore the preservation of the site as a community
garden.
By failing to recognize Mr. Frank Nelson's and the
community's long standing intent to pursue a public garden, and
the lengthy process undertaken by the Nelson Gardens Task Force
Ad Hoc Committee, the DEIR fails to objectively describe the
local and regional importance of this land.
Chair Murakami and Members of the Saratoga
Planning Commission
January 2, 1996
Page 4.
3. The DEIR Does Not Adequately Disclose or Analyze
Significant Environmental Impacts; Nor Does it Identify
Sufficient Mitigation Measures.
In judging the legal sufficiency of an EIR, the focus
is on adequacy, completeness and a good faith effort at full
disclosure. The document should provide a sufficient degree of
analysis to allow decision - makers to make intelligent judgments.
CEQA Guidelines § 15151. A number of court decisions have
developed criteria for determining what constitutes a
"reasonable" effort to analyze projects' potential impacts.
Kings County Farm Bureau et al. v. City of Hanford, 221
Cal.App.3d 692 (1990) is particularly instructive on this point.
That opinion emphasizes that an EIR must support with rigorous
analysis and substantial evidence the conclusion that
environmental impacts will be insignificant. The DEIR for the
Nelson Gardens project lacks such support for its conclusions.
A. Land Use Impacts
By developing one of, if not the last potential public
gardens in the City of Saratoga, the Nelson Gardens project is
clearly inconsistent with the intent of the City's General Plan
which calls for the protection of the City's parks and open space
lands. The City's Open Space Element adopted in November 1993,
clearly states that the City has been able to retain its identity
and uniqueness by controlling the density and intensity of
development, and by preserving the greenery of private and public
gardens and yards, parks and hillside open spaces. City of
Saratoga General Plan, Open Space Element at 1 (emphasis added).
The General Plan goes on to state that "very few orchards and
minimal agricultural lands have survived as reminders of the
City's past." The City of Saratoga has recently confirmed the
community's appreciation and desire to preserve and enhance the
City's existing character and open spaces in and around the City.
Open Space Element at 1.
The development of Nelson Gardens with a residential
subdivision flies in the face of the General Plan which sets
forth a standard for local public parks and recreation
facilities. The General Plan asserts that "the City shall
maintain, and where possible improve, the existing inventory of
three (3) acres per 1000 local public park.and recreation
facilities. The City should achieve five (5) acres per 1000
population standard by the year 2001." General Plan Open Space
Element at 22.
Chair Murakami and Members of the Saratoga
Planning Commission
January 2, 1996
Page 5.
The proposed cancellation of the Williamson Act
Contract is also clearly inconsistent with the City's General
Plan. The General Plan specifically identifies lands under
Williamson Act contract as "adding not only to the perception of
open spaces within the City, but also serve as a vital link
between the modern City and its agricultural past." General Plan
Open Space Element at 6. In addition, the General Plan contains
numerous policies including the following which identify the
importance of maintaining active Williamson Act contracts.
00.2.2 The City shall encourage renewal of Williamson Act
Contracts.
CO.2.3 Williamson Act contract cancellations shall be
discouraged to the maximum extent feasible.
Other inconsistencies with Saratoga's General Plan are detailed
in Section II below. The project's inconsistency with the goals
and policies of the City's General Plan must be considered a
significant impact. See CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G(a). The
revised EIR should include an objective analysis of the project's
relationship to the General Plan and should include mitigation
measures or alternatives capable of eliminating these
inconsistencies.
B. Transportation Impacts
The DEIR fails to adequately depict the extent.of the
effect of the project - related traffic upon adjacent residential
neighborhoods. The DEIR relies solely on a level of service, or
"LOS" analysis in assessing whether this project would have a
significant traffic impact. Yet, such an analysis provides only
one measure of a project's true traffic impact (e.g., how many
cars can pass through an intersection). While a LOS analysis is
a necessary tool for determining impacts in an urban area, it is
not particularly useful in determining the effect of traffic in a
semi -rural residential neighborhood.
The DEIR should be revised to include a quantitative
residential neighborhood traffic analysis. One such index
measures a resident's perception of the effect of street traffic
on the safety and comfort of activities such as walking, cycling,
and playing on or near a street, as well as on daily tasks such
as maneuvering a car out of a residential driveway or small
Chair Murakami and Members of the Saratoga
Planning Commission
January 2, 1996
Page 6.
street.I A given change in street traffic volume would result
in a greater impact on the residential environmental where a
street has low pre- existing volumes. Had a residential traffic
analysis been undertaken by the DEIR preparers, it would have
determined that any increase in traffic would be unacceptable in
the area. Without this second type of traffic analysis, neither
the public nor decision - makers can accurately gauge this
project's impact on the residential neighborhood.
Because the DEIR relied solely on a LOS analysis, the
DEIR assumes that a level of service C constitutes acceptable
operations. DEIR at 4.2 -5. However, LOS C involves a
substantial level of delay and is certainly not acceptable given
the semi -rural nature of the project.setting. The CEQA
Guidelines recognize that "an activity which may not be
significant in an urban area may be significant in a rural area."
CEQA Guidelines § 15064(b). The revised EIR must analyze the
traffic impacts of the project in light of the quiet, semi -rural
character of the adjoining residential neighborhood. Introducing
additional traffic into this tranquil Saratoga neighborhood is a
significant impact.
The DEIR's traffic analysis is also deficient in the
following respects. First, the DEIR erroneously concludes that
since the traffic generated by the proposed project would
represent less than one percent of the existing daily traffic on
major arterials, the project would not result in significant
traffic impacts. DEIR at 4.2 -6. This approach to impact
analysis is unacceptable. As the court in Kings County Farm
Bureau v. City of Hanford, 221 Cal.App.3d at 720 noted:
"environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety
of small sources. These sources appear insignificant, assuming
threatening dimensions only when considered in light of the other
sources which they interact." It is only by considering the
traffic generated by this project together with existing traffic
that the DEIR can accurately evaluate project impacts.
Second, the DEIR concludes, without analysis that
construction impacts would not be significant. DEIR at 4.2 -5.
Development of the Nelson Gardens project is projected to occur
over an 18 month period with consequent effects on residents of
the adjoining neighborhood. DEIR at 5 -1. Streets in the project
1 Donald Appleyard, Professor of Urban Planning at the
University of California at Berkeley developed the TIRE Index
(Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment).
Chair Murakami and Members of the Saratoga
Planning Commission
January 2, 1996
Page 7.
vicinity are curving two lane roads and Saratoga Hills Road is
substandard-and narrow: The revised*EIR should identify the
increase in light and heavy duty construction vehicles, include
these volumes in the traffic analysis and prepare an accident
analysis which assesses potential conflicts between heavy duty
equipment and motorists on these semi -rural roads.
Third, the DEIR fails to adequately analyze the
project's cumulative traffic impacts. The DEIR analyzes traffic
impacts only through 1997 which is when the project is expected
to be fully built and occupied. DEIR at 4.2 -6. CEQA defines a
cumulative impact as the change in the environment which results
from the incremental impact of the project when added to other
closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable probable
future projects. CEQA Guidelines § 15130(1)(A) (emphasis added).
Given the fact that the landowners of over 100 acres of land
within the City have filed for nonrenewal of their Williamson Act
contracts (DEIR at 4.1 -4), and the City's General Plan clearly
asserts that these lands are under development pressure (General
Plan at 8), the revised EIR should assume that these lands will
be developed over the next ten years. The revised EIR should
include an analysis of the traffic impacts associated with the
development of these Williamson Act lands based on the assumption
that they will be developed at similar densities and intensities
'as the Nelson Gardens project.
Finally, the DEIR's cumulative impact analysis fails to
include the traffic from the Vidamage Property (five homes) and
the Kennedy property (twelve homes), despite the fact that
applications have been submitted and /or pending on these
properties. DEIR at 5 -3. Both of these projects must be
considered reasonably foreseeable and evaluated in the cumulative
impact analysis.
C. Visual Resources and Aesthetics Impacts
The DEIR fails to adequately analyze the visual impacts
resulting from the development of the proposed project. There
should be no debate that the transformation of an apricot orchard
into a residential subdivision will dramatically alter the views
that area residents have long been afforded. Existing views of
an apricot orchard will be replaced by extensive grading, massive
cuts in a steep hillside and the development of a prominent
ridgeline to accommodate buildings, foundations, slabs on grade,
streets and driveways.
Chair Murakami. and Members of the Saratoga
Planning Commission
January 2, 1996
Page 8.
The project would specifically impact the views of
surrounding neighbors and the community as well as block sweeping
views of the Santa Clara Valley and mountains beyond. The
planned subdivision houses, which will have footprints
considerably larger in relation to lot size than existing homes
on adjacent properties, will be discordant, with the layout of the
area. Further, the proposed subdivision will be aesthetically
incompatible with adjacent properties by allowing construction of
three two -story houses (lots 7, 8, and 9) in a neighborhood
consisting almost exclusively of one -story houses.
Potential aesthetic impacts have been described in
correspondence submitted by and oral testimony by members of the
community. For example, Gary L. Nemetz told the Planning
Commission that the number of proposed parcels and type of homes
the project applicant proposes would be "out of character with"
and "incompatible with" existing homes to the South and East on
Trinity Avenue and Pontiac Avenue, providing an "unaesthetic
contrast." Letter to the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
June 4, 1995 (appended to June 14, 1995 Staff Report). Bud
Alexander, who resides across the street from the proposed
development, testified that he "did not believe that the
construction of compatible homes to that of the existing single
family homes in terms of massing, size and styling would be
possible." Planning Commission Minutes, June 14, 1995, at 27.
Despite this evidence, the DEIR concludes that the
impacts upon the surrounding residential land uses would be
insignificant. DEIR at 4.3 -10. This determination not only
defies common sense but is flatly inconsistent with the DEIR's
own threshold of significance for determining visual impacts.
The DEIR asserts that an aesthetic effect is significant if it
substantially alters significant visual features. DEIR at 4.3 -8.
Clearly, the development of a subdivision on prominent open space
lands represents a dramatic departure from existing views. The
revised EIR should recognize this and identify mitigation
measures or alternatives capable of minimizing this impact.
D. Earth Resources
Friends of Nelson Garden is particularly concerned
about inadequacies of the geotechnical analysis of the DEIR. The
project contemplates development on very steep slopes some of
which are in excess of 300. DEIR at 3 -1 and 4.3 -1. Given the
topography of the project site, the project will undoubtedly
result in extensive grading. Yet, the DEIR fails to identify the
Chair Murakami and Members of the Saratoga
Planning Commission
January 2, 1996
Page 9.
extent of this grading nor its effect on erosion, wildlife
habitat modification and soil stability.
Further, preliminary geological studies found the
presence of a thrust fault emerging at the surface just east of
the property and aerial photographs depict a strong lineation
crossing the site. DEIR at 4.4 -2. In addition, the geotechnical
report makes reference to the fact that a large fault known as
the Berrocal fault is located one mile southwest of the project
site.Z The DEIR does not provide any analysis of the effect of
locating a subdivision directly on top of a thrust fault and only
one mile away from another large active fault. Nor does the DEIR
provide an explanation of the significance of the distinct
lineation on the project site.
Despite the identification of these troubling site
characteristics, the DEIR is hobbled in its analysis by lack of
information on the project design and the need for more extensive
geologic investigation. In fact, the Technical Appendix raises
more questions than it answers when it admits that the consultant
did not even have access to the steep, upper portion of the
project site nor was he able to investigate the importance of the
thrust fault. DEIR at Appendix D, March 28, 1995 and July 14,
1995 letters. Clearly, a thorough site investigation is
necessary to enable the geotechnical consultant to identify and
analyze the project site's numerous potential geological
constraints.
The DEIR's geotechnical analysis suffers from numerous
other deficiencies. For example, the DEIR admits that subsurface
soil conditions such as differential compaction could impact the
structural integrity of the proposed buildings; yet the DEIR does
not identify the extent or magnitude of this impact. DEIR at
4.4 -10. In another instance, the DEIR states that, due to the
topography and related slope and soil conditions of the site, the
potential for erosion during construction is significant. DEIR
at 4.4 -10. The DEIR does not identify the extent or magnitude of
this impact; nor does it describe on -going potential erosion
problems. Because this EIR provides the only opportunity prior
to project construction for disclosure of project impacts and
comment by the public, it is essential that a thorough analysis
be undertaken.
2 It should also be noted that the December 11th and 12th
storm caused a large slump to form just beyond the western property
line along Saratoga Hills Road.
Chair Murakami and Members of the Saratoga
Planning Commission
January 2, 1996
Page 10.
Because the DEIR clearly documents that "a complete and
full geologic and geotechnical investigation of the entire
property is necessary" (Appendix D at March 28, 1995 letter),
approval of this project in no way assures that all adverse
geotechnical impacts have been identified. Until the EIR is
revised to include a full geotechnical evaluation of project
impacts, the EIR cannot identify appropriate mitigation measures.
E. Hydrology and.Drainage
The DEIR's analysis of hydrological and drainage .
impacts is one of the document's most deficient areas.
The applicant proposes extensive development on steep hillside
lands in an area already known to have flooding problems. DEIR
at 4.5 -1 and 4.5 -2. Local residents have long experienced
basement flooding problems due to high groundwater and water
seepage. The DEIR provides no explanation, let alone analysis,
of these existing problems.
In addition to the failure to analyze existing
hydrological constraints, the DEIR's analysis is flawed in
numerous respects. First, the DEIR fails to adequately analyze
impacts resulting from storm events despite the fact that local
flooding has been known to occur. Specifically, the DEIR
acknowledges that local ponding occurs at the intersection of
Trinity /Malcolm Avenue during 100 year storm events. DEIR at
4.5 -8. The DEIR does not identify the amount of such ponding,
the effect of ponded water; nor does it disclose how much worse
the ponding would be as a result of the development.
Second, although the project would result in a 20
percent increase in impervious surfaces within the Northwestern
Subbasin and a 43.5 percent increase in the Eastern Subbasin
(DEIR at 4.5 -6), the DEIR concludes that the project would result
in only a "marginal increase" in surface water runoff. DEIR at
4.5 -8. The DEIR then concludes that this runoff would be
conveyed by an onsite drainage system. The DEIR does not explain
how the increase in surface water runoff would impact existing
drainage; nor does it describe this drainage system. The only
drainage system identified in the DEIR has been deemed to be
inadequate. DEIR at 4.5 -8.
Third, typical of urban uses, the project will result
in substances which have the potential to adversely affect
surface and groundwater sources on site and in the surrounding
area. These substances include oil and deposits from
automobiles, fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, cleaning
Chair Murakami and Members of the Saratoga
Planning Commission
January 2, 1996
Page 11.
solvents, and gasoline. Of particular concern is the problem of
such pollutants being washed into either Saratoga or Calabasas
Creek. While the DEIR identifies the fact that the project could
result in.an increase in non -point source pollutants as a
significant impact (DEIR at 4.5 -8), the document contains no
analysis of the severity of the impact. The revised EIR must
provide this analysis.
Fourth, the DEIR states that the Santa Clara Valley
Water District ( ".District ") requires project applicants to
prepare stormwater prevention plans (DEIR at 4.5 -8); yet the DEIR
provides no information as to how the project applicant would
comply with the District's requirements. The revised EIR should
identify the programs or design criteria which would be
implemented to ensure compliance with the District's
requirements including a water quality analysis of existing
runoff in order to establish the constituency of surface waters
entering and leaving the project site.
In addition to the flaws in the hydrological analysis,
the DEIR fails to adequately identify or analyze mitigation
measures capable of minimizing the project's significant
hydrological impacts. Specifically, the DEIR relies upon further
geotechncial engineering to allegedly mitigate the project's
impacts. DEIR at 4.5 -9. This approach is unacceptable. The
geotechnical and hydrological studies must be completed prior to
project approval so that decision - makers and the public are fully
informed of the project's impacts and available mitigation
measures.
F. . Biological Resources
The DEIR is fundamentally deficient in its analysis of.
the impacts upon wildlife resulting from the development of this,
important piece of open space. Appendix A to the 1988 Wildlife
Assessment lists more than fifty species predicted to occur on
the site, and more than twenty -five actually observed. The
biological appendix states that "because of the proximity of the
site to a large, relatively natural parcel of oak woodland, it is
thought that many species of wildlife use the property at
different times of the year." DEIR, Appendix F at 3. Saratoga
residents have observed grey foxes and their young on the
property as well as other wildlife. Despite this evidence, the
DEIR concludes that impacts to wildlife are not significant. The
development of this biologically rich land is a significant
impact; the revised EIR must provide a full analysis of these
Chair Murakami and Members'of the Saratoga
Planning Commission
January 2, 1996
Page 12.
impacts and identify mitigation or an alternative capable of
offsetting these impacts.
G. Loss of Open Space
The DEIR's failure to analyze the impact resulting from
the loss of open space is perhaps the document's most serious
flaw. The DEIR simply concludes, absent any analysis, that
monetary compensation will reduce the City -wide impact of the
loss of open space. DEIR at 4 -1 and 4.3 -10. Without an analysis
of the impacts resulting from the development of this open space,
in the context of the City's overall open space and park
resources, the DEIR cannot conclude that open space impacts have
been adequately mitigated.
Clearly, this project would have substantial impacts on
open space, both by placing development in an area which is. open
space, and by bringing more residents to the area which will
increase demands on remaining open space. The development of
five acres of open space in a City that already falls short of
meeting the state's standard of per capita open space is a
significant impact. See City of Saratoga General Plan, Open Space
Element at 22. Furthermore, the DEIR itself documents the fact
that "one half of the City's lands which are under Williamson Act
contract have filed for non renewal of the contract." DEIR at
4.1 -4. The trend toward the development of City open spaces
lands cannot be denied.
The revised EIR must analyze the cumulative effect of
recent subdivision approvals on Saratoga's loss of open space.
The City's approvals for parcel 397 -16 -141 (2.96 acres) and
parcel 397 -16 -6 (10.79 acres) on Douglass Lane, and the pending
subdivision application for 13121 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road if
approved, further decreases open space, making open space a
scarce commodity in Saratoga. The revised DEIR must also take
into account the closing of the Saratoga Community Garden at the
Odd Fellows property in 1987, especially since one of the options
proposed by the Ad Hoc Mayor's Committee was for" the development
of the Nelson property into a combination historical orchard
park- community." Nelson Gardens Task Force'Ad Hoc Committee
Report at 11.
H. Impacts to Recreational /Historic /Cultural
Resources
The DEIR fails to adequately address impacts to
recreational and historic resources. As discussed above, the
Chair Murakami and Members of the Saratoga
Planning Commission
January 2, 1996
Page 13.
DEIR glosses over the historical importance of the site as a
community garden and does not even mention that the land had been
deeded to the Nature Conservancy for preservation.
The intent of Mr. Frank Nelson to preserve the site is
best demonstrated by a quote contained in a brochure about the
Nelson Gardens put out by the California State Parks Foundation
contained the following statement:
"A Link With the Past"
"There are still a few small islands of fruit trees left in
the valley. The Saratoga Nature Center is one. This
property has been donated to preserve a portion of this once
great fruit - growing region and to serve as an educational
center for senior citizens, school children, and the general
public. Here the care,.growing and processing of apricots
is demonstrated. The area is of particular interest because
there is a small arboretum on the property containing exotic
plans, and the upper slopes, in natural vegetation, reflect
the ecology of the coastal mountains."
Clearly, the City has long considered this property to
be a recreational and a historic resource. The EIR should be
revised to reflect this fact and provide an analysis of the
impacts that would result from the development of a subdivision
on this important piece of property.
I. Growth Inducing Impacts
The DEIR fails to adequately discuss the growth
inducing impacts of this project. The project poses a level and
intensity of development not contemplated by the City when it
adopted its General Plan. Clearly, the City designated these
lands as open space outdoor recreational and agricultural because
of a commitment the City wished to make to support continued
agricultural and open space uses of the land.
If approved, this project will encourage the conversion
of other lands within the City with similar land use
designations. As discussed above, the landowners of over 100
acres of land within the City have filed for nonrenewal of their
Williamson Act contracts. DEIR at 4.1 -4. The DEIR also admits
that the parcel known as the "Horticulture Foundation" is
identified in the DEIR as having potential for significant
development. DEIR at 4.1 -2. The revised EIR must analyze the
impacts associated with the conversion of these other City lands
Chair Murakami - and Members of the Saratoga
Planning Commission
January 2, 1996
Page 14.
to similar densities and intensities as currently contemplated by
the Nelson Gardens project. The development of these lands will
result in numerous significant impacts including traffic, air
quality, loss of open space and biological resources, and
inadequate provision of public services.
4. The DEIR Does Not Adequately Discuss Alternatives to
the Proposed Proiect.
CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of
reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, and to its
location, that would feasibly attain the project's basic
objectives with reduced environmental impacts, and evaluate the
comparative merits of each alternative.. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21002,
21100(a)(6); CEQA Guidelines § 15126(d). The City must formulate
alternatives for inclusion in the EIR (Laurel Heights Improvement
Association of San Francisco v. Regents of the University of
California, 47 Cal.3d 576, 406 (1988)), and the selection and
discussion of alternatives should foster informed decision - making
and informed public participation (CEQA Guidelines
§ 15126 (d) (5) ) .
The requirement to set forth and analyze impacts of
alternatives within the EIR is.crucial to CEQA's mandate that
avoidable significant environmental damage be substantially
lessened or avoided where feasible. Pub. Res. Code § 21002; CEQA
Guidelines §§ 15002 (a) (3) , 15021 (a) (2) , 15126(d); Citizens for
Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta, 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 443-
45. (1988). "Without meaningful analysis of alternatives.in the
EIR, neither the courts nor the public can fulfill their proper
roles-in the CEQA process. . . .(Courts will not] countenance a
result that would require blind trust by the public, especially
in light of CEQA's-fundamental goal that the public be fully
informed as to the environmental consequences of action by their
public officials." Laurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at 404.
Because the Nelson Gardens project DEIR fails to
provide an adequate or accurate discussion of the environmental
impacts that would result from the proposed project, every
alternative identified in the DEIR results in equivalent, if not
greater, impacts than the proposed project. In other words, the
alternatives are not evaluated against an accurate representation
of the Nelson Gardens project. For example, the DEIR fails to
recognize obviously significant impacts (i.e., impacts to visual
resources and the loss of open space) and assumes incorrectly
that mitigation measures will reduce impacts to an insignificant
level (i.e., impacts relating to hydrology).
Chair Murakami and Members of the Saratoga
Planning Commission
January 2, 1996
Page 15.
CEQA requires that an EIR identify a range of
alternatives that are capable of eliminating the significant
effects of the project. Because the Nelson Gardens project DEIR
fails to identify many of the project's impacts as significant,
it does not identify a range of alternatives that are capable of
eliminating the project's impacts. Instead it focuses on the
erroneous conclusion that the "project" alternative is the
environmentally superior alternative. A proper identification
and analysis of alternatives is impossible until project impacts
are fully disclosed.
The DEIR's alternatives analysis is further deficient
in that it does not provide sufficient information regarding the
impacts of the alternatives to allow a meaningful comparison of
alternatives. In many instances, the DEIR provides no more than
a sentence or two of text even on issues.as important as visual
resources, hydrology and earth resources. DEIR at 7 -3.
Nor does the DEIR identify a reasonable range of
alternatives. Indeed, the DEIR merely identifies two
alternatives both of which are immediately eliminated as
infeasible. DEIR at 7 -7 and 7 -9. The DEIR incorrectly asserts
that the City has no obligation to analyze a reduced density
alternative because the project is "already low density."
Certainly the revised EIR should consider an alternative which
would allow for development on only a portion of the site. The
EIR should, at a minimum, consider an alternative that would
eliminate development on the steep hillside.
Clearly the revised EIR should also identify and
analyze an alternative which would restore Nelson Gardens to its
originally intended use. The development of a community garden
would result in significantly less severe impacts to traffic,
geology, hydrology and traffic and would preserve the sites
important aesthetical values. Most importantly, the restoration
of the site to a community garden would eliminate the project's
numerous inconsistencies with the City's General Plan (discussed
more fully below).
J. The EIR Should Be Recirculated.
CEQA requires preparation and recirculation of a
supplemental draft EIR "[w]hen significant new information is
added to an environmental impact report" after public review and
comment on the earlier draft EIR. Public Resources Code §
21092.1. The opportunity for meaningful public review of
significant new information is essential "to test, assess, and
Chair Murakami and Members of the Saratoga
Planning Commission
January 2, 1996
Page 16.
evaluate the data and make an informed judgment as to the
validity of the conclusions to be drawn therefrom." Sutter
Sensible Planning. Inc. v. Sutter County board of Supervisors,
122-Cal.App.3d 813, 822 (1981).; City of San Jose v. Great Oaks
Water Co., 192 Cal.App.3d 1005, 1017 (1987). An agency cannot
simply release a draft report "that hedges on important
environmental issues while deferring a more detailed analysis to
the final [EIR] that is insulated from public review." Mountain
Lion Coalition v. California Fish and Game Comm'n, 214 Cal.App.3d
1043, 1053 (1989).
In order to cure the panoply of EIR defects identified
in this letter, the City will have to obtain substantial new
information to adequately assess the proposed project's
environmental impacts, and to identify effective mitigation and
alternatives capable of alleviating the project's significant
impacts. CEQA requires that the public have a meaningful
opportunity to review and comment upon this significant new
information in the form of a recirculated draft EIR.
II. The Project Is Inconsistent with the City of Saratoga
General Plan
In addition to violating CEQA, approval of this project
will violate both the State Planning and Zoning Law, Government
Code Section 65000 et sea., and the Subdivision Map Act,
Government Code Section 66410 et sea. The heart of the State
Planning and Zoning Law is its requirement of consistency among
planning and development decisions. City of Santa Ana v..City of
Garden Grove, 100 Cal.App.3d 521, 531 -32 (1979). With respect to
subdivision map approvals, the legislature has explicitly stated:
No local agency shall approve a tentative map
. . . unless the legislative body finds that
the proposed subdivision, together with the
provisions for its design and improvement, is
consistent with the general plan required by
[the State Planning and Zoning Law].
Government Code § 66473.5.
The Nelson Gardens project is inconsistent with the
City's General Plan. The General Plan could not be more clear in
its intent to preserve and acquire open space and parkland.
General Plan Open Space Element at 2. The General Plan sets
forth numerous criteria to assist the City in evaluating parcels
for open space value. The Nelson Gardens' site fits many of the
Chair Murakami and Members of the Saratoga
Planning Commission
January 2, 1996
Page 17.
criteria making the site worthy for preservation. These criteria
include:
Serving ecological and other scientific studies and
environmental education. Open Space Element at 4.
o Cultivated lands or orchards, vineyards or tree farms.
Id. at 4.
Areas with inherent qualities that humans find visually
pleasing, beautiful, relaxing, stimulating or
enjoyable. Id. at 5.
o Slopes over 30 percent. Id. at 5.
Fault zones and the land on either side of known fault
zones. Id. at S.
Parcels which contribute to the perception of open
space. Id. at 5.
Clearly, the Nelson Gardens' site should be considered
a valuable piece of open space. The development of the site as a
residential subdivision would be inconsistent with the intent of
the City's General Plan.
In addition to the inconsistencies identified above,
the Nelson Gardens project is also inconsistent with numerous
goals of the City's Open Space Element including the following:
0
W
0
To provide and maintain open space resources of local
and regional significance accessible to the public.
To encourage preservation of land uses for open space
and agriculture.
To preserve and protect existing view sheds, view
corridors and scenic open spaces.
To encourage the awareness, appreciation and use of the
City's open space resources in Saratoga's residents,
particularly its youth.
The project is also inconsistent with the following
goals and policies as identified in the City's Conservation
Element.
Chair Murakami and Members of the Saratoga
Planning Commission
January 2, 1996
Page 18.
CO.2.0 Conserve natural vegetative and significant
topographic features which exist in Saratoga and
its Sphere of Influence.
C0.2.2 The City shall encourage renewal of Williamson Act
contracts.
CO.2..3 Williamson Act contract cancellations shall be
discouraged to the maximum extent feasible.
CO.6.0 Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga
by carefully considering the visual impact of new
developments.
Since, for all of the above reasons, the Nelson Gardens
project is inconsistent with the City's General Plan, the City
may not approve the project. de Bottari v. City of Norro, 171
Cal.App.3d 1204 (1985); Gov. Code H 66473.5, 66474.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, The Friends of The
Nelson Garden Foundation requests that the City defer action on
the proposed Nelson Gardens project until the project is revised
to comply with existing goals and policies of the General Plan
and the City prepares and circulates for public comment an EIR
that fully complies with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
Yours truly,
SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER
atj
;.l
TAMARA S. GALANTER
"LAUREL L. IMPETT
Urban Planner
11i001.doc
LAW OFFICES OF
R O B I N B K E N N E D Y
301 UNIVERSITY AVENUE • SUITE 480 • PALO ALTO,CA. 94301 • 415 32 2�G : LA -X 41 Y, ?J4'ri7
February 1, 1996 �iyb U'
C1 ij"A
Uzi T' iy PICE
Members of the City Council
City Hall
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Nelson Garden - Proposed Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
Dear Councilmembers:
I write on behalf of my client, The Friends of the Nelson Garden Foundation, in
connection with the Saratoga City Council hearing scheduled for Wednesday,
February 7, 1996 to consider a petition ( "Petition ") from landowner The Community
Foundation of Santa Clara County ( "The Community Foundation ") for early
cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract ( "Contract ") on property located at 20851
Saratoga Hills Road, better known as "The Nelson Garden." My Client strenuously
opposes the proposed cancellation of the Contract.
SUMMARY
The issue before the City Council with respect to the Petition by The Community
Foundation to cancel the remaining term of its Williamson Act Contract with the City
of Saratoga is whether the public interest that would be served by the development
of nine single family.home lots constitutes "most extraordinary circumstances" under
the law warranting such cancellation. My client believes that it does not.
The Community Foundation's efforts to acquire the necessary entitlements to sell the
property to Trinity Development Company, a residential real estate developer,
subvert the intentions of both Frank Nelson's gift of the property to The Nature
Conservancy more than twenty years ago and the California Constitutional provision
intended to promote the conservation, preservation and continued existence of open
space lands. My client will direct its resources to prevent the City Council's collusion
with The Community Foundation's efforts, which appears to be motivated by the
Council's desire to receive, on behalf of the City, "compensation for conversion of
open space" that has been promised the City in exchange for the Council's approval
Saratoga City Council
Proposed Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
February 1, 1996
Page 2
of all requisite steps to enable the proposed development. That the specific amount
the City will receive is proportionately related to the number of lots whose
development it approves' prompts skepticism regarding this Council's ability to act
impartially on the Petition. It may raise the question of whether the Members of the
City Council have a disabling conflict of interest in ruling on the Petition and the
related land use decisions with respect to the proposed development project.
HISTORY
The history of the Nelson Garden is well known to you. I will summarize it briefly
here for purposes of providing a context:
Between 1971 and 1976, Saratoga resident Frank Nelson deeded in increments, the
5.1 acre parcel to The California Nature Conservancy ( "TNC "). Mr. Nelson and the
City of Saratoga entered into a Land Conservation Contract by which both parties
determined that the highest and best use of the land was for agricultural purposes . 2
This is the Williamson Act Contract whose cancellation is now proposed. Although
the Garden did not contain the type of ecological values TNC typically identifies in a
property it acquires, TNC's managers at the time felt it was appropriate to be
involved in this gift transaction so as to facilitate the ultimate ownership and
management of the property by the California State Parks Foundation.3
The Nature Conservancy continued to own the Garden until 1977. Mr. Nelson
agreed to the transfer of the Garden to the California State Parks Foundation on
conditions that (1) he and his sister could continue until their deaths to occupy the
houses on the property and (2) "so long as there is no interference with the
dedication of the property to public use." In a letter dated October 14, 1977,
Henry P. Little, then Western Regional Director of TNC, informed Frank Nelson that
"the conveyance of your lovely Saratoga property has been made to the California
State Parks Foundation. You are certainly to be commended for a means of
protecting your land both through gifts to the Conservancy and later by working with
us to transfer the land to the Foundation. Individuals like yourself are the reason the
Conservancy and the Foundation can continue to work successfully to protect our
valuable natural heritage."
Paragraph 9, Predevelopment Memorandum of Understand Regarding Certain Undeveloped
Property Located at 20851 Saratoga Hills Road, Saratoga, California, dated November 21, 1994 by
and between the City of Saratoga and The Community Development Foundation of Santa Clara
County.
2 Recorded as Document Number 401331, in Book 9381, Page 234.
3 March 2, 1995 letter from Steve McCormick, Regional Director, The Nature Conservancy, to
The Law Offices of Robin B. Kennedy.
Saratoga City Council
Proposed Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
February 1, 1996
Page 3
In conveying the deed to the California State Parks Foundation, Mr. Little wrote to its
President, William Penn Mott, Jr., as follows:
The Conservancy is pleased to be able to transfer this property to the
Foundation as clearly your organization will best be able to manage
the area in a manner that both protects and enhances the natural
beauty while allowing the citizens of the Santa Clara Valley and the
entire State to benefit from its use.4 (Emphasis added.)
The California State Parks Foundation continued to own the Garden until 1984.
During its ownership of the Garden, the California State Parks Foundation published
a brochure that included a section entitled "A Link With the Past." It reads:
There are still a few small islands of fruit trees left in the valley. The
Saratoga Nature Center is one. This property has been donated to
preserve a portion of this once great fruit - growing region and to serve
as an educational center for senior citizens, school children and the
general public. Here the care, growing and processing of apricots is
demonstrated. The area is of particular interest because there is a
small arboretum on the property containing exotic plans and the upper
slopes, in natural vegetation, reflect the ecology of the coastal
mountains.
In 1984, under political and budgetary pressures, the California State Parks
Foundation asked the consent of TNC to transfer the Garden to The Florence Nelson
Foundation to "allow them to continue the maintenance of the property."
On February 27, 1984, The Florence Nelson Foundation passed a resolution stating,
inter alia, that it "will maintain and preserve the Nelson Gardens for charitable
purposes consistent with the objectives under which the Nelson Gardens is now
maintained. The Foundation will actively seek to obtain all of the necessary permits
and approvals to allow more persons and organizations to enjoy the use and beauty
of The Nelson Gardens." (Emphasis added.)
Pursuant to an Agreement of Merger between The Florence Nelson Foundation and
The Community Foundation dated June 21, 1993, The Community Foundation
absorbed the corporate identity, existence, purposes, powers, rights and immunities
of The Florence Nelson Foundation, and undertook to be subject to the latter's debts,
liabilities and trust obligations in the same manner as if The Florence Nelson
October 14, 1977 letter from Henry P. Little to William Penn Mott, Jr.
Saratoga City Council
Proposed Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
February 1, 1996
Page 4
Foundation had incurred them. In so doing, The Foundation acquired title to the
Nelson Garden property.
The Community Foundation has made - application to the City of Saratoga to acquire
the necessary entitlements to sell the property to Trinity Development Company, with
-the net proceeds from the sale going to support The Community Foundation's own
charitable purposes. While those purposes are entirely commendable, in 1994, only
1.7% of the grants made from board - directed unrestricted funds were directed to
environmental purposes . 5
THE WILLIAMSON ACT
The California Legislature passed the California Land Conservation Act of 1965
(known as the "Williamson Act ") on the basis of the following findings:
(a) That the preservation of a maximum amount of the limited supply of
agricultural land is necessary to the conservation of the state's economic
resources, and is necessary not only to the maintenance of the agricultural
economy of the state, but also for the assurance of adequate, healthful and
nutritious food for future residents of this state and nation.
(b) That the discouragement of premature and unnecessary conversion of
agricultural land to urban uses is a matter of public interest and will be of
benefit to urban dwellers themselves in that it will discourage discontinuous
urban development patterns which unnecessarily increase the costs of
community services to community residents.
(c) That in a rapidly urbanizing society agricultural lands have a definite
public value as open space, and the preservation in agricultural production of
such lands ... constitutes an important physical, social, aesthetic and
economic asset to existing or pending urban or metropolitan developments .s
The Williamson Act empowers local governments to establish agricultural preserves
consisting of lands devoted to either agricultural use, recreational use, open space.
use or any combination of such uses. As consideration to the landowner for
committing his property as an agricultural preserve, the landowner is guaranteed a
relatively stable tax base, founded on the value of the land for open space use and
5 $2,500 to California Student Environmental Action and $3,000 to Wildlife Education &
Rehabilitation Center. The Community Foundation of Santa Clara County Annual Report 1994, p. 23.
6 1965 Gov't Code § 51220.
Saratoga City Council
Proposed Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
February 1, 1996
Page 5
not influenced by its development potential. This notion is embodied in Article XIII,
Section 8 of the California Constitution, which declares that:
To promote the conservation, preservation and continued existence of
open space lands, the Legislature may define open space land and
shall provide that when this land is enforceably restricted, in a manner
specified by the Legislature, to recreation, enjoyment of scenic beauty,
use or conservation of natural resources, or production of food or fiber,
it shall be valued for property tax purposes only on the basis that is
consistent with its restrictions and uses. (Emphasis added.)
To ensure that the constitutional requirement of an "enforceable restriction" is met,
the Legislature deliberately required a long -term commitment to agriculture or other
open space use. If neither party gives timely notice to the other of a contrary intent,
the contract automatically renews itself each year, tacking on an additional year to
the period of restriction. And although the landowner may terminate his contract at
any time by giving notice to the contracting government entity, he may not develop
the land for the balance of the contractual period of restricted use. On notice of
nonrenewal, Property taxes gradually return to the level of taxation upon comparable
nonrestricted property during the remainder of the term of the restriction.' e
The City Clerk informed me, by telephone, that the term of the Williamson Act
Contract on the Nelson Garden will expire on December 31, 2000.9
My Client urges the City Council to allow the Williamson Act Contract on the Garden
to expire on the basis of non - renewal, rather than to approve its early cancellation.
The California State Attorney General has found cancellation impermissible "except
upon extremely stringent conditions. "10
' Rev. & Tax. Code § 426
8 My client's review of files in the Santa Clara County Tax Assessor's Office indicate that the
taxes on the Garden have not increased, despite the apparent filing of a notice of termination by the
Foundation in 1990. A search of the County Records reveals that the notice of nonrenewal was not
recorded, as is required pursuant to Gov't Code § 51245. Was a copy of the notice of nonrenewal
delivered to the Director of Conservation within 30 days after the City's receipt of nonrenewal by the
landowner, as is required pursuant to Gov't Code § 51245?
9 Telephone call with Grace Cory, March 28, 1995.
10 62 Ops. Atty. Gen. 233, 240, fn. 6 (1970).
Saratoga City Council
Proposed Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
February 1, 1996
Page 6
CANCELLATION OF WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT
The California Supreme Court has stated that it "harbor[s] no doubt that the
Legislature intended cancellation to be approved only in the most extraordinary
circumstances"" (Emphasis added.)
The Legislature declared ... that cancellation of Williamson Act .
contracts is permissible `only when the continued dedication of land
under such contracts to agricultural use is neither necessary nor
desirable for the purposes of [the Act.] ... The cancellation
provisions were. included "As a means of dealing with strictly
emergency situations where the public interest no longer dictates
that the contract be continued." [Citation omitted.]
The issue before the City Council is whether the present circumstances qualify
as extraordinary. Fortunately, the Legislature provided reasonably clear guidance
on analyzing that question, and the California Supreme Court, in the seminal
decision of Sierra Club v. City of Hayward, has provided a model for such analysis.
Pursuant to California Government Code § 51282, the owner of land subject to a
Williamson Act Contract may petition a city council for cancellation of any contract as
to all or any part of the subject land.
(a) .. The council may grant tentative approval for cancellation of a
contract only if it makes one of the following findings:
(1) That the cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the
chapter; or
(2) That cancellation is in the public interest.
(b) For purposes of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) cancellation of a
contract shall be consistent with the purposes of this chapter only if the
... council makes all of the following findings:
(1) That the cancellation is for land on which a notice of nonrenewal
has been served pursuant to Section 51245.
(2) That cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent
lands from agricultural use.
Sierra Club v. City of Hayward, 28 Cal. 3d 840, 853, 623 P. 2d 180, 171 Cal. Rptr. 619(1981).
Saratoga City Council
Proposed Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
February 1, 1996
Page 7
(3) That cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent
with the. applicable provisions of the city ... general plan.
(4) That cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of
urban development.
(5) That there is no proximate noncontracted land which is both
available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed the contracted
land be put, or, that development of the contracted land would provide
more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of
proximate noncontracted land.
As used in this subdivision "proximate, noncontracted land" means land not
restricted by contract pursuant to this chapter, which is sufficiently close to
land which is so restricted that it can serve as practical alternative for the use
which is proposed for the restricted land.
As used in this subdivision "suitable" for the proposed use means that the
salient features of the proposed use can be served by land not restricted by
contract pursuant to this chapter. Such nonrestricted land may be a single
parcel or may be a combination of contiguous or discontiguous parcels.
(c) For purposes of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) cancellation of a
contract shall be in the public interest only if the council ... makes the
following findings: (1) that other public concerns substantially outweigh the
objectives of this chapter; and (2) that there is no proximate noncontracted
land which is both available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed
the contracted land be put, or, that development of the contracted land would
provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of
proximate non - contracted land.
As used in this subdivision "suitable" for the proposed use means that the
salient features of the proposed use can be served by land not restricted by
contract pursuant to this chapter. Such nonrestricted land may be a single
parcel or may be a combination of contiguous or discontiguous parcels.
(c) For purposes of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) cancellation of a
contract shall be in the public interest only if the council ... makes the
following findings: (1) that other public concerns substantially outweigh the
objectives of this chapter; and (2) that there is no proximate noncontracted
land which is both available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed
Saratoga City Council
Proposed Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
February 1, 1996
Page 8
the contracted land be put, or, that development of the proximate non -
contracted land.
As used in this subdivision "proximate, noncontracted land" means land not
restricted by contract pursuant to this chapter, which is sufficiently close to
land which is so restricted that it can serve as a practical alternative for the
use which is proposed for the restricted land.
As used in this subdivision "suitable" for the proposed use means that the
salient features of the proposed use can be served by land not restricted by
contract pursuant to this chapter. Such nonrestricted land may be a single
parcel or may be a combination of contiguous or discontiguous parcels.
(d) For purposes of subdivision (a), the uneconomic character of an
existing agricultural use shall not be itself be sufficient reason for cancellation
of the contract. The uneconomic character of the existing use may be
considered only if there is no other reasonable or comparable agricultural use
to which the land may be put.
(e) The landowner's petition shall be accompanied by a proposal for a
specified alternative use of the land ...12
Subdivision U: Consistency with Purposes of Chapter
Is the subdivision of the Garden property for the purposes of single family
housing development consistent with the applicable provisions of Saratoga's
General Plan? As of the date of this letter, the General Plan designation for the
property on which the Garden is located is Open Space- Outdoor Recreational.
Cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract cannot be approved until the General
Plan designation is changed to Residential -Very Low Density and Medium Density.
Is there any proximate noncontracted land which is both available and suitable
for single family home development? The Council must make an "explicit
finding "13. regarding whether any other proximate parcel or parcels are suitable for
the development of the nine proposed single family home sites. "The Williamson Act
allows the local agency to consider alternative uses of the restricted land only if it first
determines that suitable nonrestricted sites are available. The requirement for
12 Cal. Gov't Code § 51282.
13 Sierra, at 858. Note that as of the date of this letter -- the day on which all correspondence
regarding the hearing is required to be delivered to the City for inclusion in the Council packet -- the
City of Saratoga has not made available to the public its findings in this matter.
Saratoga City Council
Proposed Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
February 1, 1996
Page 9
proximity is not to be construed to unreasonably limit the search for suitable
noncontracted land; "proximate" property means property close enough to the
restricted parcel to serve as a practical alternative for the proposed use. 04
(Emphasis added.) Note further that-"[t]he size of the proposed development should
not be a significant factor in the agency's search for alternative sites.i15
We have repeatedly asked the City Council and City staff to provide us with a list of
"proximate" sites within the meaning of the statute; we have received no response.
We ask again that, as part of its formal approval process, the City provide to the
public a complete listing of the alternative parcels it has examined and the bases
upon which they were rejected as "proximate" within the meaning of the statute.
At its own expense and through its own efforts, my client has identified the following
"proximate parcels" as suitable for the development of the nine proposed single
family home sites: Dr. Stutsman will furnish under separate cover a map showing
the location of these parcels. The following information is based on my client's
information and belief:
Each of these sites is sufficiently close to Nelson Garden as to serve as practical
alternatives for the proposed nine single family homes. To the best of our
knowledge, none of these parcels is subject to a Williamson Act Contract. They are
therefore "proximate" sites within the meaning of Government Code § 51282. We
challenge the City Council to make specific findings that the nine single family homes
could not, in some combination, be developed on one or more of these parcels. In
the absence of making these specific findings, with explicit evidence in support of
14 Id., at 861.
15 Id., at 862.
Mileage
Parcel Number(s)
from
.or Street Address
Zonina
Acres
Street
Garden
1 503 -21 -12
R -1- 12,500
5.740
Saratoga - Sunnyvale
3/8
2 503 -21 -9
R -1- 12,500
1.196
Saratoga - Sunnyvale
3/8
3 #13650 S -S Road
R -1- 12,500
3.900
Saratoga - Sunnyvale
1/2
5 397 -24 -73
R -1- 20,000
9.310
Douglass Lane
1
6 397 -24 -74
R -1- 20,000
8.620
Douglass Lane
1
7 397 -16 -6
R -1- 40,000
10.790
Douglass Lane
1 -1/4
8 Kevin Moran Park
R -1- 12,500
14.000
Scully Ave /Hwy 85
2 -3/4
TOTAL ACRES
53.556
Each of these sites is sufficiently close to Nelson Garden as to serve as practical
alternatives for the proposed nine single family homes. To the best of our
knowledge, none of these parcels is subject to a Williamson Act Contract. They are
therefore "proximate" sites within the meaning of Government Code § 51282. We
challenge the City Council to make specific findings that the nine single family homes
could not, in some combination, be developed on one or more of these parcels. In
the absence of making these specific findings, with explicit evidence in support of
14 Id., at 861.
15 Id., at 862.
Saratoga City Council
Proposed Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
February 1, 1996
Page 10
them, we believe that any cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract on the Nelson
Garden parcel would be in violation of applicable law.
Before the local agency considers the uneconomic quality of the Garden for
agricultural use, it must determine that there is no other reasonable or comparable
agricultural use to which the land may be put. While the Garden has not in recent
years been used for the purposes intended by Mr., Nelson in his gift to TNC, the
reason is that the owner of the Garden has elected not to use it for that purpose.
The landowner should not be permitted to benefit from its own failure to honor the
purposes of the gift.16
The use to which my client proposes that the Garden be put is the same use to
which the land was put when the agricultural preservation agreement was originally
made -- namely, to provide Saratoga with "Heritage Garden," for the enjoyment of all
Saratoga's citizens. Apparently, the only changes that have occurred are the
unwillingness of the present owner to commit the land to the use for which its donor
intended for it to be put and the land's increased value for development. As the
Supreme Court stated in Sierra:
[S]urely the Legislature did not intend a particular use to be deemed
uneconomic simply because the land would now be more valuable for
development than for agricultural use. If the property was included in
an agricultural preserve and was bound by a land preservation
contract or agreement on the basis of a certain marginal use, that
same use cannot later serve as justification for cancellation. The
Legislature would not have extended tax benefits to marginally
productive land unless it believed such land would serve the purposes
of the act. Therefore, the landowner who argues that his land no
longer serves the act's purposes because it is not valuable for
agriculture must demonstrate the changed conditions, irrespective of
increased development value, that now make his agricultural operation
unprofitable. Of course, he must also satisfy the above - quoted explicit
16 Wth its 1990 Form 990 Federal tax return, The Florence Nelson Foundation provided a
"Schedule of Real Property Owner," in which it stated: "This Foundation now owns and maintains real
property located in Saratoga, Santa Clara County, State of California, deeded to it by the California
State Parks Foundation, a charitable organization, on March 13, 1984. The Foundation maintains the
orchard on said premises to preserve for the general public an example of the vanishing apricot
orchards as they existed in the early days of the Santa Clara Valley. At the time of harvest, historic
types of equipment are used in sun -drying the fruit." In fact, my client informs me that shortly after The
Florence Nelson Foundation received the gift of the Garden, it fenced the property and, since that time,
the property has not been available to the general public.
Saratoga City Council
Proposed Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
February 1, 1996
Page 11
requirement of showing that no reasonable alternative agricultural
uses would render the land economically viable."
Our high court has-held that a Williamson Act contract does not meet
the constitutional standard if it can be cancelled solely upon a showing
that the land is now more valuable for development. [Citation omitted.]
The obvious reason for this conclusion is that a [contractual] restriction
to agricultural use, created to control urban development, would have
little enforcement value if it could be cancelled whenever development
drew near. We are of the opinion that to pass constitutional muster, a
restriction ... may not be terminable merely because such
development is desirable or profitable to the landowner. 18
My client requests that, as part of its findings, the City Council articulate the reason
other than that the development will be profitable to the landowner that the
conditions have changed.
Subdivision (b): Cancellation in the Public Interest
The City Council must find that cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract for the
Garden is in the public interest. The "public" means the public at large, not just the
interest of the local and regional community.19 The Sierra court cited former
Government Code § 51223 as evidence of the Legislative intent regarding the nature
of the "interests" the Legislature intended local agencies to consider: "the
agreements limiting the use of the land to agriculture are in the public interest 'insofar
as any such agreements tend to maintain the agricultural economy of the state,
prevent premature and unnecessary conversation of land from agricultural uses,
assist in the preservation of prime agricultural lands, or are otherwise consistent with
the purposes of this [act]'. "20
What substantial evidence has the City Council considered to determine that
the public's need for nine single family homes with lot sizes ranging from
12,500 to 29,400 square feet substantially outweighs the public's need for open
space and a community garden? Is there demonstrated need for additional
single family lot zoning in the Saratoga area that is not being met by
development projects currently underway? My client requests that the City
17 Id., at 863.
78 Lewis v. City of Hayward,. 177 Cal. App. 3d 103, 113, 222 Cal. Rptr. 781 (1986).
19 Id, at 856.
20 Id, at 857.
Saratoga City Council
Proposed Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
February 1, 1996
Page 12
Council, as part of the formal record, provide evidence to the public of such
demonstrated need.
FINDINGS
My client objects on the following grounds to the "Findings" made by the City Council
for the Williamson Act Cancellation: (1) they are legally inadequate; (2) there is no
substantial evidence to support the conclusions; and (3) the City has not adequately
explained how it reached the conclusions set forth in the Findings.
CONCLUSION
In a City that meets less than half the requirement for the State standard for acreage
devoted to parks, the razing of a lovely and unique garden whose original owner
thought he had done everything legally appropriate to ensure its preservation in
perpetuity21, in favor of the development of nine undoubtedly expensive new single
family homes, would constitute a travesty of intent, a sound rejection of the past and
a betrayal of the confidence of The Nature Conservancy and The California State
Parks Foundation, both of which believed they were entrusting the Nelson Garden to
trustworthy and reliable hands. We strongly urge the Council to reject the Petition.
Sincerely,
Robin B. Kennedy
cc: The Friends of The Nelson Garden Foundation
Tamara Galanter, Esq.
Barton Hechtman, Esq.
David Mitchell, Esq.
2' 1 am informed that only the absence of a specific deed restriction in the transfer of the Garden
from Mr. Nelson to TNC prevents an action by the State Attorney General to remedy a breach of a
charitable trust in this matter. Although it is not relevant to the present action before the Council, the
present plans also subvert the intent of the donor's gift.
January 31, 1996
Mayor Jacobs and Members of the City Council
City of Saratoga • • • 1996 �
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
CITY s��ioc , r
Saratoga, CA 95070. AlANAG1"? C?�ICE
Re: Nelson Gardens Project (GPA -94 -003, AZO -94 -002, SD -95-
008) and Tentative Cancellation of the Williamson Act
Contract (A PN- 503 -49 -41 & 42)
Dear Mayor Jacobs and Members of the City Council:
My husband and I continue to be disappointed in your
apparent decision to cancel the Williamson Act Contract on the Nelson
Garden early so that the owners may develop the Garden into a nine
home housing tract.
Both in the manner in which the EIR was handled and now as
you quickly cancel the Williamson Act Contract without evaluating any of
our concerns, it is apparent that you are not protecting Saratoga's
dwindling Open Space /Park acreage. The City Council continues to
focus only on facilitating the development of the remaining empty lots in
Saratoga.
Early cancelation of the Williamson Act Contract is supposed
to be done only under extraordinary circumstances. There are no such
circumstances here in Saratoga. Without much investigation on our part,
we are aware of the 15 new houses on the old Kerwin Ranch, the 5 new
houses on the old Saratoga Nursery property, the 50+ new houses on the
Odd Fellows property, the 90+ new homes on the Masson Champagne
site, and the 8+ new houses on the Saratoga Courtyard site. In addition,
there are for sale signs up all over Saratoga on older homes. Why are
you rushing to build more homes when the market is soft and there are a
large number of new homes being built as we speak?
Why have you rushed through the EIR report without
investigating our concerns? One particular concern is the amount of
flooding and drainage problems that already exist in the neighborhood.
Development of the Nelson Garden may very well exacerbate the
problems. There is a new slump forming on top of an old slump area just
up the hill from the Nelson Garden. It is on the Shiro property. Large
quantities of dirt have slid onto Saratoga Hills Road in the past from that
slump area. Development of the Nelson Garden may open up other
potential areas of concern. We neighbors continue to struggle with
periodic large quantities of moving water as well as chronic underground
springs. However, you seem to just ignore the voiced concerns because
you don't want to find a real problem that you would have to deal with.
We are again asking you to not allow early cancelation of the
Williamson Act Contract on the Nelson Garden. We are asking you to do
your job of protecting the dwindling acreage of open space /parks in
Saratoga. We are asking you to protect the Nelson Garden as a special
historic and educational public garden.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
ZI
Ann and Richard Waltonsmith
21060 Saratoga Hills Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
Donald S. Macrae
February 1, 1996
n r. rr rN f.r 1
ifJCity Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
RE: Public Hearing an Nelson Gardens Project
ClTv-
GPA-94-003, A2A940 -002, SD -95 -008 & Tentative Cancellation of a
Williamson Act Agricultural Preserve Contract (APN 503 -49 -41 & 42)
Applicant: Trinity Development Company: 20851 Saratoga Hills Road.
Once again the City Council is considering cancellation of the Williamson
Act Agricultural Preserve Contract for the Nelson Property on Saratoga
Hills Road.
This property has been designated as an Open Space /Nature Preserve as
provided by the terms of the Williamson Act and should only be withdrawn
if there is a demonstrated urgent need for such property for housing.
What is this urgent need for housing ? for single family units?
We have identified numerous tracts of open land within a 2 -3 mile radius
of the Nelson Garsens which are potential building sites. And where does .
this need for more homes exist when we see many advertisements for the
sale of existing homes within the Saratoga community? We have noted
94 homes being built on the Paul Masson property; 15 homes onthe Kerwin
Ranch; units being built on the former Haven Nursery land on the Saratoga -
Sunnyvale Road; the former Johnson lumber hardware has homes being built
on the property on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. Also, there are new homes
on the Odd Fellows land, homes on Saratoga Avenue, Peach Hill Road,.
Cox Avenue, Glen Una area, and so forth.
We are perplexed to note that the Kevin Moran Park has been zoned for
single family units.
In view of the City's avowed policy of preserving openspace it is hard
to reconcile this with the home building frenzy going on within the
boundaries of the City of Saratoga. This is inconsistent with the stated
Open Space Element of the General Plan.
For the record, I have included copies of letters previously submitted
to both the City Council and the Planning Commission.
Sincerely,
a ac:Ea�e
206 ?9 Reid Lane
Box 447 Saratoga, CA 95071 . (408) 867 -3155
Donald S. Macrae
20679 Reid Lane
Saratoga, California 95070
City Council
City Hall
Saratoga, California 95070
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Realizing that this Council has already determined to allow the
withdrawal of the Nelson property from the Williamson Act protection,
and has agreed to allowing the development of up to 10 lots and houses
on the property, I will proceed, in good faith, to make my
presentation.
1. I believe the removal of the property from the Williamson Act
protection at this time is inappropriate and improper.
2. I believe the property is not free and clear to be developed.
3. C.E.Q.A' provisions have not been properly followed in determing a
Negative Declaration when considering the preparation of an EIR.
a. Respondents failed to require preparation of an EIR when
substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument
that the subdivision could have significant adverse
environmental impacts, including, but not limited to, the
following:
Aesthetic impacts, including an impact to the viewshed on the
hilltop from which one has a sweeping view of the Santa Clara
Valley and the mountains beyond.
Impacts to the existing vegetation species, including Valley
Oaks, an apricot orchard and Chinese Pistachio trees imported.
to the property from the Sacramento Valley by Frank Nelson and
his wife in 1940.
Impacts resulting from the subdivision's destruction of five
acres of park land in a city that meets less than half the
requirements for the state standard for acreage devoted to
parks.
Impacts resulting from the displacement of wildlife.
Geological impacts resulting from the development of houses on
a steep hillside, and in an area subject to severe earthquake
damage.
Traffic and noise impacts occcurring during the construction
of the subdivision.
Mayor and City Council
Page 2
Hydrological impacts resulting from additional impervious
surfaces and the diversion of flowing ground water from
hillside property above the Nelson Garden, water which is now
absorbed by the roots of the trees in the orchard and the pine
forest.
Impacts resulting from the Williamson Act Cancellation and the
subdivision's inconsistency with the Saratoga General Plan.
Respectfully,
r
Donald S. Macrae
Donald S. Macrae
December 5, 1995
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
RE: Public Hearing on Nelson Gardens Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
I have received and analyzed the DEIR Report and have conferred with
Dr. Stutzman and Mrs. Waltonsmith and our attorney, Ms. Galanter,
regarding the contents of the report and the conclusions set forth
therein. I concur with the concerns and issues raised by my
associates.
Dr. Stutzman has written a detailed and thoughtful analysis with which
I agree. Because of this, I will not duplicate his comments in this
letter. However, I would like to address some additional concerns.
The DEIR is clearly written from the point of view and bias of the
developer who wishes to subdivide the property and nowhere is there
shown any concern for retaining this property for a special kind of
community park that is devoted to the concept of a historical/
heritage /open space preserve which would be devoted to showing how
this area of the Santa Clara Valley looked when farming and orchards
reigned supreme. The Valley of Hearts Delight is what it was called.
Here, on the Nelson property, would be demonstrations of: a working
apricot orchard; a vegetable and flower garden; an herb garden for
fragrance, medicinal and culinary purposes; an area for native plants
and shrubs; a demonstration of small animals and birds (selected so as
not to be offensive to the surrounding neighbors) so young people
could observe a'life cycle.
The seasonal stream could be reactivated with a circulating pump to
keep it functioning all year. The two houses on the property could be
rehabilitated and devoted to arts and crafts of an earlier time with
docents to explain how these arts and crafts were utilized by the
inhabitants of the area.
This would be a quiet contemplative type of park where young and old
could come and reflect, meditate, learn and enjoy. It would not be
devoted to the typical busy, aggressive type of recreation so common
in this valley. It would be an indigenous, historical /preserve
devoted to keeping alive some of our past heritage. It would be
specialized as is Hokene Garden which tells of Japanese culture and of
which we are justifiably proud.
Box 447 Saratoga, CA 95071 (408) 867 -3155
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
Public Hearing on Nelson Gardens Project
Page 2
I am deeply concerned, angered and hurt that there seems to be no
visible concern on the part of either the City Council or the Planning
Commission for having-such a park as °'I have described above.
In an era when we are concerned with diversity and multiculture, there
seems to be no concern for our.indiginous culture. A great pity!
Sincerely,
Donald S. Macrae
20679 Reid Lane
Saratoga, California 95070
(408) 867 -3155
Donald S. Macrae
DATE: June 13, 1995
TO: Planning Commission
SUBJECT: G.P. 94- 003,AZO- 94-002 & SD- 94-005 (APN 503 -49-41 & 42) Trinity
Development Company: 20851 Saratoga Hills Road
I live at 20679 Reid Lane - a short distance from the Nelson Garden property.
I served on the committee that developed the City of Saratoga's Master Plan
in the 1960's. I strongly believe in doing whatever is possible to retain what is
left of Saratoga's fast- disappearing open spaces. I believe in fostering,
wherever possible, small neighborhood parks.
When the City of San Jose was in its expansion and annexation program in
the 1950's and 1960's, concerned Saratoga citizens incorporated to retain, in
this area, a community that fostered a pleasant rural atmosphere safe from
crowded subdivisions and shopping centers. I am deeply distressed to see the
current trend towards more subdivisions and larger homes on small lots.
The San Jose syndrome is infecting this beautiful community.
These are my comments regarding this matter that is now before the
Planning Commission:
1. I strongly believe that the Nelson Property should not be subdivided but,
instead, should be retained as the Nature /Contemplative Demonstration
Park as originally intended by owner, Frank Nelson, who deeded the
property to the Nature Conservancy for this purpose. This area is currently
so indicated in the City of Saratoga's Master Plan.
2. Since the current City Council has made the decision to now allow the
property to be withdrawn from the Williamson Act protection and
developed into a subdivision my comments relate to the matter of proper
zoning in the public interest.
3. I strongly endorse the comments and recommendations made by:
A. Former Mayor Francis L. Stutzman
B. Mr. Gary Nemetz whose property is opposite the Nelson property on
Pontiac Drive.
C. Mrs. Ann Waltonsmith whose property is on Saratoga Hills Road and
in close proximity to the Nelson Property.
Box 447 Saratoga, CA 95071 (448) 867 -3155
Donald S. Macrae
4. The Nelson Property consists of two parcels of approximately 3 acres and 2
acres for a total of 5.1 acres. The lower 3 acre - parcel is on level ground but
the sizes of the lots, the building area and the placement of the lots need
to be reconsidered and modified.
5. The upper 2 -acre parcel is on unstable land, has very steep slopes and
presents serious, problems -in time of earthquake activity. The lot that is
adjacent and higher up on Saratoga Hills Road shows very clearly how the
hillside has slid away in recent times.
6. The extreme removal of trees, the unnecessary disturbance of land and
wildlife in the area requires a much more extensive and realistic
environmental impact report than the one submitted.
7. The Planning Commission needs to take time to seriously study the area
by actually visiting the property. It also needs to examine the written
report of the Ad Hoc Committee which thoroughly studied the matter in
1988.
Respectfully submitted,
Donald S. Macrae
Box 447 Saratoga, CA 95071 (408) 867 -3155 2
Donald S. Macrae2 o pvs u
k/i� G /.4 /rc soft A c T
Gavel; 4Y-A7-10,41
i
C��. qs -ono
D--
Box 447 Saratoga, CA 95071 . (408) 867 -3155
0'.
Donald S. Macrae
ae
Box 447 Saratoga. CA 95071 (408) 867 -3155
Cz�
Donald S. Macrae
,cif ✓ - 2��/ ��r� �t i�
mow- � "� �,�✓�°` °�
Ar,C 7
Box 447 Saratoga, CA 95071
(408) 867 -3155
A
FEB -02 -96 FRI 10 :50
MICHAEL R. NAVE
STEVEN R. MEYERS
ELIZAOETM K SILVlR
MICHAEL S. RIBACK
KENNETH A. WILSON
CLIFFORD F. CAMPBELL
MICHAEL F. RODRIQUEZ
KATHLEEN FAUWON. AICP
WENDY A. ROBERTS
DAVID W. SKINNER
STEVEN T. MATTA$
RICK W. JARVIS
LARISSA M. SETO'
WAYNE K. SNODGRASS
OF COUNSEL
ANDREA J. SALTZMAN
MEYERS, NAVE, R I BACK &S I M -FAX N0. 510 351 4481 P.09/161
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
TO: City Council
City Manager
GATEWAY PLAZA
777 DAVIS STREET, SUITE 300
SAN LEANDRO, CALIFORNIA 94577
TELEPHONE: (510) 351 -4300
FACSIMILE: (610) 351 -4481
MEMORANDUM
FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney and
RE: Tentative Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract.,
Nelson Garden Property
DATE: February 2, 1996
SANTA ROSA OFFICE
666 A"N STAEET. 6UlTC 230
SANTA ROSA. CA 96401
TELEPHONE: 17071 645.8009
FACSIMILe: 1707) 645.6617
Reply n.i
Stn LwAro
The purpose of this memorandum is to briefly refresh the Council's recollection of
the issues (since this matter was initially considered in April of 1995) with respect to
statutory findings necessary to approve a Williamson Act contract cancellation once a
petition to cancel has been submitted.
BACKGROUND
The property consists of approximately 5.1 acres, including some 2 acres of apricot
orchard. The property has been subject to a Land Conservation Contract pursuant to the
Williamson Act (Gov. Code Sec. 51200, a .)'since 1971. The current owners of the
property now propose to cancel the contracL. The owners propose to subdivide the
property into nine single family residential lots.
The Williamson Act was enacted in 1965 with the stated intent to preserve
agricultural land to maintain the state's agricultural economy, to discourage premature
and unnecessary conversion of agricultural land to urban uses, and to preserve the open
space values of agricultural lands. (Sec. 51220, See Attachment 1). The core of the Act is
providing tax incentives to owners who agree to keep their land in agriculture or other
L All statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise
noted.
FEB -02 -96 FRI 10:50
MEYERS,NAVE,RIBACK &SILV. FAX N0. 510 351 4481 P.10/16
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
PAGE:
City Council, City Manager
Michael S. Riback, City Attorney
Tentative Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract,
Nelson Gardens Property
February 2, 1996
2
open space uses. The agreements are formalized in a Land Conservation Contract. The
term of the contract is ten years; the contract is automatically extended each year unless
terminated through a notice of non - renewal or through cancellation. The notice of non -
renewal eliminates the automatic annual extension, with the result that the contract runs
out its term over the following ten years. An owner may file for non - renewal at any time
and need not provide any justification for the action.
Land conservation contracts may be terminated by cancellation as well as by non.
renewal. Cancellation results in immediate termination of the contract., However, in
contrast to non - renewal, cancellation requires the public agency to justify the cancellation
through a series of statutorily required findings. The public agency's action to adopt
findings and approve a cancellation is an adjudicative act. (Sierra Club v City of
Hayward (1981) 171 Cal. Rptr. 619, 623). That is, if the approval were challenged, a
court would look to see if the required findings were made and were supported by
substantial evidence in light of the whole record.
In this case, the landowners requested non - renewal on September 16, 1991, 'but
have now petitioned for cancellation of the contract. The legal question before the
Council, then, is whether substar► ial evidence is present to Support t� he rea bred
cancellation findings.
If, after considering the information before it, the Council feels it can make the
required cancellation findings and can support them with factual evidence, the Council
may approve tentative cancellation cif the contract. The presence of disae[ PmPnt or
contrary information does not require denial of the cane llation request so long d_ a, any
2 By letter dated March 30, 1995, the attorney representing the Friends of
Nelson Gardens Foundation asked whether the notice of non - renewal was filed with
the Director of Conservation and was recorded as required under the current
statute. The Act was amended effective January 1, 1990 to require the Director of
Conservation to prepare annual report s on non - renewal and cancellation activity.
At the same time, the statute was amended to require that notices of non - renewal be
filed with the Director, presumably to assist in preparing the annual report~ The
notice of non - renewal for the subject property was not filed with the Director. The
statutory requirement for recordation was not adopted until 1992, and thus was not
required when the applicant's notice of non - renewal was filed with the City.
FEB -02 -96 FRI 10:51
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
PAGE:
MEYERS,NAVE;RIBACK &SILV. FAX NO. 510 351 4481 P.11 /16
City Council, City Manager
Michael S. Riback, City Attorney
Tentative Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract,
Nelson Gardens Property
February 2, 1996
3
approval is sup 1-by substantial evid ncP If, on the other hand, the Council does
not feel there is substantial evidence to make and support the required findings, the
Council should deny the request.
NATURE OF THE CANCELLATION FINDINGS
The procedures for.contract cancellation are outlined beginning in Sec. 51280. The
landowner inust.file a cancellation petition with the City. (Sec. S ) 281). A cancellation fee
is determined by the County Assessor (Sec. 51283), environmental review is conducted,
and the.Petition is noticed for public hearing. (Sec. 51284). In order to approve a
cancellation request, the City must make either of two major findings, each of which also
involves subfindings. (Sec. 51282). This complicated array of findings is shown on
Attachment 2. As demonstrated in Attachment 2, the major findings supporting
cancellation are that the cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson
Act, or, that cancellation is in the public interest. In its December 14, 1994 petition, the
landowners request cancellation based on the public interest finding, which is outlined on
Attachment 2 and summarized below:
Cancellation of a contract shall be in the public interest only if the council makes
the following findings pursuant to Sec. 51282(c):
1. Other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of the
Williamson Act; and,
2. a. There is no proximate noncontracted land which is both available and
suitable for the proposed residential use; or,
b. Development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous
patterns of urban development than development of proximate
noncontracted land.
The Sierra Club case provides useful guidance on the kind of evidence that could
support these findings.3 For example, in dictum, the Court noted that just as the
'The Sierra Club case was decided in 1981 when both of the major findings
were necessary for cancellation. In response to the decision, the Legislature clarified
FEB -02 -96 FR1 .10 :51 MEYERS,NAVE,RIBACK &SIM FAX N0. 510 351 4481 P.12/16
6
TO: City Council, City Manager
FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney
RE: Tentative Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract,
Nelson Gardens Property
DATE: February 2, 1996
PAGE: 4
objectives of the Williamson Act implicate statewide interest in agricultural production
and economics, "public concerns" for the purposes of the cancellation finding must be
broader than simply considering local interests. (Sierra Club 171 Cal. Rptr. At 627).
The Court also commented on the kinds of interests relevant to cancellation. The
Williamson Act interests are reflected in the statutory intent provisions of Sec. 51220.
(Attachment 1). They include maintaining the agricultural economy of the state,
maintaining food supplies, providing housing for agricultural workers, discouraging
premature and unnecessary urbanization that results in discontiguous development and
increased costs to provide services, and providing open space value in urban areas.
Examples of other countervailing interests include "housing, needed services,
environmental protection through developed uses, economic growth or employment...".
(Sierra lub 171 C:al.Rptr. at 628).
As the Council considers this matter, information relevant to balancing "other
public concerns" against the Williamson Act objectives could include the nature, type and
duration of agricultural activities on the site and any changes in these features over the
past years. Other relevant information could include the size, shape, and topography of
the site for agriculture and alternate uses, and could include the relation of the site to the
amount and character of surrounding development and any changes in that relation over
time.
In addition to weighing "other public concerns" against the Act, the public interest
.cancellation also requires the City to assess development opportunities and patterns
"proximate" to the contracted property. To this end, the second public interest
cancellation finding requires the City to find either that no other suitable land nearby
could accommodate the proposed use, cam, that development of the site would provide
more contiguous urban development patterns than development of proximate
noncontracted land. For these alternate findings, therefore, relevant information could
include specific information on vacant land in the area around the project. site and
information on whether the site or the other vacant lands are served by public services and
its intentions with respect to cancellation by amending the Williailison Act to
require one or the other of the major findings, but not both. Thus, the case is
somewhat out of date, but it is nevertheless useful for its specific discussions of the
individual Statutory findings.
FEB -02 -96 FRI 10:52
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
PAGE:
MEYERS,NAVE,RIBACK &SILV. FAX N0. 510 351 4461 P. 13/16
City Council, City Manager
Michael S. Riback, City Attorney
Tentative Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract,
Nelson Gardens Property
February 2, 1996
5
improvements. The location of the site with respect to other development, as well as the
nature, intensity and extent of other development is also relevant to these findings.
In determining whether other land available for development is "proximate", the
statute directs the City to consider land which is "sufficiently close [to the site] that it can
serve as a practical alternative for the proposed use." (Sec. 51282(c)). This statutory
definition was added as a result of the Sierra Club case; in attempting to interpret
"proximate" the Court counseled that it should be applied to "effectuate `the legislative
intent and spirit of the act...' (chat.ions) ". (Sierra Club 171 Cal. Rptr. At 630). Thus, it
seems reasonable to interpret that to the extent that the site is in a developed area,
"proximate" may include a lesser area than if the site were in a remote area, because
development patterns will be more evident where there is more development.
As a practical matter, many cancellation requests are based on a landowner's
perception that agricultural use of the property is uneconomic. Both the statute and the
SjejM_C1Uh case address this situation, and state that lack of economic productivity alone
is not sufficient to support cancellation. Sec. 51282(d) states as follows:
For purposes.of subdivision (a), the uneconomic character of an existing
agricultural use shall not by itself be sufficient reason for cancellation of the
contract. The uneconomic character of the existing use may be considered
only if there is no other reasonable or co=arable agricultural use to which
the land may be put„ (emphasis added)
Lack of economic productivity is not among the required findings for cancellation.
In fact, the statute makes it clear that. it. is not an issue at all unless a finding is made and
supported that no other reasonable agriculture use may be made of the property. Relevant
information on this issue could include the effects of urban development over the years on
the agricultural operations, and could include changes in agricultural costs. In applying
this provision of the statute, the Sierra Club court emphasized the need to identify
changed circumstances that now cause the existent operation to be uneconomic. (Sierra
Club 171 Cal. Rptr. at 631 -32). In the current application, for example, the court would
assign little weight to the small size of the properly, because the site was accepted into
agricultural preserve at that same size.
FEB -02 -96 FRI 10 :52
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
PAGE:
MEYERS, NAVE, R I BACUS I LV. FAX N0. 510 .351 4481 P. 14/16
City Council, City Manager
Michael S. Riback, City Attorney
Tentative Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract,
Nelson Gardens Property
February 2, 1996
6
It is Clear from the nature of the required statutory findings that cancellation
decisions are highly dependent on the particular facts of a given situation. A decision to
approve a cancellation may not, for example, rest on general statements that development
often interferes with agriculture. Instead, the findings must be evaluated and considered
as they apply to the particular contract before the Council.
G�r
Michael S. Riback
City Attorney
MSR:dsp
Attachments
mnrsw\2 73 \memo\feb96%wdens.w61
FEB -02 -96 FR 110 52 MEYERS, NAVE, R I BACK &S I LV, FAX N0. 510 351 4481 P.15/16
APR -27 -95 THU 17:53
§ 51220. IeegWative fw&ngs
The Legislature finds:
(a) That the preservation of a maximum amount of the limited
supply of agricultural land is necessary to the canservation of the
state's economic resources, and is necessary not only t0 the mainte.
nance of the agricultu.-"al economy of the state, but also for the amur.
anae of adequate, healthful and nutritious food far future residents
of this state and nation.
(b) That the agricultural work force is vital to sustaining agri-
caltural productivity: that this work force has the lowest average in-
come of any occupational group in this state: that there exists a need
to house this work force of crUIS proportions which requires includ-
ing among agricultural user the housing of agricultural laborers; and
that such use of agricultural land is in the public interest and in con-
formity with the state's rarmworker Housing Amistaace Plan.
(c) That the discouragement of premature and unnecessary con-
version of Sgricultural land to urban uses is a matter of public inter-
est and will be of benefit to urban dwellers themselves in that it will
dsscoumge discontiguous urban development patterns which uram on-
Sarib, increase the coFtS of c==unity Services to
dents. community resi-
(d) That in a. rapidly urbaniztig oociety agrirulturai lauds have
a definite public value as open space, anQ the preservation in aEricuI-
Unal pr action of such humb, the use of which may be limited under
the provisions of this chapter, • conS unes an important physical. so_
cdal, estlretlC and economic asset to e3dstirig or pending urban or met-
roDolitan developments
(e) 7bat land within a scenic highway earridor or wildlife habi-
tat area as defined in this chapter has a value to the atete becaum of
its eeenie beauty and its location adjacent to or within view of a state
scenic highway or because it is of great importance as habitat for
wilWe and contributes to the preservation or enhancement thereof.
(1) For these reasons, this chapter is necessary for the Prorno-
tion of the general welfare and the protection of the public interest in
agricultural land.
(Added by Stats.1965. e. 1443, p. 3358, § 1. Amczded by St:t3.19s8, c.
1139, p. 2155, § 1; Stats.1969, C. 1973, P. 8024, g a; Stats.198C, C. 1519, p.
4131, f 1.)
P. 08/09
AMO -!
FEB-'02-96 FRI 10:53 MEYERS,NAVE,RIBACK &SILV. FAX N0. 510 351 4481
1
P. 16/16
• APR -27 -95 THU.17:54 P. 09/09 S
rsua=xes aW=1iTS FOR
VrT
�►�aso wCr C
(Government Code section 51282)
.To cancel a Williamson act contract,, the city must find either;
"That cancellation is in the public interest"
2E
"That cancellation is consistent with the purposes of
[the Williamson Actj " •
Tc find cancellation in the pubiie
interest, the City must .find
(S 51282 (c) ) ;
1. "That other public concerns
substantially outweigh the
Objectives of [the Williamson
Act) "
and either
2a. "That there is no proximate
noncontracted land which is
both available and suitable
for the use to which it is
proposed the contracted land
be puts
or
2h. "That development of the
contracted land would provide
more contiguous patterns of
urban d®velopment than
development of proximate
noncontracted land."
To find cancellation consistent with
the purposes of the Williamson Act,
the City must find (5 51282(b)):
1• "That cancellation is for land
on which a notice of nonrenewal
has been served pursuant to
Section 51245"
AM&
2. "That cancellation is not
likely to result in the removal
of adjacent lands from agricui-
tura? use"
APS
3• "That cancellation is for an
alternative use which is
consistent with the applicable
Provisions of the.city or
county general plan"
4. "That cancellation will not
result in discontiguous
patterns of urban development"
sad either
Sa. "That there ie no proximate
noncontracted land which is
both available and suitable for
the use to which it * proposed
the contracted land be put,,
Sb.
ATTACMUM
OZ
"That development of the
contracted land would-provide
more contiguous patterns of
urban development than
development of proximate
noncontracted land.,,
I-Ima¢ianne E N"t
20830 Boyee lane
,Sazatoga, i?ai) mia 95070
TC 4 r'twr�l ,l
ass�z�q ��
G�CSLnS
!Co �-
C ss m ctis
-oxA 1z�s
\r Ok-v OUL
Naj\),Ck-�
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON
MICHAEL R. NAVE
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
STEVEN R. MEYERS
SANTA NOSA OFFICE
lL14AUTH H. SILVER
MICHAEL G. meACK
GATEWAY PLAZA
559 FIFTH STREET SUITE 230
KENNETH A. WILSON
777 D"IS STREET, SUITE 300
SANTA ROSA, CA 95401
CLIFFORD F. CAMPBELL
MICHAEL F. RODRIGUEZ
SAN LEANDRO, CALIFORNIA 94577
TWIPHONE 0071 545 -8009
KATHLEEN FAU AIC►
TELEPHONE: (510) 351 -4300
FACSIMILE: (707) s4o-co17
WENOV A. ROOCnTS
NTT.
DAVID W. SKINNER
FACSIMILE: (510) 351 -4481
STEVEN T. MATTAS
RICK W. JARVIS
LARISSA M. SETO
OEBEIE F. LATHAM
WAYNE K. SNODGF1ACS
OP COUNS11
ANDREA J. SALTZMAN
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council DATE: February 2, 1996
FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attomey
RE: Omer of Consideration of Recommended Actions for Nelson Gardens Project
As the Council knows, the Nelson Gardens Project proposed by Trinity
Development encompasses scvcral actions the City Council will be asked to consider
taking on February 7. The following outline attempts to clarify for the Council the
specific actions as recommended by the Planning Commission and the order in which they
should be considered. The specific actions to be considered are:
(1) Certification of the Final EIR for the proposed project. (Resolution)
(2) General Plan Amendment changing land use from Open Space - Outdoor
Recreational to Residential - 'Very Low Density and Residential - Medium
Density. (Resolution)
(3) Rezoning of the property from the Agricultural designation to Rl-40,000/R-
1-12,50O.de.signations. (Ordinance)
(4) Tentative cancellation of the Williamson Act contract. (Resolution) (This
action was not considered by the Planning Commission. Therefore, there is
no Commission or staff recommendation other than to consider the item.]
(5) Approval of vesting tentative subdivision map to subdivide the two parcels
into nine single family residential lots. (Resolution)
1. Gl'A 94 -003, A,ZO -94 -002, SD -95 -008 & Tentative Cancellation of a
Williamson Act Agricultural Preserve Contract (APN 503 -49-41 & 42)
Applicant: TRINITY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY; 20851 SARATOGA
141US RD.
Request for General Plan Amendment to allow two parcels totaling 5.1 acres to
be reclassified from an Open Space- Outdoor Recreational designation to
Residential -Very Low Density and Medium Density. Request includes
associated Zoning District amendment to allow the two parcels to be
reclassified from an Agricultural designation to R-1-40,000 and R- 1- 12,500.
Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map approval is requested to subdivide the two
parcels into nine single -family lots. Tentative cancellation of the properties'
Williamson Act agricultural preserve contract is included as part of the project
description.
Pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act an EIR has been prepared for the project. The Final EIR has been
reviewed by the Planning Commission and recommended for certification to
the City Council.
Recommended Action: (1) adopt resolution certifying EIR; (2) instruct staff
and City Attorney to prepare resolution approving General Plan Amendment,
resolution approving Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and resolution
approving Tentative Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract, for
consideration at the meeting of 2/21/96; (3) introduce Ordinance rezoning
property and waiving further reading; (4) continue public hearing only as to
proposed General Plan Amendment and Tentative Cancellation of Williamson
Act Contract.
February 2. 1996
J:\WPD\MNRSW\273\MISMECOMEND.W61
LAW OFFICES OF
ROBIN B KENNEDY ��---
301 UNIVERSITY AVENUE • SUITE 480 • PALO ALTO,CA. 94301 415 • 32 qa��7 -4 .R 41 3122 ,377
1111 1 ; r r' $. 1
February 1, 1996 ' LU j w- 6 U
C11, y
CITY M,4, , GLnn; Cr ICE
Members of the City Council
City Hall
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Nelson Garden - Proposed Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
Dear Councilmembers:
I write on behalf of my client, The Friends of the Nelson Garden Foundation, in
connection with the Saratoga City Council hearing scheduled for Wednesday,
February 7, 1996 to consider a petition ( "Petition ") from landowner The Community
Foundation of Santa Clara County ( "The Community Foundation ") for early
cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract ( "Contract ") on property located at 20851
Saratoga Hills Road, better known as "The Nelson Garden." My Client strenuously
opposes the proposed cancellation of the Contract.
SUMMARY
The issue before the City Council with respect to the Petition by The Community
Foundation to cancel the remaining term of its Williamson Act Contract with the City
of Saratoga is whether the public interest that would be served by the development
of nine single family home lots constitutes "most extraordinary circumstances" under
the law warranting such cancellation. My client believes that it does not.
The Community Foundation's efforts to acquire the necessary entitlements to sell the
property to Trinity Development Company, a residential real estate developer,
subvert the intentions of both Frank Nelson's gift of the property to The Nature
Conservancy more than twenty years ago and the California Constitutional provision
intended to promote the conservation, preservation and continued existence of open
space lands. My client will direct its resources to prevent the City Council's collusion
with The Community Foundation's efforts, which appears to be motivated by the
Council's desire to receive, on behalf of the City, "compensation for conversion of
open space" that has been promised the City in exchange for the Council's approval
Saratoga City Council
Proposed Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
February 1, 1996
Page 2
of all requisite steps to enable the proposed development. That the specific amount
the City will receive is proportionately related to the number of lots whose
development it approves' prompts skepticism regarding this Council's ability to act
impartially on the Petition. It may raise the question of whether the Members of the
City Council have a disabling conflict of interest in ruling on the Petition and the
related land use decisions with respect to the proposed development project.
HISTORY
The history of the Nelson Garden is well known to you. I will summarize it briefly
here for purposes of providing a context:
Between 1971 and 1976, Saratoga resident Frank Nelson deeded in increments, the
5.1 acre parcel to The California Nature Conservancy ( "TNC "). Mr. Nelson and the
City of Saratoga entered into a Land Conservation Contract by which both parties
determined that the highest and best use of the land was for agricultural purposes.2
This is the Williamson Act Contract whose cancellation is now proposed. Although
the Garden did not contain the type of ecological values TNC typically identifies in a
property it acquires, TNC's managers at the time felt it was appropriate to be
involved in this gift transaction so as to facilitate the ultimate ownership and
management of the property by the California State Parks Foundation . 3
The Nature Conservancy continued to own the Garden until 1977. Mr. Nelson
agreed to the transfer of the Garden to the California State Parks Foundation on
conditions that (1) he and his sister could continue until their deaths to occupy the
houses on the property and (2) "so long as there is no interference with the
dedication of the property to public use." In a letter dated October 14, 1977,
Henry P. Little, then Western Regional Director of TNC, informed Frank Nelson that
"the conveyance of your lovely Saratoga property has been made to the California
State Parks Foundation. You are certainly to be commended for a means of
protecting your land both through gifts to the Conservancy and later by working with
us to transfer the land to the Foundation. Individuals like yourself are the reason the
Conservancy and the Foundation can continue to work successfully to protect our
valuable natural heritage."
Paragraph 9, Predevelopment Memorandum of Understand Regarding Certain Undeveloped
Property Located at 20851 Saratoga Hills Road, Saratoga, California, dated November 21, 1994 by
and between the City of Saratoga and The Community Development Foundation of Santa Clara
County.
2 Recorded as Document Number 401331, in Book 9381, Page 234.
3 March 2, 1995 letter from Steve McCormick, Regional Director, The Nature Conservancy, to
The Law Offices of Robin B. Kennedy.
Saratoga City Council
Proposed Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
February 1, 1996
Page 3
In conveying the deed to the California State Parks Foundation, Mr. Little wrote to its
President, William Penn Mott, Jr., as follows:
The Conservancy is pleased to be able to transfer this property to the
Foundation as clearly your organization will best be able to manage
the area in a manner that both protects and enhances the natural
beauty while allowing the citizens of the Santa Clara Valley and the
entire State to benefit from its use.4 (Emphasis added.)
The California State Parks Foundation continued to own the Garden until 1984.
During its ownership of the Garden, the California State Parks Foundation published
a brochure that included a section entitled "A Link With the Past." It reads:
There are still a few small islands of fruit trees left in the valley. The
Saratoga Nature Center is one. This property has been donated to
preserve a portion of this once great fruit - growing region and to serve
as an educational center for senior citizens, school children and the
general public. Here the care, growing and processing of apricots is
demonstrated. The area is of particular interest because there is a
small arboretum on the property containing exotic plans and the upper
slopes, in natural vegetation, reflect the ecology of the coastal
mountains.
In 1984, under political and budgetary pressures, the California State Parks
Foundation asked the consent of TNC to transfer the Garden to The Florence Nelson
Foundation to "allow them to continue the maintenance of the property."
On February 27, 1984, The Florence Nelson Foundation passed a resolution stating,
inter alia, that it "will maintain and preserve the Nelson Gardens for charitable
purposes consistent with the objectives under which the Nelson Gardens is now
maintained. The Foundation will actively seek to obtain all of the necessary permits
and approvals to allow more persons and organizations to enjoy the use and beauty
of The Nelson Gardens." (Emphasis added.)
Pursuant to an Agreement of Merger between The Florence Nelson Foundation and
The Community Foundation dated June 21, 1993, The Community Foundation
absorbed the corporate identity, existence, purposes, powers, rights and immunities
of The Florence Nelson Foundation, and undertook to be subject to the latter's debts,
liabilities and trust obligations in the same manner as if The Florence Nelson
October 14, 1977 letter from Henry P. Little to William Penn Mott, Jr.
Saratoga City Council
Proposed Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
February 1, 1996
Page 4
Foundation had incurred them. In so doing, The Foundation acquired title to the
Nelson Garden property.
The Community Foundation has made application to the City of Saratoga to acquire
the necessary entitlements to sell the property to Trinity Development Company, with
the net proceeds from the sale going to support The Community Foundation's own
charitable purposes. While those purposes are entirely commendable, in 1994, only
1.7% of the grants made from board - directed unrestricted funds were directed to
environmental purposes . 5
THE WILLIAMSON ACT
The California Legislature passed the California Land Conservation Act of 1965
(known as the "Williamson Act ") on the basis of the following findings:
(a) That the preservation of a maximum amount of the limited supply of
agricultural land is necessary to the conservation of the state's economic
resources, and is necessary not only to the maintenance of the agricultural
economy of the state, but also for the assurance of adequate, healthful and
nutritious food for future residents of this state and nation.
(b) That the discouragement of premature and unnecessary conversion of
agricultural land to urban uses is a matter of public interest and will be of
benefit to urban dwellers themselves in that it will discourage discontinuous
urban development patterns which unnecessarily increase the costs of
community services to community residents.
(c) That in a rapidly urbanizing society agricultural lands have a definite
public value as open space, and the preservation in agricultural production of
such lands ... constitutes an important physical, social, aesthetic and
economic asset to existing or pending urban or metropolitan developments . 6
The Williamson Act empowers local governments to establish agricultural preserves
consisting of lands devoted to either agricultural use, recreational use, open space
use or any combination of such uses. As consideration to the landowner for
committing his property as an agricultural preserve, the landowner is guaranteed a
relatively stable tax base, founded on the value of the land for open space use and
5 $2,500 to California Student Environmental Action and $3,000 to Wildlife Education &
Rehabilitation Center. The Community Foundation of Santa Clara County Annual Report 1994, p. 23.
6 1965 Gov't Code § 51220.
Saratoga City Council
Proposed Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
February 1, 1996
Page 5
not influenced by its development potential. This notion is embodied in Article XIII,
Section 8 of the California Constitution, which declares that:
To promote the conservation, preservation and continued existence of
open space lands, the Legislature may define open space land and
shall provide that when this land is enforceably restricted, in a manner
specified by the Legislature, to recreation, enjoyment of scenic beauty,
use or conservation of natural resources, or production of food or fiber,
it shall be valued for property tax purposes only on the basis that is
consistent with its restrictions and uses. (Emphasis added.)
To ensure that the constitutional requirement of an "enforceable restriction" is met,
the Legislature deliberately required a long -term commitment to agriculture or other
open space use. If neither party gives timely notice to the other of a contrary intent,
the contract automatically renews itself each year, tacking on an additional year to
the period of restriction. And although the landowner may terminate his contract at
any time by giving notice to the contracting government entity, he may not develop
the land for the balance of the contractual period of restricted use. On notice of
nonrenewal, Property taxes gradually return to the level of taxation upon comparable
nonrestricted property during the remainder of the term of the restriction.' $
The City Clerk informed me, by telephone, that the term of the Williamson Act
Contract on the Nelson Garden will expire on December 31, 2000.9
My Client urges the City Council to allow the Williamson Act Contract on the Garden
to expire on the basis of non - renewal, rather than to approve its early cancellation.
The California State Attorney General has found cancellation impermissible "except
upon extremely stringent conditions. "10
' Rev. & Tax. Code § 426
8 My client's review of files in the Santa Clara County Tax Assessor's Office indicate that the
taxes on the Garden have not increased, despite the apparent filing of a notice of termination by the
Foundation in 1990. A search of the County Records reveals that the notice of nonrenewal was not
recorded, as is required pursuant to Gov't Code § 51245. Was a copy of the notice of nonrenewal
delivered to the Director of Conservation within 30 days after the City's receipt of nonrenewal by the
landowner, as is required pursuant to Gov't Code § 51245?
9 Telephone call with Grace Cory, March 28, 1995.
10 62 Ops. Atty. Gen. 233, 240, fn. 6 (1970).
Saratoga City Council
Proposed Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
February 1, 1996
Page 6
CANCELLATION OF WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT
The California Supreme Court has stated that it "harbor[s] no doubt that the
Legislature intended cancellation to be approved only in the most extraordinary
circumstances"" (Emphasis added.)
The Legislature declared ... that cancellation of Williamson Act
contracts is permissible "only when the continued dedication of land
under such contracts to agricultural use is neither necessary nor
desirable for the purposes of [the Act.] ... The cancellation
provisions were included "As a means of dealing with strictly
emergency situations where the public interest no longer dictates
that the contract be continued." [Citation omitted.]
The issue before the City Council is whether the present circumstances qualify
as extraordinary. Fortunately, the Legislature provided reasonably clear guidance
on analyzing that question, and the California Supreme Court, in the seminal
decision of Sierra Club v. City of Hayward, has provided a model for such analysis.
Pursuant to California Government Code § 51282, the owner of land subject to a
Williamson Act Contract may petition a city council for cancellation of any contract as
to all or any part of the subject land.
(a) ... The council may grant tentative approval for cancellation of a
contract only if it makes one of the following findings:
(1) That the cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the
chapter; or
(2) That cancellation is in the public interest.
(b) For purposes of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) cancellation of a
contract shall be consistent with the purposes of this chapter only if the
... council makes all of the following findings:
(1) That the cancellation is for land on which a notice of nonrenewal
has been served pursuant to Section 51245.
(2) That cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent
lands from agricultural use.
Sierra Club v. City of Hayward, 28 Cal. 3d 840, 853, 623 P. 2d 180, 171 Cal. Rptr. 619(1981).
Saratoga City Council
Proposed Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
February 1, 1996
Page 7
(3) That cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent
with the applicable provisions of the city ... general plan.
(4) That cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of
urban development.
(5) That there is no proximate noncontracted land which is both
available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed the contracted
land be put, or, that development of the contracted land would provide
more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of
proximate noncontracted land.
As used in this subdivision "proximate, noncontracted land" means land not
restricted by contract pursuant to this chapter, which is sufficiently close to
land which is so restricted that it can serve as practical alternative for the use
which is proposed for the restricted land.
As used in this subdivision "suitable" for the proposed use means that the
salient features of the proposed use can be served by land not restricted by
contract pursuant to this chapter. Such nonrestricted land may be a single
parcel or may be a combination of contiguous or discontiguous parcels.
(c) For purposes of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) cancellation of a
contract shall be in the public interest only if the council ... makes the
following findings: (1) that other public concerns substantially outweigh the
objectives of this chapter; and (2) that there is no proximate noncontracted
land which is both available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed
the contracted land be put, or, that development of the contracted land would
provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of
proximate non - contracted land.
As used in this subdivision "suitable" for the proposed use means that the
salient features of the proposed use can be served by land not restricted by
contract pursuant to this chapter. Such nonrestricted land may be a single
parcel or may be a combination of contiguous or discontiguous parcels.
(c) For purposes of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) cancellation of a
contract shall be in the public interest only if the council ... makes the
following findings: (1) that other public concerns substantially outweigh the
objectives of this chapter; and (2) that there is no proximate noncontracted
land which is both available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed
Saratoga City Council
Proposed Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
February 1, 1996
Page 8
the contracted land be put, or, that development of the proximate non -
contracted land.
As used in this subdivision "proximate, noncontracted land" means land not
restricted by contract pursuant to this chapter, which is sufficiently close to
land which is so restricted that it can serve as a practical alternative for the
use which is proposed for the restricted land.
As used in this subdivision "suitable" for the proposed use means that the
salient features of the proposed use can be served by land not restricted by
contract pursuant to this chapter. Such nonrestricted land may be a single
parcel or may be a combination of contiguous or discontiguous parcels.
(d) For purposes of subdivision (a), the uneconomic character of an
existing agricultural use shall not be itself be sufficient reason for cancellation
of the contract. The uneconomic character of the existing use may be
considered only if there is no other reasonable or comparable agricultural use
to which the land may be put.
(e) The landowner's petition shall be accompanied by a proposal for a
specified alternative use of the land ...12
Subdivision (a): Consistency with Purposes of Chapter
Is the subdivision of the Garden property for the purposes of single family
housing development consistent with the applicable provisions of Saratoga's
General Plan? As of the date of this letter, the General Plan designation for the
property on which the Garden is located is Open Space- Outdoor Recreational.
Cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract cannot be approved until the General
Plan designation is changed to Residential -Very Low Density and Medium Density.
Is there any proximate noncontracted land which is both available and suitable
for single family home development? The Council must make an "explicit
finding "13 regarding whether any other proximate parcel or parcels are suitable for
the development of the nine proposed single family home sites. "The Williamson Act
allows the local agency to consider alternative uses of the restricted land only if it first
determines that suitable nonrestricted sites are available. The requirement for
t2 Cal. Gov't Code § 51282.
13 Sierra, at 858. Note that as of the date of this letter -- the day on which all correspondence
regarding the hearing is required to be delivered to the City for inclusion in the Council packet -- the
City of Saratoga has not made available to the public its findings in this matter.
Saratoga City Council
Proposed Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
February 1, 1996
Page 9
proximity is not to be construed to unreasonably limit the search for suitable
noncontracted land; "proximate" property means property close enough to the
restricted parcel to serve as a practical alternative for the proposed use . "14
(Emphasis added.) Note further that "[t]he size of the proposed development should
not be a significant factor in the agency's search for alternative sites." 15
We have repeatedly asked the City Council and City staff to provide us with a list of
"proximate" sites within the meaning of the statute; we have received no response.
We ask again that, as part of its formal approval process, the City provide to the
public a complete listing of the alternative parcels it has examined and the bases
upon which they were rejected as "proximate" within the meaning of the statute.
At its own expense and through its own efforts, my client has identified the following
"proximate parcels" as suitable for the development of the nine proposed single
family home sites: Dr. Stutsman will furnish under separate cover a map showing
the location of these parcels. The following information is based on my client's
information and belief:
Each of these sites is sufficiently close to Nelson Garden as to serve as practical
alternatives for the proposed nine single family homes. To the best of our
knowledge, none of these parcels is subject to a Williamson Act Contract. They are
therefore "proximate" sites within the meaning of Government Code § 51282. We
challenge the City Council to make specific findings that the nine single family homes
could not, in some combination, be developed on one or more of these parcels. In
the absence of making these specific findings, with explicit evidence in support of
14 Id., at 861.
15 Id., at 862.
Mileage
Parcel Number(s)
from
or Street Address
Zonina
Acres
Street
Garden
1 503 -21 -12
R -1- 12,500
5.740
Saratoga - Sunnyvale
3/8
2 503 -21 -9
R -1- 12,500
1.196
Saratoga - Sunnyvale
3/8
3 #13650 S -S Road
R -1- 12,500
3.900
Saratoga - Sunnyvale
1/2
5 397 -24 -73
R -1- 20,000
9.310
Douglass Lane
1
6 397 -24 -74
R -1- 20,000
8.620
Douglass Lane
1
7 397 -16 -6
R -1- 40,000
10.790
Douglass Lane
1 -1/4
8 Kevin Moran Park '
R -1- 12,500
14.000
Scully Ave /Hwy 85
2 -3/4
TOTAL ACRES
53.556
Each of these sites is sufficiently close to Nelson Garden as to serve as practical
alternatives for the proposed nine single family homes. To the best of our
knowledge, none of these parcels is subject to a Williamson Act Contract. They are
therefore "proximate" sites within the meaning of Government Code § 51282. We
challenge the City Council to make specific findings that the nine single family homes
could not, in some combination, be developed on one or more of these parcels. In
the absence of making these specific findings, with explicit evidence in support of
14 Id., at 861.
15 Id., at 862.
Saratoga City Council
Proposed Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
February 1, 1996
Page 10
them, we believe that any cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract on the Nelson
Garden parcel would be in violation of applicable law.
Before the local agency considers the uneconomic quality of the Garden for
agricultural use, it must determine that there is no other reasonable or comparable
agricultural use to which the land may be put. While the Garden has not in recent
years been used for the purposes intended by Mr. Nelson in his gift to TNC, the
reason is that the owner of the Garden has elected not to use it for that purpose.
The landowner should not be permitted to benefit from its own failure to honor the
purposes of the gift.16
The use to which my client proposes that the Garden be put is the same use to
which the land was put when the agricultural preservation agreement was originally
made -- namely, to provide Saratoga with "Heritage Garden," for the enjoyment of all
Saratoga's citizens. Apparently, the only changes that have occurred are the
unwillingness of the present owner to commit the land to the use for which its donor
intended for it to be put and the land's increased value for development. As the
Supreme Court stated in Sierra:
[S]urely the Legislature did not intend a particular use to be deemed
uneconomic simply because the land would now be more valuable for
development than for agricultural use. If the property was included in
an agricultural preserve and was bound by a land preservation
contract or agreement on the basis of a certain marginal use, that
same use cannot later serve as justification for cancellation. The
Legislature would not have extended tax benefits to marginally
productive land unless it believed such land would serve the purposes
of the act. Therefore, the landowner who argues that his land no
longer serves the act's purposes because it is not valuable for
agriculture must demonstrate the changed conditions, irrespective of
increased development value, that now make his agricultural operation
unprofitable. Of course, he must also satisfy the above - quoted explicit
16 With its 1990 Form 990 Federal tax return, The Florence Nelson Foundation provided a
"Schedule of Real Property Owner," in which it stated: "This Foundation now owns and maintains real
property located in Saratoga, Santa Clara County, State of California, deeded to it by the California
State Parks Foundation, a charitable organization, on March 13, 1984. The Foundation maintains the
orchard on said premises to preserve for the general public an example of the vanishing apricot
orchards as they existed in the early days of the Santa Clara Valley. At the time of harvest, historic
types of equipment are used in sun -drying the fruit." In fact, my client informs me that shortly after The
Florence Nelson Foundation received the gift of the Garden, it fenced the property and, since that time,
the property has not been available to the general public.
Saratoga City Council
Proposed Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
February 1, 1996
Page 11
requirement of showing that no reasonable alternative agricultural
uses would render the land economically viable. 17
Our high court has held that a Williamson Act contract does not meet
the constitutional standard if it can be cancelled solely upon a showing
that the land is now more valuable for development. [Citation omitted.]
The obvious reason for this conclusion is that a [contractual] restriction
to agricultural use, created to control urban development, would have
little enforcement value if it could be cancelled whenever development
drew near. We are of the opinion that to pass constitutional muster, a
restriction ... may not be terminable merely because such
development is desirable or profitable to the landowner. 18
My client requests that, as part of its findings, the City Council articulate the reason
other than that the development will be profitable to the landowner that the
conditions have changed.
Subdivision (b): Cancellation in the Public Interest
The City Council must find that cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract for the
Garden is in the public interest. The "public" means the public at large, not just the
interest of the local and regional community.19 The Sierra court cited former
Government Code § 51223 as evidence of the Legislative intent regarding the nature
of the "interests" the Legislature intended local agencies to consider: "the
agreements limiting the use of the land to agriculture are in the public interest 'insofar
as any such agreements tend to maintain the agricultural economy of the state,
prevent premature and unnecessary conversation of land from agricultural uses,
assist in the preservation of prime agricultural lands, or are otherwise consistent with
the purposes of this [act]'." 20
What substantial evidence has the City Council considered to determine that
the public's need for nine single family homes with lot sizes ranging from
12,500 to 29,400 square feet substantially outweighs the public's need for open
space and a community garden? Is there demonstrated need for additional
single family lot zoning in the Saratoga area that is not being met by
development projects currently underway? My client requests that the City
t7 Id., at 863.
18 Lewis v. City of Hayward, 177 Cal. App. 3d 103, 113, 222 Cal. Rptr. 781 (1986).
19 Id, at 856.
20 Id, at 857.
Saratoga City Council
Proposed Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
February 1, 1996
Page 12
Council, as part of the formal record, provide evidence to the public of such
demonstrated need.
FINDINGS
My client objects on the following grounds to the "Findings" made by the City Council
for the Williamson Act Cancellation: (1) they are legally inadequate; (2) there is no
substantial evidence to support the conclusions; and (3) the City has not adequately
explained how it reached the conclusions set forth in the Findings.
CONCLUSION
In a City that meets less than half the requirement for the State standard for acreage
devoted to parks, the razing of a lovely and unique garden whose original owner
thought he had done everything legally appropriate to ensure its preservation in
perpetuity21, in favor of the development of nine undoubtedly expensive new single
family homes, would constitute a travesty of intent, a sound rejection of the past and
a betrayal of the confidence of The Nature Conservancy and The California State
Parks Foundation, both of which believed they were entrusting the Nelson Garden to
trustworthy and reliable hands. We strongly urge the Council to reject the Petition.
Sincerely,
�o y
Robin B. Kennedy
cc: The Friends of The Nelson Garden Foundation
Tamara Galanter, Esq.
Barton Hechtman, Esq.
David Mitchell, Esq.
21 1 am informed that only the absence of a specific deed restriction in the transfer of the Garden
from Mr. Nelson to TNC prevents an action by the State Attorney General to remedy a breach of a
charitable trust in this matter. Although it is not relevant to the present action before the Council, the
present plans also subvert the intent of the donor's gift.
1
LAW OFFICES OF
R O B I N B K E N N E D Y
3 0 1 U N I V E R S I T Y A V E N U E • S U I I E 4 8 0 • P A L O A L I O . C A . 9 4 3 0 1 . 4 1 5 • 324- 1 2 2 6 • F A X • 324- 1 7 7 0
February 7, 1996
BY HAND DELIVERY
Members of the City Council
City Hall
City of Saratoga .
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Nelson Garden - Dedication to the Public
Dear Councilmembers:
Once again, I write on behalf of my client, The Friends of the Nelson Garden
Foundation, in connection with the Saratoga City Council hearing scheduled for
Wednesday, February 7, 1996 to consider a petition from landowner The
Community Foundation of Santa Clara County for early cancellation of the
Williamson Act Contract (on property located at 20851 Saratoga Hills Road, better
known as "The Nelson Garden." This is my second letter to you in advance of this
particular public hearing, and it deals with a new legal issue -- one that I did not
raise in my previous letter.
We ask that the City Council, as part of its deliberations in connection with the
proposed cancellation and with other entitlement approvals, consider that the Nelson
Garden may have been dedicated to the public for the purpose of serving as a
historical, educational and natural reserve. Such dedication would have been made
by virtue of express statements by the previous owner or owners of the Property
(Frank Nelson, The Nature Conservancy, and the California State Parks
Department) of an unequivocal intention that the land be used for such a public
purpose, and that the public accepted the offer that the land be dedicated through its
subsequent use of the property.
In the 1922 case of Phillips u. Laguna Beach Co., the California Supreme Court
found that a tract of land designated in a recorded subdivision map as "Laguna Cliffs"
was dedicated to public use by a resolution of the board of directors of the developer
that the land in question "shall be reserved for park purposes and not sold by
anybody at any time." Phillips u. Laguna Beach Co., 190 Cal. 180, 181 (1922). The
Saratoga City Council
February 7, 1996
Page 2
Laguna court regarded this resolution, though unrecorded, as "a present offer to
dedicate the land described, and not as a statement that the land shall be dedicated
at some future time. Hence it is sufficient in and of itself so far as the mere offer is
concerned." Id., 181 -82.
During the period in which it controlled an undivided interest in the Nelson
Gardens property, the records of The Nature Conservancy state that
The California State Parks Foundation and the donor, Mr. Frank Nelson, have
expressed considerable interest in having the property transferred to the
California State Parks Foundation for possible eventual transfer to the
California State Parks and Recreation Department . . . . It has been Mr.
Nelson's hope that the preserve could be maintained as a model of traditional
agricultural land use of the Santa Clara Valley, where the property is located.
The property is almost entirely covered by old, well- maintained orchards. The
State Parks Foundation is actively working with Mr. Nelson on the
development of a program which would provide public use and education while
maintaining the area's agricultural values.
The Western Regional Office recommends that the Conservancy's interest in
the Nelson Preserve be conveyed to the California State Parks Foundation for
preservation of the natural and traditional agricultural values of the preserve
and for public use and education.
(City of Saratoga Nelson Gardens Task Force Ad Hoc Committee, Final Report
(December 21, 1988) )
The same document shows that a Resolution was thereupon passed
(presumably by the Board of Directors, regional or national, of The Nature
Conservancy), authorizing The Nature Conservancy or its agents to
transfer or lease the property to the California State Parks Foundation for
preservation of the natural and traditional agricultural values of the land and
for public use and education upon such conditions and terms of reimbursement
as the President may consider appropriate, provided that appropriate
Saratoga City Council
February 7, 1996
Page 3
arrangements have been made by reverter clause or otherwise to protect the
natural area qualities of the property....."
Id.
In addition, there are several written statements by various owners of the
property, including Frank Nelson, The Nature Conservancy, and the State Parks
Foundation, that evidence an intent that the land be devoted to "public use" -- even
that it be "dedicated" to such use. Letter from Frank C. Nelson to William Penn
Mott, Jr., March 18, 1977 ((2) [ "so long as there is no interference with the
dedication of the property to public use. "]; see, e.g., letter from William Penn Mott,
Jr., to Frank Nelson, December 12, 1975 [ "We would continue to cultivate the trees,
harvest the crop, process the fruit, all in a public way so that school children could
come and see this and participate in it as well as the general public "]; letter from
Henry P. Little to William Penn Mott, Jr., October 14, 1977 ["The Conservancy is
pleased to be able to transfer this property to the Foundation as clearly your
organization will best be able to manage the area in a manner that both protects
and enhances the natural beauty while allowing the citizens of the Santa Clara
Valley and the entire State to benefit from its use "].
As you are undoubtedly aware, such a dedication, once made, is not revocable
by the dedicator or his successors in interest [See Smith v. Kraintz, 201 Cal.App.2d
969, 20 Cal.Rptr. 471, Archer v. Salinas, 93 C. 43, 51, 29 P. 839]. and any subsequent
owner of the property holds it subject to an easement in the public to use the property
for the purposes for which the dedication was made. Miller & Starr, California Real
Estate 2d, §21:31. My clients believe that, in the case of the Nelson Garden, such a
dedication exists.
If such a dedication is found, a public entity cannot legally change the use of
the property to purposes inconsistent with the terms of the grant. See Big Sur
Properties v. Mott, 132 Cal.Rptr. 835, 62 Cal.App.3d 99; 1195 Cal. AG LEXIS 43, *1,
78 Op. Atty. Gen. Cal. 181, citing Slavich v. Hamilton (1927), 201 Cal. 299, 302).
Until a final determination is made as to whether such a dedication was made
in the case of the Nelson Garden, it would be premature for the City Council to cancel
the Williamson Act Contract or to vote any other approvals in connection with the
Saratoga City Council
February 7, 1996
Page 4
proposed residential subdivision. Such approvals would violate the terms of the
public dedication along with the goals and policies of the City's own General Plan.
Sincerely,
Robin B. Kennedy
cc: The Friends of The Nelson Garden Foundation
Tamara Galanter, Esq.
5
LAW OFFICES OF
R O B I N B K E N N E D Y
301 UNIVERSITY AVENUE • SUI I E 480 • PALO AL IO.CA. 94301 . 415 . 324. 1226 • FAX . 324. 1 779
February 7, 1996
BY HAND DELIVERY
Members of the City Council
City Hall
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Nelson Garden - Gift Issue
Dear Councilmembers:
I did not receive until this afternoon a copy of the February 6 letter to
you from David Mitchell, counsel for The Community Foundation. The
purpose of this letter, written in haste in advance of tonight's Council
meeting, is to clarify the position of my client, The Friends of the Nelson
Garden, with respect to an issue raised in Mr. Mitchell's letter.
My client does not dispute that Frank Nelson, in his October 17, 1988
letter to William Penn Mott Jr., acknowledged his recognition that
maintaining the Nelson Garden property as open space had proved too
expensive. We absolutely disagree, however, with Mr. Mitchell's conclusion
that, because Mr. Nelson made such statement and because he believed he
had not protected his property in perpetuity, it is not in fact so protected.
We also disagree with a related conclusion implicit in Mr. Mitchell's
letter: namely, that a letter written by a donor seventeen years after he
makes a gift of real property to a charitable organization whose specific
charitable purpose is precisely consonant with the stated purposes of the gift,
which gift purposes were explicitly stated by the donor and the recipient in
much of the extensive correspondence that effected the creation and
acceptance of the gift, has the legal effect of nullifying that gift.
As has been set forth in my previous written communications to you on
this matter, the Board of Directors of The Nature Conservancy, in authorizing
The Nature Conservancy or its agents to transfer or lease the Nelson Garden
to the California State Parks Foundation, inserted as a condition of such
transfer or lease that "appropriate arrangements ...be made by reverter clause
or otherwise to protect the natural area qualities of the property... ". Despite the
Saratoga City Council
February 7, 1996
Page 2
explicit instructions of The Nature Conservancy's Resolution, however, no
"reverter clause" designed to ensure protection of the property's natural
qualities was included in the Quitclaim Deed.
By virtue of the failure of The Nature Conservancy to insert such a
reverter clause in its conveyance of the Nelson Garden property o The
California State Parks Foundation, the Nature Conservancy breached its duty
to the donor. As a result, there exists a significant legal question as to what
rights and obligations the successors -in- interest of the Nature Conservancy
have with respect to the property.
In a case decided by the California Supreme Court on December 29,
1995, the Court held, with respect to property restrictions that are not
mentioned in a deed or other document when property is sold, that such
restrictions, "are not unenforceable merely because they are not additionally
cited in a deed or other document at the time of the sale." (Emphasis in
original.) Citizens for Covenant Compliance v. Anderson, 96 C.D.O.S. 50, at
51.. "Subsequent purchasers who have constructive notice of the ...
declaration are deemed to intend and agree to be bound by, and to accept the
benefits of [the restriction]." Ibid.
The legal question in this matter is clearly one that should be answered
by a court of law, not by this City Council.
Sincerely,
Robin B. Kennedy
cc: The Friends of The Nelson Garden Foundation
Tamara Galanter, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF
R O B I N B K E N N E D Y
301 U N I V E R S I T Y A V E N U E • S U I T E 4 8 0 • P A L O A L T O , C A . 9 4 3 0 1 • 4 1 5 • 324- 1 2 2 6 • F A X • 324- 1 7 7 4
February 16, 1996
BY HAND DELIVERY
Members of the City Council
City Hall
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Nelson Garden - Proposed Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
Dear Councilmembers:
In his letter to you of February 7, 1996 (copies of which were distributed to
you immediately prior to the February 7 City Council meeting), Barton Hechtman,
counsel for Trinity Development Company, argued that the following finding could be
made by you in connection with your consideration of his client's application for early
cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract on the Nelson Garden property:
"There is no proximate, non - contracted land which is both available and
suitable for the use to which it is proposed the contracted land be put."
The representatives of Trinity Development, in the person of Mr. Hechtman and Ms.
Virginia Fanelli, promulgate an interpretation of the Williamson Act that is not
supported either by legislative history or by case law. Their argument is that the
word "available" in the language of the above - referenced mandatory finding for
cancellation means "avai'fa[ife_Yor acquisition. " - Trinity thus contends that the
groperty must not only be available but must have a posted "for sale" sign. The
Williamson Act does not require that the proximate, non - contracted land be available
for acquisition.
�According to Webster's Dictionanc,�he vy�rd available mugs `,qualified do
something." My February 1 letter to you set forth a list of seven parcels that are
av'�`ai aGle" according to this definition -- i.e. parcels that, because of their zoning and
current general plan designations, and the desire of their owners to sell and /or
develop them for single family residential construction, are indeed "available" for the
use to which Trinity Development wants to put the Nelson Garden. I again list those
seven parcels here:
Saratoga City Council
Proposed Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
February 16, 1996
Page 2
Parcel Number
1 503 -21 -12
2 503 -21 -9
3 393 -40 -20
4 397 -24 -73
5 397 -24 -74
6 397 -16 -6
7 Kevin Moran Park
TOTAL ACRES
Our inclusion on the list of the Kevin Moran Park drew much derision at the
last City Council meeting, both from the Applicant and from several of you.
Nonetheless, as was pointed out to you during the public hearing, Kevin Moran Park
is indeed zoned for single family residential use, and the City of Saratoga has been
known in the past to decommission a park for residential development without a
public vote. The Friends of the Nelson Garden do not find it preposterous that this
City Council might some day choose to develop the Kevin Moran Park, as it is
apparently all too ready to do today with respect to the Nelson Garden.
Thus, at least six of the seven parcels listed above qualify as available under
the dictionary definition. Even if, however, "available" were to mean that the property
is available for sale, then at least two of the above parcels were available for sale
during the time this Williamson Act cancellation application was pending. The
Applicant executed its Petition for Cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract on
December 14, 1994. On July 7, 1995, the 5.70 acre property listed above as
Property 1 was sold. On November 11, 1995, the 10.79 acre property listed above
as Property 6 was sold.' That is, during the time the application for the Williamson
Act Contract cancellation was pending, at least two proximate and suitable parcels,
for a total of 16.49 acres, were "available for acquisition."
Indeed, Property 6 -- the larger of the two parcels -- was acquired by Pfeiffer
Ranch Investors III, the principal of which partnership is Alan R. Pinn. Mr. Alan R.
Pinn, as I am sure this Council is aware, is a principal in Trinity Development
Company -- the same party that pleads its case before you now to argue that no
parcels are "available for acquisition" for the development of single family housing in
Saratoga.
Information provided by Mr. Pete Phillips, Account Manager, Special Projects Division, First
American Title Company, San Jose, California.
Miles from
Z nina
Acres
Street
Garden
R -1- 12,500
5.740
Saratoga - Sunnyvale
0.375
R -1- 12,500
1.196
Saratoga - Sunnyvale
0.375
R -1- 12,500
3.900
Saratoga - Sunnyvale
0.500
R -1- 20,000
9.310
Douglass Lane
1.000
R -1- 20,000
8.620
Douglass Lane
1.000
R -1- 40,000
10.790
Douglass Lane
1.250
R -1- 12,500
14.000
Scully Ave /Hwy 85
2.750
53.556
Our inclusion on the list of the Kevin Moran Park drew much derision at the
last City Council meeting, both from the Applicant and from several of you.
Nonetheless, as was pointed out to you during the public hearing, Kevin Moran Park
is indeed zoned for single family residential use, and the City of Saratoga has been
known in the past to decommission a park for residential development without a
public vote. The Friends of the Nelson Garden do not find it preposterous that this
City Council might some day choose to develop the Kevin Moran Park, as it is
apparently all too ready to do today with respect to the Nelson Garden.
Thus, at least six of the seven parcels listed above qualify as available under
the dictionary definition. Even if, however, "available" were to mean that the property
is available for sale, then at least two of the above parcels were available for sale
during the time this Williamson Act cancellation application was pending. The
Applicant executed its Petition for Cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract on
December 14, 1994. On July 7, 1995, the 5.70 acre property listed above as
Property 1 was sold. On November 11, 1995, the 10.79 acre property listed above
as Property 6 was sold.' That is, during the time the application for the Williamson
Act Contract cancellation was pending, at least two proximate and suitable parcels,
for a total of 16.49 acres, were "available for acquisition."
Indeed, Property 6 -- the larger of the two parcels -- was acquired by Pfeiffer
Ranch Investors III, the principal of which partnership is Alan R. Pinn. Mr. Alan R.
Pinn, as I am sure this Council is aware, is a principal in Trinity Development
Company -- the same party that pleads its case before you now to argue that no
parcels are "available for acquisition" for the development of single family housing in
Saratoga.
Information provided by Mr. Pete Phillips, Account Manager, Special Projects Division, First
American Title Company, San Jose, California.
Saratoga City Council
Proposed Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
February 16, 1996
Page 3
Indeed, even now there is proximate, non - contracted land that is both
available and suitable for single family development. For example, the current
Multiple Listing Service posts a listing for a 31 acre parcel located on Old Oak Way in
Saratoga. This vacant lot (described in the MLS as having "huge flat areas" on a cul-
de -sac lot), is zoned for single family residential. The land is for sale. Therefore,
even if a court were to adopt the Applicant's interpretation of the word "available" as
"available for acquisition," the Friends of the Nelson Garden have identified at least
one such parcel. Others are attached on Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein by
this reference.
Finally, let me take this opportunity to respond to a comment made by one of
you during the February 7 Council meeting. That comment was "if the Friends of the
Nelson Garden don't like what we do, they are going to sue." Please be on notice
that, should my client, on behalf of the citizens and taxpayers of the City of Saratoga,
elect to file yet another legal action against this City Council, it will be only because
the City has, in its relentless desire to approve this development, once again ignored
the laws of the State of California. Your Mayor, in characterizing the "essential"
question as "What should the future of this property be ?" portrayed the provisions of
the Williamson Act as "technical concerns merely being raised to direct the ultimate
result of this property." While this City apparently consider these legal issues to be
mere "technical concerns," the legislature and courts of this State -- fortunately for
the citizenry -- believe differently.
Sincerely,
Robin B. Kennedy
Enc.
cc: The Friends of The Nelson Garden Foundation
Tamara Galanter, Esq.
CHUCK NUNNALLY
13.5 AtrO Santa rr. AWne, suite A
LX raKa G ,95030 �'
lWM (40V , 541"95 A" 09 8545991
CONTEMPO REALTY
PROUDLY PRESENT:
031 Acres of the finest view property in the County"
OLD OAK WAY
0 0 Priced at $1,500,000 00
++ Estate quality.
43 Spectacular valley and mountain views.
,r4, Unimproved land.
4,4, Water, PG & B, Sewer and Gas available at lot line.
�f Located at the end of Old Oak Way:
- Private culdesac.
Unobstructed views (no one can build above or
below you).
++ Private water system.
fi4 Saratoga Schools.
•'i Close to town and freeways, yet above it all.
•yd.► Backs up to Garrod Vineyard.
Topography "p and plot plan available.
For further information, please contact:
CHUCK NUNNALLY
(408) 399 -1400 office (408) 354 -5793 residence
r -EB 13 '96 10 :46AM C & C SARATOGA
Fax Transmission
Pate: -2 - i.3 -- 9�
To: AoB-z71V
Fax Number: q1 t)
From:TQM Mo2H AN
Our phone: (408) 996 -7100
Our.Fax: (408) 996 -1717
No. of sincluding. cover pie:
Memee:
EXHIBIT A
P.1 /19
CORNISH & CAREY
RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE
12175 Saratoga/Sunnyvale Rd.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Please call if you experience . any transmission problems.
'.FEB 13 '96 10:46AM C & C
SARATOGA
P.2i19
SJBR.9600.Tom
Morman
Tuesday, February 13, 1996 11:01 AM
**
MATCHING PROPERTIES FOUND **
001
507275
CBR
15
17/5/1
$1,600,000
21/FE/95
MT EDEN RD
002
532140
CNT0111
17/5/1
$1,500,000
31/JL/95
OLD OAK WAY
003
507431
CBR
15
17/5/1
$1,500,000
23/FE/95
MT EDEN RD
004
520878MKRSP
01
17/5/1
$995,000.
22/MY/95
14591 DEER SPRINGS CT
005
519812
KRSP
01
17/5/1
$945,000
15/MY/95
22631 VILLA OAKS LN
006
539193
CBR
31
17/5/1
$695,000
15/SE/95
HEBER WA
007
536440MC &C1
03
17/5/1
$630,000
21/AU/95
14921 SOBEY RD
008
541053
FAB
01
17/5/1
$625,000
28/SE/95
CONGRESS HALL LN
009
601270
CNT0111
17/5/1
$5951000
09/JA/96
21143 CHADWICK CT
010
539340
CBR
31
17/5/1
$595,000
15/SE/95
HEBER WA
011
428054
KRSP
01
17/5/1
$595,000
02/DE/94
13317 OLD OAK (LOT 01) WA
012
517526
C &Cl
03
17/5/1
$535,000
05/MY/95
22188 VILLA OAKS LN
013
606226
C &C1
03
17/5/1
$525,000
08/FE/96
BIG BASIN WY
014
600509
SVLP101
17/5/1
$'_;25,000
03/JA/96
DOREN$ CT
015
603248
APR
01
17/5/1
$`_319,000
23/JA/96
14105 PIKE RD
016
601684
C &C1
15
17/5/1
$499,000
10/JA/96
TOLLGATE RD
017
541075
C &Cl
03
17/5/1
$499,000
27/SE/95
21756 CONGRESS HALL LN
018
550355
ORCD
01
1745/1
$469,000
18/DE/95
21952 VILLA OAKS LN
019
605767
C &Cl
03
17/5/1
$425,000
05/FE/96
BOHLMAN RD
020
600518
M &L
01
17/5/1
$410,000
04/JA/96
BOHLMAN RD
021
600647
CBR
15
17/5/1
$400,000
05/JA/96
KITTRIDGE RD
022
533569
CBR
15
17/5/1
$399,000
08/AU/95
MOUNTAIN WA
023
539560
HFAS
01
17/5/1
$395,000
18/SE/95
MT EDEN RD
024
538023
KRSP
01
17/5/1
$389,000
07/SE/95
20932 BURNETT DR
025
542730
C &Cl
15
17/5/1
$379,950
10/OC/95
22551 MT EDEN RD
026
605742
CBR
15
17/5/1
$359,000
05/FE/96
BOHLMAN RD
027
528192
CNT0111
17/5/1
$359,000
26/,N/95
12528 SPRING BLOSSOM CT
028
528183
CNT0111
17/5/1
$349,000
26/JN/95
12550 SPRING BLOSSOM CT
029
528174
CNT0111
17/5/1
$345,000
26/JN/95
12558 SPRING BLOSSOM CT
030
536244
C &C1
03
17/5/1
$309,000
25/AU/95
21216 BANK MILL RD
031
548722
CBR
15
17/5/1
$275,000
30/NO/95
0 EDEN CREST LANE
032
550259
C &Cl
03
17/5/1
$229,000
15/DE/95
HEATHER HEIGHTS PL
033
604350
CBR
16
17/5/1
$199,000
31/JA/96
16200 SANBORN RD
034
543757
RMXSV01
17/5/1
$128,000
15/OC/95
LITTLE BROOK
FEB 13 '96 10:47AN C & C SARATOGA
SJBR.9600.Tom Mormn
P. 3/19
Tuesday, February 13, 1996 11:01 AM
RESIDENTIAL LOT /LAND -- ----- -_ -� --
-- COMMERCIAL LOT/LAND Gt3RRENr STATUS AVAILABLE ------- -- -- -�
LOCATION: biT EDEN RD G941524 LISTED FOR:$1,600,000
APX LOT SZE:29.28 A
ZIP CODE:95070 CROSS ST:PIERCE APX ACREAGE:2928000.00
HIGH SCHL:264 COum, :SCC LOT /BLK:
ELM-i SCh-L -197 TRACT NM. SARhTOGA E,"- .TP.TES CITY TRANI FR TAX: N
THOM BR MAP. ZONING -.AW
LOCAIDE MAP:17- -19 -58
SPACIOUS SUBDIVIDEABLE ACREAGE IN AN ESTABLIShMD MILLION DOLLAR Nr.IG?330:•I:OOD
29 ACRES IN THE HISTORIC PAUL MASON VINEYARDS AREA OF SARATOGA. POTENTIAL FOR
APPROX.6 -10 SITES W /CITY LIGHT AND /OR SCENIC VIEWS. ALL OFFERS ARE LIGHT
SINGLE FAM RESD P USE= VACANT FLAG LOT
CAL�'YON VIEW CITY LIGHTS VW
LEVEL TOPO LOT SLOPED UP LOT SLOPED DOWN ROLLING 1'OPO 20+ - 50 ACRES
CITY STR ACCESS PVT ROAD ACCESS PVT RD -SAD ACC PAVED RD ACCESS GAS AVL IN STR
ELE AVL AT STR C-43LE TV AVL SWR AVAILABLE WAR (S) @SITE ISC�TBUILDINGS'
UNIMPROVED LAND TOPOG MAP AVL POSS SUBDIVISN BARN(S)
PARTL PERIbM FEN PARCEL MAP AVG PRELIM TITLE RP RE TR2N5F DISCL TOPOG MAP AVL
ACCESS EASEMNT LIST INCL NONE NO FAULT ZONE NO FLOOD AREA
* ** THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED * **
* ** UNLESS ADVISED OTHERWISE THIS INFORMATION HAS NOT * **
* }* BEEN VERIFIED BY TIL SELLING AGENCY OR BROKER * **
RESIDENTIAL LOT /LAND -- ---- - - - - --
COMMF,RCIAL LOT /LAND - -- Ct1RR�T STATUS AVAT_LABLE - - - ---
.--- - - - - --
LISTED FOR :$1,500,000
LOCATION: OLD OAR WAY APX LOT SZE:31 ACRES
22P CODE:95070 CROSS ST:PIERCE ROAD ApX ACREAGE:31.00
HIGH SCHL:164 COUNTY :SCC LOT /BLK:
ELEM SCHL:196 TRACT NM-.CUSTOM CITY TRANF'R TAX:N
THOM HR MAP: ZONING:AW
LOCAIDE MAP:00 -0 -0
LOOK NO FURTHER! ONE OF A KIND PROPERTY /ONE OP A yTND OPPORTUNITY. YOUR OWN
PRIVATE ESTATE. 31 ACRES OF THE FINEST VIEW PROPERTY IN THE C L COUNTY' UGEAFLAT
T
AREAS AT THE END OF OLD OAK WAY. --
CUL -DE -SAC LOT v.. - -_�� VIEW CANYON VIE4J
SINGLE FAM RESD P USE = VACANT T T _ - 50 ACRES CITY STR ACCESS
CITY LIGHTS VW LOT SLOPED DOtigN HILLS -DE v ���So ROAD GAS. ST @ LOTLN
PVT ROAD ACCESS PAVED RD ACCESS UNPAVED RD ACCS
ELE AVL @ LOTLN SWR AVAILABLE WTR AVL IN STR L:,(IMPROVED LAND POSS LOT.SPLIT
NO SITE APPRVL BLDG SITE CLRD NOA.DXMAI�rrT Q LOST�INCL NONE YES PRELIM ULTTZONE
UNMOWN BND /ASM SOILS RPT REQ
NO FLOOD AREA POSS -COE
* ** IS BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED
THIS INFORMATION * **
* * * UNLESS ADVISED OTHERWISE TA IS INF ORmATION HAS NOT
* ** BEEN VERIFIED BY TH✓ SELLING AGCY OIL BROKER * **
'FED 13 '96 113 :47AN C & C SARATOCA
S,7BR.9600.Tom Morman
P.4/19
Tuesday, February 13, 1996 11:00 AM
RESIDENTIAL LOT /LAND -- STATUS AVAILABLE ---------------------------
COMMERCIAL LOT /LAND --- CURRENT STATUS FOR:$115001000
LOCATION: MT EDEN RD APX LOT SZE:
ZIP CODE:95070 CROSS ST:DAMON LN /PIERCE APX ACREAGE :13.78
HIGH SCHL:264 COUNTY:SCC LOT /BLK:
ELE4 SCHL:197 TRACT NM:MT EDEN VALLEY CITY TRANFR TAX.
THOM BR MAP: ZONING:R1
LOCAIDE MAP:17 -19 -58
PRIME SUBDIVIDABLE ACREAGE IN MIDST OF MILL DOLLAR HOMES * CREATE AN EXCLUSIVE
TRACT OF 3 OR 4 ESTATE HOMES BEHIND GATES ACROSS PRIVATE BRIDGE *SECURE Sc SAFE
CHOOSE OPEN SCENIC VIEWS OR OAK SHADED PARCELS *CREEK ALONG RD INSURES PRIVACY
SINGLE FAM RESD P USE = VACANT RVR /STRM /LK LOT MOUNTAIN VIEW VALLEY VIEW
LOT SLOPED UP HILLSIDE 10+ - 20 ACRES CITY STR ACCESS UNDRGRND UTL RQ
GAS AVL IN STR ELE AVL AT STR SWR AVAILABLE WTR AVL IN STR UNIMPROVED LAND
POSS LOT SPLIT TOPOG MAP AVL MR SUB 2 -4 PAR NO EXSTG STRUCT PARTL PERIM FEN
BARBED WIRE FEN GEOTECH RPT AVL PARCEL MAP AVL PRELIM TITLE RP TOPOG MAP AVL
BYR -ASM BONDS GEOLOGICAL SRVY SOILS RPT REQ LOCAL ST APV RQ ENV IXPCT RP RQ
FLT ZN -SEE RPT NO FLOOD AREA FOSS -COE
* ** THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED * **
*x* UNLESS ADVISED OTHERWISE THIS INFORMATION HAS NOT * **
* ** BEEN VERIFIED BY THE SELLING AGENCY OR BROKER * **
-- RESIDENTIAL LOT /LAM --
------ -------------
- --
-- COMMERCIAL LOT /LAND - -- CURRENT STATUS AVAILABLE - - - -- LISTED FOR:$995,000
LOCATION:14591 DEER SPRINGS CT APX LOT SZE:3.04
ZIP CODE:95070 CROSS ST:TOLLGATE RD APX ACREAGE:3.04
HIGH SCHL:264 COUNI'Y:SCC LOT /BLK :0708
ELEM SCHL:197 TRACT NM :QUAIL RIDGE CITY TRANF.R TAX-.N
THOM BR MAP: ZONING :R1 4
LOCAIDE MAP:25 -20 -56
FINEST GATED COMMUNITY OF CUSTOM HOMES IN SARATOGA. 3 +ACRES, MUCH LEVEL. CITY
APPROVED ARCHITECT DESIGN HOUSE PLAN. 5750 SF+ 1100SF BONUS RM +1090SF GAR.LOTS
7/8 COMBINED. ALL REPORTS AVAILABLE,PERMITS PAID. OR REDESIGN. SARATOGA SCHLS
SINGLE FAM RESD P USE = VACANT CUL -DE -SAC LOT MOUNTAIN VIEW VALLEY VIEW
LEVEL TOPO 2.5+ - 5 ACRES PVT RD -SHAD ACC PAVED RD ACCESS UNDRGRND UTL RQ
GAS AVL @ LOTLN ELE AVL 0 LOTLN CABLE TV AVL SWR AVL O SITE WTR AVL @ SITE
FIN MAP APPROVD RECRD PARCEL MP TOPOG MAP AVL HAVE BLDG PLANS HAVE BLDG PERMT
MAY NOT BE SURD SITE APPR AT LO BLDG SITE CLRD REOLOGICALRPT GEE ECH RPTRAVL
BUILDING PAD NO FENCING CC&R5
PARCEL MAP AVL PRELIM TITLE RP SOIL OPORT /TST TOPOG MAP AVL HOMEOWNER ASSOC
NO FAULT ZONE NO FLOOD AREA -
* ** THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE BUT 19 NOT GUARANTEED * **
* *x UNLESS ADVISED OTMRWISE THIS INFORMATION HAS NOT * **
* ** BEEN VERIFIED BY THE SELLING AGENCY OR BROKER * **
1
.FEB 13 '96 10:48AM C & C SARATOGA
SJBR . 9 6 0 0 . Tom rlorman
P.5 /19
Tuesday, February 13, 1996 11:00 AM
_- RESIDENTIAL LOT /LAND -- __
-- COMMERCIAL LOT /LAND - -- CURRENT STATUS AVAILABLE --- -- LISTED FOR•$945,000__
-
LOCATION:22631 VILLA OAKS LN Ap}{ LOT SZE 4.891
ZIp CODE:95070 CROSS ST:MT.EDEN/DEER TRL APX LOT SZE:4.891 .00.
HIGH SCHL:264 COUNTY:SCC 1,OT/B� :0029
ELEM SCHL:197 TRACT NM:MT.EDEN ESTATES CITY T OT BLK :0
THOM BR MEP: ZONING:Rl 40
LOCAIDE MAP:17 -19 -59
ONE OF THE NEWEST LOCATIONS FOR OUTSTANDING HOMES IN SARATOGA AND THIS IS THE
BEST IN MT.EDEN EST. EXCEPTIONAL PRIME UNOBSTRUCTED VIEWS OF SANTA CLARA VLY
AND SURROUNDING MTS. LARGE LEVEL BUILDING PAD. UTILITIES IN. SARATOGA SCHOOLS
SINGLE FAX RESD P USE = VACANT VALLEY VIEW CITY LIGHTS VW MOSTLY LVL TOPO
BUILDING PAD 2.5+ - 5 ACRES CITY STR ACCESS UNDRGRND UTL RQ GAS AVL @ LOTLN
ELE AVL @ LOTLN CABLE TV AVL STRR AVL @ SITE WTR AVL @ SITE FIN MAP APPROVD
RECRD PARCEL MP TOPOG MAP AVL HAVE BLDG B�IBL S
NO FENCING CCSRS MAPA�UNKNObN ND� LOCAL ST APV RQ
pOSS -COE
LIST INCL NONE NO FAULT ZONE NO FLOOD AREA
* *� THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED * **
* *� UNLESS ADVISED OTHERWISE THIS INFORMATION HAS NOT * **
* ** BEEN VERIFIED BY THE SELLLING AGENCY OR BROKER * **
-- RESIDENTIAL LOT /LAND -- -- ------ --------- -_ -__ --
-- COMMERCIAL LOT /LAND Ci7'REi`TT STATUS AVAILABLE - -- LISTED FOR:$695,000
LOCATION: HEBER WA SZE:
ZIP CODE:95070 CROSS ST:TEE?,L= WAY APX LOT SZE
HIGH APX LOT SCHL:O COUNTY:SCC L : CREA:7.30
ACREAGE
ELEM SCHL:0 TRACT NM: CITY TRANFR TAX:N
THOM BR MAP: ZONING:RI
LOCAIDE MAP:17 -19 -57
LOCATED IN SCENIC TEERLINK RANCH AMONG MILLION DOLLAR HOMES. THIS LOT IS AT
THE END OF THE CUL- DE-SAC &e HAS CITY UTILITIES SEWER AVAILABLE. VIEWS OF
CITY FIGHTS, VALLEY & MOUNTAINS. ONLY MINUTES TO MAJOR STREETS & THE VILLAGE
SINGLE FAM RESD P USE = VACANT CUL -DE -SAC LOT MOUNTAIN VIEW VALLEY VIEW
CITY LIGHTS VW ROLLING TOPO 5+ - 10 ACRES CITY STR ACCESS UNDRGRND UTL RQ
S ALL IN STR ELE AVL @ LOTLN CABLE TV AVL SWR AVAILABLE WTR AVL IN STR
GAS
PARCEL MP HAVE BLDG PLANS MAY NOT BE SUED NO EXSTG STRUCT NO FENCING
GEOLOGICAL RPT GEOTECH RPT AVL TOPOG MAP AVL UNKNOWN SND /ASM LIST INCL NONE
YES FAULT ZONE NO FLOOD AREA POSS -COE
* * * THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED
** UNLESS ADVISED OTHERWISE THIS INFORMATION HAS NOT * **
* ** BEEN VERIFIED BY THE SELLING AGENCY OR BROKER * **
1
FEB 13 '96 10 :48AN C & C SARATOGA
cnR.9600.Tom MOrman
P.6 /19
Tuesday, February 13, 1996 11:00 AM
-- RESIDENTIAL LOT /LAND --
STATUS P_VATLABLE ---------------------------
COMMERCIAL LOT /LAND - -- CURRENT LISTED FOR:$630,000
LOCATION:14921 SOBEY RD APX LOT SZE:84070
ZIP CODE:95070 CROSS ST:SPERRY LANE APX ACREAGE:1.93
HIGH SCHL:O COUNTY:SCC LOT /ELK:
ELEM SCHL :O TRACT NM: CITY TRANFR TAX:
THOM BR MAP: ZONING:R140
LOCAIDE MAP :25 -26 -55
KEY SAFE ON JUST GO! !ALMOST 2 ACRES OF GORGEOUS SARATOGA L M! OLDER CABIN
EXISTS "AS IS "CREEK RUNS BEHIND PROP-AND DEER ROAM!CLOSE TO SHOPPING & SCHLS
A TRULY UNIQUE PROPERTY.
SINGLE FAM RESD P USE =RES MOUNTAIN VIEW VALLEY VIEW GREEN BELT VIEW
CITY LIGHTS VW LOT SLOPED DOWN BUILDING PAD 1+ - 2.5 ACRES PVT RD -SHRD ACC
UNDRGRND UTL RQ GAS AVL @ LOTLN ELE AVL @ LOTLIN CABLE TV AVL SEPTIC EXISTING
WTR AVL @ SITE RECRD PARCEL 1,1P RESIDENCE MISC BUILDINGS PARTL PERIM FEN
PRELIM TITLE RP RE TRANSF DISCL UNKNOWN BND /ASM NO FAULT ZONE NO FLOOD AREA
* ** THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED **
* ** UNLESS ADVISED OTHERWISE THIS INFORMATION HAS NOT
*k* BEEN VERIFIED BY THE SELLING AGENCY OR BROKER * **
-- RESIDENTIAL LOT /LAND -- ___ -_ -_-
STATUS AVAILABLE ------------`------
-- COMMERCIAL LOT /LAND GENT LISTED FOR:$625,000
LOCATION: CONGRESS H2A.LL LN ALI LOT SZE:$625,
ZIP CODE:95070 CROSS ST:PIERCE RD APX LOT SZE:1.01
HIGH SCHL:0 COUNTY: LOT /BLY-:0020
ELE4 SCHL:0 TRACT NM:SARATOGA HEIGHTS CITY TRANF'R TAX:Y
THOM BR MAP: ZONING:RI
LOCAIDE MAP:25 -20 -56
FXCRT LENT VIEW LOT AMONG MULTI r1ILLION DOLLARS HOMES IN PRESTIGIOUS SARATOGA
ON A CUL -DE -SAC. SARATOGA SCHOOLS. VIEW OF HILLS & CITY LIGHTS. SERENE
LOCATION YET WALKING DISTANCE TO SARATOGA VILLAGE. NEAR ALL SCHOOLS.
SINGLE FAM RESD P USE =RES CUL -DE -SAC LOT MOUNTAIN VIEW CITY LIGHTS VW
LOT SLOPED DOWN GEN'T'LY SLOPED CURBS /GUTTERS 1+ - 2.5 ACRES CITY STR ACCESS
PAVED RD ACCESS UNDRGRND UTL RQ GAS AVL Ca LOTLN ELE AVL C@ LOTLN CABLE TV AVL
SWR AVL @ SITE WTR AVL @ SITE [ NMOWNBND�ASM LIST'�INCL NONE NO FAULT ZO UCT
NO FENCING CC&RS
NO FLOOD AREA POSS- IMMEDIATE
* ** THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE BUT 18 NOT GUARANTEED * **
* ** UNLESS ADVISED OTHERWISE THIS INFORMATION HAS NOT * **
* ** BEEN VERIFIED BY THE SELLING AGENCY OR BROKER * **
FEB 13 '96 10:490M C & C SARATOGA
SJBR.9600.Tom Morman
P.7/19
Tuesday, February 13, 1996 10:59 AM
- _.R✓SIDERrIAL LOT /LAND -- ______ --
-_ C�RCIAL LOT /LAND - -- CURRENT STATUS AVAILABLE --- -- --- ------
LOCATION:21143 CHADWICK CT LISTED FOR:$595,000
ZIP CODE:95070 CROSS ST:CHIQUITA WAY APX LOT SZE:2.33ACRES
HIGH SCHL:264 COUNTY:SCC APX ACREAGE--2.33
ELEK SCHL:197 TRACT NM:CHADWICK PLACE LOT /ELK:
THOM BR MAP: ZONING-R140 CITY TRANFR TAX:N
LOCAIDE MAP:17 -21 -59
VIEWS, VIEWS, AND MORE VIEWS! LARGE LOT IN TOWN WITH SARATOGA SCHOOLS. WOW!
ANYTHING GOES W /THIS LOT_ NOT THAT IT IS ALMOST 2.5 ACRES WITH UNBELIEVABLE
VIEWS, BUT.. OWNER SAYS BE IMAGINATIVE. WILL TRADE OR BARTER. CAN WORK WITH
SINGLE FAM RESD P USE =RES CUL -DE -SAC LOT VALLEY VIEW LOT SLOPED DOWN
1+ - 2.5 ACRES CITY STR ACCESS PAVED RD ACCESS UNDRGRND UTL RQ GAS AVL IN STR
CABLE TV AVL SWR AVL @ SITE WTR AVL C@ SITE RECRD PARCEL MP SITE APPR AT LO
NO E=1STG STRUCT NO FENCING CC&RS SLR -BONDS /ASMNT PROP LN SVY REQ
LIST INCL NONE POSS -COE * **
* ** THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE BUT IS NOT GUAfib"TI'EED
* *� UNLESS ADVISED OTHERWISE THIS INFORMATION HAS NOT
* ** BEEN VERIFIED BY TIM SELLING AGENCY OR BROKER
RESIDENTIAL LOT/LAND -- ------------
COM4ERCTAL LOT /LAND - -- CURRENT STATUS AVAILABLE - - - -- LISTED FOR:$595,000
LOCATION: HEBER WA APX LOT SZE:
ZIP CODE:95070 CROSS ST:TEERLINK APX ACREAGE: 6.08
HIGH SCHL:O COUNTY:SCC LOT /BLK:
ELEK SCHL :O TRACT NM: CITY TRANFR TAK:N
THOM BR MAP: ZONING: RI
LOCAIDE MAP:17 -19 -57
A GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD OF MILLION DOLLAR HOMES - CLOSE TO 5- ARATOGA VILLAGE.
LOVELY VIEW OF ROLLING HILLS - POSSIBLE CITY LIGHTS T00. LOCATED AT THE
END OF THE CUL -DE -SAC. CI7j UTILITIES & SEWER AVAILABLE.
SINGLE FAX RESD P USE= VACANT CUL -DE -SAC LOT MOUNTAIN VIEW VALLEY VIEW
CITY LIGHTS VW LOT SLOPED UP ROLLING TOPO 5+ - 10 ACRES CITY STR ACCESS
UNDRGRND UTL RQ GAS AVL IN STR ELE AVL 0 LOTLN CABLE TV AVL SGTR AVAILABLE
WrR AVL IN STR RECRD PARCEL MP MAY NOT BE SUBD NO EXSTG STRUCT NO FENCING
UNWOWN BND /ASM LIST JNCL NONE YES FAULT ZONE NO FLOOD AREA POSS -COE
* *' THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED * **
* ** UNLESS ADVISED OTHERWISE THIS INFORMATION HAS NOT * **
* ** BEEN VERIFIED BY THE SELLING AGENCY OR BROI:ER * **
1
FEB 13 '96 10:49AM C Z C SARATOGA
SJBR.9600.Tom Morman
P.8 /19
Tuesday, February 13, 1996 10:59 AM
-- RESIDENTIAL LOT /LAND -- ------ ------------
C0141�MRCTAT: LOT /LAND - -- C[7RRENT STATUS AVAILABLE LISTED - FOR:$595,000
..LOCATION:13317 OLD OAK (LOT #1) WA AP-Y. LOT SZE:5.869 AC
ZIP CODE:95070 CROSS ST:PIERCE RD APX ACREAGE:
HIGH SCHL : 2 6 4 COUi�`T'Y : SCC LOT / BLK : 0 0 01
ELEM SCHL:197 TRACT NM: CITY TRANFR T--',.:N
THOM BR MAP: ZONING:RI 40
LOCAIDE MAP: 17-20-56
TOP OF OLD OAK WAY FROM PIERCE RD. PANORAMIC VIEWS OF MT EDEN & S_C. VALLEY.
ALL UTILITIES TO SITE. BUILD TO LEFT ON LEVEL PAD. 6000 SF HOUSE POSS.PRIVATE
ESTATE AREA. CONVENIENT TO E=YTHING. SAR SCHLS. 5.869 AC. BROCHURE AT SITE
SINGLE FAIA RESD P USE = VACANT CUL -DE -SAC LOT V.aT,s.t =.y VIEW MOSTLY LVL TOPO
CURBS /GUTTERS STAKED BOUNDARY BUILDING PAD 5+ - 10 ACRES CITY STR ACCESS
UNDRGRND UTL RQ GAS AVL m LOTLN ELL AVL @ LOTLN SWR AVL C@ SITE WTR AVL C@ SITE
FIN MAP APPROVD RECRD PARCEL MP TOPOG MAP AVL ASSOC SOILSSTG SREQCT
NO FENCING FENCING SURVEYD CC&RS HOMEOWNER
LOCAL ST APV RQ NO FAULT ZONE NO FLOOD AREA •POSS -COE
* ** THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED * **
* *� UNLESS ADVISED OTHERWISE THIS INFORMATION HAS NOT ' **
xI* BEEN VERIFIED BY THE SELLING AGENCY OR BROKER * **
-- RESIDENTIAL LOT /LAND -- -----------------------
-- COMMERCIAL LOT/LAND --- CURRENT STATUS AVAILABLE - - - - LISTED FOR:$535,000
LOCATION:22188 VILLA OAKS LN APX LOT SZE:2.54 ACRE
ZIP CODE:95070 CROSS ST:MT EDEN RD APX ACREAGE:2.54
HIGH SCHL:262 COUNTY:SCC L(�T /BLK:
ELE"Ki SCHL:O 1?-kCT NM:MT EDEN ESTATES CI'Y'Y TRANFR TAX :N
THOM BR MAP: ZONINl.7.
LOCAIDE MAP:17 -20 -59
FABULOUS LOT -- -2.54 ACRE -- -PLANS APPROVED BY THE CITY FOR E
SQUARE FEET - -- -ROOM FOR POOL - - -- BEAUTIFUL VIEWS - -- -GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD
OF NEW HOMES - -- -PLANS FOR HOME nZ THE OFFICE!!
SINGLE FAN RESD P USE = VACANT BAY LOT VIEW- NEIGHBHD MOUNTAIN
MOSTLY LVL TOPO 2.5+ - 5 ACRES CITY STR ACCESS UNDRGRND UTL RQ GkS AVL
ELE AVL 0 LOTLN CABLE Tv AVL SWR AVL C SITE WTR AVL @ SITE HAVE BLD
MAY NOT BE SUBD SITE APPR AT LO NO EXSTG STRUCT NO FENCING CC &RS
GEOTECH RPT AVL PRELIM TITLE RP WATER AGREEMENT UNKNOWN BND /ASM PROP LN
USE PERMIT FLT ZN -SEE RPT FL -SEE REPORT POSS -COB
* ** THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED
y' ** UNLESS ADVISED OTHERWISE THIS INFORMATION HAS NOT * **
* ** BEEN VERIFIED BY THE SELLING AGENCY OR BROKER * **
1
VIEW
LOTLN
PLANS
SVX REQ
I FEB 13 '96 10:50AM C & C SARATOGA
P.9 /19
SJBR.9600_Tom Morman Tuesday, Februa --y 13, 1996 10:59 AM'
-- RESID=IAL LOT /LAND --
COMtERCIAL LOT /LAND --- CURRENT STATUS AVAILABLE ----- LIST--- ------- - -----
LOCATION: BIG BASIN WY LISTED FOR:$525,000
APX LOT SZE:30 ACRES
ZIP CODE:95070 CROSS ST:
APX ACREAGE:30.00
HIGH SCHL : O COUNTY: SCC LOT / BL?C :
ELEM SCHL:O TRACT M- CITY TRANFR TAX:
THOM BR MAP: ZONING:HS
LOCAIDE MAP:24 715 -56
ABSOLUTELY BEAUTIFUL ACRES LOCATED IN HEART OF SARATOGA WINE COUNTRY.VIEWS OF
SARATOGA VALLEY & SURROUNDING HILLS.BUILD YOUR DREAM HOME OR VINEYARD.HAVE
HORSES, TENNIS CTS, POOL, BUILDING SITE APPROVAL IN PROCESS. CHECK W /AGENT FOR
SINGLE FAM RESD P USE =VriCANT BAY VIEW MOUNTAIN VIEW VALLEY VIEW
ROLLING TOPO 20+ - 50 ACRES PVT RD -SHAD ACC OILED RD ACCESS BRIDGE ACCESS
PVT MAINT ROAD GAS NOT AVL -CLO ELE AVL C@ LOTLN SWR NOT AVL SEPTIC REQUIRED
PERC TEST REQ'D NO WELL BUT REQ UNIMPROVED LAND NO SITE APPRVL BLDG SITE CLRD
No STRUCT NO
LOCAL STNAPV RQ ROAD MAINT /REQT LIST INCL NONE FLT zN- SEE
NO FLOOD -ARFA POSS -COE
* *'k TrlIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED
* ** UNLESS ADVISED OTHERWISE THIS INFORMATION HAS NOT
* ** BEEN VERIFIED BY THE SELLING AGENCY OR BROKER ***
-- RESIDENTIAL LOWLAND --
COMMERCIAL LOT/LAND - -- CURRENT STATUS AVAILABLE --------------------------
LOCATION• pORENE CT LISTED FOR:$525,000
ZIP CODE:95070 CROSS ST :TEERLTITK AP:' LOT ACREAGE: ACRE
HIGH SCHL:264 COUNTY:SCC APB LOT/BLE:1.00
ELEM SCHL:197 TRACT NM: LOT /TAX:
THOM BR MAP: ZONING :R1 CITY TRANFR TA�:N
LOCAIDE MAP:17 -19 -57
FABULOUS LOT IN TERRIFIC NEIGHBORHOOD OF MILLION $ HOMES. BEAUTIFUZ
VIEWS OF ROLLING HILLS. BUILD YOUR DREAM HOME @ END OF THIS QUIET
CUL DE SAC, ONLY A FEW MINUTES FROM THE VILLAGE. FIRST SARATOGA SCHOOLS.
SINGLE FPM RESD P USE = VACANT CUL -DE -SAC LOT VIEW- NEIGHBHD MOUNTAIN VIEW
VALLEY VIEW LOT SLOPED D06+]N GENTLY SLOPED CURBS /GUTTaRS 1+ - 2.5 ACRES
CITY STR ACCESS PAVED RD ACCESS UNDRGRiM UTL RQ GAS AVL (a LOTLN ELE AVL Ca LOTLN
SWR AVL & SITE WTR AVL ca SITE WATER COMPANY REQ ZINC CNONL NO EZN-S STRUCT
NO FENCING RE TRANSF DISCL UN&.NOWN BND /ASM LIST INCL NONE FLT ZN -SEE RPT
NO FLOOD AREA POSS -COS * *r
* ** IS NOT GUARANTEED
THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVE TO BE ACCURATE BUT
* ** UNLESS ADVISED OTHERWISE THIS INFORMATION HAS NOT * **
* ** BEEN VERIFIED BY THE SELLING AGENCY OR BROKER * **
1
'FEB 13 '96 10: 50Atl C Z C SARATOGA
SJBR.9600.Tom Morman
P.10 /19
Tuesday, February 13, 1996 10:59 AM
RESIDENTIAL LOT /LAND -- -- --------------------
-- COi.1MERCIAL LOT/LAND - -- CURRENT STATUS AVAILABLE ----- LISTED FOR:$519,000
LOCATION.:14105 PIKE RD APX LOT SZE:1.17AC
ZIP CODE:95070 CROSS ST:PIERCE RD APX ACREAGE:100.00
HIGH SCHL:264 COUNTY:SCC LOT /BLK:
ELEM SCHL:469 TRACT NM: CUSTOM CITY TRP.NFR TAX:N
THOM BR MAP: ZONING:R40
LOCAIDE MAP: 17-21-57
CITY LIGHTS, MT.EDEN VALLEY VIEWS,& THE SOUNDS OF MUSIC FROM PAUL MASON.
APPROVED PLANS FOR A FRENCH- MEDITF,RRAN"EAN, WALK -OUT TO POOL,YARDS & OAKS
FLAT & PEACEFUL SETTING.ALL UTILITIES ARE IN.JUST HAVE IT BUILT.
SINGLE FAM RESD P USE = VACANT P USE =RES CUL -DE -SAC LOT BAY VIEW
MOUNTAIN VIEW VALLEY VIEW CANYON VIEW CITY LIGHTS VW MOSTLY LVL TOPO
LOT SLOPED UP ROLLING TOPO GENTLY SLOPED BUILDING PAD 1+ - 2.5 ACRES
PVT ROAD ACCESS PAVED RD ACCESS UNPAVED RD ACCS GRAVEL RD ACCSS PVT MAINT ROAD
UNDRGRND UTL RQ GAS AVL @ LOTLN ELE AVL @ LOTLN CABLE TV AWL SWR AVL @ SITE
WTR AVL @ SITE UNIMPROVED LAND FIN MAP APPROVO NO EXSTG STRUCT NO FENCING
ENGINEERING RPT PARCEL MAP AVL TOPOG MAP AVL UNI<No%N BND /ASM LIST INCI, NONE
FLT ZN -SEE RPT NO FLOOD AREA POSS -COE
** THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED * *'�
* ** UN ,F'SS ADVISED OTHERWISE THIS INFORMATION HAS NOT
* ** BEEN VERIFIED BY THE SELLING AGENCY OR BROKER * **
-- RESIDENTIAL LOT /LAND --
- COMMERCIAL LOT /LAND - -- CURRENT' STATUS AVAILABLE ------- ------- "------ - - - ---
LOCATION: TOLLGATE RD LISTED FOR :$499,000
APX LOT SZE:
ZIP CODE:95070 CROSS ST:BANK MILL
APX ACRF,AGE:1.00 .00
HIGH SCHL:O COUNTY:SCC LOT /BLK:
ELEK SCHL:O TRACT NM: CITY TRANFR TAX:
TFiOM BR MAP: ZONING : R140
LOCAIDE MAP:25 -21 -56
BUILD YOUR DREAM HOME ON ONE ACRE WITH FABULOUS VIEWS IN EXCLUSIVE PRESTIGIOUS
TOLLGATE AREA. WELL ESTABLISHED MILLION DOLLAR NEIGHBORHOOD -FEW LOTS AVAIL.
VALLEY VIEWS & CITY LIGHTS- PREgIUM SARATOGA SCHOOLS. A FEW MIN TO DOWNTOWN SAR
SINGLE FAM RESD P USE =VACANT MOUNTAIN VIEW VALLEY VIEW CANYON VIEW
OT SLOPED UP LOT SLOPED DOWN GENTLY SLOPED
GREEN BELT VIEW CITY LIGHTS VW L
50+ - 1 ACRE CITY STR ACCESS IMRGRND UTL RQ GAS AVL @ LOTLN
CURBS /GUTTERS
ELF AVL @ LOTLN S'WR AVAILABLE WTR AVL @ SITE UNIMPROVED LAND NO EXSTG STRUCT
NO FENCING PRELIM TITLE RP RE TRANSF DISCL TOPOG MAP AVL BYR -ASK BONDS
LIST INCL NONE FLT ZN -SEE RPT FL -SEE REPORT POSS- IM14EDIATE
* ** THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED * **
* ** UNLESS ADVISED OTKgRL'TISE THIS INFORMATION HAS NOT
* ** BEEN VERIFIED BY THE SELLING AGENCY OR BROKER * **
1
FEB 13 '96 10:51AM C « C SARATOGA
S,TBR.9600.Tom Morman
P.11 /19
Tuesday, February 13, 1996 10:58 AM-
- RESIDENTIAL LOT /LAND -- ----------------
-- COMMERCIAL LOT /LAND --- CURRENT STATUS AVAILABLE ---- - - - - ---
LOCATION:21756 CONGRESS HALL LN LISTED FOR:$499,000
ZIP CODE:95070 CROSS ST:PIERCE ROAD APX LOT SZE:3 ACRES
HIGH SCHL:264 COUNTY.SCC APf OTE:3.00
/BL
L
ELEM SCHL:0 TRACT NM: OT /BLK:
CITY TRANFR TAX : N
THOM BR MAP: ZONING: R1
LOCAIDE MAP- 00 -0 -0
FABULOUS THRU + ACRE BUILDING SITE FOR YOUR DREAM HOME-- -
VIEWS!--- VIEWS! -- VIEWS! - --THIS IS THE ONE YOU HAVE BEEN LOOKING
FOR -- -PLANS AVAILABLE(NOT APPROVED)THIS LOT IS THE BEST VALUE
SINGLE FAM RESD P USE= VACANT P USE =RES CUL -DE -SAC LOT
VALLEY VIEW CITY LIGHTS VW GENTLY SLOPED 2.5+ - 5 ACRES
UNDRGRND UTL RQ GAS AVL @ LOTLN ELE AVL @ LOTLN PHONE NOT AVAIL
4JI'R AVL @ SITE RECRD PARCEL .IT TOPOG MAP AVL HAVE BLDG PLANS
NO EXSTG STRUCT NO FENCING CC&.RS GEOTECH RPT AVL
UNKNOWN BND /FSbl BYR -ASM BONDS LIST INCL NONE FLT ZN -SEE RPT
MOUNTAIN VIEW
CITY STR ACCESS
swR AVL @ SITE
MAY NOT BE SUED
PRELIM TITLE RP
FL -SEE REPORT
P05S -COE
r ** THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE BUT TS NOT GUARANTEED
* ** UNLESS ADVISED OTHERWISE THIS INFORMATION HAS NOTR * **
* ** BEEN VERIFIED BY THE SELLING AGENCY OR BROKER
-- RESIDENTIAL LOT /LAND --
---------------------------
-- CoDjMFRCIAL LOT /LAND --- CURF=r STATUS AVAILABLE LISTED FOR:$469,000
LOCATION:21952 VILLA OAKS LN APX LOT SZE:
ZIP CODE:95070 CROSS ST:MT EDM /COCCIARD APX ACREAGE:1_59
HIGH SCHL:O COUNTY:SCC LOT /BLK-
ELEM SCHL:O TRACT NM: CITY TRANFR TAX -Y
THOM BR MAP: ZONING-.R1
LOCAIDE MAP:17-20 -59
SURROUND YOURSELF THE LU::URY OF PRESTIGIOUS NEIGHBORHOOD. VIEW OF CITY
LIGHTS, ROLLING HILLS, AND MILLION $ HOUSES. DIRECTION: FROM SARATOGA
SUNNYVALE RD, R TO PIERCE RD, R TO MT EDEN, R TO VILLA OA-K. SOU`i'H?rr-ST &
SINGLE FAM RESD P USE = VACANT CORNER LOT VIEW- NEIGHBHD MOUNTAIN VIEW
CITY LIGHTS VW LOT SLOPED UP 1+ - 2 -5 ACRES CITY STR ACCESS PAVED RD ACCESS
UNDRGRND UTL RQ GAS AVL @ LOTLN ELE AVL @ LOTLN SWR AVL @ SITE PRELIM SITE RP
FIN MAP APPROVD NO EXSTG STRUCT NO FENCING CC&RS
SOIL REPORT /TST UNKNOWN BND /ASM LIST INCL NONE NO FAULT ZONE NO FLOOD AREA.
POSS -COE
** THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED * *�
N OT "` **
-A_ ** UNLESS ADVISED OTHERWISE THIS INFORMATION HAS
* ** BEEN VERIFIED BY THE SELLING AGENCY OR BROKER * **
-FEB 13 '96 10 :52Ahl C « C SARATOGA
P.12 /19
SJBR.9600.Tom Morn-an Tuesday, February 13, 1996 10 :58 AM
-- RESIDENTIAL LOT /LAND -- - _ ^___ - - - - --
-- COMMERCIAL LOT /LAND - -- CURRENT STATUS AVAILABLE ---------------------------
--- -LISTE ----
LOCATION: BOHLM.�.N RD LISTED FOR:$425,000
APX LOT SZE:87120
ZIP CODE:95070 CROSS ST:MCGILL
HIGH SCRL:24 COUNTY:SCC APX ACREAGE:2.00
ELEM SCHL:199 TRACT NM: LOT /BLK:
CITY TRANFR TAX:N
THOM BR MAP: ZONING:RIE4
LOCAIDE MAP:25 -22 -51
BREATHTAKING VIEWS FROM ALL SIDES, ON TOP OF THE WORLD!!!!!
YOUR DREAMS COME TRUE FROM THIS 2 ACRE PARCEL. 10 MIN TO DOWNTOWN SARATOGA!
SARATOGA SCHOOLS, WELL IN & HOLDING TANK. BUILD YOUR OWN ESTATE. TOTALLY
SINGLE FAN RESD P USE = VACANT CORNER LOT MOUNTAIN VIEW VALLEY VIEW
CITY LIGHTS VW BUILDING PAD 1+ - 2.5 ACRES CITY STR ACCESS PVT TROAD ACCESS
NO UTILITIES BOTTLED GAS AVL ELE AVL AT STR SWR NOT AVL
NO @ SITE UNI1�iPROVED LAND NO EXSTG STRUCT NO FENCING PRELIM TITLE RP
WrR RE TRANSF DISCL SOILS ENG MP AV BYR -ASK BONDS NO FAULT ZONE NO FLOOD AREA
FOSS -COE ***
* ** THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED
* * * UNLESS ADVISED OTHERWISE THIS INFORMA'T'ION HAS NOT
* ** BEEN VERIFIED BY THE SELLING AGENCY OR BROKER * **
-- RESIDENTIAL LOT /LAND -- ______ --
COMMERCIAL LOT /LAND - -- CURRENT STATUS AVAILABLE --------------- - - --
LOCATION: BOHLMAN RD LISTED FOR:$410,000
ZIP CODE:95070 CROSS ST-.NORTON ROAD APX LOT SZE :113692
HIGH SCHL:O COUNTY:SCC APX ACREAGE :2.61
ELEM SCHL:O TRACT NM: LOT/BLK:
THOM BR MAP: ZONING :RHSG1 CITY TRANSR TAX:N
LOCAIDE MAP :25 -21 -55
IDYLLIC CLEARING IN THE WOODS WITH CREEK, IVY-COVERED SLOPES, AND POTENTIAL
VIEW. WOODED AREA, BUT BUILDING SITE IS OPEN & READY. 0.6 MILES FROM SIXTH ST-
AND DOWNTOWN SARATOGA. EXCELLENT SARATOGA SCHOOLS. CALL LA FOR DETAILS.
SINGLE FAM RESD P USE = VACANT VALLEY VIEW CITY LIGHTS VW ROLLING TOPO
HILLSIDE 2.5+ - 5 ACRES PAVED RD ACCESS BOTTLED GAS AVL ELE AVL @ LOTLN CLRD
CABLE TV AVL SWR NOT AVL PEREL� REQUIRED
RP UNKNOWN STR BLDG
NO ?;UL�ZONE
NO EXSTG STRUCT NO FENCING
NO FLOOD AREA POSS -COE
* ** THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED * *"`
*** UNLESS ADVISED OTHERWISE THIS INFORMATION HAS NOT
x' * **
* * * BEEN VERIFIED BY THE SELLING AGENCY OR SROI•BR
1
FEB 13 '96 10 :52AN C & C SARATOGA
iBR.9600.Tom Morman
P.13 /19
Tuesday, FebruaxY 13, 1996 10:58 AM
-- RESIDENTIAL LOT /LAND -- ___ ----------------
COMMERCIAL LOT /LAND CUV- ENT STATUS AVAILABLE - - -- LISTED FOR:$400,000
LOCATION: KITT'RIDGE RD APR LOT SZE:356468
ZIP CODE:95070 CROSS ST:BOHI�SAN /NORTON APX LOT SZE:8.39
HIGH SCHL:264 COUNi'Y:SCC LCREAGE:
ET•FNf SCHL:199 TRACT NM: CITY TRANFR TAX:
THOM BR MAP: ZONING:RHSG
LOCAIDE MAP:25 -21 -54
PANORAMIC VIEW - -THV- BEST VALLEY, CITY & BAY VIEW LEFT IN SARATOGA HILLS -
PRIVATE- 1.4 MILES TO SARATOGA VILLAGE - -4 MINUTES- SARATOGA_ SCHOOLS- BUILDING
SITE PLAN FY-PIRED & ON FILE AT CITY. PRICED TO SELL QUICKLY MOTIVATED SELLERS
SINGLE FAM RESD P USE = VACANT BAY VIEW jjO NTAIN VIEW VALLEY VIEW
CANYON VIEW CITY LIGHTS VW LOT SLOPED UP LOT SLOPED DOWN STEEP SLOPES
BUILDING PAD 5+ - 10 ACRES PVT ROAD ACCESS PVT RD -SHRD ACC PAVED RD ACCESS
GAS A7v7L Ca LOTLN SEPTIC REQUIRED fiv'`DR AVL 0 SITE WTR AVL IN STR UNIMPROVED LAND
TOPOG MAP AVL HAVE BLDG PLANS MAY NOT BE SUED NO EXSTG STRUCT BUILDING PAD
NO FENCING PARCEL MAP AVL TOPOG MAP AVL UmmoWN BND /ASM LIST INCL NONE
NO FAULT ZONE NO FLOOD AREA
* ** THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO g E ACCURATE BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED * **
* ** UNLESS ADVISED OTHERWISE THIS INFORM�.ITON HAS NOT * **
* ** BEEN VERIFIED BY THE SELLING AGENCY OR BROKER * **
-- RESIDENTIAL LOT /LAND --
____ _ ___ _____ ____ __
-- COMMERCIAL LOT /LAND - -- CURRENT STATUS AVAILABLE - - -- LISTED F----- -- ----
LOCATION: MOUNTAIN WA
ZIP CODE:95030 CROSS ST:WEST ROAD APX LOT SZE:2.53ACRES
HIGH SCHL:264 COUNTY:SCC AP`x ACREAGE.-2.53
ELEM SCHL:199 TRACT NM: LOVBLK:
THOM BR MAP= ZONING:R1 CITY TRANFR TAX:
LOCAIDE MAP:25 -25 -53
OAK STUDDED ESTATE SITE .SPECTACULAR BAY VIEWS. PLANS FOR 5000 S.F. ESTATE.
PRICE INCLUDES PLANS - VERY MOTIVATED SELLER. WILL LOOK AT ALL OFFERS_
WONDERFUL SETTING. VERY PRIVATE BUT JUST MINUTES FROM EITHER LOS GATOS OR
SINGLE FAN RESD P USE = VACANT MOUNTAIN VIEW VALLEY VIEW HILLSIDE
2.5+ - 5 ACRES CITY STR ACCESS PVT RD -SNRD ACC GAS AVL @ LOTLN ELE AVL C@ LOTLN
CABLE TV AVL SWR AVL @ SITE WTR AVL @ SITE WTR WI'T'HIN 500' UNIMPROVED LAND
RE PARCEL MP NO FXSTG STRUCT NO FENCING PRELIM TITLE RP TJI�IICNOTr1N $ND /ASM
ACCESS EASEMNT LIST !NCL NONE NO FAULT ZONE NO FLOOD AREA POSS -COE
* ** THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED * **
* ** UNLESS ADVISED OTHERWISE THIS itoFu4ATION HAS NOT
* ** BEEN VERIFIED BY THE SELLING AGENCY OR BROKER * **
FEB 13 '96 10: 53Ah1 C & C SARATOGA
STBR.9600.Tom Moxman
P.14 /19
Tuesday, February 13, 1996 10:57 AM
-- RESIDENTIAL LOT /LAND -- _
---------------
COMMERCIAL LOT /LAND --- CURRENT STATUS AVAILABLE -- LISTED FOR:$395,000
LOCATION: MT EDEN RD APX LOT SZE:230X424
ZIP CODE:95070 CROSS ST:PIERCE APB ACREAGE:97500.00
HIGH SCHL:264 COUNI'Y:SCC LOT /BLK.
ELEM SCHL:197 TRACT NM: CITY TRANFR TAX:N
THOM BR MAP: ZONING:HCRD
LOCAIDE MAP:17 -19 -58
BEAUTIFUL SUNNY 2.25 AC GOES FRM MT EDEN RD TO CRST OF urID BUILD AT TOP
& HAVE VIESrT OF SC VALLEY ONE SIDE, MT EDEN VALLEY OTHER SIDE!
PRICE INCLUDES PARCEL 503 -13 -059
SINGLE FAM RESD P USE= ORCHARD MOUNTAIN VIEW VALLEY VIEW CITY LIGHTS VW
LOT SLOPED UP HILLSIDE GENTLY SLOPED 1+ - 2.5 ACRES PAVED RD ACCESS
NO UTILITIES ELF AVL AT STR CABLE TV AVL SWR WITHIN 500' WTR AVL IN STR
WTR WITHIN 500' WATER COMPANY UNIMFROVED LAND HAVE BLDG PLANS NO SITE APPRVL
NO ExsTG STRUCT FENCING SUR= TOPOG MAP AVL UNKNOWN BND /ASM LAND SURVEY RE
LIST INCL NONE FLT ZN -SEE RPT NO FLOOD AREA POSS -COE
*** THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED * **
** UNLESS ADVISED OTHERWISE T'ziIS INFORMATION HAS NOT * **
* ** BEEN VERIFIED BY THE SELLING AGENCY OR BROKER * **
-- RESIDENTIAL LOT /LAND -- .
COMMERCIAL LOT /LAND - -- CURRENT STATUS AVAILArLE ------------ $3
OR : F 89,000
--- --- - --
LOCATION:20932 BURNETT DR LISTED OR:$3
APX LOT SZE:1.27AC
ZIP COD:95070 CROSS ST:BEAUCHAMP LN
E
HIGH SCHL:260 COUNTY:SCC APic ACREAGF:55321.00
El. SCH9,:68 TRACT NM:BEAUCHAMP LOT /BLK:0004
THOM BR MAP: ZO1vING : R1 40 CITY TRANFR TAX : N
LOCAIDE MAP:00 -0 -0
LAST CHANCE TO BUILD IN SARATOGA'S REAUCHAYIP SUBDIVISION. BEAUTIFUL LEVEL
1.27 AC SITE WITH LARGE BUILDING AREA FOR APPROX 4800 SF 2 STORY HOUSE + POOL.
POSSIBLE TENNIS CT. VINEYARD, OR FRUIT TREES. LOCATED NEXT TO PARKER RANCH.
SINGLE FAM RESD P USE = VACANT VIEW--NEIGHBHD LEVEL TOPO 1+ - 2.5 ACRES
CITY STR ACCESS UNDRGRND UTL RQ GAS AVL @ LOTLN ELE AVL C@ LOTLN CABLE TV AVL
SWR AVL @ SITE WTR AVL @ SITE FIN MAP APPROVD HOMEOWNER ASSOC S LOCAL ST APR RQ
PA.RTL PERIM FEN ASSOC DOGS CCkRS
LIST INCL NONE YES FAULT ZONE NO FLOOD AREA POSS -COE
* ** THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED * **
* ** UNLESS ADVISED OTHERWISE THIS INFORMATION HAS NOT * **
* ** BEEN V=:[ED BY THE SELLING AGENCY OR BROKER * *x
Fl
FEB 13 '96 10:53AM C a C SARATOGA
SJBR.9600.Tom Morman
P.15/19
Tuesday, February 13, 1996 10:57 AM
-- RESIDENTIAL, LOT /LAND -- - '----- ____ --
-- CongERCIALOT /LAND L LO - -- CURRENT STATUS AVAILABLE ----- LIST^- ---
LZSTED FOR:$379,950
LOCATYON:22551 MT EDEN RD APX LOT SZE:1_42
ZIP CODE:95070 CROSS ST:VILLA OAFS APX ACREAGE-.1.42
HIGH SCk-L:264 COUNTY:SCC LOT /BL?{:
ELEM SCHL:O TRACT NM: CITY TR.ANFR TAX:
THOM BR MAP: ZONING:HCRD
LOCAIDE MAP:17 -20 -59
AN INTELLIGENT DECISION! BUILD YOUR OWN HOME TO YOUR SPECIFICATIONS AND SAVE
$$$ W /INSTANT EQUITY_SELLERS WILL FINANCE FOR QUALIFIED BUYER. HORSES ALLOWED.
DON'T HESITATE OR WAIT! MILLION DOLLAR NEIGHBORHOOD'. SOME REPORTS AVAILABLE-
SINGLE FAM RESD P USE = VACANT MOUNTAIN VIEW VALLEY VIEW ROLLING TOPO
BUILDING PAD 1-r - 2.5 ACRES CITY STR ACCESS NO UTILITIES ELE AVL L@ LOTLN RPT
RECRD PRELIMPTITLE RP SOIL REPORT /TST WATER AGREEMENT NUNMOWlN.BM /ASM LIST GEOLOGICAL
NE
NO FAULT ZONE NO FLOOD P.REA POSS -COS * * •k
** THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED
* ** UNLESS ADVISED OTHERWISE THIS INFORMATION HAS NOT *�*
* ** BEEN VERIFIED BY THE SELLING AGENCY OR BROKER * **
-- RESIDENTIAL LOT /LAND _ _ _____
-- COMMERCIAL LOT /LAND --- CURRENT STATUS AVAILABLE ---------------------------
---- LISTED FOR:$359,000
LOCATION: BOHLMAN RD APX LOT SZE:1105000
ZIP CODE:95070 CROSS ST:ON ORBIT ApX ACREAGE :25.00
HIGH SCHL:264 COUNTY:SCC LOT /BLK.
ELEM SCHL:199 TRACT NM: C11.Y TRANFR TAX :N
THOM BR MAP: ZONING: HS
LOCAIDE MAP:25 -21 -53
WONDERFUL, LARGE USABLE RIDGE W /SPECTACULAR CITY FIGHT VIEWS!SURROUNDED BY OPEN
SPACE & PARK LAM !3 -4 MILES FROM &APATOGA -LOS GATOS RD!SARATOGA SCHLS!6 MIN.
TO VILLAGE!TOPO & HOUSE SITE PLPNS AVAILABLE- SELLER FINANCING POSSIBLE!
SINGLE FAM RESD P CITY LIGHTS VW LEVEL TOPO LOT SLOPED DO4N
HILLSIDE BUILDING PAD 20+ - 50 ACRES CNTY MAINT ACCS NO UTILITIES
BOTTLED GAS AVL ELE AVL C@ LOTLN SEPTIC REQUIRED PERC TEST REQ'D NO WELL BUT REQ
UNIMPROVED LAND RECRD PARCEL MP TOPOG MAP AVL MAY NOT BE SUBD BLDG SITE CLRD
NO EXSTG STRUCT NO FENCING CONTRACTR'S BID PRELIM TITLE RP UNKNOWN BND /ASSM
LOCAL ST APV RQ CALL LISTING OFC NO FAULT ZONE NO FLOOD AREA FOSS -COE
* ** THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED * **
* *k UNLESS ADVISED OTHERWISE THIS INFORMATION HAS NOT * }*
* ** BEEN 'VERIFIED BY THE SELLING AGENCY OR BROFMR * **
FEB 13 '96 10:54Arl C & C SARATOGA P.16i19
Tuesday, February
y 13, 1996 10:57 A
57BR_9600_Tom Norman .
RESIDENTIAL LOW LAND -- �----------- - - - - --
COMMERCIAL LOT /LAND - -- CURRENT STATUS AVAILABLE ----- UISTED FOR:$359,000
LOCATZON:12528 SPRING BLOSSOM CT Apg LOT 5ZE:14004
ZIP CODE:95070 CROSS ST:SAR- S'VALE AP?� LOT SZE:14004.00
HIGH SC�,:260 COUNj'Y:SCC LcREAG{ :0005
ELEM SCHL:68 TRACT NM:SPRING MOON CITY TRANFR TAX:
THOM BR MAP: ZONING:R1
LOCAIDE MAP-.17-22-60 FOUR LEVEL THIRD ACRE BUILDING SITES TO CHOOSE FROM ON THIS NEW CUL -DE -SAC OFF
SAR- S'VALE Rp.CITY APPROV M,RECORDED,READY TO C -0.DESIGN AND BUILD YOUR OWN ONE
STORY(NAX)4050 SF HOME (INCL.GAR) LOT 5 LOCATED BETWEEN WARDELL & CARNIEL
SINGLE FAM RESD P USE= VACANT CUL -DE -SAC LOT MOUNTAIN VIEW LEVEL TOPO
.25+ - .50 ACRE CITY STR ACCESS UNDRGRND UTL RQ GAS AVL @ LOTLN SWR AVL @ SITE
WTR AVL G SITE FIN MAP APPRU\7D NO EXSTG STRUCT FENCING SURVEYD DRE PUBLIC RPT
PARCEL MAP AVL UNfajOWN END /ASM LOCAL ST APV RQ LIST INCL NONE NO FAULT. ZONE
NO FLOOD AREA POSS -COE
* ** THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED * **
** LrNLESS ADVISED OTHERWISE THIS INFORMATION HAS NOT *"*
** BEEN VERIFIED BY THE SELLING AGENCY OR BROKER * **
-- RESIDENTIAL LOT /LAND --
-- COMMERCIAL LOT /LAND - -- CURR= STATUS AVAILABLE ---------------------------
STED FOR:$349,000
LOCATION:12550 SPRING BLOSSOM CT LISTED
ZIP CODE:95070 CROSS ST:SA LOT SZRA- S'VALE Apr LOT SZE:13634.00
HIGH SCHL:260 COUNTY:SCC LOT /BLK:0002
ELEM SCHL:68 TRACT NM:SPRING MOON CT_ CITY TRANFR TAX:
THOM BR MAP: ZONING:R1
LOCAIDE MAP:17 -22 -60
FOUR LEVEL THIRD ACRE BUILDING SITES TO CHOOSE FROM ON THIS NEW CUL -DE -SAC OFF
SAR- S'VALE RD.CITY APPROVED,RECORDED,READY TO GO.DESIGN AND BUILD YOUR OWN ONE
STORY (MAX)3880 SF HOME (INCL_ GAR)LOT 2 LOCATED BETWEEN WARDEL & CARNIEL.
SINGLE FAM RESD P USE = VACANT CUL -DE -SAC LOT MOUNTAIN VIEW LEVEL TOPO
.25+ - .50 ACRE CITY STR ACCESS UNDRGRND UTL RQ GAS AVL @ LOTLN ELE AVL @ LOTLN
CABLE TV AVL SWR AVL @ SITE WTR P_VL G SITE FIN MAP APPROVD NO EXSTG STRUCT
FENCING SURVEYD DRE PUBLIC RPT PARCEL MAP AVL UNKNOWN BND /ASM LOCAL ST APV RQ
LIST INCL NONE NO FAULT ZONE NO FLOOD AREA POSS -COE
* ** THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED * **
* ** UNLESS PDVISED OTHERWISE THIS INFORMATION HAS NOTk * **
** BEEN VERIFIED BY THE SELLING AGENCY OR BROKER
1
-FEB 13 '96 10:54AN C & C SARATOGA
SJBR.9600.Toim Morman
P.17 /19
Tuesday, February 13, 1996 10:57 ArI
RESIDENTIAL LOT /LAND -- _ ___
COMMERCIAL LOT /LAND - -- CURRENT STATUS AVAILABLE ---------------------------
---- LISTED- __ FOR:$345,000
LOCATION:12558 SPRING BLOSSOM CT Apg LOT SZE•14312
ZIP CODE:95070 CROSS ST:SARATOGA -SVALE Apg ACREAGE:14312.00
HIGH SCHL:260 COUNT'Y:SCC LOT /BLK :0001
ELEM SCHL:68 TRACT NM:SPRING MOON CT. CITY TRANFR TAX:
THOM BR MAP: ZONING:R1
LOCAIDE MAP:17 -22 -60
FOUR LEVEL THIRD ACRE BUILDING SITES i'O CHOOSE FROM ON THIS NEW CUL -DE -SAC OFF
SAR- S'VALE RD.CITY APPROVED, RECORDED, READY TO GO.DESIGN AND BUILD YOUR OWN ONE
ON
STORY (MAX) 4050 SF HOME(INCL.GAR) LOT 1 LOCATED BELT%= WARDER & CARNIEL.
SINGLE FAM RESO PUSE= VACANT CUL -DE -SAC LOT MOUNTAIN VIEN LEVEL TOPO
.23+ - .50 ACRE CITY STR ACCESS UNDRGRND UTL RQ GAS AVL @ LOTLN ELE AVL @ LOTLN
CABLE TV AVL SWR AVID @ SITE %,rR AVL @ SITE FIN KAP APPROVD NO E.YSTG STRUCT
FENCING SURVEYD DRE PUBLIC RPT PARCEL MP.P AVL PUNKNOTCO BND /ASM LOCAL ST APV RQ
LIST INCL NONE NO FAULT ZONE NO FLOOD AREA
* ** THIS INFORMATION IS BFLIEV-D TO BE ACCURATE BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED
UNLESS ADVISED OTHERWISE THIS INFORMATION HAS NOT
* * * BEEN VERIFIED BY THE SELLING AGENCY OR BROKER
-- RESIDENTIAL LOWLAND --
-- commERCIAL LOT/LAND - -- CURRENT STATUS AVAILABLE --------- - - - - -- ---
LOCATION:21216 BANK MILL RD LISTED FOR:$309,000
APX LOT SZE:63,162
ZIP CODE:95070 CROSS ST:TULLGATE
HIGH SCHL :264 COU=:SCC APX ACREAGE: 1.45
ELEM SCHL:197 TRACT NM: LOT /BLK:
CITY TRPNFR TAX:N
THOM BR MAP: ZONING.-R140
LOCAIDE MAP:25 -21 -56
MOTIVATED SELLER! BRING OFFERS!
SINGLE FAM RESD P USE = VACANT MOUN`!'AIN VIEW VALLEY VIEW LOT SLOPED DOWN
STEEP SLOPES HILLSIDE CURBS /GUTTERS 1+ - 2.5 ACRES CITY STR ACCESS
NO UTILITIES UNIMPROVED LAM NO EXSTG STRUCT NO FENCING UNKNOWN BND /ASM
FLT ZN -SEE RPT FL -SEE REPORT
* ** THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED
** UNLESS ADVISED OTHERWISE THIS INFORMATION HAS NOT * **
* * * BEEN ] VERIFIED BY THE SELLING AGENCY OR BROKER
1
FEB 13 '96 10:55AH C rex' C SARATOGA
S,TBR.9600.Tom Morman
P. 18i19
Tuesday, FebzuarY 13, 1996 10:56 AM
RESIDENTIAL LOWLAND - CURRENT STATUS AVAILABLE ---------------------------
COMMERCLzL LOT /LAND -- LISTED FOR:$275,000
LOCATION.0 EDEN CREST L'ME APX LOT SZE:2.00
ZIP CODE:95070 CROSS ST:MOUNT EDEN ROAD ApX ACREAGE:2.00
HIGH SCHL:476 COUNTY:SCC LOT /BLK:
E EM SCFL:469 TRACT NK:CUSTOM CITY TRANFR TAX:N
THOM BR blAP: ZONING:R140
LOCAIDE 1',1AP:17 -19 -59
PRIVATE 2.00 P_ARCEL,ROADS, WATER AND SEWER AVAIL.ASOILSFREPORTCAVAIL,HO
GREAT AREA FOR HORSES, EXISTING MATURE OAK TREES, HOLIDAYS THING
OFFERS SELLER WANTS TO NAIL SO CC DE- SACpLOT xVALLEY VIEW CANYON VIEW
�'
SINGLE FAM RESD P USE= VACANT
MOSTLY LVL TOPO ROLLING TOPO 1+ - 2.5 ACRES PAVED RD ACCESS UNDRGRND UTL RQ
ELE AVL AT STR SWR AVAILABLE WTR AVL IN STR TOPOG MAP AVL HAVE BLDG PLANS
GEOLOGICAL RPT PARCEL MAP AVL PRELI�1 TITLE RP
NO EX5TG STRUCT NO FENCING
RE TRANFF DISCL SOIL RPORT /TST UNKNOWN BND /ASM LIST INCL NONE FIE ZN -SEE RPT
E
FL -SEE REPORT POSS -COE
** THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED * **
** UNLESS ADVISED OTHERWISE THIS INFORMATION HAS NOT **
* ** BEEN VERIFIED BY THE SELLING AGENCY OR BROKER
-- RESIDENTIAL LOT /LAND -- ___^---------------------
COMMFRCIAL LOT /LAND - -- CURRENT STATUS AVAILABLE --
HEIGHTS PL LISTED FOR:$229,000
HE
LOCATION: ATHER APX LOT SZE:12.72 AC
ZIP CODE:95070 CROSS ST:CONGRESS SPRINGS gpX ACREAGE -12.72
HIGH SCHL:264 COUNTY:SCC LOT /BLK:
ELEM SCHL:0 TRRCT NM: CITY TRANFR TAX:
TROM BR MAP: ZONING. R1
LOCAIDE MAP:16 -12 -58
AT GATE PRESS RED BUTTON THE *7694_ BREATHTAKING VIEW! PAVED PRIVATE ROAD
OF CONGRESS SPRINGS RD. HEATHER HEIGHTS IS 7 MILES FROM DOWNTOWN SARATOGA
LAST RIGHT BEFORE SK•YLINE.BUILD YOUR DREAM IN THIS QUIET D SECURE PRIVATE ACRES
SINGLE FAM RESD P USE = VACANT MOUNTAIN VIEW UNDRG TOPO 10
HIGHWAY ACCESS PVT RD -SHRD ACC PAVED RD ACCESS UNDRGRND UTL RQ BOTTLED GAS AVL
ELE AVL @ LOTLN SEPTIC REQUIRED WTR AVL @ SITE CC&RS `I WTR SUP PARCEL14AP AVL
CC&RS
MAY NOT BE SURD NO EitSTG STRUCT NO FENCING NO FAULT ZONE NO FLOOD AREA
PRELIM TITLE RP HOMEOWNER ASSOC PROP LN SVY R_Q
* ** THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED * **
* ** UNLESS ADVISED OTHERWISE I RMATOR BROKER T * * **
* ** BEEN VERIFIED BY THE
FEB 13 '96 10:55AM C & C SARATOGA
Sj- BR.9600.Tom Morman
P.19 /19
Tuesday, February 13, 1996 10:.56.AM
-- RESIDENTIAL LOT /LAND -- _ ----- - -_ -_-
-- COMMERCIAL LOT /LAND - -- CUR `r STATUS AVAILABLE ------ ISTEID- FOR:
$199,000
SANBORN RD LISTED SZE:$199,000
ZIP CODE:95070 CROSS ST:HIWAY 9 APX LOT SZE:
APX E:2.91
HIGH SCHL:264 COUNTY:SCC LOT/BLK:
ELEM SCHL :O TRACT NM:
CITY TRANFR TA
THOM BR MAP: ZONING:A140 :z:N
LOCAIDE MAP:25 -19 -53
DESIGN & BUILD YOUR DREAM HOME ON THIS FABULOUS LOT. YOU WILL DOWNTOWN COUNTRY
QUIET & SERENITY PLUS THE CONVENIENCE OF BEING ONLY
7 MIN-TO DOOWNTOWN SARATOGA
CLOSE TO 2300 ACRE COUNTY PARK W /HIRING & EQUESTRIAN TRAILS. HAVE HOUSE PLANS
SINGLE F_AM RESD P USE= VACANT MOUNTAIN VIaJ LOT SLOPED UP GENTLY SLOPED
BUILDING PAD 2.5+ - 5 ACRES PAVED RD ACCESS CNTY MAINT ACCS BOTTLED GAS AVL
ELE AVL AT STR SWR NOT AVL SEPTIC REQUIRED NO WELL BUT REQ HAVE BLDG PLANS
MAY NOT BE SUBD BLDG SITE CLRD NO EXSTG STRUCT NO FENCING
APPRAISAL AVL
PERC TEST AVAIL PRELIM TITLE RP UNKNOWN BND /ASb1 LIST INCL NOME YES FAULT ZONE
NO FLOOD AREA POSS -COE *�*
* ** THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE BUT IS NOT GUARAI13TEED
* *� UNLESS ADVISED OTHERWISE THIS INFORMATION HAS NOT * **
* ** BEEN VERIFIED BY Th'E SELLING AGENCY OR BROKER * **
RESIDENTIAL LOT /LAND -- STATUS AVAILABLE ---------------------------
-- COMMERCIAL LOT /LAND - -- CURRENT LISTED FOR:$128,000
LOCATION: LITTLE BROOK Apg LOT SZE :1.40
ZIP CODE:95030 CROSS ST:OVERLOOK Apg ACREAGE-60984.00
HIGH SCHL:O COUNTY:SCC LOT /BLK:
ELEM SCHL:O TRACT NM: CITY TRANFR TAX:
THOM BR MAP: ZONING-95030
LOCAIDE MAP :25 -25 -52
GREAT LOCATION! MAKE IT YOUR DREAM HOUSE. GREAT VIEW OF THE CITY!
QUESTIONS? CALL AGENT FOR MAP AND ANY OTHER INFORMATION_ 'ft IS 252 -4373.
DON'T ASR: Wily IT'S CHEAP, JUST BUY IT! SURROUNDED WITH MILLION DOLLAR
SINGLE FAM RESD P USE = VACANT CUL -DE -SAC LOT VIEW- NEIGHSHD VALLEY VIEW
CITY LIGHTS VW LOT SLOPED DOWN STEEP SLOPES 1+ - 2.5 ACRES CITY STR ACCESS
BO'T'TLED GAS AVL ELE AVL @ LOTLN CABLE TV AVL SWR NOT AVL SEPTIC REQUIRED
UNI,'I�AVL BNDITE PROP LN SVY RBQ LOSTxINCLSNONET FLT FENSEF RPT FLOOD AREA TITLE RP
WTR POSS -COE
* *" THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE BUT IS NCI` GUARANTEED **
* ** UNLESS ADVISED OTHERWISE THIS INFORMATION HAS NOT
* ** BEEN VERIFIED BY THE SELLING AGENCY OR BROKER
MUL TECH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.
1650 Zanker Road, Suite 210
San Jose, CA 95112
Phone: (408) 436 -0754 • Fax: (408) 436 -0464
To Whom It May Concern
Date: February 13, 1996
Ref: Nelson Garden Project /Environmental Impact Report
Based on our assessment
the vicinity of the pro
near Trinity Court is
increase of 0.6 cfs (f o
originating from the eas
Sincerely
Wen C. Wang, P E., Ph.D.
of the existing drainage facilities in
posed project, the downstream gutter inlet
capable of accommodating the estimated
r a 100 -year storm) from surface water
tern subbasin.
H OGE, FENTON, JONES & APPEL, INC.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SIXTY SOUTH MARKET STREET, SUITE 1400
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113-2396
TELEPHONE (408) 287 -9501
FACSIMILE (408) 287 -2583
DAVID W. MITCHELL
February 6, 1996
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Members of the City Council
City Hall
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
DIRECT DIAL: (408) 947 -2495
� i17
i 6.63 � �J
P t }U,�
MY MANAGER'S CF'F!CE
Re: Community Foundation of Santa Clara County -- Nelson
Foundation site
Our file .42880
Dear Council Members:
This letter is submitted on behalf of our firm's client, The
Community Foundation of Santa Clara County, in connection with
the hearing pending on February 7, 1996, on the proposed
cancellation of the Williamson Act contract.
The sole purpose of this letter is to correct the
misstatements of Robin B. Kennedy's letter of February 2, 1996,
concerning the property's history and the duties of our client
concerning the property. Other issues raised in Ms. Kennedy's
letter will be addressed by the attorney for our client's buyer.
As Ms. Kennedy correctly stated, it was the original intent
of Mr. Nelson that the property be preserved. The property
passed from Mr. and Mrs. Nelson to the Nature Conservancy between
1971 and 1976, from the Nature Conservancy to the California
State Parks Foundation in 1977 and from the California State
Parks Foundation to the Florence Nelson Foundation in 1984. The
first two organizations found that it was not within their
purposes or feasible to maintain such a small property in the way
originally intended. The Florence Nelson Foundation also
discovered this fact. Thus, it was not possible to carry out the
original intent of Mr. and Mrs. Nelson. Mr. Nelson acknowledged
this fact in a letter dated October 17, 1988, to William Penn
Mott, Jr., former director of the California State Parks
Foundation, and at that time the director of the National Park
Service. (Mr. Mott, by the way, was a well known and early
N: \42880 \LET -1.JTM
Members of the City Council
February 6, 1996
Page 2
figure in the open space movement, having been responsible for
the creation and acquisition of thousands of acres of land in the
East Bay Regional Open Space District).
The letter of Mr. Nelson specifically spelled out the
changed circumstances recognized in 1988 by the Florence Nelson
Foundation. I quote from the first paragraph:
"As for the Saratoga property, it has been most
difficult to dedicate the land to public use because of
liability insurance, cost factors and other problems.
The Board of Directors of The Florence Nelson
Foundation, of which I am one, feel it is in the best
interest of the Foundation to sell the property and use
the proceeds for charitable purposes. Keeping the
property in open space benefits very few individuals
because of the locality compared to the many who can
benefit from the sale of the property."
Thus, contrary to Ms. Kennedy's assertions, the intent of
The Florence Nelson Foundation since 1988 has been to sell the
property and devote the increased endowment to charitable
purposes. We believe that it is the obligation of The Community
Foundation to carry out that intent. As Ms. Kennedy recognizes
in a backhanded way on the last page of her letter, there is no
obligation to have a community garden on the property or to
preserve the land in open space. Mr. Nelson's original intent
turned out not to be feasible, and he recognized that.
Mr. Nelson clearly knew that he had not protected the
property in perpetuity; he consented to the transfer of the
property from The Nature Conservancy to the California State
Parks Foundation and by the California State Parks Foundation to
the Florence Nelson Foundation. There is no breach of trust on
the part of The Florence Nelson Foundation or The Community
Foundation.
We believe that the Community Foundation must, under
California law, treat the land as a financial asset and make it
financially productive for the charitable purposes of the
Community Foundation. The Florence Nelson Foundation embarked on
that course with respect to this land in 1988. Mr. Nelson's 1988
letter mentioned that The Florence Nelson Foundation had entered
into an option for the property to be acquired by a developer.
That proposed transaction, which would have netted The Florence
Nelson Foundation far more in purchase price than the present
one, and less exaction fees payable to the City of Saratoga, did
N: \42880 \LET -1.JTM
Members of the City Council
February 6, 1996
Page 3
not make it through the zoning and Williamson Act cancellation
process, due to the opposition of the same individuals who have
since formed under the name of "The Friends of the Nelson Garden
Foundation." In the more than six years which have passed since
that opposition, it was not until another development opportunity
arose than any word was received indicating an interest in
developing the Nelson site into a community garden. No
fundraising effort of which we are aware was undertaken. We
submit that the current opposition is nothing more than an effort
by a relatively small number of individuals to protect their
view, rather than a serious effort to develop a community garden.
A serious effort would have started shortly after the opponent's
1989 victory.
A conservative estimate of the lost charitable contributions
to the community as a result of the opponents blocking the
transaction in 1988 or 1989 is $1,000,000.
Ms. Kennedy noted that in 1994 "only 1.701 of the grants made
from board - directed unrestricted funds were directed to
environmental purposes." This statistic is irrelevant, because
the principal purposes of The Florence Nelson Foundation were far
broader in scope than environmental purposes and encompassed
human services needs. The Florence Nelson Foundation has for
many years made grants out of its liquid assets for human
services needs.
It has been suggested in the press and in letters that The
Community Foundation could make a grant of the land to The
Friends of the Nelson Garden Foundation. We believe that such a
grant cannot be made for a number of reasons, including (i) it is
precluded by the merger agreement with The Florence Nelson
Foundation; (ii) it would be by many times the largest grant ever
made by The Community Foundation, and there is no reasonable
justification for it; and (iii) The Friends of the Nelson Garden
Foundation have no plan for creating or maintaining a community
garden or for meeting an annual budget to keep it going, nor in
the last six years have the Friends prepared one, to our
knowledge.
N: \42880 \LET -1.]TM
Members of the City Council
February 6, 1996
Page 4
We look forward to your favorable action on the pending
zoning and Williamson Act matters.
Sincerely,
HOGE, ENTO JONES & APPEL, INC.
i
� r
David W. Mitchell
cc: The Community Foundation of Santa Clara County
Barton Hechtman, Esq.
Robin B. Kennedy, Esq.
N: \42880 \LET -1.JTM
February 5, 1996
Saratoga City Council
Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear City Council Members:
Enclosed are copies of letters that have important points in them about the Nelson Garden
project. The letters were sent in some time ago. However, since these letters may not be available
to you, I am giving you another copy of the originals. The authors of the original letters have given
me permission to do so.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely, /
Ann Wa tl onsmith
21060 Saratoga Hills Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
Michae(M Clair
21100 Saratoga Miffs Road
Saratoga, Cafifornia 95070
June 1995
City Council Members and
Ann Marie Burger
Mayor of Saratoga and
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
RE: GP -94 -003 AZO -94 -002 & SD -94 -005
Trinity Development Company; 20851
Hearing Date 6/14/95
Ladies and Gentlemen:
(APF 503 -49 -41 & 42)
Saratoga Hills Road
(I will be out of the country at the time of the Public Hearing. I
therefore request that this letter be published and read out loud at
the public hearings instead of me, addressing the Council and the
Commission in the open session.)
The
ongoing discussions and
upcoming public hearing regarding
the
fate
of Nelson Gardens is of
great concern to the residents of
Saratoga
Hills
Road. Since the Nelson
Gardens property shares frontage
at
the
base
of our private road, I have asked to be kept informed as
to
the
status of your public as well
as rip 'vate discussions regarding
the
fate
of this property.
Prior to the previous public hearings, in October of 1994, the City
Council had already made its decision regarding the fate of this
property. The Public Hearing was only a formality to placate the
citizens and satisfy the city ordinance that required that they be
held. The taxpayers were insulted. The "deal" had already been done
with the City Council before the Planning Commission, (the
government body which is supposed to be responsible for new
development approval), had any chance to review, or act on the
terms and conditions of the parcel development. This was an overt
violation of the democratic process and a depressing example of our
"elected government in action."
So now there is another Public Hearing presumably to review the
property definition of the Nelson Garden building site, another "deal"
that has already been done. As a citizens of Saratoga, I feel an
obligation to raise valid and honest objections in keeping with due
process even when there is already a "fix" in place - just like the last
time.
My concerns regarding this development are very specific: 1) the
number of parcels in the proposed subdivision is out of character
with the adjacent Saratoga Hills Road and neighboring contiguous
hillside development. All of the single family home sites in this area,
specifically defined by the Planning Commission, equal or exceed one
acre. 2) The proposed parcels and building footprint coverage is out
of character with the downhill homes on Pontiac, and Trinity
Avenues. That is, the lots are too small for the size of the proposed
buildings.
Everything is wrong
about this development. What should be
happening? Since the
Nelson Garden property is part of
the
hillside
acreage, 1) the lots should be an acre minimum, like all
of
the others,
and according to. the
ordinances that every other citizen
in
Saratoga
is forced to live by, and 2) the buildings should conform
to
the
density and building
footprint coverage of the homes in
the
existing
Saratoga Hills and Upper
Hills Road just like the ordinances
dictate.
Every citizen and property owner in Saratoga has a right to due
process under the law. If the City Council and Planning Commission
intend to accept payment for variances to the city ordinances, I
demand a legal opinion letter that shows that the City Council has not
violated the law or any ordinances in accepting this money.
Sincerely,
Mike Clair
President
Saratoga Hills Road Association
2 -5- 156'
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL:
I regret that a long- planned journey prevents me from bringing
you this message in person.
I am opposed to the approval by the City for the development of
the Nelson Garden property on the following basis:
1) The cancellation of the Williamson Act on the Nelson property
was illegal, violating all of tree requirements set down by the
state for cancellation of such a contract.
2) The acceptance of the Memorandum. of Understanding by the City
to the Community Foundation was nothing more than a quid pro quo
bribe, and, in a legal sense, constitutes a conspiracy.
3) The negative environmental report was a boiler plate
document, which totally failed to address the pertinent issues
which exist on that property.
4) The data supplied by the developer's engineers, plus that of
the consultants on the city payrolls, are suspect. 14r. Coi-ton,
R C consulting engineer, has erred in the past in favor of
developers. He certified a slope as being 29 per cent on my
neighbor's property; an independent engineer found it to be 63
per cent.
It would be wise for the Council to resurvey the Nelson
property, using an engineer with no financial ties to the
developer or to the City.
5) Sinking a few earth bore holes does nothing to verify a fault
area. Trenches have to be dug at right angles to any suspected
fault.
6) Blaming underground water seepage on the use of lawn
sprinklers by persons living above on the slope is a farce.
There has been, since Frank Nelson's time, a spring on that
property. No sprinklers were used at that time. Neighbors down
slope have to use sump pumps.
7) The wild life will be totally disrupted. Even dead trees on
the property serve as food and nesting sources for birds.
8) That hillside is'unstable, and development will lead to
erosion and potential slides.
This decision, if approved, will be hasty, ill- advised, and
motivated only by greed. The needs of the community for .open
space, a quiet park, and historic preservation, all of which were
touted by the Council as.their vision for Saratoga, will. be
totally ignored. If carried through, this may well come back to
haunt you for some time to come.
I- f . `''� �d�•
F.L. Stutzm 15195 Park Drive Saratoga
9
Z,3-.94
Septembey13, 1995
City Council Members
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: GPA -94 -003, AZO -94 -002, & SD -94 -005
Nelson Garden Property subdivision
20851 Saratoga Hills Road
Dear City Council Members:
This letter is to address the appeal request on the Planning
Commission's decisions related to the environmental review of the
Trinity Development Company's application for a general plan
amendment (GPA -94 -003), zoning change (AZO -94 -002), and subdivision
approval (SD -94 -005) for the property at 20851 Saratoga Hills Road
( "Nelson Garden Property) . In addition, this letter also addresses
the issue of the City of Saratoga's early termination of the
Williamson Act contract for the Nelson Garden property.
The project applicant, Trinity Development, seeks to subdivide
two hillside parcels totaling 5.1 acres into nine single- family
residential building sites. This can only be accomplished by
obtaining an early termination of the Williamson Act contract on
the property.
Based on a review of the project, the procedural events, and
the continuing lack of environmental documentation, it is our
conclusion that approval of the project and adoption of the. current
mitigated negative declaration continues to violate the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . As stated in a previous detailed
letter by our attorney, Ms. Tamara S. Galanter, "CEQA dictates that
the City of Saratoga may not adopt a mitigated negative declaration
for this.... project with out ensuring that all potentially
significant environmental effects are mitigated to a level of
insignificance." The City has failed to do that.
In addition to the previously listed violations of CEQA, Ms.
Galanter specifically pointed out that the City has violated CEQA's
procedural requirements. "CEQA mandates that a lead agency send
notice of its intent to adopt a negative declaration, together with
a copy of a proposed negative declaration, 'to, every... Trustee
Agency concerned with the project and every other public agency
with jurisdiction by law over resources affected by a project ',,.
The City has failed to.do that.
Compounding the above two errors, there is an even more
profound flaw in the City's procedure. All of the City Planning
Commission's decisions discussed above have been based on the
assumption of an established approval of an early cancellation of
the Williamson Act contract. However, the City's action, early
cancellation of the Williamson Act contract on the Nelson Garden
Nelson Garden
Page 2
property, is in litigation and unsettled. Consequently,
continuation of decisions by both the Planning Commission and the
City Council is illegal. Continuing to make decisions on a
subdivision of land that is not clearly out of the Williamson Act
is illegal.
We are insisting that the City Council table any further
development decisions until the legality of the.previous Williamson
Act early cancellation decision can be evaluated and definitively
established in court.
For the above, reasons, we request that the City of Saratoga
defer action on these appeals concerning a subdivision application
and request for a General Plan amendment and zoning change for the
Nelson Garden project. The legality of the early cancellation of
the Williamson Act has not been established, so subsequent
subdivision decisions are not legal. In addition, setting aside the
legality issue, the Planning Commission's decisions have not
complied with the CEQA rules.
Sincerelly,� f�
Ann Waltonsmith
The Friends of The Nelson.Garden
CC: Tamara S. Galanter
Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger
Augusv, 1995
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: GPA- 94003, AZO- 94-002 & SD -94005
Nelson Garden Subdivision
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
My husband and I live close by the Nelson Garden. We believe that it should not be
developed for a housing project In addition, the present development plans are
woefully inadequate in evaluating the environmental impact of the project. We believe
that the Mitigated Negative Declaration currently written for the project has been
superficially done. It has not dealt with the significant numerous issues. We insist on a
formal Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the Nelson Garden.
The legal document from Ms. Tamara Galanter, Attorney for the firm of Shute;. Mihaly &
Weinberger, lays out the issues in great detail. Our letter adds some personal-
experiences and specific information to augment those listed Issues.
1. There are chronic hydrological problems in the immediate neighborhood that we
believe will be compounded by the present planned development We live- uphi8 from
the Nelson Garden in the water catchment area for the Nelson Garden. We have an
old artesian well on our property which continues to fill and run over each spring and
summer. This indicates continued underground water seepage which ultimately ends
down hill on or near the Nelson Garden. A second indicator of underground water is
the hillside drainage on the Nelson Garden property itself. A third indicator is the
continued drainage problems of the immediate neighbors to the Nelson Garden.
Recently, Mr. and Mrs. Dan Lewis on Malcom Avenue have had to sink 12 -18 foot
piers and dig a series of drainage channels on their property to keep their house's
foundation from moving and cracking due to severe water seepage. They have spent
over $50,000 to protect their property from further hillside drainage damage. They
also reported that other neighbors have drainage problems, too. Those neighbors
have had to do various stop gap measures to protect their homes. On Trinity Ave, two
other Nelson Garden neighbors are deciding on how extensive their drainage projects
have to be. Since they were unavailable for my calls, I did not get permission to use
their names in this letter. Carol Adams and Jean Williams on Trinity Avenue have had
chronic drainage problems. They reported their sump pump pumps water out from
under their home all year long. They also reported that additional neighbors on Trinity
Avenue, Trinity Court, and Saratoga Hills Road have had chronic drainage problems.
We know that you have not interviewed neighbors about their chronic drainage
problems. You did only a cursory study of the Nelson Garden drainage issues. The
development plan to move substantial amounts of earth for home sites and to allow
large amounts of impervious surfaces without a EIR study is a major error and we
believe that leaves the City liable for future neighborhood drainage problems. You are
not only inadequately planning for the Nelson Garden home owners' future problems
but also potentially increasing the already chronic drainage problems of the immediate
neighbors.
2. The project will impact native wildlife. You have not done an indepth study of the
development's impact on wild animal populations. There is a herd of deer that now
depend on the Nelson Garden grasses. Where will they go? Out to the immediate
neighbors' yards and hillsides? Are you planning to capture them and relocate them?
Or are the neighboring lands simply to absorb them?
This summer, I have personally observed a family of grey foxes on the Nelson Garden
premises. I had to slow my car as parent and baby foxes came out of the Garden,
under the fence, across the road, and into the Gager's ravine. The grey fox is native to
California and is handled with special care by the Santa Clara County Wild Animal
Control Department. A Mr. Simpson from that department says many native animals
are captured and killed when living too close to humans, but grey foxes are captured
and released up in the higher open space land. We do not think you have adequately
studied which native animals live on the property, how many there are, how you plan
to relocate them, and the impact of development on the neighbors' lands.
3. This project impacts the tree population. We are particularly concemed.about the
Oak trees on the property. Again and again, we have seen Saratoga construction take
place around Oak trees that are supposedly to be saved. Yet the perimeter protection
fences are too narrow which allows both impaction of the earth and/or the digging up
of the earth under the tree's drip line. Ultimately, the Oak tree is damaged and
sometimes dies. Of particular concern to us is Oak tree #18, 35 inches in dameter. It
is unclear how that is going to be protected. This Oak tree is a landmark for the local
area and entrance to the private Saratoga Hills Road.
4. We believe that the entire Nelson Garden property should be evaluated as a whole
and not done in "phases ". It is not appropriate to split off the hillside lots to be
evaluated at a later date. Of particular concern is that lot #7 (on flat land) and lot #8
(on the hillside) join together at a crucial area of a steep ravine, on a private road
(Saratoga Hills Road), and where two large Oak trees grow. Lot #8 indicates a house
and driveway that will enter Saratoga Hills Road at or near a narrow and steep point at
the "Y" of Saratoga Hills Road. It will make a dangerous junction there. Drivers
coming down the north fork of Saratoga Hills Road are looking to the right as they look
for cars coming down the south fork of Saratoga Hills Road. There have already been
accidents at that "Y ". If drivers also now must look to the left (around a tree that is 3 feet
in diameter) for cars coming down a driveway, that is a recipe for accidents. The
house and driveway should not be there. Lots #7 and #8 should be merged. Our
point is that lots #7 and #8 should be evaluated together so that this dangerous
situation is not established.
These four specific points are to add to the formal argument presented by Ms.
Galanter, Attorney, to request that the Planning Commission defer action on this
subdivision plan and instead prepare an EIR to evaluate the serious issues.
Sincerely,
Ann and Richard Waltonsmith
21060 Saratoga Hills Road
W.B. ALEXANDER 0 20760 TRINITY AVENUE ■ SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070-5340 ■ (408) 867 -0670
March 0, 1995
Ms. Karen Tucker, Mayor
Ms. Gillian Moran, Councilmember
Ms. Ann Marie Burger, Councilmember
Mr. Paul Jacobs, Councilmember
Mr. Donald Wolfe, Councilmember.,
Re: Tentative Cancellation of Williamson Act
for the Nelson Gardens
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
I received notice last week of the public hearing on the proposed cancellation
of the Williamson Act contract on the Nelson Gardens property located at 20851
Saratoga Hills Road. Unfortunately I will be out of town the night of the meeting. I
requested a copy of the negative declaration on the proposed cancellation and was
informed that the declaration will not be available for inspection prior to Friday,
March 31, at 4:00 p.m. This will not allow adequate time to review and respond to
the council inasmuch as this letter has to be delivered to the City Cleric by Thursday,
March 30, in order for it to be included in the council's packet.
I strenuously object to this procedure and would like to draw your attention to
the California Administrative Code, Title 14, § 15073 (a) which reads:
(a) The lead agency shall provide a public review period for a
proposed negative declaration. The noticed public review period
shall be long enough to provide members of the public with
sufficient time to respond to the proposed finding before the
negative declaration is approved.
I also refer, you to Sections 15087 and 15200 -15204 addressing EIR and
negative declaration process.
I have definitely not been provided an adequate review period as outlined in
the above - mentioned sections. I ask that you delay this procedure until Saratogans
have been provided with sufficient time to review and respond to the negative
declaration. Your notice suggests that I may be unable to challenge any issue that I
do not raise either at the hearing or in written correspondence. Without knowledge
of what the negative declaration contains, I am unable to raise issues which may be of
prime importance later.
W.B. Alexander letter of March 30, 1995 to Saratoga City Council
May I point out that the idea of constructing ten homes on this property
which includes approximately two acres or more of steep hillsides which are unsafe for
construction certainly demands a full EIR report.
The next point I want to address is the cancellation of the Williamson Act
contract. The decision by the California Supreme Court in Sierra Club v. City of
Hayward, 28 Cal. 3d 840, 623 P.2d 180, 171 Cal. Rptr. 619 (1981) , declared that
"the legislature had intended nonrenewal to be the normal method of terminating
contracts, and cancellation to be an extraordinary method used only under unforeseen
circumstances or in an emergency." The California legislature in response to this
decision passed a statute in 1991 which would grant latitude in local land use
planning and offer a window open only once for easy exit from the Act by certain
landowners. That window has now expired. To allow the property owners to have
the tax advantages of the Williamson Act for all these years and to allow cancellation
now that development is more profitable is contrary to the purposes of the Act as
originally proposed by the legislature. The Act provides for nonrenewal. That is the
only fair and reasonable action the City should pursue. Allow the contract to run its
term.
There are many additional reasons why allowing Nelson Gardens to remain in
the Williamson Act is the better course at this time. I will enumerate a few of them
below, but I respectfully refuse to be limited to what is in this letter.
Many of the neighbors of the Nelson Gardens have strongly resisted
conversion of this property into large houses with 3 -car garages on small lots. One
often reads and hears that we want a city park instead. That is a misconception.
What we want there is a demonstration garden for the benefit of our school children
and for the general population of Saratoga. In other words, we want exactly what Mr.
Frank Nelson originally wanted.
Saratogans like to think of their community as having a rural atmosphere with .
minimal sidewalks, streetlights and other urban features. A working orchard fits
Saratogas character far better than large houses with 3 -car garages on small lots.
I cannot believe that any responsible geologist would permit building on the
upper two to three acres of this parcel.
Large houses with 3 -car garages on small lots are all we can expect from
housing development at this time, given the market price of the land. I have attached
my cost estimates to show that these houses would have to sell for far more than the
current selling prices of homes in this neighborhood. A 4,000 square foot house
would be offered at about $1,650,000; a 2,500 square foot house would be offered at
about $1,175,000. Admittedly, my assumptions may be incorrect, but until I see an
unbiased analysis, these are my numbers. (In fact, my "Case 1" analysis rests on the
assumption that you would override our zoning ordinances and grant the developer
..W.B. Alexander letter of March 30, 1995 to Saratoga City Council 2
variances to build such large houses on 12500 square foot and 14,000 square foot
lots.) I would welcome more accurate numbers.
It troubles me to think of the developer forced to abandon this project partially
completed. If that should happen we have lost a truly lovely piece of Saratoga's
heritage and suffered economic damage in the process. The negative impact on this
neighborhood and on our local government could be staggering.
I urge you to leave the Nelson Gardens property in the Williamson Act and
allow the contract to run its term.
Sincerely,
W.B. Alexander letter of March 30, 1995 to Saratoga City Council 3
NELSON.XLS
Page 1
A I B I C I D
E
1
NELSON GARDENS DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMATES
2
3
CASE NO. 1 - 6 4000 FT HOUSES ON 6 LOTS
4
Purchase price of land:
$2,000,000
5
Improvements: 1
$200,000
6
Payments required to City Council:
$640,000
7
TOTAL COST OF LAND:
$2,840,000
8
9
Acres purchased:
1
5.3
10
Acres disallowed by eolo ist:
2.3
11
Acres required for fire dept. access:
0
12
NET ACRES AVAILABLE FOR LOTS:
3
13
Number of lots:
6
14
Size of average lot:
1
0.50
15
COST OF AVERAGE LOT:
$473,333
16
17
Cost of houses/s ft:
$200
18
Square feet per house:
4000
19
BUILDING COST PER HOUSE:
$800,000
20
21
COST OF HOUSE AND LOT:
$1,273,333
22
SELLER'S MARKETING COST @ 4 %:
$50,933
23
SELLER'S GROSS PROFIT BEFORE TAXES 25 %:
$331,067
24
SELLING PRICE:
$1,655,333
25
26
CASE NO. 2 - 7 2500 FT HOUSES ON 7 LOTS
27
Purchase price of land:
$2,000,000
28
Improvements: 1
$200,000
29
Payments required to City Council:
$640,000
30
TOTAL COST OF LAND:
$2,840,000
31
32
Acres pur chased: 1
5.3
33
Acres disallowed by eolo ist:
2.3
34
Acres required for fire dept. access:
0
35
NET ACRES AVAILABLE FOR LOTS:
3
36
Number of lots:
7
37
Size of average lot:
0.43
38
COST OF AVERAGE LOT:
$405,714
39
40
Cost of houses/s ft:
$200
41
Square feet per house:
2500
42
BUILDING COST PER HOUSE:
$500,000
43
1 T
--
44
COST OF HOUSE AND LOT:
$905,714
45
SELLER'S MARKETING COST @ 4%:
$36,229
46
SELLER'S GROSS PROFIT BEFORE TAXES 25 %:
$235,486
47
SELLING PRICE:
$1,177,429
Page 1
FEB -02 -96 FRI 10:50
MICHAEL R. NAVE
STEVEN R. MEYERS
ELIZAOCTM H. SILVIR
MICHAEL S. RIBACK
KENNETH A. WILSON
CLIFFORD F. CAMPBELL
MICHAEL F. RODRIGUEZ
KATHLEEN FAUBION. AICP
WENDY A.a09ERT6
DAVID W. SKINNER
STEVEN T. MATTAS
RICK W. JARVIS
LARISSA M. SETO
WAVNE K. SNODGRASS
OF COUNSEL
ANDREA J. SALTZMAN
MEYERS,NAVE,RIBAOK &SILV. FAX N0. 510 351 4481 P.09/16
MEYF.RS, NAVE, RMACK, SILVER & WILSON
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
TO: City Council
City Manager
GATEWAY PLAZA
777 DAVIS STREET, SUITE 300
SAN LEANDRO, CALIFORNIA 94577
TELEPHONE: (510) 351 -4300
FACSIMILE: (610) 351 -4481
MEMORANDUM
FROM: Michael S. Ribacic, City Attorney and
RE: Tentative Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract.,
Nelson Gardens Property
DATE: February 2, 1996
OMA
2fl,
A� hTA ROSA OFFICE
666 CIFTM STREET. SUITC 290
SANTA ROSA. CA 9EdO1
TELEPHONE: (7071 645.8009
FACSIMILC: (707) 645.6617
Reply M!
San Leandro
The purpose of this memorandum is to briefly refresh the Council's recollection of
the issues (since this matter was initially considered in April of 1995) with respect to
statutory findings necessary to approve a Williamson Act contract cancellation once a
petition to cancel has been submitted.
BACKGROUND
The property consists of approximately 5.1 acres, including some 2 acres of apricot
orchard. The property has been subject to a Land Conservation Contract pursuant to the
Williamson Act (Gov. Code Sec. 51200, -a }.)'since 1971. The current owners of the
property now propose to cancel the contract. The owners propose to subdivide the
property into nine single family residential lots.
The Williamson Act was enacted in 1965 with the stated intent to preserve
agricultural land to maintain the state's agricultural economy, to discourage premature
and unnecessary conversion of agricultural land to urban uses, and to preserve the open
space values of agricultural lands. (Sec. 51220, See Attachment 1). The core of the Act is
providing tax incentives to owners who agree to keep their land in agriculture or other
All statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise
noted.
FEB -02 -96 FRI 10:50 MEYERS,NAVE,RIBACK &SILV. FAX N0. 510 351 4481 P.10 /16
TO: City Council, City Manager
FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney
RE: Tentative Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract,
Nelson Gardens Property
DATE: February 2, 1996
PAGE: 2
open space uses. The agreements are formalized in a Land Conservation Contract. The
term of the contract is ten years; the contract is automatically extended each year unless
terminated through a notice of non - renewal or through cancellation. The notice of non -
renewal eliminates the automatic annual extension, with the result that the contract runs
out its term over the following ten years. An owner may file for non - renewal at any time
and need not provide any justification for the action.
Land conservation contracts may be terminated by cancellation as well as by non.
renewal. Cancellation results in immediate termination of the contract. However, in
contrast to non - renewal, cancellation requires the public agency to justify the cancellation
through a series of statutorily required findings. The public agency's action to adopt
findings and approve a cancellation is an adjudicative act. (Sierra Club v it„�of
flayward (1981) 171 Cal. Rptr. 619, 623) . That is, if the approval were challenged, a
court would look to see if the required findings were made and were supported by
substantial evidence in light of the whole record.
In this case, the landowners requested non - renewal on September 16, 1991, 2but
have now petitioned for cancellation of the contract. The legal question before the
Council, then, is whether substantial evidence is present to support the _required
cancellation Endings.
If, after considering the information before it, the Council feels it can make the
required cancellation findings and can support them with factual evidence, the Council
may approve tentative cancellation of the contract. The presence of disagreement c►r
con _information doee not require denial of the cancellation request So long; da any
Z By letter dated March 30, 1995, the attorney representing the Friends of
Nelson Gardens Foundation asked whether the notice of non - renewal was filed with
the Director of Conservation and was recorded as required under the current
statute. The Act was amended effective January 1, 1990 to require the Director of
Conservation to prepare annual reports on non - renewal and cancellation activity.
At the same time, the statute was amended to require that notices of non - renewal be
filed with the Director, presumably to assist in preparing the annual report. The
notice of non - renewal for the subject property was not filed with the Director. The
statutory requirement for recordation was not adopted until 1992, and thus was not
required when the applicant's notice of non - renewal was filed with the City.
FEB -02 -96 FRI 10:51
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
PAGE:
MEYERS,NAVE,RIBACK &SILV. FAX NO 510 3514481 P.11 /16
City Council, City Manager
Michael S. Riback, City Attorney
Tentative Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract,
Nelson Gardens Property
February 2, 1996
3
approval is supported b, Subs tial evidence If, on the other hand, the Council does
not feel there is substantial evidence to make and support the required findings, the
Council should deny the request.
NATURE OF THE CANCELLATION FINDINGS
The procedures for contract cancellation are outlined beginning in Sec. 51280. The
landowner inust file a cancellation petition with the City. (Sec. 51.281). A cancellation fee
is determined by the County Assessor (Sec. 51283), environmental review is conducted,
and the petition is noticed for public hearing. (Sec. 51284). In order to approve a
cancellation request, the City must make either of two major findings, each of which also
involves subfindings. (Sec. 51282). This complicated array of findings is shown on
Attachment 2. As demonstrated in Attachment 2, the major findings supporting
cancellation are that the cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson
Act, or, that cancellation is in the public interest. In its December 14, 1994 petition, the
landowners request cancellation based on the public interest finding, which is outlined on
Attachment 2 and summarized below:
Cancellation of a contract shall be in the public interest only if the council makes
the following findings pursuant to Sec. 51282(c):
1. Other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of the
Williamson Act; and,
2. a. There is no proximate noncontracted land which is both available and
suitable for the proposed residential use; or,
b. Development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous
patterns of urban development than development of proximate
noncontracted land.
The Sierra Club case provides useful guidance on the kind of evidence that could
support these findings.3 For example, in dictum, the Court noted that just as the
3The Sierra Club case was decided in 1981 when both of the major findings
were necessary for cancellation. In response to the decision, the Legislature clarified
FEB -02 -96 FRI 10;51 MEYERS,NAVE,RIBACK &SILV. FAX N0. 510 351 4481 P.12/16
TO:
City Council, City Manager
FROM:
Michael S. Riback, City Attorney
RE:
"Tentative Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract,
Nelson Gardens Property,
DATE:
February 2, 1996
PAGE:
4
objectives of the Williamson Act implicate statewide interest in agricultural production
and economics, "public concerns" fur the purposes of the cancellation finding must be
broader than simply considering local interests. (Sierra Club 171 Cal. Rptr. At 627).
The Court also commented on the kinds of interests relevant to cancellation. The
Williamson Act interests are reflected in the statutory intent provisions of Sec. 51220.
(Attachment 1). They include maintaining the agricultural economy of the state,
maintaining food supplies, providing housing for agricultural workers, discouraging
premature and unnecessary urbanization that results in discontiguous development and
increased costs to provide services, and providing open space value in urban areas.
Examples of other countervailing interests include "housing, needed services,
environmental protection through developed uses, economic growth or employment... ...
(Sierra Club 171 C:al.Rptr. at 628).
As the Council considers this matter, information relevant to balancing "other
public concerns" against the Williamson Act objectives could include the nature, type and
duration of agricultural activities on the site and any changes in these features over the
past years. Other relevant information could include the size, shape, and topography of
the site for agriculture and alternate uses, and could include the relation of the site to the
amount and character of surrounding development and any changes in that relation over
time.
In addition to weighing "other public. concerns" against the Act, the public interest
cancellation also requires the City to assess development opportunities and patterns
"proximate" to the contracted property. To this end, the second public interest
cancellation finding requires the City to find - rther that no other suitable land nearby
could accommodate Lhe proposed use, ox, that development of the site would provide
more contiguous urban development patterns than development of proximate
noncontracted land. For these alternate findings, therefore, relevant information could
include specific information on vacant land in the area around the project site and
information on whether the site or the other vacant lands are served by public services and
its intentions with respect to cancellation by amending the Williamson Act to
require one or the other of the major findings, but not both. Thus, the case is
somewhat out of date, but it is nevertheless useful for its specific discussions of the
individual statutory findings.
FEB -02 -96 FR I 10:52
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
PAGE:
MEYERS, NAVE, R I BACK &S I LV. FAX N0. 510 351 4481 P. 13/16
City Council, City Manager
Michael S. Riback, City Attorney
Tentative Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract,
Nelson Gardens Property
February 2, 1996
5
improvements. The location of the site with respect to other development, as well as the
nature, intensity and extent of other development is also relevant to these findings.
In determining whether other land available for development is "proximate ", the
statute directs the City to consider land which is "sufficiently close [to the site] that it can
serve as a practical alternative for the proposed use." (Sec. 51282(c)). This statutory
definition was added as a result of the Sierra Club case; in attempting to interpret
"proximate" the Court counseled that it should be applied to "effectuate `the legislative
intent and spirit of the act...' (citations) ". (Sierra Club 171 Cal. Rptr. At 630). Thus, it
seems reasonable to interpret that to the extent that the site is in a developed area,
"proximate" may include a lesser area than if the site were in a remote area, because
development patterns will be more evident where there is more development.
As a practical matter, many cancellation requests are based on a landowner's
perception that agricultural use of the property is uneconomic. Both the statute and the
S.�exra Club case address this situation, and state that lack of economic productivity alone
is not sufficient to support cancellation. Sec. 51282(d) states as follows:
For Purposes of subdivision (a), the uneconomic character of an existing
agricultural use shall not by itself be sufficient reason for cancellation of the
contract. The uneconomic character of th existing Su� May be considered
only if there is no other reasonable or comparable agricultural use to which
t e and may be put. (emphasis added)
Lack of economic productivity is not among the required findings for cancellation.
In fact, the statute makes it clear that. it is not an issue at all unless a finding is made and
supported that no other reasonable agriculture use may be made of the property. Relevant
information on this issue could include the effects of urban development over the years on
the agricultural operations, and could include changes in agricultural costs. In applying
this provision of the statute, the Sierra Club court emphasized the need to identify
changed circumstances that now cause the existent operation to be uneconomic. (Sierra
Clh 171 Cal. Rptr. at 631 -32). In the current application, for example, the court would
assign little weight to the small size of the property, because the site was accepted into
agricultural preserve at that same size.
FEB -02 -96 FRI 10:52
TO:
FROM:
R.E:
DATE:
PAGE:
MEYERS,NAVE,RIBACK &SILV. FAX N0. 510 351 4481 P.14/16
City Council, City Manager
Michael S. Riback, City Attorney
Tentative Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract,
Nelson Gardens Property
February 2, 1996
6
It is clear from the nature of the required statutory findings that cancellation
decisions are highly dependent on Lhe particular facts of a given situation. A decision to
approve a cancellation may not, for example, rest on general statements that development
often interferes with agriculture. Instead, the findings must be evaluated and considered
as they apply to the particular contract before the Council.
Gtr
Michael S. Riback
City Attorney
MSIL•dsp
Attachments
mnrsw\273\memo\feb96\gardens .w61
FEB -02 -96 FRI 10:52
APR -27 -95 THU 17 :53
MEYERS,NAVE,RIBACK &SILV, FAX N0. 510 351 4481 P.15/16
§ 51220. 1Leswatioe
The L ftWature finds:
P. 08/09
(a) That the preservation of a maximum amount of the limited
supply of agricultural land is necessary to the conservatlon of the
state's economic resources, and is necessary not only to the mainte-
nance of the agricultural economy of the sure, but also for the amur-
ante of adequate, healthftu and nutritious food for future residents
of this state and nation_ '
(b) That the agricultural work force is vital to sustaining agrl-
caltural productivity; that thi, work force has the lowest average in-
come of any occupational group in this state, that there exists a need
to house this work force of crisLs proportions which requires includ-
ing among agricultural user the housing of agricultural laborers; and
that such use of agricultural land is in the public interest and in con-
formity with the state's Farmworker Housing Assistance Plan.
(c) That the discouragement of premature and unnecessary con-
version of agricultural land to urban uses is a matter of public inter-
act and will be of benefit to urban dwellers themselves in that it wM
discourage d9scontiguous urban development patterns which =wcm_
SariLy increase the costs of comn»u%fty &'-vices to community resi-
dents.
(d) That in a rapidly urbanizing oociety Q; icultural ]nods have
a dofinite public value as open space, alga the preservation in a2ricul•
VM-A' production of such laada, the use of which may be limited under
the provisions of this chapter, - cons Unes an important physic 3l. So-
Gal, esthetic and economic asset to existing or pending urban or rAot-
Molitan developments.
(e) That land within a scenic highway corridor or wildlife habi-
tat area as defined in this chapter has a value to thr state because of
ire eoanie beauty and it-- location adjacent to or within view of a state
scenic highway or because it is of great importance as habitat for
wildlife and Contributes to the preservation or enhancement thereof.
(f) For these reasons, this chapter is necessary for the promo-
tion of the general welfare and the protection of the public interest in
agricultural land.
(Added by Stats.1965. e. 1443, P. 3353, § 1. Amczde2 by Stats.i9s8, c.
1135, p. 2155, § 1; Sets -1969, c. 1473, V. 8024, g 4; Stats.1980, c. 1819, p.
4131, § 1. )
ATTACH
FEB -02 -96 FRI 10 :53 MEYERS,NAVE,RIBACK &SILV. FAX NO 510 351 4481
P. 16/16
APR -27 -95 THU 17 :54 P. 09/09
PM=03 7tZQ=M=S FOR
Ys ZAMON AC!• C
(Government Code section s12
To cancel a williamson Act contraCL, the city must find either:
"That cancellation is in the public interest,,
s=
"That cancellation is Consistent with the purposes of
[the Williamson Actp,
Tc find cancellation in the public
interest, the City must find
(5 51282(c)):
1• "That other public concerns
substantially outweigh the
objectives of [the Williamson
ACt] "
And either
2a. "That there is no proximate
noneontracted land which is
both available and suitable
fcr the use to which it is
proposed the contracted land
be put"
or
2h• "That development of the
contracted land would provide
more Contiguous patterns of
urban d®velopment than
development of proXi'Mate
moncontraczed land."
ATTACHUM
To find cancellation consistent with
the purposes of the Williamson Act,
the City must find (S 51282(b)):
1• "That cancellation is for land
on which a notice of nonreneWal
has been served pursuant to
section 51245"
M$
2• "That cancellation is not
likely to result in the removal
of adjacent lands from agricul-
tural use"
3• "That cancellation is for an
alternative use which is
consistent with the applicable
provisions of the r.ity or
county general plan"
g• "That cancellation will not
result in discontiguous
patterns of urban development"
and ait.�er
5a. "That there ie no proximate
nonuonzracted land which is
both available and suitable for
the use to which it ie proposed
the contracted land be put"
5b.
AX
"That development of the
contracted land would provide
more contiguous patterns of
urban development than
development of proximate
noncontracted land_,,
vu4
U�
February 7, 1996
City Council
City of Saratoga
Dear Counciimembers:
PHONE No. : 408 996 8261 Fed,, 07 1996 5: 49PM Pei
Y�
This letter Is to inform you that we have recently purchased the rear
portion of the progeny at 1 3650 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. owned by Mr. and
Mrs. Solseranc for development of six residential homes, It Is our
Intention to devolop these homes ourselves.
Mr. and Mrs, Bolaoranc have clearly stated their intention to
maintain ownership of the remaining portion of the property and reside In
their hors during their litotime,
Sincerely, S L- 40 06
Sincerely
FEB 07 96 1 35 NPgVIC.O, II•IC.
From . PHONE No. . 408 ':+9h 3261 F -E:b. U l g' +�P 1. 1.
RI PUS
February 7, 1996
City Council
City of Saratoga
1:777 f ruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mayor Jacobs and Council:
I airs the purchaser of the property known as the Spaich property
on Saratoga - Sunnyvale 11d., Saratoga.
We have filed a subdivision map with the City of Saratoga for the
purpose of creating. a residential subdivl�nion wylic.h. we intend to
develop ourselves. This property is not for sale.
Very truly yours,
0
Dagher Navid
FEB -06 -1996 09:13
P.O. Box 3665
Yukio City, CA 95992
February 5, 1.996
P I NN BROS CONSTRUCTION 25226--32
Phone (916) 671 -25
..��. Fox (916) 671 -01;
Cheyenn"6-R-ealty, Inc.
Orchards, FOTMS I Ranches
Subdivisions
Mr. Alan Finn
PINK' BROTHM CGMP.ANTLS
1475 Saratoga Avanue, ,9250
San Jose, CA 95129
VIA FAX: (408) 252 -2632
RI: APN's 397. 240 -73 and 74
Dear Mr. Pine:
Thank you for meeting with me and Gav Spaich regarding the sale of the above
referenced Saratoga family estate.
However, due to the recent death of CYV's ;father and the setrlemenr of the estate
matters between family members we are not able to sell the property at this time,
Should our plans change iti the ,future, w4 will endeavor to let you know,
Sincerely,
Geneal Cbima
President /Broker
Guilf
FEB -06 -1996 09:13 PINN HROS CONSTRUCTION
2522632 P.04/04
4 h—
Blossom Valley Investors, Inc.
1475 Saratoga Avenue, #250
San Jose California 95129
TIEL.(409)252.9131 / FAX.(408)252 -2632
February 6, 1996
Re: APN 397 -16-6 Douglass Lane
10.79 acres
To Whom it May Concern:
We recorded a Tract Map creating 8 one plus acre lots on the above referenced
property and .intend to construct new homes thereon beginning in April of 1996.
Cerel ,
David R. Pinn,
Vice President
D RP /ras
„tea
From :
PHONE No. : 409 996 8261 Feb.07 1996 4:34PM P02
.,Malt
Sk
1 A W V L R i
September 16, 1991
Mr. Harry Peacock
City Manager and City clerk
Ir .$y of sarataga
3.3777 rrUitVale Avenue
Saratoga, cep 95070
Re; Willia=Ori AOt
Door Mr. Peacock:
e
Kodak Cena
1;40 Ufio is N4
SKI& 25
San Jusc, CA 4i! H
40$441-780
F,0408441.130.
M man E. unficc.
Man RoWiv CAL
KIrAo41 rt.4f Nerd
rangy M i.*4
17eb�a L, Caubk
Contract for NeJV69n Garderlt5
The Florence Nelson Foundation awns approximately 5.1.
acres of property located at 20851 Saratoga Hills Road in the
City of Sar®toga, known as the "Nelson Gardens." This property,
APIA Nos. 503 -49 -41 and 503-- 49 -42, is subject to a land
conservation contraoL undor the Williamson Act (California %and
COneervati.on Act. of 1465, as amended) .
On behalf of the Foundation, Y an herewith submitting
a Notice of Non- Renewal of the contract applicable to Nelson
Gardens. It is our belief that Notice of Non - renewal was
previously given to the City by the Foundation in 1987; however,
your May 2, 1991 latter to me indicates that the City is of t):e
view that no Notice of Nou- Renewal Was served. Accordingly,
while we continue to review Foundation records with respect to
POSSible earlier Notice, and without prejudice to our
establishing that such Notice was given, we are submit;tilIg the
enclosed )Notice within the time specified in Government Code
5.51245.
MC '. sd
Enal.
CC; Yuen T. Gin, Eaq.
ve my yo{
if /
D L
I f cw.. 6A
Ly_ i41+ ,g- f-4
fledliwE.. WVTlei
FEB-05 -1996 15:05
PINN BROS CONSTRUCTION
`45 16: 90 4t1 00643 fitb HCi l i ster
2522632 P.09/12
....... ... ............................ .
>4519261 P0. 02/05•
United States Mawral 2937 Technology Parkway, Suite C
Department of Resources Hollister, CA 55023
Agriculture conservation (408) 634.6029 i FAX (448) 836 -76+43
SarvICA
Novembor If, 1995
Ms. joy Navarrete
NSichaei Brandon AssoaWcs
1754 Technology Drive, #232
San Jose, CA 95110
Dear Ivry. Navarrete,
I bave reviewed in the office aerial. pbotographs and soil map of the pxvject site shown on the
maps you FAXed fine.
The project site would not generally be cOnsidered suitable for productive agriculftm- Factors
that limit its suitability for productive agriculture M:
1. matey typical agYcul= t operations are not compatNe witb =LrbY high density
residential areas.
2. 'She small parcel size will require production of a very high val= commodity.
3. The 15 to 34 pereemtt slopes over most of the property will regai= mare CITcMtve
conservation practices and encrease the cost of production.
4. The A7ule silty clay loam sail, Capability Class IVel , occupying most of
the parcel are not generally suit for cultivated agricuiture.
5. The Coss of irrigation- water will be a consideration for the parcel's
suitability for agriculture.
Sincerelly yours,
,6 e : ah
Bruce E. Elsenrrman
District Conservationist
"e�c�.
Tho l`1ahl,al Resources CanseMbQn S*MCea
f*finefty the Soil Cnnsarvexion Service,
is 3n spanev of the T ii
tr"had sows Oevartmenr of AocuRuee AN SCUAL Bppop umrry fiM AI.OYE :• • :_.�`} ,
FE1�05 -1996 15:07 PINN BROS CONSTRUCTION 2522632 P.12r12
I
November 17, 1995
Ms, Jay Navarrete
N ichael Brandman Associates
1754 Technology Drive, #232
San Jose, CA 95110
Dear Ms. Navarrete
After reviewing the information provided, the letter dated November 16 by the United Staters
Department of Agriau turc and the project summary provided by Michael Brandman Associates, it
appears that the utilization of the property for homes is an economic use. This is not the case for
the present agricultural zoning.
The USDA letter clearly demonstrates that this land is unsuitable for agricultural production. There
are numerous reasons for this: the small size of the property, the incompatibility of agricultural
activity with high density residential areas, the extreme slope of the property, and the soil type•
The present agricultural zoning of this property, as identified in the City's specific objectives for the
project site; does not seem to best serve the City of Sar'W9L These objectives, as identified in the
second page of the project summary provided by Michael Brandman Associate, include: the
utilization of the site so that it is no longer vacant, seeing the introduction of a new use that is
compatible with the surrounding em ►irons, to see an in in City revenues and to meet the
housing needs of the area's residents while preserving the environmental quality. Compared to its
present use a housing project on this site is more likely to meet these objectives.
Sincerely,
R n rigstrom
Assoeicate Economic Geographer, Gruen Gruen + Assoaates
Zrt 6A
Gruen Gruen + Associates �xk IP l j'
564 Howard Street
San Francisco, GA 94105 -3002
Tel: (415) 433 =7599 l
c'. FAX, (415 989 -4224
TOTAL P.12
February 5, 1996
MichaeM M Clair
21100 Saratoga Miffs Road
Saratoga, California 95070
City Council MembersMayor of Saratoga and
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
F n rr--, Ij
n .� �.� � r� u I1 V
� 1_d ; 1996
CITY UP' ;'3AN•ATQGA
Cl TY MAN!s�C�l���'t�'_r�F'IC
RE: GP -94 -003 AZO -94 -002 & SD -94 -005 (APF 503 -49 -41 & 42)
Trinity Development Company; 20851 Saratoga Hills Road
Hearing Date 2/7/96
Ladies and Gentlemen:
(I will be out of the country at the time of the Public Hearing. I
therefore request that this letter be published and read out loud at
the public hearings instead of me addressing the Council and the
Commission in the open session.)
The
ongoing discussions and
upcoming public hearing regarding
the
fate
of Nelson Gardens is of
great concern to the residents of
Saratoga
Hills
Road. Since the Nelson
Gardens property shares frontage
at
the
base
of our private road, I have asked to be kept informed as
to
the
status of your public as well
as rp 'vate discussions regarding
the
fate
of this property.
Prior to the previous public hearings, in October of 1994, the City
Council had already made its decision regarding the fate of this
property. The Public Hearing was only a formality to placate the
citizens and satisfy the city ordinance that required that they be
held. The taxpayers were insulted. The "deal" had already been done
with the City Council before the Planning Commission, (the
government body which is supposed to be responsible for new
development approval), had any chance to review, or act on the
terms and conditions of the parcel development. This was an overt
violation of the democratic process and a depressing example of our
"elected government in action."
So now there is another Public Hearing presumably to review the
property definition of the Nelson Garden building site, another "deal'
that has already been done. As a citizens of Saratoga, I feel an
obligation to raise valid and honest objections in keeping with due
process even when there is already a "fix" in place - just like the last
time.
My concerns regarding this development are very specific: 1) the
number of parcels in the proposed subdivision is out of character
with the adjacent Saratoga Hills Road and nei hag contiguous
hillside development. All of the single family home sites in this area,
specifically defined by the Planning Commission, equal or exceed one
acre. 2) The proposed parcels and building footprint coverage is out
of character with the downhill homes on Pontiac. and Trinity
Avenues. That is, the lots are too small for the size of the proposed
buildings.
Everything
is wrong
about this development. What should be
happening?
Since the
Nelson Garden property is part of
the
hillside
acreage, 1)
the lots should be an acre minimum, like all
of
the others,
and according
to the
ordinances that every other citizen
in
Saratoga
is forced to
live by, and 2) the buildings should conform
to
the
density and
building
footprint coverage of the homes in
the
existing
Saratoga Hills and Upper
Hills Road just like the ordinances
dictate.
Every citizen and property owner in Saratoga has a right to due
process under the law. If the City Council and Planning Commission
intend to accept payment for variances to the city ordinances, I
request a legal opinion letter that shows that the City Council has not
violated the law or any ordinances in accepting this money.
Sincerely,
Mike Clair
Saratoga, Calif.
February 7, 1996
r
Letter to the Saratoga City Council
Rer Nelson Gardens vs. Nine Proposed Homes (Trinity Development
The property designated as the Nelson Gardens in Saratoga
touches Saratoga Hills Road, Pontiac, Trinity, Malcolm, and Upper
Hill Drive. The Nelson Gardens consists of 5.1 acres. Two of the
designated lots are hi"l"lside lots that would be accessed from
Saratoga Hills Road and would tower over the seven homes in the
flat area below. it is hard to imagine nine homes on this 5.1
acres of land. No one seems to know whether the homes will be
modern -day large, one - story, or two - story. Why not:
Is Trinity Development aware that there are reputedly under -
ground springs going from the top hillside area down to the lower
level: Are they aware that one open spring that comes to about
the center of the lower level was covered over several years ago'!
Is Trinity Development aware that a swimming pool up on the property
next to the two hillside sites came half -way down the Saratoga
Hills Road side several years agoY Is the present City of Saratoga
Council aware of these thingsY If not, it is quite possible that
the City of Saratoga would be sued by the unhappy residents who
would live on the old Nelson.Gardens property and also by residents
of -the adjoining streets when there is flooding, earthquake damage,
earth - Mvenent,; and: mwd -.slides. The present city council will be
long gone,but the city would have to pay damages. Does the present
city council really believe that the T>6uu,000 they will get for the
city of Saratoga,-.by.-app.roving nine house lots, will cover the
damage suitsY These are serious considerations that should be
resolved before any Iapproval is granted for construction.
In Trinity Development's initial study for determing significant
envirommnetal impact,. (on file for anyone to read or have copied at
the'City Hall), the Trinity Development answ6red the following
questions:
Nelson Gardens -2
1. Earth Will the proposal result in: Answer
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief
features'! Maybe
d. The.destruction, covering or modification of
any unique geologic or physical features?
Maybe
e.. Any increase in wind or water.4re6ion= .at:soii9'
,
either on or off the site': Maybe
f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a river or
stream or the bed of a lake's No
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud-
slides, ground failure or similar hazards'! No
3. Water Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or
direction of wat#.r„jpovements in fresh water?
4. Plant Life Will the proposal result in:
No
_.a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any
species of plants (including trees, shrubs,
grass crops, and aquatic plants'! maybe
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultureal crop? Maybe
5. 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'? No
d. Deterioration to existing wildlife or fish
habitat? maybe
oe `No'l-Se Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing -noise - levels'? Maybe
9. Natural Resources Will the proposal result in:
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff':
Maybe
~ Nelson Gardens -3
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood
waters,! Maybe
d. Change. l n- thii .amo' Ukt .o.f. -surface water or any
water in ahy water body! No
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow or
ground waters! 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?
No
i Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? No
16. Utilities Will the proposal result in a need for new systems,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities'!
e. Storm water drainage•! No
16. Aesthetics Will the proposal result in the obstruction of
any scenic vista or view open to the public, or aesthetically
offensive site open to.public view*?
No
21. Mandatory Findings of Significances
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- substaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant
or animalcommunity, 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!
N
• 1he maybe answers by Trinity Development are extremely
questionable, and both the Maybe_ and No answers are contradicted
in a Memorandum to the Sara o plannTing.Commission, Item #7, dated
Nelson Gardens -4
August 3. 1995• See Pages 000014 - 000027. The Planning Commissioners'
comments.are also quite interesting.
In the mandatory kindinas of Significance, the Trinity Develop-
ment No,Axnswer appears to be a contradiction of facts.
As a long -time resident of Saratoga (40 years), I am sad that
a lovely garden/orchard, wildlife habitat has been neglected for
years, has been released early from the Upen -Space Preservation
Act - The Williamson Act- and is about to be transformed into homes
of which sort no one knows anything about.
Mary Guth
xeid Lane
ma& tteoni
Na ancja
A W Y E R S
ADVANCE COPY VIA FAX
ORIGINAL HAND DELIVERED Kodak Center
1740 Technology Drive
Suite 250
San Jose, CA 95110
February 7, 1996 408441 -7800
FAX 408 441 -7302
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Nelson Garden; Cancellation of
Williamson Act Contract
Dear Mayor Jacobs and Members of the Council:
This office represents Trinity Development Company.
We have reviewed the February 1 letter written on behalf of
Friends of the Nelson Garden ( "FOG ") opposing cancellation of
the Williamson Act ( "Act ") contract, and feel compelled to
clarify certain misrepresentations made by the FOG in its zeal
to oppose the project.. In this letter, we will also provide
you with an analysis of how the facts present regarding Nelson
Gardens (the "Property ") permit all of the Act cancellation
findings to be made.
I. CLARIFYING THE MISPERCEPTIONS
A. You Do Not Need "Extraordinary Circumstances" to
Support Cancellation. FOG's belief that an Act contract can
only be cancelled under "most extraordinary circumstances"
reflects FOG's reliance on the outdated 1981 Sierra Club case.
In that case, the court interpreted the Williamson Act cancel-
lation provisions in a very narrow way that made cancellation
very difficult.
In response to the Sierra Club case, the State
Legislature immediately amended the Act to clarify that
cancellation of Williamson Act contracts was not as difficult
as the Sierra Club court believed. Consequently, there do not
need to be "extraordinary" circumstances in order to cancel an
Act contract. You must simply be able to make one of the two
sets of findings provided in the Act, as discussed below.
An Association Inclwling a Professional Corp.
Norman E. Matteoni
Allan Robert Saxe
Margaret Ecker Nanda
Peggy M. O'Laughlin
Judy C. Tsai
Bradley M. Matteoni
Barton G. Hechtman
City Council February 7, 1996
Page 2
B. There Is No Conflict of Interest. FOG also suggests
that all the City Councilmembers may have a conflict of
interest since there is a relationship between the number of
approved lots at the Property and the amount of money which
the City will receive. Conflict of interest laws (i.e., the
Political Reform Act - Government Code § §81000 et seq.) relate
to situations where a public official may have a personal
financial interest which might influence a decision that
official is required to make. In our view, there is no
personal interest involved. What FOG considers a conflict of
interest is simply the City Councilmembers acting in the best
interests of the City. To our understanding, that is exactly
what City Councilmembers are supposed to do, and has nothing
to do with conflict of interest laws.
C. Mr. Nelson's Intentions For the Property Are Not
Relevant Regarding the Cancellation Findings. FOG dishonors
Mr. Nelson's memory when it misrepresents his ultimate inten-
tions regarding the Property. This issue is more fully
discussed in a letter which you will be receiving from the
Community Foundation's attorney. However, the City Council
needs to recognize that Mr. Nelson's intentions play no role
in the determination of whether or not the cancellation
findings can be made.
II. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE EXISTS TO SUPPORT EACH OF THE
FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR CANCELLATION
You may approve the cancellation of a Williamson Act
contract if you can make either of the following findings:
- That the cancellation is consistent with the
purposes of the Williamson Act; OR
- That cancellation is in the public interest.
[Government Code §51282(a)]. Both of these findings can be
made regarding this project. Each of these findings is
discussed separately below.
City Council
February 7, 1996
Page 3
A. CANCELLATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES OF THE
WILLIAMSON ACT
There are five subfindings which must be made to
support this finding [ §51282(b)]. Each of these five sub -
findings can be made, as described below:
1. That the cancellation is for land on which a
notice of non - renewal has been served pursuant
to e451245.
It is my understanding that the City Clerk is in
possession of the September 16, 1991, notice of non - renewal.
FOG acknowledges in footnote 8 of its letter that this notice
was filed.
2. Cancellation is not likely to result in the
removal of adjacent lands from agricultural
use.
Here is an example of the type of activity that this
subfinding seeks to prohibit: if the owner of land subject to
the Act seeks cancellation to build a subdivision, the owner
of neighboring agricultural land might find it profitable to
put in a retail center to serve the new subdivision. No such
concerns exist here. As you will hear tonight from Ms.
Fanelli, the Foundation's consultant, there are no lands
adjacent to or even in the vicinity of the Property that are
being put to agricultural use. Nowhere in FOG's 12 -page
letter does it claim that this finding cannot be made.
3. Cancellation is for an alternative use which
is consistent with the applicable provisions
of the City's General Plan.
Should you approve both the General Plan amendment
and the contract cancellation, these actions will occur
simultaneously. The proposed housing use underlying the
cancellation will be consistent with the new General Plan
designation of residential -very low density and medium
density. Remember that these are the same General Plan
City Council February 7, 1996
Page 4
designations that applied to the Property until Mr. Nelson
entered into the Act contract in 1971.
4_. Cancellation will not result in discontiguous
patterns of urban development.
As the Property is completely surrounded by single
family homes, this finding can certainly be made. Note that
FOG does not claim any differently.
5. There is no proximate, non - contracted land
which is both available and suitable for the
use to which it is proposed the contracted
land be put, OR that development of the
contracted land would provide more contiguous
patterns of urban development than development
of proximate, non - contracted land.
No one disputes that there are other vacant parcels
in Saratoga. However, FOG's analysis of this finding avoids
any discussion of whether any of the seven parcels it has
identified are "available" for development of a nine -unit
housing project. In fact, none of those seven parcels are
"available" for Act purposes.
You, as members of the City Council, undoubtedly
know best that Kevin Moran Park is not an "available" site for
the construction of a nine home subdivision. Such a use of
public parkland would certainly be inconsistent with many
aspects of your General Plan and possibly run afoul of state
law.
Ms. Fanelli will be addressing you with specific
information regarding the unavailability of each of the other
six parcels identified by FOG. Since there are no available
parcels, the first branch of this finding can be made.
Consequently, it is unnecessary to address the alternate
branch of this finding (though it should be noted that FOG
does not claim that the "more contiguous" finding cannot be
made).
City Council
February 7, 1996
Page 5
Since each of the five subfindings can be made, the
City Council can find that cancellation is consistent with
purposes of the Williamson Act. Alternatively, the Council
can make the second finding, as discussed below.
B. CANCELLATION IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
While it is only necessary to make one of the two
findings to support cancellation, in this case both findings
can be made. There are two subfindings required to make this
second finding [ §51282(c)). Those subfindings can both be
made as described below:
1. Other public concerns substantially outweigh
the objectives of the Williamson Act.
(a) The Property does not meet the Act's
objective.
As FOG agrees, the objectives of the Williamson Act
are avoidance of (1) loss of agricultural land to developed
uses, and (2) disorderly patterns of suburban development
which require extension of municipal services to remote
locations and which interfere with agricultural activities.
The Property does not fit within these objectives.
Cancellation of the Act contract on the Property
will not result in a loss of agricultural land. The apricot
orchard which once existed on the Property has been abandoned
for a quarter century. No other agricultural use has been
made of the Property during that time. The Santa Clara County
Agricultural Commissioner has stated that the Property's soil
characteristics make the Property generally unsuitable for
productive, cultivated agriculture. Bruce Eisenman of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture agrees with that assessment,
stating in his November 16, 1995, letter that "the project
site would not generally be considered suitable for productive
agriculture." The November 17, 1995, letter of Kevin Engstrom
of Gruen, Gruen & Associates, also confirms that analysis.
City Council
February 7, 1996
Page 6
Even FOG agrees. At the end of its letter, FOG asks
you to weigh the housing needs of the community against its
need for open space. In essence, not even FOG views the
Property as agricultural in nature.
Similarly, cancellation of the contract will not
result in disorderly patterns of suburban development. Quite
the contrary, from a planning perspective this would be
considered an "infill" project, as the Property is entirely
surrounded by single family dwellings. Hence, no extension of
municipal services "to remote residential enclaves" is
involved, nor will the cancellation interfere with any
agricultural activities. Thus, the objectives of the
Williamson Act are not being met by keeping the Property under
contract.
(b) The proposed use addresses other
significant public concerns.
The proposed use of the Property for housing will
address significant public concerns and provide benefits to
the community. When viewed together, these public concerns
substantially outweigh the objectives of the Williamson Act.
First, the proposed project will help in satisfying
Saratoga's State law mandated requirement to provide its fair
share of regional housing. Saratoga is not currently meeting
its regional requirements in the income bracket applicable to
the houses to be developed through this project. Second,
constructing housing on the property will be consistent with
the City's General Plan goals for Planning Area B as described
in more detail in the EIR.
Third, the funds the City will derive from this
project will be directed to acquisition and/ or development of
open space, another significant concern and policy objective
of the City. Indeed, this should be contrasted with the
City's agricultural use policy, which is intended to protect
agriculturally productive lands, a characteristic which the
Property does not have.
City Council
February 7, 1996
Page 7
This analysis is also consistent with §51222, which
provides that it is in the public interest to retain agri-
cultural lands only when the parcels are at least ten acres
for prime farm land or 40 acres if the land is not prime.
Retention of this non -prime five acres is consequently not in
the public interest.
Fourth, farming use of the Property could result in
more pesticides and other pollutants being introduced into the
Saratoga environment. The City is already litigating such
issues regarding its creeks. Fifth, the funds received by
both the City and the Community Foundation will be used to
benefit the broader Saratoga community rather than those few
residents who seek to use the Property as a garden.
In sum, the housing use, combined with the compati-
bility of housing with the surrounding land uses and adherence
to the goals of the General Plan outweigh the objectives of
the Williamson Act in this case, especially in light of the
fact that the Property does not meet either of the Williamson
Act objectives. Consequently, this subfinding can be made.
2. There is no proximate non - contracted land
which is both available and suitable for the
use to which it is proposed the contracted use
be put, OR that development of the contracted
land would provide more contiguous patterns of
urban development than development of
proximate non - contracted land.
This subfinding is the same as Subfinding 5 of the
previous section. As discussed in that section, this
subfinding can be made.
Hence, each of the required subfindings can be made
for a finding that cancellation of the Williamson Act contract
regarding the Property is in the public interest. Therefore,
the City Council is able to make either of the findings
required in order to cancel the Act contract on the Property.
City Council
February 7, 1996
Page 8
We look forward to your deliberation of these
important issues at tonight's hearing and to your ultimate
conclusion that the necessary findings for cancellation of the
Act contract can be made. I will be present at the hearing to
answer any questions you may have.
Very ruly ours,
BARTON G. HECHTMAN
BGH:md
cc: David Mitchell (by FAX)
Virginia Fanelli (by FAX)
Robin Kennedy (by FAX)
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2-6--73 AGENDA ITEM:
MEETING DATE: February 7, 1996 I�
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Comm nity Development "-
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
SUBJECT:
GPA 95 -001 & AZO 95 -002; Miller, 15001 Bohlman Rd.
Request to realign existing General Plan and Zoning District
boundaries between two existing hillside parcels of record located
off Bohlman Road. A Lot Line Adjustment between the two parcels
has been approved by the Planning Commission contingent on City
Council approval of this request. The realigned boundaries do not
affect permitted residential uses or densities; approving the
request would provide General Plan and Zoning District land use
maps consistent with the reconfigured parcel boundaries.
An environmental Negative Declaration has been prepared for this
project pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the Negative Declaration and approve the General Plan and
Zoning District boundary amendments.
Report Summary:
The application requests heard by the Planning Commission at the
October 25, 1995 meeting included Lot Line Adjustment to
reconfigure existing parcel boundaries per the attached map marked
Exhibit "A ", General Plan and Zoning District map amendments to
match the reconfigured parcel boundaries and Tentative Building
Site approval for the two lots. Building Site approval does not
confer permits to build, but it does allow a property owner to
determine what type of conditions would apply to future development
proposals. The attached Resolution SD 95 -006 adopted by the
Planning Commission lists these conditions for reference.
The attached October 25th staff report cover map indicates the
existing General Plan and Zoning District configuration. Exhibit
"A" represents the applicant's proposed realignment.
1
L�
The Planning Commission approved the Lot Line Adjustment and
Tentative Building Site requests and recommended approval of the
Negative Declaration and General Plan and Zoning District amendment
requests to the City Council. At the public hearing, neighbors
raised concerns regarding:
• Private Mutual Water Supply
• Substandard Private Access Road
• Tree Protection
• Validity of Two Parcels
Staff had met with the neighbors in advance of the Planning
Commission meeting and attempted to draft conditions of approval
which responded to their concerns. Staff and the Commission felt
this was achieved and approved the Lot Line Adjustment and Building
Site requests contingent on City Council approval of the map
amendments. Please refer to the attached staff report dated
October 25, 1995, with neighbor correspondence, for discussion on
these issues. No appeal has been filed on the Lot Line Adjustment
or Tentative Building Site approvals.
Mr. Miller's Parcel 1 is also subject to a General Plan map
correction to redesignate the land from Open Space- Outdoor
Recreational, a public park designation, to Residential -Very Low
Density. This request was heard separately as GPA 95 -002.
Environmental Determination:
The proposed boundary amendment would not affect permitted
residential uses or densities and would not result in an adverse
impact on the environment. Staff is therefor recommending adoption
of an environmental Negative Declaration.
Fiscal Impacts:
None.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
A project notice was mailed to property owners within a 500 ft.
radius of the subject parcels and published in the Saratoga News.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
General Plan and Zoning District boundaries would not be modified,
thereby voiding the Planning Commission's approval of the Lot Line
Adjustment and Tentative Building Site requests. The applicant
would still have two legal building sites, though more irregular in
configuration and more difficult to build on.
2
Follow Up Actions:
GPA Resolution and AZO Ordinance will be prepared by staff
reflecting the Council's action and scheduled for a second reading
and adoption at the next regular meeting.
Attachments:
-1. Resolution GPA 95 -001 & Ordinance AZO 95 -002
— 2. Environmental Negative Declaration
3. Recent Neighbor Correspondence
—4. Staff Report dated October 25, 1995 (with attachments)
—5. Planning Commission minutes dated October 25, 1995
6. Plans, Exhibit "A"
james \exesumm \miller2
3
Resolution GPA 95 -001,
Ordinance AZO 95 -002
and Negative Declaration
RESOLUTION NO. GPA -95 -001
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
GENERAL PLAN BOUNDARY AMENDMENT
Miller; 15001 Bohlman Rd.
WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment
in order to realign the current boundary consistent with the
realigned property line for that portion of Assessor Parcel Numbers
517 -36 -008 & 517 -13 -012 per Exhibit "A"; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
proposed amendment on October 25, 1995;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Commission of the
City of Saratoga recommends approval of the General Plan Amendment
to reclassify Assessor Parcel Numbers 517 -36 -008 & 517 -13 -012 per
Exhibit "A ", by making the following findings:
• The Planning Commission has determined that the proposed
General Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals, policies
and objectives of the City's General Plan and Area I Plan
Guidelines; and
• The Planning Commission has determined that the proposed
General Plan Amendment is consistent with the existing land
use designations and development patterns in the vicinity.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis-
sion, this 25th day of October, 1995 by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami & Patrick
NOES: None
ABSENT: Caldwell & Siegfried,
Ch
AT'
Se,
rman, lanning Commission.
TEST:
=retary to the P anning Commission
ORDINANCE NO. AZO -95 -002
ORDINANCE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
AMENDMENT TO ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY
Miller; 15001 Bohlman Rd.
WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting an amendment to the
Zoning District in order to realign the boundary consistent with
the realigned property line for that portion of Assessor Parcel
Numbers 517 -36 -008 & 517 -13 -012 per Exhibit "A"; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
proposed amendment on October 25, 1995;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Commission of the
City of Saratoga recommends approval of the amendment to the Zoning
District boundary per Exhibit "A ", by making the following
findings:
• The Planning Commission has determined that the proposed
Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is consistent with the
goals, policies and objectives of the City's General Plan and
Area I Plan Guidelines; and
• The Planning Commission has determined that the proposed
Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is consistent with the
existing zoning districts and development in the vicinity.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis-
sion, this 25th day of October, 1995 by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami & Patrick
NOES: None '
ABSENT: Caldwell & Siegf .
Cha r n, PXanning Commission
ATTEST:
Secretafy to the P1 nning Commission
DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED
(Negative Declaration)
Environmental Quality Act of 1970
The undersigned, Director of Community Development of the CITY OF SARATOGA,
a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation, has determined, and does
hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental
Quality Act of 1970,. Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the
California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653- of the City of Saratoga,
and based on the City's independent judgment, that the following described
project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on
the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Request for Lot Line Adjustment approval to relocate an existing parcel
boundary between two existing hillside parcels of record located off Bohlman
Rd. The application includes a request to realign existing General Plan
designation and Zoning District boundaries to match the realigned parcel
boundaries. The boundary between the Residential -Very Low Density and the
Residential - Hillside Conservation General Plan designations, and the
corresponding R -1- 40,000 and Hillside Residential Zoning District
designations, follow the existing lot line. The applicant is proposing to
realign this boundary to match the reconfigured parcels per Exhibit "A ".
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
Silas Miller
20450 Thelma Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION
It is staff's determination that the proposed realignment of the existing
General Plan and Zoning District boundary will have no environmental impact.
The realigned boundary does not increase any development potential for either
parcel.
Executed at Saratoga, California this day of 1995.
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
• I.Ti� i ,fir` -t s
Recent Neighbor Correspondence
- Judi & Jim Craik
20959 Hidden View Lane, Saratoga , CA 95070 -6344
Phone 408 - 867 -4244 Fax 408 - 867 -0431
November 30, 1995
Saratoga City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga CA 95070
Re: Notice of Hearing - Miller: 15001 Bohlman Road
Gentlemen:
We would like to request a continuance to December 20, 1995 on the above referenced
matter currently scheduled for December 6, 1995. We were advised that it was unlikely this
would come before the Council on December 6th. My husband and I would like the
opportunity to consult an attorney regarding some of the issues brought before the Planning
Commission hearing on October 25, 1995.
We received the Notice of Hearing on November 27th, and on November 28th, my husband
and I contracted a MAJOR outbreak of poison oak, therefore we are unable to meet with
the attorney prior to the scheduled hearing next week.
We do need to point out a discrepancy in a statement made by Mr. Kirkeby at the Planning
Commission Hearing, i.e., the Bohlman Water Association has a 120,000 gallon holding
tank NOT 160,000. We would also like to address discrepancies in the parcel numbers and
several other errors and omissions in the file of Miller.
We strongly oppose the proposed change to the General Plan, and contrary to the statement
in the Notice of Hearing: "THE REALIGNED BOUNDARIES DO NOT AFFECT (sic)
PERMITTED RESIDENTIAL USES OR DENSITIES ". The proposed change to the
General Plan DOES effect residential uses AND densities. Currently, there is only one
house on this property. Part of the house and a garage are located on one APN, the other
part of the house is on another APN. We have reason to believe the "lot lines" are merely
"Tax Rate Area Lines" not two separate parcels. The paperwork does not reflect the proper
APN's, so we question how thorough the research was by the engineer used by the City.
Changing the boundaries of this property would increase the density of the hillside, if the
Council approves the change to the General Plan.
As the property appears today, following the City code, i.e., 15- 12.060, only one house
would be permitted for this property due to the average acres per dwelling unit. The
proposed change would allow consideration of two residences.
Page 2 of 2
November 30, 1995
Saratoga City Council
City Code #14 -50 -.040 states, "(b) The advisory agency shall not approve a lot line
adjustment unless it makes all of the following findings: (1) That the proposed lot line
adjustment is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan." It is not.
Requirement #5 on the "Change of Zoning Procedure" under "SUBMISSION
REQUIREMENTS FOR CHANGE OF ZONING" reads as follows: "State the reasons why
the proposed Change of Zoning being considered by the Planning Commission is in the
public interest." We have seen no such statement.
Finally, both the Conditional Certificate of Compliance signed by Larry i. Perlin on April 12,
1993 and the Memorandum from Mike McDowell, dated January 18, 1993, to Larry I.
Perlin state that: "subject to the following conditions" "1. Satisfactory evidence of a
Boundary Survey of the subject property shall be provided to the City Engineer of the City
of Saratoga ", and "RECOMMEND ", "following stipulated conditions:" refer item "2.
Provide recorded evidence of a Boundary Survey of the subject property." It is our
understanding that a Boundary Survey has not been provided to date. We feel that a
Boundary Survey Report is essential to determine the integrity of the parcel.
Sincerely,
1�
Ju Craik
Ray and Tina McMains NOV 3-01995
15015 Bohlman Road PLAVl INU DEPT.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Phone: 408- 867 -6716
December 6, 1995
City of Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: GPA95 -002, & AZO -95 -002
General Plan and Zoning District Boundary Changes - Miller
Dear Honorable Chair and Members of the City Council:
We respectfully request the following issues be addressed and resolved by the Saratoga Planning
Commission, prior to approval of any "General Plan and Zoning District Boundary Changes" or
approval of any building sites with respect to property owned by Mr. Silas Miller.
1. Zoning: Review and determine the validity and appropriateness of the zoning of lot #1
proposed as "R -1- 40,000 ", when almost 50% of this proposed lot is in HR Zoning today?
Why doesn't proposed lot #2 meet the slope & density requirement of 3.73 acres?
Not meeting these zoning requirements increases densities & crowding.
2. Public Interest: Under the "Submission Requirements for Change of Zoning" requirement
#5 says, "State the reasons why the proposed Change of Zoning being considered by the
Planning Commission is in the public interest? "(see Attachment #1). We have not yet read
nor been told the answer to this question. Clearly we can see the potential monetary gain
advantage for Mr. Miller, but we don't see the public's advantage or improved position
because of Mr. Miller's proposal.
3. Development Potential: I would like an explanation of the last sentence on page #16, under
"Reason For Negative Declaration" in the "Staff Report to the Planning Commission ",
dated 10/25/95 (see Attachment #2). I quote "The realignment boundary does not increase
any development potential for either parcel ". In my estimation, the sole reason for Mr.
Miller's request is to change a non - buildable lot #1, or not desirable lot to build upon, into
a desirable and buildable lot #1.
4. Safety and Fire Hazard
As residents of Bohiman Road, we are concerned that the proposed "General Plan
and Zoning District Boundary Changes" and building site approval will create
undue risk of harm to the current residents. Our specific concerns are as follows:
a. Conformity of Lots: The approval would allow for the building of two houses, one of
which will be built on a non - conforming lot.
City of Saratoga City Counsil
December 6, 1995
Page 2
4. b. Driveways: All driveways are required to maintain a minimum width of 14 feet plus a
one foot shoulder. A total width of 16 feet is required to meet this requirement. We
question why improvements to the existing roads were not made a condition to approval as
an additional residence would result in increased traffic on the existing driveway. The
minimum road requirements are set to assure that firefighters, firetrucks and like equipment
may access the properties.
Additionally, staff report fails to address how Mr. Miller will meet obtain the necessary land
to widen the road to meet such requirements. Currently, Mr. Miller's easement is limited to
12 feet. Additional access would be in conflict with existing easements.
c. Water Access: We are not satisfied that an additional water will pass capacity/demand
tests or meet the fire code performance requirements as required on pages 13 - 14 of the
Staff Report to the Planning Commission, dated 10/24/95 (see Attachments #3 ).
The Fire Department's concerns are also expressed in the Saratoga Fire Protection Building
Site Approval Checklist, dated June 5, 1995. Fire Chief Ernie Kraule has requested a water
system upgrade to meet the additional demand on he water system (see Attachment #5).
5. Privacy: We demand assurance that our privacy will be protected. In order assure
our privacy is not invaded we require the following:
a. The right to review all stages of lot development of Mr. Miller's property, to
ensure our privacy as it exists today will not be diminished.
b. Set -backs be kept at the maximum distance and restrict the height of the structure(s)
to one story above ground level. This will keep the new structure(s) out of sight, as
Mr. Miller's current home is today.
c. Mr. Miller to plant 10 fast growing trees (i.e. Monterey Pines, etc.) at the point where
our property lines meet and between our home and the approved building site or each site,
whichever situation is approved.
6. Wooded View and Preservation of Neighborhood Integrity:
a. We respectfully request that the removal of ANY trees located at Mr. Miller's
property be denied, unless diseased and beyond saving and in that case then replaced.
The removal of four pine trees, #40, #41, #42, and #43 that were discussed in Barry
Coate's report dated June 20, 1995, would especially diminish our wooded view as they
are the some of the tallest trees on the skyline as we look up at Mr. Miller's property.
7. Best Use of Land: Mr. Miller's proposed building site do not appear to be the best
use of the land. Rather, the proposal appears to depend on the fact that the land was
cleared by fire and is not intended to remain the personal residence of Mr. Sillas. If
Mr. Miller's property had not been hit by this fire in 1992, how would you be
voting on his proposal today? Please review this matter with this question in mind.
City of Saratoga City Counsil
December 6, 1995
Page 3
In summation, it is our belief that the proposed building sites and lot line adjustments are
not in the best interest of the neighboring residents or the community as a whole. It is our
hope and desire that the applications be denied. At a minimum we respectfully request, that
approval be stayed until the issues and concerns raised by the proposals are adequately
addressed and satisfied.
g !McMains
stina Y. chains
12/01/95 12:13 $408 721 6241 NETWORKING SBU
DEC -01 -95 FRI 10:36 AM
Raymond L. and Kristina Y. McMalns
16015 Bohlman Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
November 30, 1995
City of Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: GPA95 -002 & AZO- 95-002
15001 Bohlman Road -
Dear Honorable Chair and Members of the City Council:
This letter is intended to supplement our discussion of various unresolved issues
regarding the Lot Line Adjustment, approved by the Planning Commission, and
your pending consideration of a General Plan and Zoning District Boundary
Change. Specifically, this discussion addresses the propriety of such City action
in light of the existing zoning regulations.
Article 14 -50 - Lot Line Adjustments generally provides that a lot line adjustment
may be approved if the adjustment meets the following requirements:
It is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plans
2.. It is consistent with the regulations in the zoning ordinance
3. The lot line adjustment will be deemed consistent if no new violation of
such regulations is created by the lot line adjustment or if the
nonconformity created is specifically approved by the advisory agency
such as the granting of a variance or use permit.
A review of the general plan indicates that the area known as "Lot 1" was
designated OS -OR (open space -open recreation park). Such a designation
indicates that property was not intended for residential building. Although, we
have not determined the potential impact of such a designation, at a minimum,
this finding indicates that the limitations of the subject property have not been
sufficiently investigated by the Planning Commission staff.
10002
P.02
12/01/95 12:14 $408 721 6241 NETWORKING SBU 10003
DEC -01 -95 FRI 10:36 AM
l
Of greater concern, is our belief that the "lot line adjustment° as approved by the
Planning Commission does not conforms to the existing zoning requirements.
The exception for a lot line adjustment contemplates that the making of the new
lot line results in the same number of lots within the same zoning designation.
Although the lot line adjustment did not increase the number of lots located on
Bohiman Road, the adjustment arbitrarily reclassifies the land's character. Land
which was once designated R- 1- 40,000 is now designated as Hillside
Residential. Similarly, land designated as Hillside Residential is now designated
as R -1- 40,000. The exception for a lot line adjustment requires for an exchange
of like zoned property for like zoned property. The purpose of the statute
appears to allow property owners to move lot lines within a specific zone if the
number of lots is not increased. The statute was not intended carve out non-
conforming parcel from two unlike zones. It is our position that such an action is
In violation of the zoning regulations.
Additionally, the lots have been determined to be non - conforming with respect to
parcel size. Pursuant to Article 14- 10.280, Lot 2 is subject to a 3.73 acre parcel
size requirements. Although we understand that existing non - conforming lots
will not be strictly held to parcel size requirements, we see no reason for waving
the parcel size requirements with respect to newly created or modified lots.
Similarly, the record does not indicate that Mr. Miller has received a variance or
use permit which would allow an exception to the parcel size requirement.
Clearly, the facts indicate that the lot line adjustment neither conforms with the
general plan of Saratoga nor the zoning regulations. As such, the actions of the
Planning Commission do not appear proper.
We would like to take this time to express our concern that approval of the of a
change to the General Plan and Zoning District Boundary will effect the quality
and nature of our residential interest. The Planning Commission presumed in
recommending the changes that an acre for acre exchange is all that is required.
The zoning requirements where established to maintain the integrity of the
Saratoga landscape. The hillside boundary was established to maintain the
character of the Saratoga hillside and to limits Its usage. The zoning as
established was found to be in the best interest of the community. We fail to
understand why an infringement and deterioration of he Saratoga hillside is in
the best interest of the community. It is our position that such a change is not.
Further, Mr. Miller has failed to established that such a change in is the best
interest of the community.
P. 03
'.2/01/95 12: 15 $408 721 6241 NETWORKING SBU IM 004
T1Fr. -R1 -9g FRT 101!A7 GM _ P-R4
We hope that in making your decision, that tho City Council consider that the
riphls of both Mr. Miller and the surrounding residents must be protected. It has
appeared that Mr. Miller has been given every benefit in tho decision - making
process, whereas the neighboring residents have been subjected to oontinual
limitations. Continual failure to address the concerns and rights of tho adjacent
property owners will force us to investigate our available judicial remedies. Wo
hope that such a course of a ration will not be required.
The arbitrary approval of Mr. Millers requests without full consideration of the
zoning requirements and the rights of the adjacent property owners will result in
a deprivation of our right to enjoy our property with ntit the due process of the
law. In essence, we request that the City Council strictly dstermine that the acts
of Mr. Miller and the Planning Commission are proper within the confines of
applicable statutes. As Mr. Miller has requested the lot line adjustment and
relatod Zoning adjustments, he must bear the burden of demonstrating that his
request will not violate the regulations. To date, the burden of proof has been
placed upon the adjacent property owners to prove lack of cornplidrm If such
burden will continue to rest on our shoulders, we respectfully requests tlist airy
decision be stayed until an adequate deliberation of all open issues can be
made.
Sincerely,
Raymond 1. McMains
istina Y. sins
Raymond L. and Kristiina Y. McMalns
16015 Bohiman Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
January 10, 1996
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: GPA95 -002 & AZO- 95-002
15001 Bohlman Road
Dear Honorable Chair and Members of the City Council:
This letter is in response to the memorandum prepared by James Walgren,
Associate City Planner to the City Council. In light of the findings of the
Associate Planner, we respectively request that any further proceedings on this
matter be stayed until confirmation that all required facts and circumstances
have been determined. The following addresses our particular concerns with
respect to this matter.
On October 25, 1995 the Planning Commission (Commission) approved an
application made by Mr. Silas Miller for a Lot Line Adjustment. During the
course of the meeting, the Commission asked several questions of the Associate
Planner with respect the lot line adjustment's compliance with the existing
General Plan and Zoning Maps.
The Associate Planner provided assurances that the proposed lot line
adjustment did not conflict with existing General Plan and Zoning Maps. At such
time, we questioned the validity of such statement. The new findings of the
Associate Planner confirm that certain discrepancies exists with respect to the
history of the subject parcels.
In our letter dated November 30, 1995, we indicated our belief that the lot line
adjustment as approved by the Planning Commission did not conform to Article
14 -50. Specifically, we raised the issue that despite the fact that the number of
lots remained the sum, the resulting new lots were substantially different in their
zoning. The statute appears to require that the newly created parcels be
created in from like zones.
City Council
January 10, 1996
Page 2
The findings of the Associate Planner confirm that approval by the Planning
Commission could not have been correct in that the lots are zoned Open Space -
Outdoor Recreational. Whether their classification as such is in error or not
does not effect the fact that as of October 25, 1995 the approval of the lot line
adjustment would be in violation of the existing General Plan and Zoning Maps.
It is our belief that the Planning Commission's decision would have been
different if the above facts were known that the time of the proceedings. At a
minimum, it would appear reasonable that the approval would have been stayed
pending a reconciliation of the apparent inconsistencies.
Our understanding is that certain conditions must be met before a lot line
adjustments can be granted. In this instant case, it appears that the lot line
adjustment has been granted and then remedial action are being taken to
retroactively meet the required conditions. Such conduct in violation of the
statute and in violation of the rights of the City's residents.
In order to protect the interest of the City and its residents reconciliation of the
discrepancies must be made prior to any additional action. Failure to do so may
result in irreparable harm. All we are asking for is a proper showing that the
approval of the lot line adjustments meets the statutory requirements.
Your attention on this matter is greatly appreciated.
Very truly yours,
"' o
R ymond L. McM Gins
Kristina Y. 1 ains
C
Ray and Tina McMains
15015 Bohlman Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
October 19, 1995
City of Saratoga
Community Development Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: SD95 -6, LL95 -5, GPA95 -1, & AZ095 -2
15001 Bohlman Road - Silas Miller
Dear Commission Members:
•
OCT 1:.91995
PLANNING DEPT.
We have been residents of Saratoga since 1991. Prior to 1991, we lived in San Jose for over
twenty years. During that time, it was our dream to live on the Saratoga hillside because of
its natural serenity, beautiful views, and privacy provided by the wooded area, in addition to
the charm and the safety of the City of Saratoga. After raising three children and working
and planning diligently for those twenty years, we were financially able to make our dream a
reality.
Although, we have sacrificed some conveniences in order to purchase the home of our
dreams, we feel that our new home has significantly enhanced the quality of our lives by
serving as a refuge from the pressures of our demanding careers. We look forward to
retirement when we will have more time to take walks around the neighborhood, to plant
flowers, and to relax on our deck enjoying the sights and smells of this wooded oasis. We
hope that the City of Saratoga's long -time commitment to preserving the irreplaceable
characteristics of the Saratoga hillside will continue to protect our natural surroundings.
This letter is our request that the Commission stand by this commitment. Specifically, we
ask that you deny the application of Silas Miller for an amendment to Saratoga's general
plan and zoning ordinance. Mr. Miller's requested changes would patently contradict the
environment that the City of Saratoga has committed to preserve for its residents and
visitors. After two weeks of hard thought, tremendous stress, and consultations with
neighbors, local officials, an architect, and an attorney, we believe more firmly than ever
that Mr. Miller's application should be denied. The reasons for this belief, which include
irreparable injury to the hillside area, significantly increased fire danger, environmental
damage, and increased congestion, are detailed below.
0
I. Our Home
When we purchased our home on the Saratoga hillside almost five years ago, we did so with
the understanding that we would have two neighbors sharing our private driveway. Neither
of these two neighboring houses were in direct view of our home, and neither neighbor had
the legal capacity to build an additional house on their property. In fact, the previous owners
of our home ensured us that Mr. Miller could not build another house on his property. In
reliance on these facts, we purchased our home with the comfort that there was little risk of
losing the attributes that led us to choose 15015 Bohlman Road as our new residence.
More specifically, Mr. Miller's house, which has historical significance in the area, was and
currently is located on both of the parcels owned by Mr. Miller. Therefore, he is legally not
permitted to build an additional home on either parcel. Furthermore, we have been advised
that Mr. Miller's smaller parcel is currently a non - conforming lot in that the dimensions of
the parcel would prevent a house from being built on it due to Saratoga's set -back
requirements. Therefore, even if Mr. Miller's house were not located on this parcel, there
could be no possibility of an additional house being built on his property. This impossibility
is actually quite logical given the character of the Saratoga hillside that the city's laws and
ordinances are designed to protect.
By law, single family dwellings can only be built on hillside parcels with at least 2.5 acres of
land. Although Mr. Miller's smaller parcel appears to be zoned as an R -1 lot, we
respectfully request that the Commission question whether such a zoning designation is
appropriate given the parcel's significant grading and location among other hillside lots.
This parcel's designation as a R -1 would be even more questionable if it were reconfigured
in the manner set forth in Mr. Miller's application, as doing so would increase the parcel's
average grade to 23.5 %. The City of Saratoga has chosen to require 2.5 -acre lots for the
construction of single family dwellings to maintain the level of privacy and the hillside
environment that drew us to this area. Approving Mr. Miller's application would plainly
undermine the goals and intentions of Saratoga's zoning ordinances and general plan.
Finally, Mr. Miller's application comes in the wake of fire damage to his home. We
question whether his application would be seriously considered if his house had not suffered
fire damage. We believe that the City of Saratoga would be extremely reluctant to permit
the destruction of a hillside home for the sole purpose of building two new homes in its
place; this would be allowing a significant alteration to the hillside environment and the
architectural integrity that are key components of Saratoga's individuality and charm for no
purpose other than one property owner's profit. Mr. Miller's application is especially
disturbing given the fact that he is now living in a home away from the hillside area. As a
result, any changes to the Saratoga hillside environment will not impact the quality of his
life.
Page 2
0 0
Mr. Miller's complete disregard for the preservation of the hillside area is perhaps best
highlighted by the conspicuous omission from his application of the required statement as to
why the zoning change would be in the public interest. Clearly, the zoning change is not in
the public interest; it is in the interest of Mr. Miller's bank account. We request that Mr.
Miller's previous neighbors not be made to suffer based solely on the. fortuity that Mr.
Miller's house suffered fire damage. We respectfully suggest that Mr. Miller use the
insurance proceeds that he has received to rebuild his previous house in its present location
and maintain the long existing environment in this beautiful area of the Saratoga hillside.
H. Fire Safety
As you are surely aware, fire safety is a very real concern to us and other Saratoga hillside
residents. Just two weeks ago on October 4, 1995, we were prevented from reaching our
home for forty -five minutes in order to allow fire trucks access to a fire past our residence
on Bohlman Road. In fact, the fire in 1992 at Mr. Miller's house further highlights the fire
danger to our home and neighboring houses. In order to lessen the risk of fire that is
associated with the Saratoga hillside area, we continue to take preventative measures both
inside and outside our home. Not only would an additional house on Mr. Miller's property
increase the risk of another fire, it would also greatly increase the potential level of damage
caused by a fire.
First, the water system which provides water to our home and to the nearby fire hydrant
barely accommodates the seven houses that it currently services. Mr. Miller has not used the
water system since he and his family abandoned their home after the 1992 fire. Based on the
current water usage and the capacity of the water system, an additional two houses would
seriously overload the water system and water supply, as confirmed byBinkley Associates
who actually designed our water system. (See Attachment Page 1)
In the event of a fire at our home, the inadequate water supply would prevent the fire
department from quickly extinguishing the fire. This would result in increased damage or
the complete loss of our house and personal possessions. Even more important are the
serious risks it would pose to our lives, the lives and property of our immediate neighbors
and residents in all areas of the Saratoga hillside, as well as the area's ecological
environment, if the fire could not be contained. In fact, Saratoga Fire Chief Ernie Kraule
has noted to the Community Development Department his belief that the water system will
need to be upgraded in order to achieve an acceptable level of safety in the event of a fire.
The one hydrant and limited water supply are arguably insufficient to adequately protect
three homes, let alone four.
Not only would the water system require substantial upgrading if a fourth house were built
on Mr. Miller's property, but road access and turnaround capacity would also require
Page 3
0 0
substantial improvements. Fire Chief Kraule has informed us that although the driveway to
Mr. Miller's property is possibly adequate for the existing house, it would be insufficient if
two homes were built. First, the narrow road leading up to Mr. Miller's property would fail
to meet Saratoga's road width requirements. (See Saratoga Required Street Right -of -Way
and Pavement Widths, attached as Attachment Pages 2 & 3) In order to meet these
requirements, the road would need to be widened from its current width, as narrow as 9 feet
at certain points, to at least 14 to 18 feet.
Demonstrating the purpose of the requirements, Fire Chief Kraule has indicated that if two
houses were situated on Mr. Miller's property, the narrow road leading up to the property
would need to be widened and improved turnaround areas would need to be constructed to
ensure adequate space for the movement of fire trucks in the event of a fire. This required
roadwork raises additional concerns including the potential damage to the surrounding area
and the fact that a portion of the land needed to complete the work is owned by us and our
neighbor, Bart Fenolio. Without such roadwork, it is likely that the fire department would
not have sufficient access to protect adequately all of our homes if a fire were to occur, even
if the water system and water supply deficiencies were resolved.
III. Harm to Trees
One of the first things that attracted us to the Saratoga hillside community was the beauty of
the wooded views, including the generations -old pine, oak, and other trees that surround our
home and which are integral aspects of our living environment. This environment, along
with the numerous irreplaceable trees, are directly threatened by the zoning change
requested by Mr. Miller. (See Attachment Pages 4 & 5)
As the "Analysis of the Health and Structure of Trees at the Miller Property" by Barrie D.
Coate explicitly states, eight trees will require removal if Mr. Miller's application is
approved; including four pine tree and three oak trees, all very mature and irreplaceable
during our lifetimes. Further, Mr. Coate's analysis specifically states that the three oak trees
are in "very good to average condition and the decision to remove the trees might be
considered questionable by the Community Development Department."
The Saratoga City Council has in fact determined that " the economics of property values is
inseparably connected with the rural attractiveness of the area, much of which is attributable
to the wooded hillsides" and that the preservation of Saratoga's trees is "necessary for the
health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City." (See Attachment Page 6)
Given the determinations of the City Council and Mr. Coate, the removal of trees which
would be a direct result of the approval of Mr. Miller's application should not be tolerated.
Furthermore, Mr. Coate's analysis notes that at least an additional ten trees, including two
Page 4
•
•
on our property line, might be adversely affected by the demolition process on Mr. Miller's
property. Not including the potential harm to several other trees on our lot near Mr. Miller's
property, Mr. Coate estimates that the total value of the trees that will be removed or
potentially damaged would be greater than $100,000.
Aside from the impact on our property value, the destruction of these trees would have a
devastating impact on ecological balance of the hillside area, including the scenic beauty and
the local wildlife, as well as the privacy treasured by its residents. The trees slated for
demolition are near our property and their removal would dramatically alter our view and
privacy. Additionally, as the City Council has recognized, the destruction of nearly twenty
trees could have a detrimental impact on topsoil stability, the amount of pollutants in the air,
and the climatic balance in the area. (See Attachment Page 6) Based on all of these reasons,
Mr. Miller's application should be rejected due to the irreparable damage it would cause to
numerous irreplaceable trees and the subsequent detrimental impact on the hillsides's fragile
ecological balance.
IV. Traffic. Noise, and Privacy
We are also, very concerned that the addition of two new houses will greatly increase traffic,
noise, and pollution and will decrease our privacy, especially since the private drive that
leads from Bohlman Road to Mr. Miller's property encompasses our home. In addition,
based on Mr. Miller's proposed lot line changes and the lack of information regarding the
potential size of the two new houses, we must assume that the new structures will be visible
from our home and in close proximity to our lot line. Clearly, this will further infringe on
our privacy and negatively impact the value of our home.
Although we cannot predict the exact number of additional cars that will use the road, we
reasonably assume that each new house will have at least two cars. When Mr. Miller and his
family lived on their property, we frequently encountered other cars on the one -lane drive,
resulting in one car having to back out of the drive if a turnaround area was not in close
proximity. A fourth house would increase traffic by at least 33 %. In addition, the
construction of the two houses would require the constant coming and going of large trucks
and working crews for an extended period of time. This would substantially increase the
risk of accidents, traffic, congestion, noise, and pollution, as well as damage to our private
driveway. The increased noise and pollution would also be exacerbated by the removal of
trees discussed above.
In fact, we have already witnessed the intentional pollution of the hillside environment and
damage to the driveway by Mr. Miller's workmen. These workmen have been transporting
branches and debris in large trucks from. Mr. Miller's property and dumping the contents
over the side of the driveway into the undeveloped wooded area and creek below, resulting
Page 5
0
•
in the spoiling of our scenic views as well as increased fire danger. (See attached
photographs) This painful evidence is relatively minor in comparison to the type of
destruction we can anticipate if Mr. Miller's application is approved; however, it does
clearly illustrate Mr. Miller's complete disregard for the preservation of the hillside
environment and the welfare of his previous neighbors.
One of our strongest motivations to move to the Saratoga hillside was to escape from the
traffic, pollution, and noise associated with urban living. Unless Mr. Miller's application is
denied, these features, which have long drawn people to Saratoga, will be destroyed.
V. Conclusion
For the above reasons, we are deeply concerned about Mr. Miller's application for a zoning
change and general plan amendment in order to accommodate two new houses on his
property. We are also extremely concerned with the omission of certain information in Mr.
Miller's application, in addition to ambiguity of the provided information regarding the
planned construction on his property. As a result, we have been forced into the position of
defending everything that is important to us, as well as our natural feeling of responsibility
for the safety and property of our fellow Saratoga hillside residents, from any hidden
agendas that have not yet come to light. We have no other choice than to pursue every
avenue with steadfast determination in order to prevent Mr. Miller's proposed changes from
becoming a reality.
We appreciate your time and consideration of the issues involved with Mr. Miller's
application, and we hope you appreciate that its approval would not only be detrimental to
the property owners surrounding Mr. Miller's property but also to the Saratoga public
interest as a whole. We also sincerely hope that the Commission stands by Saratoga's
express commitment to maintaining the characteristics of the hillside and avoids setting an
unfortunate precedent. We therefore respectfully request that you deny Mr. Miller's
application.
Very truly yours,
Raymond McMains
Tina McMains
Page 6
Judi & Jim Craik
20959 Hidden View Lane, Address Two Saratoga , CA 95070 -6344
Phone 408 - 867 -4244 Fax 408 - 867 -0431
November 30, 1995
Saratoga City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga CA 95070
Attn: Paul Jacobs
Re: Notice of Hearing - Miller: 15001 Bohlman Road
Gentlemen:
We would like to request a continuance to December 20, 1995 on the above referenced
matter currently scheduled for December 6, 1995. We were advised that it was unlikely this
would come before the Council on December 6th. My husband and I would like the
opportunity to consult an attorney regarding some of the issues brought before the Planning
Commission hearing on October 25, 1995.
We received the Notice of Hearing on November 27th, and on November 28th, my husband
and I contracted a MAJOR outbreak of poison oak, therefore we are unable to meet with
the attorney prior to the scheduled hearing next week.
We do need to point out a discrepancy in a statement made by Mr. Kirkeby at the Planning
Commission Hearing, i.e., the Bohlman Water Association has a 120,000 gallon holding
tank NOT 160,000. We would also like to address discrepancies in the parcel numbers and
several other errors and omissions in the file of Miller.
We strongly oppose the proposed change to the General Plan, and contrary to the statement
in the Notice of Hearing: "THE REALIGNED BOUNDARIES DO NOT AFFECT (sic)
PERMITTED RESIDENTIAL USES OR DENSITIES ". The proposed change to the
General Plan DOES effect residential uses AND densities. Currently, there is only one
house on this property. Part of the house and a garage are located on one APN, the other
part of the house is on another APN. We have reason to believe the "lot lines" are merely
"Tax Rate Area Lines" not two separate parcels. The paperwork does not reflect the proper
APN's, so we question how thorough the research was by the engineer used by the City.
Changing the boundaries of this property would increase the density of the hillside, if the
Council approves the change to the General Plan.
Staff Report Dated
October 25, 1995
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
LL -95 -005, GPA -95 -001, AZO -95 -002 & SD -95 -006
-Application No. /Location: 15001 Bohlman Road
Applicant/ Owner: MILLER
Staff Planner: James Walgren
Date: 10/25/95
APN: 517 -13 -012 & 517 -36 -008 Director Approval: •
15 U U 1 bohlman Rd.
•
•
File No. LL -95 -005, GPA -95 -001, AZO -95 -002 & SD -95 -006
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY:
Application filed:
5/12/95
Application complete:
8/10/95
Notice published:
10/11/95
Mailing completed:
10/12/95
Posting completed:
10/05/92
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Request for Lot Line Adjustment approval to relocate an existing
parcel boundary between two existing hillside parcels of record
located off Bohlman Rd. The application includes a request to
realign existing General Plan designation and Zoning District
boundaries to match the realigned parcel boundaries.
Building Site approval is also requested fo
Chapter 14 of the City Code, Building
requested to ascertain what off -site
necessary to develop the lots' in the future
is proposed at this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
r each lot. Pursuant to
Site Approval may be
improvements would be
no on -site development
Conditionally approve the Lot Line Adjustment request and recommend
approval of the environmental Negative Declaration and General Plan
and Zoning District boundary amendments to the City Council.
Approve the Building Site requests for the two parcels.
ATTACHMENTS:
—1. Staff Analysis \
2. Resolutions LL -95 -005, GPA -95 -001, AZO -95 -002 & SD -95 -006
------3. Environmental Negative Declaration
—4. Arborist Report dated 6/20/95
5. Correspondence
6. Map, Exhibit "A"
• •
File No. LL -95 -005, GPA -95 -001, AZO -95 -002 & SD -95 -006
ZONING•
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION•
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE:
EXISTING NET
PARCEL SIZES•
PROPOSED NET
PARCEL SIZES•
MINIMUM PARCEL
SIZE REQUIREMENTS:
PROJECT DISCUSSION:
Lot Line Adjustment:
STAFF ANALYSI
PARCEL 1
R -1- 40,000
Residential -Very
Low Density
24%
1 acre
1 acre
40,000 sq. ft.
PARCEL 2
Hillside Residential
Residential - Hillside
Conservation
290
2.5 acres
2.5 acres
3.73 acres
The applicants are proposing a Lot Line Adjustment to realign an
existing parcel boundary. The City's Consulting Surveyor has
performed a parcel title research on the two properties and has
determined that they are two legal lots of record, allowing for
this Lot Line Adjustment to occur.
The Lot Line Adjustment conforms with both the Subdivision Map Act
and the City's Subdivision Ordinance. The State Subdivision Map
Act states that local agencies shall limit their review and
approval of Lot Line Adjustments to "a determination of whether or
not the parcels resulting from the Lot Line Adjustment will conform
to local zoning and building ordinances ".
The proposed land transfer conforms to all applicable Zoning
Ordinance requirements with regard to minimum lot frontage, width
and depth. While the proposed net site area for Parcel 2 is less
than what would be required for a newly created lot (2.5 acres
versus required 3.73 acres) , it is not decreasing in size. The Lot
Line Adjustment does therefor conform with Zoning Ordinance
requirements because it does not create or intensify the existing
nonconformity.
General Plan and Zoning District Boundary Changes:
The boundary between the Residential -Very Low Density and the
Residential - Hillside Conservation General Plan designations, and
•
File No. LL -95 -005, GPA -95 -001, AZO -95 -002 & SD -95 -006
the. corresponding R -1- 40,000 and Hillside Residential Zoning
District designations, follow the existing lot line. The applicant
is proposing to realign this boundary to match the reconfigured
parcels.
Since the realigned boundary does not effect permitted residential
densities or development standards, staff considers this more of a
mapping consistency matter than a land use issue. Staff is
recommending approval of the proposed designation adjustment.
Tentative Building Site Approval:
As provided for in Saratoga's Subdivision Ordinance, a property
owner may apply for what is called Building Site approval. This
application process allows someone to determine what type of on and
off -site improvements would be required to develop the property.
While it is not frequently used since it does not confer any actual
permits to build, it does allow property owners who may want to
sell their land to let prospective buyers know what type of
physical improvements to anticipate.
Tentative Building Site approval would establish the conditions
which would need to be met in order to grant a Final Site approval.
This is the same process as receiving a Tentative Subdivision Map
approval and then being granted a Final Map approval once all of
the required conditions have been met.
The City's Geologic and Geotechnical Consultants have granted the
two lots a geotechnical clearance. The City Arborist has reviewed
the plans and his recommendations are included as conditions of
approval. The Saratoga Fire District, and all other applicable
agencies, have reviewed the plans and provided their comments.
Staff further finds that the proposal meets all minimum City
development standards and is recommending approval of the Tentative
Building Site request for the two lots.
Neighborhood Concerns:
These various application requests were originally scheduled for
the October 11th meeting but were voluntarily continued by the
applicant at the request of adjoining neighbors (via staff) to
allow them more time to review the proposal. Attached are two
letters detailing their concerns. Staff has met with the neighbors
several times to discuss the proposal and their concerns. The
following are summary responses to the two letters:
Water Supply
The subject parcels are part of the Bohlman Water Association; a
private mutual water purveyor which staff has been told serves
r�
L
•
File No. LL -95 -005, GPA -95 -001, AZO -95 -002 & SD -95 -006
seven homes and Hakone Gardens. Members of the association are
concerned that there may not be sufficient water supply to serve an
additional home. The applicant's engineer is comfortable that the
water supply is adequate. Staff has included a condition that the
following be performed prior to granting Final Building Site
approval:
• A water supply capacity /demand study shall be performed by a
qualified professional, acceptable to the Water Association,
to determine if there is an adequate water supply to serve an
additional single family residence. If adequate water is not
available, Final Building Site approval will not be granted
until it is provided.
• Verification shall be submitted to the City Engineer that the
applicant has the consent of the Bohlman Water Association (or
if not the consent, the legal right) to add an additional
residential connection to the water system.
Substandard Access Road
The Saratoga Fire Chief and the City Engineer visited the property
with planning staff and, though acknowledging that the exiting
private road was substandard in width, did not request road
widening as a condition of approval. The Fire Chief is satisfied
with the fire protection conditions he has prepared for the
proposal.
Since it is an existing road, versus a new road, it does not need
to meet current minimum road standards. It is also relevant that
the applicant is not increasing the number of lots accessing this
road; though only one residence exists, there are two legal lots of
record.
Tree Protection
The City Arborist has noted that the four pine trees proposed to be
removed on Parcel 1 are in poor condition and should be removed.
Three Coast Live oaks and a Magnolia tree are also shown to be
removed. It appears that the lots could be developed without
taking out all of these trees. None of the trees would be
permitted to be removed until specific house plans were submitted.
All other tree protection measures identified by the City Arborist
are included as conditions of approval.
Validity of Two Parcels.
Prior to accepting these various applications, planning staff
required that the applicant submit a request for parcel Certificate
of Compliance. This application process allows the City's
•
•
File No. LL -95 -005, GPA -95 -001, AZO -95 -002 & SD -95 -006
Consulting Surveyor to perform a title research to verify that
there really are two legal lots of record and that they were
recorded legally and properly. His determination was that they are
two lots of record and he has issued a Certificate of Compliance
for each parcel.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Conditionally approve the Lot Line Adjustment request and recommend
approval of the environmental Negative Declaration and General Plan
and Zoning District boundary amendments to the City Council.
Approve the Building Site requests for the two parcels.
RESOLUTION NO. LL -95 -005
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
APN 517 -36 -008 (Parcel 1) and 517 -13 -012 (Parcel 2)
WHEREAS, a Lot Line Adjustment between Parcel 1 and Parcel 2
has been filed with the Community Development Director of the City
of Saratoga; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Lot Line Adjustment approval will be
consistent with the General Plan and the regulations of the Zoning
and Subdivision Ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Lot Line Adjustment will not conflict
with easements for access through or use of, the properties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of
the City of Saratoga does approve the Lot Line Adjustment as shown
on Exhibit "A" and directs the applicant to file a deed or record
of survey pursuant to Section 66412 (d) of the Subdivision Map Act
with the City Engineer for checking and recordation.
Section 1. The applicant shall obtain City Council approval
of the General Plan and Zoning District boundary amendments as a
condition of, and prior to, recording the Lot Line Adjustment.
Section 2. All applicable requirements of the State, County,
City and other Governmental entities must be met.
Section 3. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of
Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall
become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis-
sion, this 25th day of October, 1995 by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami & Patrick
NOES: None
ABSENT: Caldwell & Siegfrie�
Ci aA rman lanning Commission
ATTEST: n
Secretary to the Planning Commission
RESOLUTION NO. SD -95 -006
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
BUILDING SITE APPROVAL RESOLUTION
MILLER; 15001 BOHLMAN RD.
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency
under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under
the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for Building
Site approval for two separate parcels, all as more particularly
set forth in File No. SD -95 -006 of this City; and
WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed
Building Sites, together with the provisions for its design and
improvement, are consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with
all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed Building
Sites and land use are compatible with the objectives, policies and
general land use and programs specified in such General Plan,
reference to the Staff Report dated October 25, 1995 being hereby
made for further particulars; and
WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency has heretofore received and
considered the Categorical Exemption for this project in accord
with the currently applicable provisions of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Government Code
Sections 66474 (a) (g) and 66474.6 exist with respect to said
Building Site map, and approval should be granted in accord with
conditions as.hereinafter set forth; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed
public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a
full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence;
WHEREAS, this Tentative Building Site approval is contingent
on the approval of the Lot Line Adjustment and associated General
Plan and Zoning District boundary amendments. The applicant shall
obtain City Council approval of the General Plan and Zoning
District boundary amendments and record the Lot Line Adjustment
prior to Final Site approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the map for the hereinaf-
ter described Building Sites, which map is dated May 1995 and
marked Exhibit "A" in the hereinabove referred file, be and the
same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said
approval are as follows:
1. Unless the requirements of Sections 14- 45.040(a) (1) & (2) are
satisfied, the owner (applicant) shall prepare and file a
Parcel Map of the site for recordation. Prior to submittal of
the Parcel Map to the City Engineer for examination, the owner
(applicant) shall cause the property to be surveyed by a
Licensed Land Surveyor or an authorized Civil Engineer. The
submitted map shall show the existence of a monument at all
File No. LL -95 -005, GPA -95 -001, AZO -95 -002 & SD -95 -006
external property corner locations, either found or set. The
submitted map shall also show monuments set at each corner
location, angle point, or as directed by the City Engineer,
all in conformity with the Subdivision Map Act and the
Professional Land Surveyors Act.
2. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Parcel
Map, if necessary, in substantial conformance with the
approved Tentative Building Site map, along with the addition-
al documents required by Section 14- 40.030 of the Municipal
code and shall be accompanied by the following items:
a. One copy of map checking calculations.
b. Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within
ninety (90) days of the date of submittal for the Final
Map.
C. One copy of each map referenced on the Final Map.
d. One copy of each document /deed referenced on the Final
Map.
e. One copy of any other map, document, deed, easement or
other resource that will facilitate the examination
process as requested by the City Engineer.
3. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, if
required, as determined by the City Engineer, at the time of
submittal of the Parcel Map for examination.
4. Interior monuments shall be set at each lot corner either
prior to recordation of the Parcel Map or some later date to
be specified on the Parcel Map, if necessary. If the owner
(applicant) chooses to defer the setting of interior monuments
to a specified later date, then sufficient security as
determined by the City Engineer shall be furnished prior to
Parcel Map approval, to guarantee the setting of interior
monuments.
5. If required, the owner (applicant) shall file with the Santa
Clara County Recorder the requisite statement indicating that
there are no liens against the property or any part thereof
for any unpaid taxes or special assessments. A copy of the
statement(s) shall be provided to the City Engineer prior to
Parcel Map approval.
6. Prior to Final Site approval:
a.. The existing fire damaged house shall be demolished.
File No. LL -95 -005, GPA -95 -001, AZO -95 -002 & SD -95 -006
b. A water supply capacity /demand study shall be performed
by a qualified professional, acceptable to the Water
Association, to determine if there is an adequate water
supply to serve an additional single family residence.
If adequate water is not available, Final Building Site
approval will not be granted until it is provided:
C. Verification shall be submitted to the City Engineer that
the applicant has the consent of the Bohlman Water
Association (or if not the consent, the legal right) to
add an additional residential connection to the water
system.
d: All applicable tree protection measures outlined in the
Arborist Report dated 6/20/95 shall be performed as
determined by the City Arborist.
e. Outstanding City Arborist or City Geotechnical Consultant
fees shall be paid.
7. The approved Building Site site development plan shall
establish the future required building setbacks and maximum
building envelopes for each parcel. No trees are approved to
be removed. At the time specific house plans are prepared for
either lot, an effort shall be made to retain trees #36 and
#38, Coast Live Oaks, and tree #39, a Magnolia.
8. Prior to Geotechnical Clearance for development on parcels 1
and 2, site - specific geologic and geotechnical investigation
shall be performed. As part of these investigations, the
applicants' geologic and geotechnical consultants shall: (1)
identify and evaluate areas on Parcels 1 and 2 underlain by
surficial materials (fill, colluvium, landslide and fan
deposits), (2) evaluate the long -term stability of slopes on
the Parcels (including artificial and natural slopes), and (3)
provide supplemental geotechnical design recommendations, as
needed, for the proposed construction. The investigations
should include, but not necessarily be limited to the follow-
ing:
a. An original, engineering geologic map and cross sections
should be prepared at an appropriate scale (i.e., 1:480
or larger for each parcel) . Engineering geologic maps and
cross sections should provide the following information:
(1) extent and probably thickness of surficial earth
materials (including existing fill, colluvium, land-
slides, and alluvium or fan deposits) , (2) natural and
artificial slopes and slope profiles, (3) type and
structural orientation of underlying bedrock, (4)
File No. LL -95 -005, GPA -95 -001, AZO -95 -002 & SD -95 -006
locations of existing and proposed structures and improvements.
b. The site - specific geotechnical conditions on Parcels 1
and 2 should be explored, and representative earth
materials (i.e., bedrock, colluvium, artificial fill,
etc.) should be sampled and tested to provide engineering
parameters for foundation and retaining wall design. The
geotechnical consultants should specifically: (1)
determine the thickness of surficial materials (artifi-
cial fill, colluvium and fan deposits) on the property.
Recommendations for drainage improvements should be
provided, as well as specific recommendations for
structural foundations, as needed.
The results of the site - specific geologic and geotechnical
investigations shall be summarized in written reports with
appropriate illustrations, and submitted to the City to be
reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Geotechni-
cal Consultant prior to the granting of a Geotechnical
Clearance for each Parcel.
9. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for any construction
activity on Parcel 1 and 2, final plans for site - specific
developments shall be prepared. The project geotechnical
consultants shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects
of the final foundation and grading plan (i.e., building
setbacks, site drainage improvements and design parameters for
foundations and retaining walls, etc.) to ensure that the
consultant's recommendations have been properly incorporated.
The results of the plan reviews shall be summarized in letters
by the geotechnical consultants and submitted to the City for
review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of
a grading permit.'
10. The geotechnical consultants shall inspect, test (as needed),
and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project demolition
and construction. These inspections should include, but not
necessarily be limited to: site surface and subsurface
drainage improvements, and excavations for foundation and
retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete.
The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions
of the project shall be described in letters and submitted to
the City Engineer for review prior to finalization of the
grading permit.
11. All building and construction related activities shall adhere
to New Development and Construction - Best Management Practic-
File No. LL -95 -005, GPA -95 -001, AZO -95 -002 & SD -95 -006
es as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm
water pollution.
12. Developer shall install a fire hydrant that meets the Fire
District's specifications. The hydrant shall be installed and
accepted prior to construction of any building, shall be
located within five hundred feet from the residence and shall
deliver no less than 1,000 gallons per minute of water for a
sustained period of two hours.
Fire flow requirements can also be satisfied pursuant to the
1991 Uniform Fire Code Division III, Appendix IIIA, Table
AIII -A -1.
13. The westerly approximately 620 ft. of driveway approach to the
site shall be improved to a minimum width of 14 ft. plus one
ft. shoulders.
14. The following fire protection requirements shall apply to
future residential construction:
a. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building
Code Class A or B prepared or built-up roofing. Reroofi-
ng, less than 10°s, shall be exempt.
b. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and
maintained in accordance with the provisions of Article
16 -60 City of Saratoga.
C. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation
relative to the proposed installation and shall be
submitted to the Fire District for approval, prior to
issuance of a building permit.
d. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in garage.
e. All driveways have a 14 ft. minimum width plus one ft.
shoulders.
f. Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius of 32 ft.
g. A passing turnout 10 ft. wide and 40 ft. long as required
by the Fire District. Details shall be shown on building
plans.
h. Construct a turn - around at the proposed dwelling site
having a 32 ft. inside radius. Other approved types must
meet the requirements of the Fire District. Details
shall be shown on the building plans.
File No. LL -95 -005, GPA -95 -001, AZO -95 -002 & SD -95 -006
i. Provide a parking area for two emergency vehicles at the
proposed dwelling site or as required by the Fire Dis-
trict. Details shall be shown on the building plans.
15. All bridges and roadways shall be designed to sustain 35,000
lbs. dynamic loading.
16. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and
expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or
held to be the liability of City in connection with City's
defense of its actions` -in any proceeding- brought in any State
or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect
to the applicant's project.
17. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall
constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossi-
ble to estimate damages the City could incur due to the
violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this
City per each day of the violation.
Section 1. Conditions must be completed within 24 months or
approval will expire.
Section 2. All applicable requirements of the State, County,
City and other Governmental entities must be met.
Section 3. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of
Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall
become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of.Saratoga Planning Commis-
sion, State of California, this 25th day of October, 1995 by the
following vote:
AYES: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami & Patrick
NOES: None
ABSENT: Caldwell & Siegfried
'Eh Airman, lanning Commissi n
ATTEST:
Secr ary, Plannirig Commission
11
DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED
(Negative Declaration)
Environmental Quality Act of 1970
The undersigned, Director of Community Development of the CITY OF SARATOGA,
a Municipal Corporation, after'study and evaluation, has determined, and does
hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental
Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through.15065 and Section 15070 of the
California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653- of the City of Saratoga,
and based on the City's independent judgment, that the following described
project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on
the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Request for Lot Line Adjustment approval to relocate an existing parcel
boundary between two existing hillside parcels of record located off Bohlman
Rd.. The application includes a request to realign existing General Plan
designation and Zoning District boundaries to match the realigned parcel
boundaries. The boundary between the Residential -Very Low Density and the
Residential - Hillside Conservation General Plan designations, and the
corresponding R -1- 40,000 and Hillside Residential Zoning District
designations, follow the existing lot line. The applicant is proposing to
realign this boundary to match the reconfigured parcels per Exhibit "A ".
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
Silas Miller
20450 Thelma Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION
It is staff's determination that the proposed realignment of the existing
General Plan and Zoning District boundary will have no environmental impact.
The realigned boundary does increase an development p, otential for either
i;�7 par__c_e
Executed at Saratoga, California this day of , 1995.
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
000016
BARRIE D. ATE 1
and ASS 'IATES :
Horticultural Consultants
408- 353 -1052
23535 Summit Road., Los Gatos, CA 95030
AN ANALYSIS OF THE HEALTH AND STRUCTURE
OF TREES AT THE MILLER PROPERTY '
15001 ' BOHLMAN ROAD
SARATOGA
r
Purpose of this . •Report .
The purpose of this report is.to supply information about the health of trees at the Miller property.on
Bohlman Road and to provide. information about: potential conflict between those trees and proposed
construction and demolition at the site.
The site is an-old single - family home with an existing: building -which burned some years ago. This `
J
building straddles the new property line, which will define the division between two properties created of
the single existing property:. -
Findings
The site has'44 trees, of significant size on if, 32,of which are'.Coast Live,Oaks, ranging from 10 inch
diameter to a multiple trunk tree of 20 inch and' 12 inch' trunk diameters-. In many parts of thepropert y, the
trees are much closer-together than is beneficial for them.
The other species encountered on site include Monterey Pine (Pintis radiata), Aleppo Pine ( Pinus.
halepensis), two Valley. Oaks (Nercus lobata), one California. Bay (Umbellularia californica), one
California Black Walnut (Juglans hindsii), and one. Southern Magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora).
The larger Coast Live.Oaks, 'as trees #13 and 16,.are single specimens standing alone in a courtyard. .
environment. ;
Even isolated'trees .like. #13 and 16, however, are in less . than perfect condition.
It would appear that the site-has been'abatidoned long enough without care that the trees have structures
that have developed as exceedingly long,: horizontal limbs which are vulnerable to breakage and are in less.
vigorous health than they might have been if they had received sub - surfaced fertilizing and occasional
irrigation.,
Trees #12,43 are Monterey Pines of significant height but of relatively poor structure. These trees have'
many dead branches in them and though they are not currently infested with Turpentine Beetle;_there is
adequate evidence of-previous infestations.
•_ 2.
AN' ANALYSIS OF THE HEALTH AND STRUCTURE
OF,TREES, AT THE MILLER PROPERTY
15.001 BOHLMAN ROAD
SARATOGA'.
Tree #42.is currently infested with Turpentine Beetle and has'a severely deformed major root at the base
.which would'make.it highly vulnerable to falling'over if,the root system's,vigor is reduced for any reason:'
Trees #40 and 41 are very large Aleppo,Pines which,are in poor health and are, structurally dangerous. If it
were necessary to remove all of these'Pines, it would not be a great loss but most'importantly, trees #40,
41 and 42 are the most likely -to become dangerous and should be removed.
Tree #2
It will no doubt -be necessary to remove the southern -most limb from this tree in order to get equipment
onto the site.
'No more than one:limb should be, removed, however, 'in this p'rocess.,If both of the south and southeast-
facing limbs are to be removed, the tree should be considered a complete loss and compensation for its
replacement planned: '
Tree' #15 is.an Aleppo Pine and it is just over the property line but may be a co- owned tree.
Demolition Protection
Since the siting'of new homeson site has not been decided as yet, no-construction period protection
,recommendations wcan be made, but demolition protection can, certainly be offered based on observation of .
the existing building.
It will be essential to install demolition period fencing before, demolition equipment,is,allowed on site. This
will be. really essential for protection of tree. #16, which is surrounded on two sides by the existing house.
Demolition of the buildings which are beneath any part -of a canopy. of any of the trees which are,to be
preserved must be done from the inside of the building, not from beneath the canopy '.of the�tree.
As an example, it will, be necessary to install an access corridor betweeri trees #16 and #19, between #13
and #16 to prevent damage to any of those trees during demolition procedures:
• 3
AN ANALYSIS OF .THE HEALTH AND': STRUCTURE,
OF TREES AT THE ' MILLER PROPERTY
15001 BOHLMAN • ROAD
SARATOGA
That corridor, is shown on the enclosed map, The corridor should be bordered on either side by
construction period fencing of 0 feet in height and comprised of chainlink fencing set on 2 inch posts
driven at least 2 feet into the ground to prevent access to equipment in areas beneath the trees which is not
necessary to the .demolition process.
As soon as demolition is completed and before any rough grading begins, some. of these fences should be
moved or additional ones installed as shown with a dashed or dotted'line on the enclosed map to protect as
much of the area beneath ,each. tree's canopy, as possible during demolition and rough grading. The` goals
of fencing are to prevent activity' beneath the canopies, of. trees as much , as possible and
all field decisions should, be made toward. that . goal. ,
Trees which would be removed by the applicanVs request include Magnolia #39, Pines #40, #41, #42 and
#43; and Oaks #36,-#37 and• #38.
The three latter Oak trees are in very good to average condition and,the decision to remove those might be
considered, questionable by the, planning, department. ,
Trees -which are most likely to be adversely'affected by demo] ition.processes include trees #1; #2, #9,'_
#13; #14, #15, #16, #18, #20. and. #35.
Value' of trees to be removed, if trees #36,' #37 and #38 are included, equals $19,462. This is equivalerit'to . '
four.48 inch box native trees.,
Trees which would be most adversely affected by demolition are valued at $83,883. A:20 percent bond for
these latter trees would,be $16,777:
Respectfully. submitted,
Barrie D. Coate
BDC :kc
Enclosures: Tree. Evaluation Charts
Map
TABLE I
REQUIRED STREET RIGHT -OF -WAY AND PAVEMENT
WIDTHS
PAVEMENT WIDTH
Type of
Street
R/W
Width
Total
(a)
Travel
Parking
Curb &
SW
Bonner
Lanes
Lanes
Gutter
(b)
(c)
6 -Lane
Thorough -fare
120
104(d)
20 at 12 = 72
2 at 8 = 16
Yes
Yes
8
Divided
100
80(d)
2x2 at 12 = 48
2 at 8 = 16
Yes
Yes
10
Thorough -fare
4-Lane
Undivided
90
64
4 at 12 = 48
2 at 8 = 16
Yes
Yes
13
Thorough -fare
2 -Lane
Thorough -fare
60
84(f)
40
64
2 at 12 = 24
2 at 8 = 16
Yes(e)
Yes
10
4 at 12 = 48
2 at 8 = 16
Yes
Y
Yes
10
Frontage
Road
30(g)
24
2 at 12 = 24
_
Y es
No
—
Collector
60
40
2 at 12 = 24
2 at 8 = 16
Yes(e)
Yes
10
50
36
2 at 10 = 20
2 at 8 = 16
Yes(e)
Yes
7
Hillside
50(h)
26
2 at 9 = 18
1 at 8 = 8
Yes(i)
Yes
12
Local Street
C -N, C -C,
C -V, P -A,
P -Ail)
60
50
40
2 at 12 = 24
2 at 8 = 16
Yes
Yes
10
30
2 at 15 = 30
2 at 8 = 16
Yes
Yes
10
Local Street
RM -3'000
RM -4,000
56
36
2 at 10 = 20
2 at 8 = 16
Yes
Yes
10
RM -5,000
Local Street
R- 1- 10,000
50
36
2 at 10 = 20
2 at 8 = 16
Yes
No(k)
7
R- 1- 12,500
Local Street
R -1- 15,000
50
33
2 at 9 = 18
2 at 7.5 = 15
Yes
No(k)
g,5
Z cal Street
140,000
50
26
2 at 9 = 18
1 at 8 = 8
No(e)
No(k)
12
Hillside 40(h)
Local
26
2 at 9 = 18
1 at 8 = 8
Yes(i)
No(k)
Street
7
Cul -de -sac
50
33(m)
2 at 9 = 18
2 at 7.5 = 15
Yes(e)
No
8.5
237
TABLE I (Continued)
REQUIRED STREET RIGHT -OF -WAY AND PAVEMENT WIDTHS
Type of
Street
R/W
Width
PAVEMENT WIDTH
Total Travel Parking
(a) Lanes Lanes
Curb &
Gutter
SW Bonier
(b) (c)
Cul -de -sac
40
30(m)
2 at 11 = 22 1 at 8 = 8
Yes(e)
No 5
serving, 12 or
less lots
Cul -de -sac
42R
32R
-- —
Yes(e)
No 10
Turnaround
Minimum
Access Street
20
(min)
18
2 at 9 = I8 --
No
No I
(min)
FOOTNOTES TO TABLE I
(a) Total width between exterior curb faces or shoulder edges.
(b) PCC sidewalk or AC walkway as directed by City Engineer.
(c) Distance from face of curb to property line.
(d) Including 16 foot median strip.
(e) Curb and gutter may be required in an R- 1- 40,000 zoning district, where in the opinion of the City Engineer
such curb and gutter are required for adequate drainage or support, or where the street in question is a cul -de -sac.
(f) Required on 2 -lane thoroughfares in or adjacent to commercial or PA zoning districts to provide channelization
for turning movements.
(g) Including 5 foot separator between main line right -of -way and nearest frontage road curb face.
(h) Plus slope easements where necessary.
0) Curb and gutter may be omitted upon approval of City Engineer.
0) May be permitted by City Engineer, when one off - street parking space for each 22 feet of side frontage is
provided in addition to off - street parking requirements prescribed in the Zoning Ordinance. Varying street width in
single block will not be permitted.
(k) Sidewalks required on local streets serving school sites.
(1) 26 feet in R- 1- 40,000 zoning districts.
238
J � /
I p -
W.Y.
< 34 33
35— °ok
II1 Illllllill 71I I, I III I 'L - - --
ZkY
II 1 11111 I 11 k8Y I I ► i I, 1 \ 90 ; I _ --
II11�1 40
inc
�\
_ --
LOr 5
41
,n y� `\ 39
:�4 ' I I I I I I I \\ PARCEL �\ \ \\ \
I 1
III 11111111 i j 1 142 \
woo DEn
_ 610
/
13 L "J r
i� / � 1 � I •. I I � � �
sea MI
s,' 12... eoo d
11 I
�e. taj /� �- ACCESS Gg�,' \
j,
on r
805/' oft 14,fJp - -- _�
d
FENOL /O
°Ox 1 3.0 790
O
32 - 30 x
�- --
__z
I
INSTALL BEFORE ROUGH GRADING
28/
TION PERIOD FENCE
231 *2"25
24f.'
4 . fir, �^
1 21 ✓
d
/Tree numbers correspond to
evaluation charts.
All dimensions and tree locations
,are approximate.
BARRIE D. COATE
AND ASSOCIATES
I N 23535 Summit Rd
Los Gatos, Ca 95030
(408)353 -1052
Horticultural Consultants
Consulting Artrorists
An Analysis of Trees
at The Silas Miller Props
Saratoga
Prepared for:
City of Saratoga Planning Di
Job #06-95-145
DATE: 6/20/95
SCALE: NONE
15- 47.060 3
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ann
Santa 1.5 1.8 3.1 4.1 5.5 5.8 6.5 5.9 5.2 3.3 1.8 1.0 45.3
Clara
County
San Jose
(Ord. 71.116 § 1 (part), 1992)
Article 15 -50
TREE REGULATIONS
Sections:
15- 50.010
Findings; purposes of Article.
15- 50.020
Definitions.
15- 50.030
Application of Article.
15- 50.040
Street trees.
15- 50.050
Removal of certain trees without
permit.
15- 50.060
Exceptions.
15- 50.070
Application for permit.
15- 50.080
Determination on permit.
15- 50.090
Appeals.
15- 50.100
No liability upon City.
15- 50.110
Setback of new construction
from existing trees.
15- 50.120
Violations;- penalties.
15- 50.010 Findings; purposes of Article. N
The City Council finds that the City is primarily a res-
idential community; that the economics of property values
is inseparably connected with the rural attractiveness of
the area, much of which is attributable to the wooded
hillsides and the native and ornamental trees scattered
throughout the City; that the-prrservation of such trees
is necessary for the health, safety and wel are of _ttre._resi-
dents of the City in order to preserve scenic beauty, prevent
erosion of topsoil, protect against flood hazards and the
risk of landslides, counteract pollutants in the air, maintain
the climatic balance and decrease wind velocities. It is the
intent of this Article to establish regulations for the installa-
tion, maintenance, preservation and removal of trees within
the Ci , consistent with the reasonable use of private
15- 50.020 Definitions.
For the purposes of this Article, the following words
and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed
to them by this Section, unless the context or the provision
clearly requires otherwise:
(a) Tree means a woody perennial plant characterized
by having a main stem or trunk, or a multistemmed trunk
system with a more or less definitely formed crown, and
is usually over ten feet high at maturity. This definition
shall not include trees planted, grown and held for sale
by licensed nurseries or the first removal or transplanting
of such trees pursuant to and as part of the operation of
a licensed nursery business.
(b) Oak tree means Valley Oak (Quercus lobata),
California Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), and any other trees
of the oak genus. This definition shall not include oak trees
planted, grown and held for sale by licensed nurseries or
the first removal or transplanting of such trees pursuant
to and as part of the operation of a licensed nursery busi-
ness.
(c) Street tree means any tree within the public street
or right -of -way.
(d) Shrub means a bushy, woody plant, usually with
several permanent stems, and usually not over fifteen feet
high at maturity. The Planning Director shall have the right
to determine whether any specific woody plant shall be
considered a tree or a shrub.
15- 50.030 Application of Article.
This Article shall apply to every owner of real property
within the City, and to every person responsible for remov-
ing a tree regardless of whether such person is engaged
in a tree removal business.
15- 50.040 Street trees.
(a) Policies and standards. The Planning Director shall
implement policies and standards for street tree planting
and maintenance as established from time to time by
resolution of the Planning Commission or City Council.
(b) Planting required condition of approval. The
planting of street trees may be required as a condition of
any approval granted under this Chapter.
(c) Responsibility for maintenance. The City shall
provide maintenance for street trees located within a com-
mercial district and on arterial roads, unless such mainte-
nance responsibility has been assumed by a property owner
or other person under a landscape maintenance agreement
(saazop 5-95) 352 -6
� , - -- _
�::. '�..�i.�
�`J� .
•
r
c 37
28/
I
;36
I SI a I III �/j 23 22y',�25 `15
�? 1
Q ll \ 21 ✓24'.
Is
Tree muaber. correspond to
— luatim Darts.
1:11 dimemiona and tree locations
are apprmimat..
BARRIE D. COATE
AND ASSOCIATES
I. Gatos, sC t955M
(40900-1052
HonicWn.al Camultanm
Conwlon# Mbuiva
M Anil is of Tree.
at The Silas Killer Prcpezy
sa�ytoya
Prepared for:
City of Saratoga Plamlml Department
Job #06-95 -145
DATE: 6/20/95
scXL.: xo.s
8
i;
t
ti.
5 �\
0 0
BohIMAN WATER ASSOCIATION
20959 Hidden View Lane
Saratoga, CA 95070 -6344
Phone: 408- 867 -4244
Fax: 408 - 867 -0431
October 19, 1995
James Walgren - Planning Department
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga Ca 95070
Gentlemen:
OCT 19 1995
PLANNINU DEPT,
Re: Notice of Hearing - Miller
SD -05 -006, GPA -95 -001
LL -95 -005, AZO -95 -002
The following members of the Bohlman Water Association, strongly oppose adding any
additional households to our water system. We feel that our system is operating at capacity,
and will not support any additional demands. Attached is correspondence dated October 17,
1995, from the consulting engineers that designed our water system, i.e., Binkley Associates.
J:lax'� t-4 �0-3� lfo-lel-
P
t
'�.
ly
P.O. BOX 607
0
SARATOGA, CA 95071
a
2—I-c7 C
-t-0
04
t,v qo, o,, 4
IDk w A-4. o. �
FEB 6 1996
w%'e -� CCD K/ C .a n- w
L t -W -e ti n ry (o ¢ PA l
e, i s T3 aw%'+ e,wv l �'� , .� w� S
�n V e- s Z7 Zr.tv7- 4:4 4
ex r 0 ow
/its-
Bin-fcley Associates
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
HYDRAULICS • WATER RESOURCES • WATER AND SEWAGE FACILITIES
October 17, 1995
Bohlman Water Association
c/o Judi Craik
20959 Hidden View Lane
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Water service to Si Miller -- one existing and one
proposed new lot
Dear Ms. Craik:
Per your request we have reviewed our files and the recent
water usage data you provided. This firm designed the water
supply system that currently serves your association. The
supply system consists of a 1.5 -inch meter, 2.5 and 3 -inch
pipelines, and a sump with two submersible pumps and related
controls.
The Association's water supply system was designed to service
seven (7) lots. Subsequent to construction of your system,
Hakone Gardens connected. You therefore now have seven (7)
active member connections to your system.
When Mr. Miller reconnects his house and the proposed new
lot, your association will have nine (9) active members
connected, or the equivalent of at least 9 lots. It is
highly likely that this will result in a water demand that
exceeds the capacity of the Association's supply system.
Insufficient capacity will cause water shortages for fire
protection and domestic use. A supply capacity /demand study
is recommended prior to allowing additional connections.
Please call if you have any questions or need additional
information, or if we can be of further assistance.
Very truly yours,
sOCIATEs
Registered Civil nag' eer #18418
Registration expires 6/30/97
GRB /dn
7246 SHARON DRIVE a SAN JOSE - CALIFORNIA 95129 o (408) 257 -9252 FAX: (408) 257 -9102
• Judi and Jim Craik •
20959 Hidden View Lane
Saratoga, CA 95070 -6344
Phone: 408 - 867 -4244 OCT 19 1995
Fax: 408 - 867 -0431
October 19, 1995 PLANNINU DEPT.
James Walgren - Planning Department
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga Ca 95070
Re: Notice of Hearing - Miller
SD -05 -006, GPA -95 -001
LL -95 -005, AZO -95 -002
Gentlemen:
We respectfully request that the Saratoga Planning Commission:
1. Deny the request for any additional building sites - other than the one currently existing
on the property located at 15001 Bohlman Road. Our water association will not support the
addition to our water system as it exists today.
2. Follows on the recommendation of Mike McDowell's Memorandum dated January 18,
1993 to provide recorded evidence of a Boundary Survey of the subject property.
3. Determine that there are, in fact, "two existing hillside parcels of record" - that are
designated as two separate parcels, and not just separated by a "Tax Rate Area Line" - prior
to the approval or consideration of a lot line adjustment.
4. Reconsider the removal of ANY trees located at the property located at 15001 Bohlman
Road so as not to destroy the integrity of the neighborhood and our privacy as an adjoining
homeowner
5. Deny the "Request to realign existing general plan designation and zoning district
boundaries to match the realigned parcel boundaries" - that would create additional density
to the hillside directly above our property.
6. Recommend that the setback for any building sites remain as they are now at
approximately 60' from our property line, and to restrict the height of the structure to one
story at ground level. The privacy that we enjoy now, would be adversely affected if the
setback was less than 60'.
7. Provide that, pursuant to Chapter 14 of the city code - that any building site approval,
to include the possible replacement of the structure destroyed by a fire in 1992, be delayed
until it is accertained what offsite improvements would be necessary.
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
Page 2 of 2
October 19, 1995
8. Provide that prior to consideration of replacing the structure at the existing location, that
adequate water pressure is present for the recommended sprinklers and fire hydrant by a
gravity pull as recommended by Ernie Kraule of the Saratoga Fire Deparment.
Cordially yours,
m Craik
Judi! Craik
osure: Memorandum from Mike McDowell
cc: Larry Perlin
City Engineer
cc: Bob Rizzo
Supervisor, Parks and Recreation/
Hakone Gardens
Planning Commission Minutes
Dated October 25, 1995
t,
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OCTOBER 25, 1995
City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Regular Meeting
Chairman Murakami called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
Roll Call
Present: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick
Late: None
Absent: Caldwell, Siegfried
Staff: Community Development Director Curtis and Planner Walgren. City Attorney
Riback was not present this evening.
Pledge of Allegiance
Minutes - 10/11/95
COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 11, 1995
MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS.
- Page 11, paragraph 2, line 21, amended to read: "...it is stated that it is significant
because it would provide senior housing. Yet, he indicated that no` demographics were
provided in terms of how senior housing would be provided to the residents in Saratoga.
It is mentioned that the overflow eapfteity expansion of'' "the `facility would be made
available to Saratoga residents and hied tha "t it °was note -known as to the number of
Saratoga residents that are members of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows (IOOF)
(there was no way to determine the significant numerical value).... "
- Page 15, last paragraph, line 14, replace the word serviee with surface.
Page 21, first paragraph, third line amended to read: " She also asked if this proposal
was going to help' the Saratoga housing stock for senior citizens because it if is not,
then the existing senior citizens are not going for get requesting housing in Saratoga.... "
- Page 21, last paragraph, last sentence amended to read: "...to judge things by EIk
criteria.
� __,
THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND SEIGFRIED
ABSENT.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OCTOBER 25, 1995
PAGE - 2 -
VEEN 1WRIN5 INFRINTRALIPIR,
No comments were offered.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on
October 20, 1995.
Technical Corrections to Packet
No corrections were noted.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. DR -92 -013.1 & V -93 -022.1 - BRANDT, 20620 SIGAL DRIVE; Request for a one -year
extension of time to a Design Review approval to construct a 4,327 sq. ft. two -story
residence on a vacant 1.6 acre hillside parcel, and a Variance approval to allow a 5 ft. tall
driveway retaining wall to be located within a required front yard setback. The subject
property is accessed via a private road easement off Sigal Drive and is located within an
R -1- 40,000 zoning district.
COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS
CALDWELL AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. LL -95 -005, GPA -95 -001, AZO -95 -002 & SD -95 -006 - MILLER, 15001 BOHLMAN
RD.; Request for Lot Line Adjustment approval to relocate an existing parcel boundary
between two existing hillside parcels of record located off Bohlman Rd. The application
includes a request to realign existing General Plan designation and Zoning District
boundaries to match the realigned parcel boundaries.
Building Site approval is also requested for each lot. Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City
Code, Building Site Approval may be requested to ascertain what off -site improvements
would be necessary to develop the lots in the future; no on -site development is proposed
at this time. (cont. from 10/11/95 at the request of adjoining property owners /staff,
application expires 2/10/95).
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OCTOBER 25, 1995
PAGE - 3 -
Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that letters
were received from adjacent neighbors expressing concern as follows: 1) whether there was
adequate water within the private mutual water system to service an additional home and whether
the owner had a legal right to add an additional home to the existing water system; 2) the long
substandard access private road; 3) tree preservation; and 4) the validity of the two parcels of
records. He informed the Commission that the City Surveyor has performed a title search and
that he is confident that two legal lots of record exist.
Commissioner Asfour asked whether water exists at this time to service the old resident. Planner
Walgren responded that the existing residents are serviced by the private company and that staff
would need to determine whether the property owner had a legal right to hook up an additional
home to the water system.
Commissioner Kaplan asked if there would be any other parcels that would be affected by the
zoning amendment. Planner Walgren clarified that only the two parcels under discussion would
be affected by the zone change.
Commissioner Kaplan stated that she did not want to see the City get involved in private
contractual matters. It seemed to her that the issue of water was not within the city's purview and
that whether or not there was water on the lot was not an issue relevant to the lot line adjustment.
It was her belief that a Certificate of Occupancy would not be issued if utilities did not exist.
Community Development Director Curtis clarified that the water issue was not one that was
relevant to the lot line adjustment because the lot line adjustment does not approve development.
He further stated that the City would not allow the construction of a house if utilities were not
available.
Commissioner Kaplan asked if the property owner would be required to maintain the private
access road and whether the applicant would need to satisfy the Fire District's requirements prior
to the City's signing off on the home? Community Development Director Curtis responded that
the property owner would need to satisfy both the City's and the private road maintenance
association conditions. Commissioner Kaplan asked that if these were issues that were not under
the City's purview, why was testimony being taken about these issues. She noted that the letters
submitted indicate that the parcels were not legal parcels. Yet, she noted that the Commission has
been provided with a Certificate of Compliance. She asked what was the Commission's
discretion? Community Development Director Curtis responded that the City has determined that
there are two legal lots of records. Commissioner Kaplan noted that once that determination has
been made, the Commission really has no alternative but to review and take action on the lot line
adjustment.
Commissioner Abshire noted that Exhibit A indicates that the water supply comes from the San
Jose Water Company and that other exhibits indicate that the water supply comes from a water
association. He requested that staff clarify the discrepancy. Planner Walgren clarified that a great
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OCTOBER 25, 1995
PAGE - 4 -
majority of water to the City is supplied by San Jose Water Company. However, the parcels are
not serviced by the San Jose Water Company but was serviced by the Bohlman Water Company,
a private mutual water company.
Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m.
Mark Kirkeby, civil engineer, stated his concurrence with staff's recommendation. He informed
the Commission that water to the parcels was supplied by the Bohlman Water Company.
Commissioner Patrick noted that at the site visit, the applicant indicated that he did not want to
remove the three oak trees nor the magnolia tree(s). Mr. Kirkeby stated that the conditions of
approval stipulate that the trees are not to be removed and are subject to further review at such
time that specific house plans are submitted.
Ray McMains, 15015 Bohlman Road, provided the Commission with a copy of letter which
addressed his concerns as well as a site plan depicting the location of his home in relationship to
the parcels under discussion. He indicated that staff addressed his concern regarding the water
issue and that it was referenced in a letter submitted by the engineer who designed the water
system as not being sufficient. He informed the Commission that the Fire Chief indicates that an
upgraded fire system would need to be installed prior to allowing any additional hook -ups and that
the driveways would need to be widened to 16 feet to allow for adequate room for fire trucks to
access the site. He noted that staff did not address access to Mr. Miller's site through his
property. He requested a review and a determination of the validity of the request for lot line
adjustment. He did not believe that lot 1 was a buildable lot and that it was not in. conformance
with setback requirements. He also noted that lot 1 was located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district
and that lot 2 was located in the hillside zoning district. He questioned how lot 1 can remain R -1-
40,000 when half of the lot was located in the hillside zoning district. The submittal requirements
for a zone change (requirement 5) requires that a reason be stated why the proposed change would
be of a benefit to the public. He indicated that he could not find where the benefit to the city has
been addressed and requested that it be addressed. He also requested that trees not be removed
that would affect views and property values and that the Commission consider the residents' safety
and the protection of their rights in its decision.
Jim Craik, 20959 Hidden View Lane, addressed the water issue. He stated that the property
owner has indicated that he is hooked up to San Jose Water but indicated that he is a member of
the Bohlman Water Association. He expressed concern with the existing low level water readings
provided by the Central Fire Department and mentioned in the letter submitted by Binkley and
Associates, the original designer of the water system. He noted that Mr. Binkley recommends
that an extensive study be performed before additional hook -ups are authorized. The agreement
stipulates that each hook needs to be approved in writing by the City of Saratoga and that an
additional condition stipulates that any and all expenses for each additional hook -up are to be paid
for by the owner of the lot that is being hooked -up to the system.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OCTOBER 25, 1995
PAGE - 5 -
Judy Craik, 20959 Hidden View Lane, noted that there were two other letters that were submitted
to staff on Monday that were not included in the staff report. She indicated that the five
individuals belonging to the water association support the completion of a water study prior to
granting any building site approval. It was her belief that the eight trees proposed to be removed
are being removed to improve the building site and its view of the valley. She felt that with care,
the pine trees can be preserved. After receiving the report from botanist, she indicated that she
was concerned as to where the lot line is located as she felt that some of the trees were located on
her property. She indicated that she has attempted to contact a surveyor to request that a survey
of the lot be completed to determine property lines. She felt that the request to change the lot line
was for the purpose of increasing the density in the hillside, one that she opposes. She indicated
that in the past, the property owner has indicated that it was his belief that he has three buildable
lots (concern that he was requesting two lots at this time and would return in the future for the
third lot). She noted that the City's geologist report refers to lots 5, 7, 8 and 9 which have been
crossed out with no initials being noted on the changes. She noted that Planner Walgren referred
to a conditional Certificate of Compliance which indicates APN 517 -36 -012 and that exhibit A
which accompanies the certificate also refers to APN 517 -36 -012. She informed the Commission
that the parcel map on file at the County Recorders Office does not recognize the existence of
APN 517 -36 -012. She indicated that she has spoke to a staff member in the Assessors Office and
that the actual lines shown on the drawing were not lot lines but that they were tax rate adjustment
lines. She noted that the Certificate of Compliance states that "satisfactory evidence of the
boundary survey of the subject property shall be provided to the City Engineer of the City
Saratoga. " She stated that both the Certificate and the City Engineers paperwork recommends this
condition be satisfied and that it was her understanding from staff that this condition has not been
satisfied to date. On a tentative subdivision map, the fact sheet filled out by the applicant,
addresses whether there is a culvert, creek or swale adjoining this property. She noted that the
applicant indicated that there were no such conditions on the parcel when in fact the condition
exists by lot 12. Regarding the lot line adjustment and City Code 1450.020, a preliminary title
report needs to be submitted within 10 days from date of filing the application by a reputable
company and that this requirement has not been met as she has not been provided with a title
report. City code also states that "The advisory agency shall not approve a lot line adjustment
unless it meets the following finding: "The proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the
General Plan and any applicable specific plans." She did not feel that there was sufficient
evidence to verify that two separate parcels exist and that the request before the Commission was
inconsistent with the General plan and /or applicable specific plans.
Tina McMains, 15015 Bohlman Road, indicated that when she purchased her home, she was told
that there would only be two adjacent neighbors. She felt that the lot line adjustment would
impact her. She stated that she bought her parcel because it was a large lot. If a large house is
to built, the homeowners would look down at her and that it would impede her view and privacy.
She also expressed concern with the substandard road, increased traffic, noise and pollution. She
felt that the mixed density causes a "cramming" affect and that she paid a lot of money to make
sure that she was secluded from other individuals. She indicated that water pressure and access
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OCTOBER 25, 1995
PAGE - 6 -
for fire truck turn- around /access were not adequate.
Mr. Kirkeby addressed the water system by indicating that a study to determine how much water
is used is a matter of looking at last years water bills for the area residents. If the system is not
adequate, the pump would need to be changed and upgraded. It was his understanding that the
water tank was 160,000 gallons which exceeds the 120,000 gallon fire storage required by the Fire
Department. He did not believe that there were any physical problems that could not be
mitigated. He indicated that he would not object to extend the fire truck access to the second
house. He did not believe that the two proposed lots would be visible to the lot located to the
south. Regarding the request to preserve the pine trees, he noted that the arborist report states
that the trees are diseased and old. It was his belief that the oaks and magnolia trees can be
reviewed at the time that a plan is submitted for review. He indicated that there was no intention
to create a third lot as there is a Certificate of Compliance for two legal lots of record.
COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN /ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT
8:25 P.M.
Commissioner Asfour noted that the lots were legal lots of record without the benefit of a lot line
adjustment. If an individual had a legal lot that has been approved, they have the right to build
upon it if conditions are satisfied. He indicated that the action before the Commission does not
grant a right to build upon the lots. He noted that comments were made regarding economics. He
informed the public that the Commission can not take economics into its decision regarding land
use issues. The building site approval does not necessarily grant a property owner the right to
build on it. Approval stipulates that should there be a building in the future, the building site is
specified. Building on the site would still need to follow the application procedure process and
receive permission to hook -up to utilities and that if hook -ups are not available, a building permit
would not be issued. He asked staff if the lots were switched from a horizontal to a vertical,
would there be a mix of two zoning districts and if the fact that the city has issued a Certificate
of Compliance, does it mean that the City concluded in its investigation that there were two legal
lots of record? Planner Walgren responded that the city surveyor completed a title search of the
property and located an earlier map that was recorded that clearly showed that parcel 1 was
separate from parcel 2. It was the city surveyor's determination that there were two legal lots of
record. Regarding the zoning inquiry, he noted that the zoning boundary between the northern
lower hills and the southern higher elevations, that the zoning boundary tends to be irregular and
follows larger topographical terrains and parcel boundaries. Adjusting the zoning boundary to
match the new parcel configuration would not provide for mixed zoning districts.
Commissioner Asfour informed the public that the lot line adjustment, if approved this evening,
would be conditional upon the City Council's approval of the General Plan and zoning boundary
adjustment. Planner Walgren concurred that the lot line adjustment would be void if the City
Council does not approve the General Plan and zoning amendments.
p
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OCTOBER 25, 1995
PAGE - 7 -
COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. LL -95-
005. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND SIEGFRIED
ABSENT.
COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL
OF GPA -95 -001. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND
SIEGFRIED ABSENT.
COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF AZO -95 -002 AS WELL AS THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION. THE
MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT.
COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. SD -95-
006 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED _ 5 -0 WITH
COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT.
Community Development Director indicated that there would be a renotification of the General
Plan Amendment and zone change to the adjacent property owners as to the City Council hearing
date.
3. UP -95 -006 - IVERSON, 14701 VICKERY AVE; Request for Use Permit approval to
construct a detached 1,242 sq. ft. single story art studio /guest house and three -car garage
within the rear yard of a 17,760 sq. ft. parcel located on Vickery Lane. The front half of
the property is developed with a single story residence. The subject parcel is in an R -1-
20,000 zoning district.
Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that letters
were received from adjacent property owners expressing concern with the narrow driveway access
to the rear hampering fire protection; the large size of the detached unit lends itself to being a
rental unit; protection of the trees located along the front of the parcel and along the alleyway;
access to the adjacent alleyway; and issues relating to storm drainage. He indicated that the Fire
District has reviewed this proposal and acknowledges that the driveway is less than the minimum
standards but that conditions have been applied, exceeding the minimum standards (i.e., unit to
be hooked -up to the early warning alarm system that is directly hooked -up to the Fire District's
station and that the entire structure be fire sprinklered). Regarding the concern that the guest
house would be utilized as a rental unit, the resolution of approval requires that a deed restriction
be recorded against the property which states that it may not be used as a permanent dwelling unit.
He indicated that the city arborist has reviewed the project and felt that the plans submitted
indicate protection of the trees as long as the fencing remains in place throughout construction.
The city arborist also recommends that the driveway be relocated to the east of the property and
that the Arizona Cyprus tree be removed to further protect the neighbor's trees located to the
west. He informed the Commission that the applicants have indicated that they do not have legal
J
�. CHANGE OF ZONI PROCEDQp•`.
1. Preliminary discussion-with Planning Staff.
2. Allow a minimum of four (4) months for processing, staff
review and comment. If an Environmental Impact Report is
required, an additional 6 to 8 months will be necessary
prior to continued processing of the application.
3. An agenda and staff report will be mailed to the applicant
on the Friday before the Planning Commission public hearing.
Any questions should be directed to the planner prior to the
meeting.
4. Public hearing before the Planning Commission (on second and
fourth Wednesday at 7:30 p.m.) to take public testimony,
review staff report and make a recommendation to the City
Council.
5. Public hearing before the City Council (Council meets on
first and third Wednesday at 7:30 p.m.) to take public
testimony, review staff report and make a final decision.
City Council must make required findings to approve.
6. Ordinance amendment becomes effective thirty (30) days from
date of adoption.
SUBMISSION REQUIREMMUS FOR CHANGZ Op ZONING
1. Application and fees
2. Four (4) copies to scale of plans showing:
a. Plot of property showing dimensions and bearings and
all other properties within 500' of the site.
b. Location on street and nearest cross streets.
3. Eighteen (18) copies of 11" x 17" reductions of the plans
listed above.
4. List all persons who are to receive copies of any staff
reports (architect, engineer, contractor, etc.)
'101 5. State the ' reasons why the it posed Changg of nni nghai n7
cons dered by the-Planning Commission i in he public
interest.
erest.
6. Complete Environmental Questionnaire and attached applica-
tion.
7. If any of the information listed above is missing' or incom-
plete, the application will not be processed.
GW /ZONCHNGE
File No. LL -95 -005, GPA -95 -001, AZO -95 -002 & SD -95 -006
materials (i.e., bedrock, colluvium, artificial fill,
etc.) should be sampled and tested to provide engineering
parameters for foundation and retaining wall design. The
geotechnical consultants should specifically: (1)
determine the thickness of surficial materials (artifi-
cial fill, colluvium and fan deposits) on the property.
Recommendations for drainage improvements should be
provided, as well as specific recommendations for
structural foundations, as needed.
The results of the site - specific geologic and geotechnical
investigations shall be summarized in written reports with
appropriate illustrations, and submitted to the City to be
reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Geotechni -
cal Consultant prior to the granting of a Geotechnical
Clearance for each Parcel.
9. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for any construction
activity on Parcel 1 and 2, final plans for site - specific
developments shall be prepared. The project geotechnical
consultants shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects
of the final foundation and grading plan (i.e., building
setbacks, site drainage improvements and design parameters for
foundations and retaining walls, etc.) to ensure that the
consultant's recommendations have been properly incorporated.
The results of the plan reviews shall be summarized in letters
by the geotechnical consultants and submitted to the City for
review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of
a grading permit.
10. - -The geotechnical consultants shall inspect, test (as needed),
and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project demolition
and construction. These inspections should include, but not
necessarily be limited to: site surface and subsurface
drainage improvements, and excavations for foundation and
retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete.
The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions
of the project shall be described in letters and submitted to
the City Engineer for review prior to finalization of the
grading permit.
11. All building and construction related activities shall adhere
to New Development and Construction - Best Management Practic-
es as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm
water pollution.
----rap 12., Developer shall install a fire hydrant that meets the Fire
District's specifications. The hydrant shall be installed and
fl rrA -c�m�r 3 00003
File No. LL -95 -005, GPA -95 -001, AZO -95 -002 & SD -95 -006
accepted prior to construction of any building, shall be
located within five hundred feet from the residence and shall
deliver no less than 1,000 gallons per minute of water for a
sustained period of two hours.
Fire flow requirements can also be satisfied pursuant to the
1991 Uniform Fire Code Division III, Appendix IIIA, Table
AIII -A -1.
13. The westerly approximately 620 ft. of driveway approach to the
site shall be improved to a minimum width of 14 ft. plus one
ft. shoulders.
14. The following fire protection' requirements shall apply to
future residential construction:
a. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building
Code Class A or B prepared or built -up roofing. Reroofi-
ng, less than 10t, shall be exempt.
b. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and
maintained in accordance with the provisions of Article
16 -60 City of Saratoga.
C. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation
relative to the proposed installation and shall be
submitted to-the Fire District for approval, prior to
issuance of a building permit.
d. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in garage.
e;. All driveways. have a 14 ft. minimum width. plus one ft.
shoulders.
f. Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius'of 32 ft.
g. A passing turnout 10 ft , wide and 40 ft . long as required
by the Fire District. Details shall be shown on building
plans.
h. Construct a turn- around at the proposed dwelling site
having a 32 ft. inside radius. Other approved types must
meet the requirements of. the Fire District. Details
shall be shown on the building plans.
i. Provide a parking area for two emergency vehicles at the
proposed dwelling site or as required by the Fire Dis-
trict. Details shall be shown on the building plans.
000014
J
Binkley Associates
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
HYDRAULICS • WATER RESOURCES • WATER AND SEWAGE FACILITIES
October 17, 1995
Bohlman Water Association
c/o Judi Craik
20959 Hidden View Lane
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Water service to Si Miller -- one existing and one
proposed new lot
Dear Ms. Craik:
Per your request we have reviewed our files and the recent
water usage data you provided. This firm designed the water
supply system that currently serves your association. The
supply system consists of a 1.5 -inch meter, 2.5 and 3 -inch
pipelines, and a sump with two submersible pumps and related
controls.
The Association's water supply system was designed to service
seven (7) lots. Subsequent to construction of your system,
Hakone Gardens connected. You therefore now have seven (7)
active member connections to your system.
When Mr. Miller reconnects his house and the proposed new
lot, your association will have nine (9) active members
connected, or the equivalent of at least 9 lots. It is
highly likely that this will result in a water demand that
exceeds the capacity of the Association's supply system.
Insufficient capacity will cause water shortages for fire
protection and domestic use. A supply capacity/ demand. study
is recommended prior to allowing additional connections.
Please call if you have any questions or need additional
information, or if we can be of further assistance.
Very truly yours,
BINKUY NSSOC
b—.A,& MKley, 'P.
Registered Civil •ng- eer #18418
Registration expires 6/30/97
GRB /dn
lid /1�
L
K..<
IRE
SARATOGA F PROTECTION DISTRICT
FILE
fliC cS ,.
APPROVAL CSEC� BQILD13 GG LIST
DATE : " ' y° D1U[�ER OF LOTS
APPLICANT
_;LOCATION ..
"AND
WATER SUPPLY ACCESS
FOR FIRE PROTECTION ARE ACCEPTABLE
2 .
EARLY WARNMG FIRE
ALARM SYSTEM IS NOT REQUIRED.
3.
PROPERTY IS LOCATED
IN A DESIGNATED HAZARDOUS FIRE AREA.
. 4.
PLANS CBEC1= FOR WEED/BRUSH ABATEMENT ACCESSIBILITY.
S.
ROOF COVERING SHALL
BE FIRE RETARDANT, UNIFORM BUILDING CODE CLASS
A
PREPARED OR
BUILT-UP ROOFING. RE- ROOFING, LESS THAN 1016,
SHALL BE EXEMPT.
(REF- UNIFORM FIRE CODE APPENDIX E, CITY OF SARATOGA CODE
16-20:210) ,
6.
EARLY WARNING FIRE
ALARM SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED
IN
ACCORDANCE WITH• THE
PROVISIONS, CITY OF SARATOGA CODE-ARTICLE 16-60.
( ALTERNATIVE REQUIREMENTS, SPRINKLER SYSTEMS, 16-60-E) . .
_7. EARLY WARNING FIRE ALARM SYSTEM SHALL HAVE DOCUMENTATION RELATIVE TO THE
PROPOSED INSTALLATION AND SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE FIRE DISTRICT FOR
APPROVAL.
8. AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN: NEWLY CONSTRUCTED ATTACHED/DETAC-MD
GARAGES (3 HEADS PER STALL) INCLUDING ALL CONTIGUOUS AREAS WITHIN THE STRUCTURE UTILIZED
FOR WORKSHOPS OR STORAGE PURPOSE WHICH ARE NOT CONSTRUCTED AS RABITABLZ SPACE, WHETHER
OR NOT SU01 CONTIGUOUS AREAS ARE DESIGNED OR UTILIZED FOR THE STORAGE OF MOTOR
VEHICLES; ANY EXISTING GARAGE WHICH IS ALTERED, ADDED TO, OR EXPANDED SO AS TO INC'2EA•SE
THE SIZE OF SUCH GARAGE BY EITHER 200 OR MORE SQUARE FEET OR THIRTY -THREE OR MORE
orRCENT OF T E OR_GIVAL SIZE, Wei-.G ==VER IS LESS. (CITY OF SARATCGA CODE 16- 15.090
[I]) THE DESIGNER /ARCHITECT IS TO CONTACT SAU JOSE WATER COMPANY TO DETERMINE THE
SIZE SERVICE AND METER NEEDED TO MEET- DOMESTIC, FIRE SUPPRESSION AND FIRE FLOW
REQUIREMENTS. FROM THESE REQUIREMENTS THE SPRINKLER CONTRACTOR IS TO DEVELOP
CALCULATIONS FOR T:iE SYSTEM. '.
9. ALL FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE LQCATED WITHIN FIVE HUNDRED FEET FROM THE RESIDENCE AND
DELIVER NO LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND GALLONS PER MINUTE OF WATER FOR A SUSTAINED
PERIOD OF TWO HOURS ( CITY OF SARATOGA CODE 14-30:040 [ C ]) .
10 . FIRE HYDRANTS : DEVELOPER SHALL INSTALL OYt-P'- FIRE HYDRANT (S) THAT MEET THE FIRE
DISTRICT'S SPECIFICATIONS. HYDRANTS) SHALL BE INSTALLED AND ACCEPTED PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION OF ANY BUILDING.
11. DRIVEWAYS:
SHOULDERS.
A.
B.
y C.
1r D.
E .
12.
Y_ 13
ALL DRIVEWAYS cuar.r. uairy a
SLOPES FROM Oo
ON A 6 " AGG .
SLOPES FROM 11
ON A 6 " AGG .
SLOPES FROM 15
SURFACED ON A
CURVES: DRIVEWi
TURNOUTS: CONS'
REQUIRED BY TH
TURN- AROUNDS: CONSTRUCT
OUTSIDE RADIUS . OTHER AP
DETAILS SHALL BE SHOWN C
PARKING: PROVIDE A PARK]
SITE OR AS REQUIRED BY '
APPROVED:
SITEAPP1.LST
�:?�9�`,+*i: ^1.'.. ,y...... .ter. •4���,�•.. �_ `_.; �:'��is� r"�• _....ti,,'•,�:�r - - - -.- , w _.._ _.`` ...._. ._._ .. _
=,-F 'lei' �•1I•. .: >`•vrr
i' •' -' ^" 1^ ` S •'` ! KxT; .y �:}:ti. %cv.,:.. : •• ,l,l, „�.:..^ti� ;1�..'v. .. _ ..'�.,7�7±.
7.
TE
'� •-v - �S)�►LL. 4.,.,. +i.FOQR �FEFT� a . SF>AIS`. Bfi
iBY A : REIKOTE DIGITAL ... DETAIL$ SMkLL BE SS;OWPr.. aN _ BUILD]ZiG PLANS
.;..:. ,;a.....
BRIDGES iAIQD_ GNED `?k�
ROADWAYS : SE MM" BE' DESI SIISTAIIT 935 -000 :LBS �DYNAMJC
�- S'�1�Y1'3�A.,'^ y. �' . •r•u�Zr����Sr s ¢��yry1� ti��.: � �
APPENDIX III -A, A- 111 -A -1
1991 UNIFORM FIRE CODE
EXCEPTION: A reduction in required fur flow of 50 percent, as approved by
the chief, is allowed when the building is provided with an approved automatic
sprinkler system.
(b) Buildings other than One- and Two-Family Dwellings. The minimum
fire flow and flow duration for buildings other than one- and two - family dwellings
shall be as specified in Table No. A- III -A -1.
EXCEPTION: A reduction in required fire flow of up to 75 percent, as approved
by the chief, is allowed when the building is provided with an approved automatic
sprinkler system. The resulting fire flow shall not be less than 1,500 gallons per min-
„ ute.
TABLE NO. A- 111 -A -1
MINIMUM REQUIRED FIRE FLOW AND FLOW DURATION FOR BUILDINGS
FIRE AREA (square teat)
FIRE
FLOW
TTyype
Type
Type
TX
(gallons
FLOW
DURATION
4F R.
II F.R.'
11One-HR.
Ill One -NR'
IV•H.T.
V -0HR.' -HR'
WI
ill N'
Typs
V N`
psi
mInute)
(hours)
22,700
12,700
8,200
5.900
3.600
1,500
30,200
17,000
10,900 1.
7.900
4,800
1,750
38,700
21,800
12,900
9,800
6,200
2,000
2
48,300
24,200
17,400
12,600
7,700
2,250
59,000
33,200
21,304
15,400
9,400
2,500
70,900
39,700
25,500
18,400
11,300 1
2,750
83,700
47,100
30,100
21,800
13,400
3,000
97,700
54,900
35,200
25.900
15,600
3,250
3
112,700
63,400
40,600
29,300
18,000
3,500
128,700
72,400
46,400
33,500
20,600
3,750
145,900
82,100
52,500
37,900
23,300
4,000
164,200
92,400
59,100
42,700
26,300
4,250
183,400
103,100
66,000
47,700
29,300
4,500
203,700
114,600
73,300
53,000
32,600
4,750
225,200
126,700
81,100
58,600
36,000
5,000
247,700
139,400
89,200
65,400
39,600
5,250
271,200
152,600
97,700
70,600
43,400
5,500
295,900
166,500
106,500
77,000
47,400
5,750
Greater
Greater
115,800
83,700
51,500
6,000
4
"
125,500
90,600
55,700
6,250
"
135,500
97,900
60,200
6,500
145,800
106,800
64,800
6,750
"
156,700
113,200
69,600
7,000
"
167,900
121,300
74,600
7,250
179,400
129,600
79,800
7,500
"
191,400
138,300
85,100
7,750
Greater
Greater
Greater
8,000
ITypes of construction are based upon the Building Code:
496
o ° UQA(3&
IAMB 1:3777 FRUI "I' \%,,\I_F AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 - :3438
MEMORANDUM
93S03M01
January 18, 1993
TO: Larry I. Perlin
FROM: Mike McDowell
SUBJECT: CC-92-001, Application for CERTIFICATE of CaMPLIANCS for parcels:
APN: 517 -13 -012 and APN: 517 -36 -008 formerly known as APN: 517 -13 -003
APN: 517 -36 -008 Effective Date of Creation: before August 14, 1959, therefore
existed before the Statute Date of March 4, 1972.
REMMMEND Certificate of Camplianoe be issued to include the
following stipulated conditions:
1. Provide recorded evidence of lawful access to a
Public Road.
2. Provide recorded evidence of a Boundary Survey
of the subject property.
APN: 517 -13 -012 Effective Date of Creation: July 9,-1965, therefore
existed before the Statute Date of March 4, 1972.
REOQM END Certificate of Compliance be issued to.include the
following stipulated condition:
1. Provide recorded evidence of a Boundary Survey
of the subject property.