HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-18-1988 City Council Staff ReportsSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0. l AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: 5 -10 -88 (5- 18 -88) CITY MGR. APPROVAL ��
ORIGINATING DEPT:
SUBJECT: Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1 (Existing)
Recommended Motion:
1. Adopt Resolution of preliminary approval of Engineer's Report.
2. Adopt Resolution of "Intention to orderthe levy and collection of assessments
pursuant to Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 ". This resolution also sets
the time and place of the public hearing, for said district on June 15, 1988.
Report Summary:
At your April 20, 1988 meeting you adopted Resolution No. 2478, a resolution
describing the improvements and directing preparation of the Engineer's Report
for Fiscal Year 1988 -1989 for the continuation of Landscaping and Lighting District
LLA -1. Additional council action is required for this district to proceed. 'The
Engineer's Report is not included because of the following: Engineer's Report
contains the total assessment for each zone, rules for spreading assessment, cost
estimate for each zone, description of work, Assessment Roll and Assessment Diagram.
This report is made up of 110 pages and will be available on May 16, 1988 for
Council Review.
Fiscal Impacts
The costs for the administration, maintenance and servicing and lighting costs
are charged to the various zones within the District based on benefit received.
The Santa Clara County Assessor's Office will collect the amounts through the
taxes, in turn, sent to the City.
Attar1imantc-
1. Engineer's Report to be presented Wednesday night.
2. Resolution No. 2478.2.
3. Resolution No. 2478.3.
Motion and Vote:
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. J<-0 AGENDA ITEM 4
MEETING DATE: 5 -11 -88 (5- 18 -88) CITY MGR. APPROVAL /�e`�'yl --
ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING
SUBJECT: Grant Final Acceptance and Release Improvements
Bond and Monument Bond for Tract 7655, Cabernet Drive
Recommended Motion:
Grant Final Acceptance and release Street Improvement Bond and Monument Bond.
Report Summary:
The Public Improvements for the Tract 7655 have been satisfactorily completed
and maintained for a one -year period.
Fiscal Impacts
None.
1. Memo describing bond.
2. Resolution 36 -B.
Motion and Vote:
0
4_
a ®� 13777 FRUTTVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
.' • `$ (408)"887 -3438
�1EMURANDt1NI
TO: City Council DATE: 5 -11 -88
FROM: Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Final Acceptance for Tract 7655
Location,:-' 'Cabernet Drive (Brookview School) J. Lohr
The one (1) year maintenance period for TRACT 7655
has expired and all deficiencies of the improvements have been corrected.
Therefore, I recommend the streets and other public facilities be accepted
into the City system. Attached for City Council consideration is Resolu-
tion- ' 36B which accepts the public improvements, easements
and rights -of -way.
Since the developer has.fulfilled his obligation described in the improve-
ment contract, I also recommend the improvement securities listed below be
released. The following information is included for your information and
use:
1. Developer: J: Lohr Development
Address: 2021 The Alameda 46145
Sail Jose, Ca. 9512,6
2. . Date of Construction Acceptance: 9 -3-86
3. Improvement Security:
Type: Security.
Amount: $235,000.:00
Issuing Co: United Pacific Insurance Co.
Address: Lee Ramage of San Francisco, CA.
Federal Way, Washington
Receipt, Bond or
,
Certificate No.: # 643 5975
4. Miles Of Public Street: 0.43
5. Special Remarks:
Rob r S. Shook
RSS /dsm
a
4 of S�AR��'p
�IFOR�1
MEMOO RANDt_1M
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT
(Muw @:T 0&M&UQ)0&
13777 FRUIT'VALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
City Manager
Director of Public Works
DATE: 5 -11 -88
'Release of Monument Bond for TRACT 765.5
Name & Location: Cabernet Drive. (Brookview School) J. Lohr
All public street monument's for Tract 7655 , have been in-
stalled, verified in writing by the engineer or surveyor and are
acceptable to us. The engineer or surveyor has also verified he
has received payment for placing the monuments.
Therefore, I recommend the City Council approve the release of the
monument bond posted by the developer.
The following information is submitted for your use:
1. Developer: J. Lbhr Development
Address: 2021 The Alameda #145
San Jose, Ca. 95126
2. Bond Type:— Security
3. Bond Amount:: $2.,600.00
4. Bond, Certificate or R3A_*Mkx U 43 5976
5. Issuing Company: United Pacific Insurance Company
Address • Lee Ramage of San Francisco
Federal Way, Washington
6. Special Remarks:
RSS. /dsm
Robert S. Shook
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM C�
MEETING DATE: May 18, 1988 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
lkg!L�
ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering
SUBJECT: Bicycle Warning Signs on Pierce Road and Quito Road
Recommended Motion:
Authorize the removal of the bicycle warning signs on Pierce Road and Quito
Road.
Report Summary:
In November, 1987 we looked into the possibility of using advisory warning signs
for bicycles using Pierce Road and Quito Road, because of the narrow winding char-
acteristics of said roadways. This was brought to our attention by a resident who
had seen signs of this nature placed on Blossom Hill Road in Los Gatos. After
reviewing the matter, a report was submitted to the Public Safety Commission,
recommending the installation of such signs. At its meeting of December 7, 1987,
the Public Safety Commission considered the request and unanimously supported the
installation of these signs. At its meeting of January 20, 1988 the City Council
approved the installation of the "NARROW ROADWAY UNSAFE FOR BICYCLES" signs on
Pierce Road and Quito Road.
Shortly after these signs were installed (Jan. 22, 1988) we started reciving
complaints from bicycle enthusiasts opposing the signs. The bicyclists felt that
the signs gave motorists the idea that bicycles did not belong on these roads, and
acted as such when encountering anyone on a bicycle. In addition they made the
case that bicycles were considered vehicles with the same rights as other vehicles
to use these roads. After receiving and considering several phone calls as well
as letters, along with a complaint aired at the March 2, 1988 City Council meeting,
we are recommending that the signs be removed.
It should be noted that staff did not reach this position in time for the Public
Safety Commission to review and comment on it.
Fiscal Impacts:
The cost to remove these signs would amount to less than $50.00 and come from
the Traffic Safety Budget (3033- 3010).
Attachments:
1. Memo to Public Safety Commission.
2. Public Safety Commission Memo.
3. Agenda Bill - 1/20/88 City Council Meeting.
4. Documentation opposing sign installation.
Motion and Vote:
Qq 0
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 9.5070
(408) 887 -3438 -
MEMORANDUM-
TO: Public Safety Commission DATE: December 7, 1987
FROM: City Engineer
SUBJECT: Narrow Roadways /Bicycles
There are a couple of roadways in the City which it has been determined
to be unsafe for bicycle use, because of their narrowness. These
roadways are: Quito Road between Austin Way and the northerly in,ter-
seciton of Sobey Road; and Pierce Road between Congress Springs Road
(State Route 9) and Surrey Lane.
We recommend that bicyclists should be warned prior to attempting'to
negotiate these sections of roadway, by placing warning signs with the
message "NARROW ROADWAY UNSAFE FOR BICYCLES" (.see attached sketch for
sign standard and suggested placement).
The Town of Los Gatos has used these signs on a portion of Blossom Hill
Road-between Union,Avenue and Camino Cerro.
The placement of.these signs will not keep all bicyclists off the
narrow portions'of roadways, but by warning in advance, the novice and
cautionary riders will avoid. using them.
c
A-dbert S. Shook
City Engineer
RSS /df
Attachment
OF
, Im
......... ..
�a. �- - 4
Aro-lvr-
.MIS
ao
,Vol
tj
14
0,49W
NAP-ROW
ROADWAY-
9/7 Z oca,60/7)
UNSAFE FOR
B I CY.0 LES
36 "x 3.6 ° -
0 . IF
rs
dtl �v' )EC 16 1981
ID
09UT @0 M&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -34:38
December 18, 1987
To: Bob Shook
From: Community Services Director
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
Joyce Hlava
David Moyles
Donald Peterson
Subject: Bicycle Warning Signs on Quito and Pierce Roads
This is in response to your memorandum dated December 7, 1987, to
the Public Safety Commission. Your memorandum solicited the
Public Safety Commission's opinion concerning the installation of
bicycle safety warning signs on Quito Road between Austin Way and
the northerly .intersection of Sobey Road; and on Pierce Road
between Congress Springs Road and Surrey Lane. The signs would
read "Narrow Roadway Unsafe for Bicyclists ".
The Public Safety Commission considered your request at their
regular meeting of December 14, 1987, and unanimously decided to
support your staff recommendation in this matter.
Please contact me if you have any further questions.
Todd W. Argo
jm
cc: Public Safety Commission
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: January 20 1988
ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING
AGENDA ITEM
- -__
CITY•MGR. APPROVAL'
SUBJECT: BICYCLE WARNING SIGNS ON QUITO .ROAD AND PIERCE ROAD
Recommended Motion-:
Approve the installation of "NARROW ROADWAY UNSAFE FOR BICYCLES" signs on Quito
Road, between Austin Way.and the northerly intersection of 'Sobey-Road., and on Pierce
Road, between Congress Springs Road and Surrey Lane.
Report Summary-
We have determined that the above subject roads are unsafe for bicycl'.e use due-
to.-their narrowness and lack of shoulders in most portions. These warnings are - primarily'
for the benefit of novice and cautionary riders. The Towne of Los Gatos have used these-
signs on .a portion of Blossom Hill Road.
The Public Safety'Commission, at its meeting of December 14, 1987, unanimously
supported this recommendation.
Fiscal Impacts: ;
The cost of the installation of these signs would be approximately $600.00 and .
should come from the' traffic safety budget '(3033- 3010) .
Attachments:
1. Location Map.
2. Memo from Community Services Director (P.S:P•. approval).
3. Staff Report.
Motion and Vote:
3 -4 -88
from City Council Minutes of March 2, 1988
by George Godlewsky, 20773 Hillmore Drive, Saratoga
Subject: Bike Signs on Pierce Road
I am, here tonight- because of my love of bicycling and now the signs
put up on Pierce ,Road that the City put up which state "it is unsafe for
cycling" are upsetting. I think that these are ill founded and not supported
by the facts and put the City in a position of giving sanction to the
rednecks who we unfortunately have with us who tell me to get the hell -
off the road' when they come upon you. I realize that Pierce Road is
narrow and winding and the sign should state that and let it go at that.
I was told by the City people when I called and some.of my other friends
called—that-the sign is based on two (2) statistics„ an accident of injuries
to a cyclist and one death of a cyclist. The death that they are referring
to was not an accident. My friends were very concerned when it happened
and we looked' into the matter and the individual did not do this accidentally.
I think under the circumstances when you have a car accident you don't post
the road as "unsafe for cars" and you should give us*the benefit of this. I
have been riding here for years and many thousands of people ride it during
th-e coming season and I don't like to see the City put itself on record
as telling people to stay off the .road. I realize Los Gatos did that and
'we are protesting that. The roads ate there for the use of the public and
everybody pays for them. And competence is the only criterion. Thank you.
0
e- �
t Afta
r,
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF BICYCLING ORGANIZATIONS
HEADQUARTERS: P.O. BOX 2684 DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA 94568
�VLd4 r
A'd 1 `Bo D pp 1Please reply to: Alan Wachtel APR 11 19U'
2379 Jane Lane
Mountain View, CA 9404WE�iaP1C -'
(� r (415) 967 -5580
7 April 1988
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Members of the Council: .
I've received four phone calls in the last few weeks from bicyclists upset at
the "Unsafe for Bicycles" signs you've recently posted on Pierce and Quito
Roads. I think you should take them down at once. These signs are not
authorized by Caltrans standards, as they must be under Vehicle Code 521401;
they offend bicyclists; they serve no safety purpose whatever; and they
_pointlessly expose the City of Saratoga to substantial liability.
I don't know of any unusual hazards to bicyclists on Pierce and Quito Roads- -
certainly nothing uniquely dangerous to bicyclists, rather than to motorists
or pedestrians. Of course these roads are narrow and winding, with restricted
visibility and passing room, but, as on any such road, traffic can see that
this is so and act accordingly. If bicycle accidents have occurred there, I
recommend that you analyze their causes to find out whether some feature of
the road was at fault rather than bicyclist or motorist error.
As you know, a city has a duty to maintain its streets in a reasonably safe
condition for travel by the public.` If you do discover a hazard on Pierce or
Quito Roads that would not be apparent to a person exercising due care, you
must take reasonable steps to mitigate it, either by alleviating it or by
posting signs to warn road users of its presence so they can protect
themselves. Otherwise the hazard constitutes a dangerous condition of public
property, defined in Government Code §830 as "a condition of property that
creates a substantial. . . risk of injury when such property or adjacent
property is used with due care in a manner in which it is reasonably
foreseeable that it wi•11 be used." Under Government Code § §830.8 and 835 and
a large body of case law, which I will not trouble you by citing here, a
city is liable for injuries caused by such a dangerous condition.
By posting non - standard signs asserting that the road is unsafe for bicycles,
you make as explicit and unambiguous an admission of a dangerous condition as
any plaintiff could hope for, yet, you do nothing whatever to mitigate the
unidentified hazard. The only way bicyclists can protect themselves from it
is by taking another route. In practice, this is impossible for a bicyclist
who is already on the road; in any case, there is no reasonable alternative to
either road. In a more fundamental sense, it is firmly established in law
~ Saratoga City Council 7 April 1988 Page 2
that bicyclists have the same right as automobile drivers to use the roads.
Bicyclists cannot be asked to surrender this valuable right because of the
City of Saratoga's assertion of its own negligence.
The only effect the signs are likely to have is to increase motorist
intolerance of bicyclists who are lawfully traveling on Pierce and Quito
Roads, and this intolerance further increases your liability. If there really
are hazards on these roads,, I hope you will take Approp, -riate step's to correct
them. In the meantime, please remove these uninformative and objectionable
signs. And if you are,genuinely concerned about bicyclists' safety, also
eliminate the two -way bike lanes on Prospect Road and Via Roncole. The
California Highway Design Manual flatly prohibits two -way bike lanes and
raised barriers; the age of your facilities, which pre -date these standards,
does not-make them safer or more desirable.
Sincerely,
Alan Wachtel
Government Relations Director
P.O. Box 995
Los Gatos, CA 95031
4 May 1988
Mayor, Dan Peterson
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
I would like to bring to vour attention two areas which are a hazard to bicyclists.
One area is on Quito Road. The part that I am familiar with (there may be others) is from
just before the railroad tracks to Pollard Road. Particularly from the railroad tracks to
Allendale then a little past Allendale to Pollard Road.
The bike lane that is marked is really a joke and I can't imagine that a bicylist would ride on
it unless forced onto it by a car. Both sections are so narrow that in order to ride on the
street a bicyclist needs to ride in the lane of traffic.
I have commuted by bicycle for 10 years and used to commute on Quito but discontinued
because as the traffic got heavier I didn't feel safe, however, I still occasionally commute
from Allendale on to Pollard Road, but I ride in the center of the lane until I get to Pollard
Road, which most often upsets the motorist behind me. Otherwise I go about 2 miles out
of my way in order to miss this section of road. If something isn't done a bicyclist is going
to colide with a car, if this hasn't already happened.
The other area is on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road between Wardell and Blauer (headed toward
Saratoga). This section is poorly maintained, the shoulder (bike lane ?) is narrow, the
pavement is crumbling and uneven and it is most often cluttered with a lot of trash. A
bicyclist needs to ride in the lane of traffic so as to avoid it.
I would be glad to meet with you or a member of the council, preferably on a bicycle, to
look at these areas.
There a lot of bicyclists commuting, especially during the warmer months and it is in our
better interest to offer safe conditions in which to do this.
If it is necessary for me to attend a council meeting to discuss these problems, please advise
me of the date and time.
Thank you.
incerelyy,,
an Y. W er
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0.
MEETING DATE: April 20, 1988
ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering
AGENDA ITEM ` 1`
CITY MGR. APPROVAL'
1. Amending Resolution No. MV9 -A Elimination of 2 Hour Parking- Portion
SUBJECT: of Oak Street. _
2. Amending Subsection 9- 15.100(d) of the City Code- Modifying Passenger•Loading
Zone on Komina Avenue.
Recommended Motion:
1. Adopt Resolution No. MV- 9 -A =1, Amending Resolution No. MV -9 -A rescinding Section 1
of Resolution No. MV -9 -a - 2 hours parking restriction on a portion of Oak Street..
2. Introduce Ordinance No. 71. . an,ordinance Amending Subsection 9- 15.100(d)
of the City Code Relating to Passenger Loading Zones - (Modifying Passenger Loading Zone.
on Komina Avenue.)
Report Summary: Komina Avenue, adjacent to Saratoga School becomes very congested
when the Lower grade students are being dropped off and picked up by their parents. This
congestion is created by the narrowness of Komina Avenue in combination with-vehicles
parked along both sides of the roadway. By creating a newly designated passenger load-
ing zone along the northeasterly side of Komina Avenue, between a point 60 feet southeast
of the intersection of Oak Street to a point 236 feet southeast thereof, it would allow
8 spaces for this designated use. Presently there are 7 spaces along the northwest side
of Oak Street in the immediate vicinity opposite Komina Avenue, that are designated as
2 hour parking. By rescinding this 2 hour limit, it would open up unlimited parking
for the spaces lost to the passenger loading zone proposed for Komina Avenue. The
Saratoga School is in favor of this proposal and the Public Safety Commission unanimously
supports the proposal.
Fiscal Impacts:
The cost of eliminating the existing 2 hour limit would probably not ex'ceed.$15O
which would come from the Traffic Safety Budget (3033- 3010).
Attachments:
l.. Sketch.
2.1 Resolution No. MV- 9 -A -1.
3.. Ordinance No. 71.
4. Memo from Public Safety. Commission.
5. Staff Report to Public Safety Commission.
Motion and Vote:
� do
�r
co
fx
Ll
�•
SCA L E':
A
b
ORDINANCE NO. 71.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING
SUBSECTION 9- 15.100(d) OF THE CITY CODE RELATING
TO PASSENGER LOADING ZONES
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows:
SECTION 1: Paragraph (d) of Section 9- 15.100 in Article 9 -15 of the City Code
is amended to read as follows:
"(d) Designation of passenger loading zones. The following described
portions of the public streets in the City listed below are declared to be congested
areas designated as passenger loading zones and subject to the restrictions of this
Section.
Name of Street
Description
Oak Street Southeast side, from a point 6 feet northeast
of the intersection of the northwest extension
of the northeast curbline of Komina Avenue
with the southeast curbline of Oak Street, to a
point 204 feet northeast of that intersection.
Oak Street Southeast side, from a point 244 feet
northeast of the intersection of Komina
Avenue to a point 288 feet northeast of that
intersection.
Park Place The northwest side from a point on the
curbline 66 feet northeasterly along such
curbline from the intersection of the curbline
with the curbline of Oak Place, adjacent to
power pole 14495 to a point 113 feet
northeasterly along such curbline from such
intersection.
Komina Avenue Northeast side, from a point 60 feet southeast
of the intersection of Oak Street to a point
236 feet southeast of that intersection.
Glen Brae Drive On the easterly side from approximately 560
feet northerly of the centerline to
approximately 685 feet of Via Real to
northerly of same."
SECTION 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or
unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
Be
of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it
would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and
phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections,
sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 3: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its
passage and adoption.
The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the
waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of
, 1988, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
WIC
MAYOR
',�.r� J 2
MAR
19&
o
13777 FRUITVAI-,F: AV1 NU1. • SAIZATOGr \. CALIFORNIA 95070 ,
(408) 867 -:3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
March 22, 1988 Martha Clevenger
Joyce Hlava
David Moylos
To: City Engineer Donald Peterson
from: Community Services Director.
Subject: Establishment of Passenger Loading Zone on Komina.Avenuo
by Saratoga School
You will recall that the above referenced subject was first
considered by the Commission at their February meeting and
trailed to their March meeting so the Commissioners could visit
the site in question. This action was communicated to you in my
memorandum of February 11, 1988.
At their March meeting, the Commission unanimously decided to
support your staff recommendation; specifically to create a
passenger loading zone along the northerly side of Komina
Avenue, between 50 feet easterly of the crosswalk at Oak Street
and 20 feet westerly of the mid -block crosswalk at the
kindergarten classrooms. As you know, this would involve the
elimination of eight parking spaces for a total of 176 feet.
They also supported your recommendation to eliminate the 2 -hour
parking zone established by Council Resolution No. MV -9 -A (dated
November 2, 1966) along the westerly side of-Oak Street across
from the school between Komina Avenue and the mid -block crosswalk
on Oak Street which would make available seven spaces for daily
parking.
Please contact, me if you have any further questions in this
matter.
jm
cc: PSC
ugu'ff o1 0&U9&1XQ)0&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: Public Safety Commission DATE: 01 -28 -88
FROM: City Engineer
SUBJECT: Komina Avenue - Parking Congestion at School
The lower grade students at Saratoga School (corner of Oak Street
and Komina Avenue) are dropped off and picked up along Komina Avenue.
Komina Avenue is quite narrow (26't), and with vehicles parked along
both sides becomes quite congested when these students are being dropped
off and picked up by parents.
In September, 1985 Saratoga School requested that we establish a
mid -block school crosswalk on Komina Avenue along with creating NO
STOPPING ZONE at the.four sides of said crosswalk from 8:00 a.m. to
3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. This was accomplished by adopting
Resolution No. MV -161, on November 7, 1985. Additionally, parking pro-
hibition was established on both sides of Komina Avenue at Oak Street
(Resolution No. MV -162, adopted 12/4/85).
The solution to this situation would be to create a passenger
loading zone along the northerly side of Komina Avenue, between 50 feet
easterly of the crosswalk.at Oak Street and 20 feet westerly of the mid -
block crosswalk at the kindergarten classrooms. This would be 176 feet,
amounting to 8 parking spaces. Presently most of the parking at this
location is by the lower grade teachers. -
In conjunction with creating the passenger loading zone, it is
recommended that the existing two -hour parking limit along the westerly
side of Oak Street across from the.school (Resolution No. MV -9 -A, 11/2/66)
between opposite of Komina Avenue and the mid -block crosswalk on Oak
Street consisting of 7 spaces, be eliminated. By lifting this 2 hour
limit, it would open up the 7 spaces for the parking lost to the passenger
loading zone. (See sketch attached to letter of 12/11/87 to Saratoga School).
This proposal has been discussed with Lisa Akers, Principal of
Saratoga School, of which she agrees with the above discussed solution
to congested situation.
R ert . .S ook
City Engineer
Attachments
ugu'f 92 - O&N�&U(n)0e& -
113777 F ' RUITVALE AVENUE • SAR.ATOGA. CALIFORNIA 9507.0
(408) 867 -:3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
December 11, 1987
Lisa Akers, Principal
Saratoga School
14592 Oak Street
Saratoga, Ca. 95070'
Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
Joyce Hlava
David Moyles
Donald Peterson
RE: Proposed Passenger Loading
Zone - Komina Ave.
Dear Ms.. Akers:
Recently, there has been an inquiry as to the congested traffic
situation along Komina Avenue during student - "drop- off ",and "pick -up ".
As you are aware Komina Avenue is a narrow roadway and vehicles are
parking along both.sides all during the day creating a restricted'
route for through vehicles, with the problem worsening during the
"drop -off" and "pick -up" periods (double parking). A partial solution
to this situation is to create a passenger loading zone along the
northerly side of Komina Avenue, between 50' easterly of the crosswalk
at Oak Street and 20' westerly of the midblock. crosswalk at the kinder-
garten classroom (this would amount to 8 spaces or 176 feet). This
proposal would lessen the congestion as well.as provide more safety
for the students.
I would appreciate hearing your comments on.this matter, so we can
proceed with the necessary procedures involved in establishing the
proposed passenger loading zone. If you have any questions contact
Erman Dorsey of this department at 867 -3438, Extention 19.
Very truly ours,
obert S. hook
City Engineer
RSS /df
r
N 4L
N
SCA I- f.0
401
ob
09
(pol %
A
of §&M&
'OC °
13777 I FWITVAI..1- r1V1::.NUE SARATOGA- CA�Ar- 'OIINI� � 7,
(408) 867- 34:38 �I���
DEC 9 198
MEMORANDUM- NIEERIN0 7.r„ -
TO: City Engineer DATE: December 8, 1987
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: Parking Regulations - Komina at Oak Street
Currently signed for NO STOPPING. This seems to be the kindergarden
drop off area. Look into adviseability of resigning for Passenger Load,
or whatever.
Thanks.
Harry R. P abock
Jm
cc: Karen Anderson
t '
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL %
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: 4 -20 -88 CITY MGR APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING
SUBJECT: Slurry Seal II 87
"Notice of Completion'.'
Recommended Motion:
The work on the subject has been satisfactorily completed and it is
our recommendation that this work be accepted and "Notice of Completion"
filed.
Report Summary:
The Saratoga City Council, at their regular meeting on August 19,' 1987
awarded the contract for the above project to Graham Contractors, Inc. The
work on the project has been satisfactorily completed and it is recommended
that this work be accepted.
Fiscal Impacts
Total Construction Costs is $272,509.05.
1. Notice of Completion.
Motion and Vote:
ley
Nam•
51—.
Eddie..
Cif+ 8
51(111
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
Notirr of (Impirtiun
N- 0firP is here by given lhnt........ .I ............. . the undersigned . ........
IiARRY R. PEACOCK
.........................
........................................................................................................................... ...............................
.............................. /the agent ofl* the owner....... of th............. certain lot............ piece................ or,
parcel ............. of Innel situated in the ................... .T.TY..OF,. SARATOGA ...... ........................... County of
...................... $,VTA...G.1L.' .... ............................... Stale of California, and described as follotas, to -wit:
SLURRY SEAL II '87
That .......CITY ..OF ..SARATOGA
..................................................................... ................................. ...... :...
............................................. ............................... . as ocaner .... .. of said land, did, on the ....19th......
day of ................. AUGUST ............................ 19 A 7............ „ enter into a contract will, .........................
..............................................................................................................:............ ............................... for
............................ RAHAM., CONTRACTORS ...INC ...................................... ............ ............................... I .....................
..................... I ...... SLjJRRY..s .. 17... . BI.................................................................................................
........................................................................................................... ............................... I .....................
upon- the land above described, which contract was filed in the office of the county recorder of the
... ............ I ............. I.......... cotTHY of .................................. ............................... , Slate of California, on
the................. ............................... day of ................ ............................... , 1:9 ............; -
Thal on the ............... 6. tb ....... :..................... clay of ........... April ............................. 19M ......
the said contruct or work of improvement. as a whole, was actually completed by the said ...................
................................................. ... :......,:..................... ..............................;
That the name ...... and address...... of all the owner...... of said properly are as folioius:
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
and the nature of ....................................... title to said property is ........................ ...............................
................................................................................................................................. ...............................
................................................. ...............................
.................. ............................... ..
...................
STATE OF CALIFORNIA . .. . Icr
County o Igcut
HARRY R. PEACOCK
............................................................................................................................ ...............................
beingduly sworn, ........................................................................................... ............................... .says:
1 (1111 .......,.. the agent of]* the owner...... of the property described in the foregoing oolire. I houe
read the foregoing notice (in(] know the contents Ihercof and the same is true of my ucart knuu•ledge.
Subscribed and shorn to before me this
.......................... flu of...................... 19....... l ......... ........ ....:..........................................................
....................................... ............................... /I
................................................ ...............................
Delete words in brackets if owner signs.
cri'rPVrnrf+¢-T7e-- MOEt(.' - 0f;-eOMPtze
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. q-37 AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: 4 -20 -88 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING
SUBJECT: Slurry Seal II 87
"Notice of Completion"
The work on the subject has been satisfactorily completed and it is
our recommendation that this work be .accepted and "Notice of Completion"
filed.
Report Summary:
The Saratoga City Council, at their regular meeting on August 19,' 1987
awarded the contract for the above project to Graham Contractors, Inc. The
work on the project has been satisfactorily completed and it is recommended
that this work be accepted:
Fiscal Impacts
Total Construction Costs is $272,509.05.
Attachments:
1. Notice of Completion.
Motion and Vote:
SARCAjTOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. �I4 39 AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: Anri 1 20, 1988 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING J�J
SUBJECT: CENTERLINE BARRIERS ON SEA GULL WAY
Recommended Motion:.
Authorize the placement of parallel double yellow lines and the installation
of precast bars along the centerline of Sea Gull Way at its intersections
with Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Cox Avenue.
Report Summary:
Upon being requested to look into the possibility placing traffic barriers*
along the centerline,of Sea Gull Way at both Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and
at Cox Avenue, we reviewed the locations and provided sketches to. accompany
our report to the Public Safety Commission. At its meeting of'April 11, 1988
the Public Safety Commission supported this proposed installation.,
The cost of painting the double yellow lines, installing the Type D reflec-
torized markers and installations of-the precast concrete bards would amount
to approximately $50.0.
Fiscal Impacts
$500 from the Traffic Safety Budget (3033- 3010).
Attachments:
1. Staff Report to the Public Safety Commission (12/22/87).
2. Public Safety Commission. Report to City Engineer (3/22/8.8).
3. Revised sketch (Sea Gull Way @ Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road).
4, Public Safety Commission Report to City Engineer (4/15/88)..
Motion and Vote:
• S
.. "MEMORANDUM
TO: Public Safety Commission
FROM: City Engineer
SUBJECT: Centerline Traffic Barriers - Sea Gull Way
CI 4111, 1
DATE: 12 -22 -87
Recently, we have been requested to look into the possibility of
placing a traffic barrier along the centerline of Sea Gull Way at
it's intersection with Cox Avenue and at it's intersection with
Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road (State Route 85). This installation would
discourage vehicles turning right off of both Cox Avenue and Saratoga -
Sunnyvale Road from swinging over into the opposite lane of Sea Gull
[day. A similar installation has been in place on. Miller Avenue at it's
intersection with Cox Avenue for a number of years, and was installed
to prevent vehicles from swinging into the opposite lane and from cutting
the corner.
The proposed barriers would consist of parallel double yellow stripes
with type D raised reflectorized pavement markers and placement of .
precast concrete bars in the middle. (See attached sketches for exact
locations and.details).
We are recommending that this proposal be implemented, upon the con-
currence of the Public Safety Commission.
R rt S. Shook
City Engineer
RSS /df
Attachments
r
• SCAG E
1�61 I
4
1
�11
V
I
I
_f, - iyrs u marMer
Trpc O t
Double yellow
• ri° Ni /h / "/A�q• !/cpr Cover
ARCCAs r
41 S'TDA BAR
TRAFFIC BARRIER DETA /L
Nar 40 SCALE
1
,ee
Ticeo j
1 f-
Y f�
0.
O
�I.
/1
1
• •a�. `�.'.' SEA G U[. � t�Y.
rye. b -
Ma.I.ei/
1p
III .
I
I jl I
it
lip I �
.p "I1
I I
I I ql
. I I tll
NI
I �I
VIFRONICA 9Q
In
III
3 Ip
I I
� III
Q III
h iII '
Iq
cor AY6
_ SCALE -
rYP � L
Mo.ko.
&U,6 /e ye
StriPe
TYP. O H "L""
a s
s �
C— ____ _�
).O' I
i
�2 Deformed 8or
a. AQrc,4ST
S'ToA BAR
TRA .RR /ER _)FTrt /!
NOT TO SCALE
0
0
C?
V
K16A Cr.
IIIII
�
'
it
IIIII
v
� III •a
1 �
II
I
i
I�
IIIII o
it I
i
III o � ,
l u• `��.
I I ►�
% ✓,v��U01S� Ip
1`1
�T— �iEa
cor AY6
_ SCALE -
rYP � L
Mo.ko.
&U,6 /e ye
StriPe
TYP. O H "L""
a s
s �
C— ____ _�
).O' I
i
�2 Deformed 8or
a. AQrc,4ST
S'ToA BAR
TRA .RR /ER _)FTrt /!
NOT TO SCALE
0
0
C?
V
of �Alq
� a
Ll�.ogg�
March 22, 1988
MAR 22 198c
1 (1 _0` I E
�' iq F
13777 FRUITVALE
AVENUE
• SARATOCA. CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
To: City Engineer
From: Community Services Director
Subject: Centerline Traffic Barriers on Seagull Way
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
Joyce Hlava
David Moyles
Donald Peterson
As you will recall, the above - referenced subject was considered
by the Public Safety Commission at their February meeting. It
was trailed to their March meeting to give Commissioners an-
opportunity to visit the site and examine it more closely. This
is to apprise you of the PSC's actions on the issue taken at
their March meeting. The Commission-was confused concerning the
map provided in your staff report showing the changes you were
recommending. While it was clear that you proposed installing
centerline barriers at two locations along Seagull Way, the map
did not currently reflect the existing location of the stop bar
from Seagull Way facing Highway 85. The stop bar in the map
appeared to be moved off the centerline of the street and forward
toward Highway 85. The location of the pay phone was used as, the
reference point. The Commission was not sure whether the
relocation of the stop bar and centerline was a part of your
proposal to install the traffic barriers along that portion of
Seagull Way. If it .was, the Commission has some concerns
regarding the difficulty this would pose for vehicular traffic
turning left from Highway 85 onto Seagull. The Commission,
therefore, requested that you clarify your proposal, and provide
the Commission with maps showing the area before -and after the
proposed improvements. They would also like you to indicate
exactly to what degree you propose moving the stop bar line
forward from Seagull Way toward Highway.85.
With regards to the centerline barriers you proposed along
Seagull 'Way at the intersection with Cox Avenue, the Commission
did not see any need for this improvement, and would be inclined
to vote against it for this reason. The Commission would like to
have you indicate exactly what benefits would be derived from
installing traffic barriers at this location.
The Commission will await your response before taking any further
action in this matter. In the meantime, please feel free to
contact me if you have any questions.
r
Todd W. Argo
;m
Ci1: w.k per
PSC
r
Trpe D E '
Mar. r
Nor%r F
Double Ye/ %w 13 -r
Striloc .
V#2 Dcrormccl
Nab / "wrvq. C /air
:sroA BAR
•a.o'
Bar
Cover
TRAFFIC BARRIER DETA /L
NOT TO SCALE '
i SCALE : I I I6 j .
' �„ = So' IIe g SEE i
Out �-- oC7 �I
• • ' •- ' . � � • � Ida ° I�— 4 � � •
o �
V
'I \
' 1V •%freet II. Tirdwa ,
rr.. D
j I Mar leers T
I'
• � i, I ` Rev /su/ skE t�
o� BAR
APR 15198e
0919W go � ° E:) & 71,NJ
o
13777 FR.UITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 05070
(408) 867 -3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
April 15, 1988 Martha Clevenger
Joyce Hlava
. tes To: Cit y Engineer Donald Peters
on
From: Community Services Director
Subject: Centerline Barriers on.Seagull Way
As you are aware, the Public Safety Commission decided to support
your staff recommendation to install centerline barriers on
Seagull Way at their April 11, 1988, meeting. This would include
the proposed barriers on Seagull approaching its intersection
with Cox Avenue and the proposed barriers on Seagull approaching
its intersection with Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. With regards to
the barriers on Seagull at its intersection with Saratoga-
Sunnyvale Road, the Commission's approval included recognition
that..the specific location of the stop bar might be altered;
keeping in mind that there should be adequate turning space
allowed for southbound traffic on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road to turn
left onto Seagull Way.
I believe the City Council is expecting this matter to come
before them at their April 20, .1988, meeting. Please contact me
if you have any questions.
Todd W. A ow
j
cc: PSC
City Manager
Erman Dorsey
0
i
` SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECTJTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM: U PI
MEETING DATE: May 18, 1988 /
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planning CITY MGR. APPROVA G
SUBJECT: GPA- 88 -01, General Plan Amendment to adopt the Saratoga Village Specific Plan,
Recommended Motion:
1) Conduct public hearing.
2) Approve Negative Declaration.
3) Adopt Resolution approving GPA- 88 -01.
Report Summary: The Saratoga Village Specific Plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission
at meetings on 2/24, 3/15, and 3/23/88. They voted unanimously to re-
commend to the City Council approval of the Plan. The Specific Plan
retains the same basic structure and content as the original Mackay &
Somps document, with some modifications outlined in the staff report.
The Plan contains a detailed Implementation Program that will begin
after the Plan is adopted by the Council.
Public Noticing: Public notice was given for this item by legal and display ads in
the Saratoga News, mailing to the Community Mailing List, property
owners both within the Village and within 500 feet of the Village
boundary, and to business tenants in the Village.
Fiscal Impacts: See Chapter V. of the Village Plan.
Attachments: 1) Report to Mayor and City Council from Planning Director, with attachments
2) Correspondence received on this item
Motion and Vote:
C�B�4 Qo
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 5/10/88
COUNCIL MEETING: 5/18/88
SUBJECT: GPA- 88 -01, General Plan Amendment to Adopt the
Saratoga Village Plan
Background
In the spring of 1987, the Planning Commission and City Council gave
conceptual approval to the Saratoga Village Planning Program
document that was prepared by the planning consulting firm of Mackay
& Somps. Staff was directed to prepare the Saratoga Village
Specific Plan and Implementation Program for final adoption. The
Planning Commission conducted three public hearings on the Specific
Plan, which included a study session to address concerns stated in a
letter from the Village Association. At its March 23, 1988 meeting,
the Planning Commission unanimously recommended to the City Council
approval of the Saratoga Village Plan.
Summary of Changes
The document before you in this General Plan Amendment is the
Saratoga Village Specific Plan. The Plan includes all of the
changes made by the Planning Commission at their public hearings,
and retains the same basic organization and content as the Mackay &
Somps document. Some changes have been made in converting that
document into a Specific Plan and in addressing Commission, Council
and citizen concerns. These changes are highlighted in the
following list:
1) Introduction - The Introduction Chapter now includes a section
on the policy basis for the plan; the summary section of the
Mackay & Somps document has been deleted. The composite Village
Plan Map formerly located in the Implementation Chapter at the
end of the Plan is now located in the Introduction Chapter.
2) Land Use and Zoning - The text of this Chapter remains basically
the same, except for minor wording and grammatical changes. In
this Chapter, and in subsequent Chapters, the "Recommendations"
originally written by Mackay & Somps have been reworded and
expanded into Goals, Policies and Implementation Programs. This
1
13
format is consistent
Few minor changes have
regulations, including
13) relating to hist,
relocated from the more
page 71.
with
been
the
:)r.ic
gene
the format
made to the
addition of
preservatio
ral historic
of the General Plan.
proposed C -H district
a paragraph ( #5 on page
n; this paragraph was
preservation section on
One issue the Council should be aware of in relation to the
proposed Village zoning is that the Plan recommends that
properties on the east side of Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, from
Saratoga Avenue to the south, be rezoned from their current C -C
designation to the P -A district, for the purpose of
concentrating all retail development to the Big Basin Way part
of the Village (see page 8 of Village Plan). Two properties,
Imperial Savings and the Napkin Ring, would be affected by this
zone change in that they would not be permitted uses under the
P -A zoning. If the Council feels that the Imperial Savings use
should continue, the P -A regulations should be amended to allow
financial institutions as a permitted use; this could be done
when the C -H regulations are prepared. If the Council feels the
Napkin Ring use should continue, they may want to consider
either changing the Plan's Proposed Zoning Map (Map #4) to keep
that parcel under a commercial designation, or retain the
P -A designation which would make the Napkin Ring a non-
conforming use.
3) Circulation and Parking - The text of this Chapter also remains
basically the same. Two additional parking issues ( #10 and #11
on page 17) have been identified, relating to the existing
deficit of parking in the Village, the development of parcels
not located in parking districts and the possible use of an in-
lieu fee program. Although the turnaround is still shown at the
curve where Big Basin Way turns into Congress Springs Road, the
conceptual diagram for it has been deleted. The Planning
Commission felt that it was misleading and confusing to include
that diagram because the turnaround has not been designed or
specifically located yet.
4) Village Design - This Chapter has been named "Village Design"
instead of "Design Guidelines." The Survey -of Existing
Architecture section, originally located in the Land Use and
Zoning Chapter of the Mackay & Somps document, is now located
more appropriately in this Chapter. The photographs throughout
the Plan are now of a much higher quality, from an improved
printing process. All references to a separate Village Design
Review Committee have been deleted in this Chapter and
throughout the Plan. In addition, there is now one set of
Village Design Guidelines (pgs. 73 - 81) that incorporates the
three separate guidelines (design, sign, and landscaping)
originally proposed in the Mackay & Somps document. The street
furniture guidelines are now part of the section on improvements
in public rights -of -way.
2
5) Implementation - This Chapter is the most important of the Plan
because it assigns each policy in the Land Use and Zoning,
Circulation and Parking, and Village Design Chapters its own
implementation program; each program includes the estimated cost
of the program, possible funding source, time frame and
responsible lead agency. Where a program involves funding by
the City's Capital Improvement Program, the time frame for that
program reflects the year(s) in which the funding is allocated.
Once the Village Specific Plan is finally adopted by the City
Council, implementation of the various programs will begin.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council conduct the public hearing, make
appropriate changes and /or corrections, approve the Negative
Declaration, and adopt the resolution approving GPA- 88 -01, General
Plan Amendment to adopt the Saratoga Village Specific Plan.
,'00, JkA-tlL
Ykghuek Hsia
Planning Director
YH /vy /dsc
Attachments:
1. Resolution
2. Negative Declaration
3. Minutes
CPC: 1/28/87, 2/25/87, 3/25/87
CC: 5/20/87
CPC: 2/24/88, 3/15/88, 3/23/88
3
RES -ND
Saratoga
DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUI -RED
(Negative Declaration)
Env,ironmen,tal Quality Act of 1970
File No. GPA -88 -01
The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY
OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has
determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable
provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through
15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and
Resolution GS3- of the City of Saratoga, ,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
General Plan Amendirnnt to adopt the Saratoga Village Plan. The Plan establishes,
land use, zoning, circulation, parking and design policies and implementation
programs aimed at the preservation and ir,provement of the small - scale, pedestrian
character of the Saratoga Village. The Village is the downtown commercial core,
generally located at the intersection of State Hay 9, Saratoga -Los Gatos Road,
and Saratoga Avenue. _
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION
No potential adverse environmental impacts.
Executed at Saratoga, California this ���� day of 198
YUCHUEK HSIA
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
DIRECTOR'S AU ORIZED UAFF MEMBER
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4
JANUARY 28, 1987
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
TUCKER/GUCH MOVED TO DENY UP -86 -006 ON THE GROUNDS THAT FINDING 1.
COULD NOT BE MADE. Failed 3 -4, Chairwoman Burger, Commissioners Siegfried, Pines,
Callans opposed
Commissioner Pines, asked that.the location of the sign for Building 4 be stated and suggested
that the sign be located further northeast, toward Cox Ave./Saratoga Ave. intersection. The,
Applicant was agreeable to placing the sign further north along Saratoga Ave. closer to the inset
of the building. The sign will be moved approximately 60, ft., with the base of the sign is to
be on the back of the berm, 6 inches below the crown of the hill.
PINES %SIEGFRIED:MOVED TO APPROVE UP -86 -006, AMENDING -THE RESOLUTION
TO READ,'THE SIGN FOR BUILDING 4 TO BE MOVED 60 FT. IN A
NORTHEASTERLY DIRECTION WITH THE BASE OF THE SIGN TO BE PLACED ON
THE BACK OF THE BERM, 6 INCHES BELOW THE CROWN OF THE HILL. Passed
43, Commissioners Harris, Guch, Tucker opposed.
12. Saratoga Village.Plan - Consider preliminary public input on draft Saratoga
Village Planning Program
Planner Young presented the Memorandum on the Saratoga Village, Planning Program, dated
January 22, 1987.
Mr. Lafer, Consultant, reviewed the Summary of the Planning Commission, study session of
November 4, 1986, adding the following, comments:
Chanter Ii Land Use and Zonin p•
1. Height- He concurred that 3 story buildings on Big Basin Way could be visually intrusive
on a narrow street and was agreeable to eliminating the reference to 40 ft, height
allowance. He suggested the wording, "Three story structures could be developed either
on the rear half of the property or the rear half of the linear length of the buildings, not on
the frontage of buildings."
2. New zoning.districts - Additional comment not required
3. Parking - He noted the need for additional parldng studies. As stated.in the Report,
parking in small lots with obscure entrances on the north side of Big Basin Way were
inadequately used. He suggested that, rather then looking at other comm unities.to
determine their parking requirements, parking studies be based upon direct observation of
the Village area due to the terrain; dead end streets and other unique characteristics of the
Village. Solutions he-in improved pedestrian access to parking, consolidation of lots and
better lighting of parking areas.
"Automobile- oriented business," such as automobile upholstery or autoparts shops, are
undesirable and should be excluded; such operations occupy space, are unattractive :and.
attract automobiles._ Perhaps drive -in restaurants and similar retail uses should also be
excluded. Business in the Village should be pedestrian intensive.
4. Office and professional uses - permitted to the mar or second story of buildings so as to
not interrupt pedestrian traffic flow.
Chapter M. Vehicular Vehi rCi . �l��on. �larion-
1. Left turn lanes - each left turn lane would remove a minimum•of three on- street parking
spaces; however, these lanes are needed especially for afternoon traffic and should be
considered after the first phase of parking improvements are completed
2. General - he concurred that additional studies are needed The turnaround has been
proposed for an optimal location; however, it could also be located further west if
necessary.
• PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5
JANUARY 28, 1987
c
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
3. Parking - 'if a parking structure were needed, the,best place for it would be out of sight of
Big Basin Way.
Chrter IV. DesiEn Guidelines-
1. Design Review Board - design review will:require a significant amount of time and work,'
reviewing proposed building designs as well as working with Staff to coordinate details of
public improvements. The Consultants suggested a separate design review committee.
2. Street trees - he commented on the method of calculating cost frgures'submitted
3. Public plaza - he felt that the proposed location was acceptable and suggested that a smaller
space could be considered, which would still create a significant visual impact on the street
view. He noted that leasing.land from private parties was often done in the east; any legal
concerns could be worked out by the City Attorney.
4. Signage - Consultants noted that signs which are too large destroy the architecture of the
buildings and dominate the visual environment.
5. Historic Overlay - Consultants felt that as the Historic Preservation Commission continued
the work, there may be new proposals and mechanisms; a historic preservation overlay
might not be precisely contiguous with the commercial development downtown butmight
extend, over the residential district. This would not be possible if it were all incorporated in
a commercial zoning district.
Secondly, if such a district were created it mightIncorporate special incentives for saving
buildings of historic value, for example, reduced property taxes or special;buiUng code
applications. If so, it would be better to have these items-in a,special overlay zone so that
if there were a challenge or litigation, the whole commercial zoning district doesn't end up
in the courts.
Chanter V. I MkMMMd=:- No additional comments.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:30 P:M
Mr. Miles Rankin, Village Merchants Association Task Force, stated his personal comments on
the above:
- 3 story buildings on Big Basin Way would create excessive traffic_, would not relieve the
parking•shortage, and were not in keeping with the Village.plan.
- Questioned the differential in Zone 1 and Zone 2 of the commercial district in density, site
coverage and setbacks. He favored one continuous shopping area.
- Parking District 6; he.suggested that the turn around area is placed on 6th street.'
- In -lieu fees to replace on-site parking requirements for property which had no parking and
no parking district existed, a property owner could pay an in- lieu.of fee allowing
development of the property to take place, increased square footage could be built and
money would be in place for future parking districts.
- Questioned the concept of placing retail stores along Big Basin Way and asked what would
happen to a service business already located on Big Basin Way.
Questioned the plans in front of Buy and Save
He presented a letter from the Village Association, stating that the,Board of Directors would
approve in concept a plan whereby the developer paid fees in;advance and could then proceed
with development.
Mr. Bill Carlson, Bella Mia Restaurant, favored;the proposed plan and asked that the Sign
• Ordinance include provisions prohibiting use of neon signs. 'He:recommended that replicas of
old fashioned street lamps and park benches be used on 5th and 6th streets.
Mr. McKenzie, 14554 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, discouraged removal of any parking spaces.
He concurred with the idea of in -lieu fees suggested above and was favorable to two story
parking ramps.
_00
_oe
I
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JANUARY 28, 1987
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Page 6
Mr. Dave Morrison, Saratoga, asked specific, questions regarding.property he owned, asking
that this property be rezoned for commercial use.
Ms. Betty Rowe, 20360 Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd., Saratoga, addressed the issue of the Public
Hearing to be held on March 4, 1987, on the proposed Bed and Breakfast Ordinance; she is
opposed to extending the Village boundary to allow a Bed and Breakfast establishment in a
residential area.
Mr. John Christian, 19022 Brookhaven Dr., Saratoga, stated that he has the same concern;
since the Planning Commission voted to deny the application, why was the issue part of the
Consultant's recommendations? The City Attorney stated that the Consultant was responding
to the Commission's question whether the heritage overlay was a zoning classification; it was
noted in comments made that it was not necessary to tie the.two together, the Heritage Commission may have different boundary lines.
Ms. Jackie Welch, Chairwoman.of the Beautification Committee, proposed the'following:
- Plan to repair sidewalks. for both safety and appearance, asking that sidewalks be uniform
throughout the Village
Sidewalk between 4th Street and Wildwood Park to connect the Park and the Village
- Unauthorized use of on- street parking by proprietors and employees; she suggested
provision for free proprietor and employee parking to eliminate the problem
Specifying type of awnings, use of canvas awnings only
- Guidelines regarding temporary signage
- Telephones and benches to be located near bus stops
- Use of specified type of cobblestones
- Restriction of parking lots from abutting sidewalks; only retail and commercial use should
abutrsidewalks
- Questioned parking. formulas and asked whether such would give flexibility for uses such
as outdoor dining and historic buildings.
Mr. John De Manto, San Jose Construction Co., owners of the former Security Pacific Bank
Building, commented on the following:
Noted in Parking District 5, that Bank property and Village Shopping Center parking. had a
differential grade level and questioned whether these two lots were to be combined
Concern with left turn lanes on 3th and 4th Streets and the resulting loss of parking
Provision for doubling office space atthe•Bank Building, which he•wished to preserve .
Favored a turn around to the south of the Village
- Monitoring employee parking.
- Questioned the street name, Turkey Track Lane
- Questioned the cost of building the proposed parking garage
Questioned a proposal which would not allow any additional banks; he wished to protect
his investment in the former Bank Building
Procedures to be followed during the review of the Village Plan proposal with prospective •
tenants
Use of "maintainable" materials in construction or beautifying the Village
Mr. Frank Behnke, President, Saratoga Village Association, stated that the proposed Village.
Plan did not provide any information not already known. He noted that retilers are leaving the
Village and asked tharthe Village be supported and that parking space be-increased. He
favored the proposed. Parking District.
The Public.Hearing Continued to February 25,11987.
Chairwoman Burger recessed the Meeting from 9:23 - 9:40 P.M.
13. DR- 86-054 Krajeska, request for design review approval of plans,to construct a new
two-story single family home at 13943 Pierce Rd. (Vista Regina) in the NHR • .
zoning district.
Chairwoman Burger reported on the site visit.
C
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
FEBRUARY 25, 1987
C.,
Page 4
8• Saratoga Village Plan - Consider preliminary public input on draft'Saratoga
Village Planning Program
Planning Director Hsia reviewed the status of the Saratoga Village Plan and asked the planning
Commission to direct Staff to prepare a draft; he noted a change in the existing Zoning Map.
The Public Hearing was opened 7:35 P.M.
Mr. Miles Rankin, Village Merchants Association Task Force, made the.following.comments:
Parking District 6; he asked for further consideration of this proposal by the Cor unission
In -lieu Fee; asked for consideration of this issue
- Favored only one zoning district -in the Village
No three story buildings in the Village
Existing office use; he suggested consideration of a time limit for inappropriate uses
- Businesses with intensive uses, i.e., real estate or phone sales offices; possible creation of
a separate standard for intensive office use verses general office use?
- Requested clarification of the number of parking spaces gained from parking districts
- Design guidelines were too general; he asked that "flavor" for the Village be agreed upon
Enforcement of guidelines
Col. E.T. Barco concurred with the comments made by Mr. Rankin.
Mr. Dennis Aldridge, 14607 Aloha Ave., Saratoga, questioned whether the Saratoga Village
Plan was.related to the extension of the Village boundary 500 ft. to include Bed -and Breakfast
establishments; Chairwoman Burger reviewed the decision of the Commission on this issue.
SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:55 P.M.
Passed 6 -0.
The Planning Commission reviewed and commented upon the Report from Stephen Lafer,,
Consultant, dated.February-5, 1987, as follows:
Land IIse and Zoning•
Comment 1: Commissioner Tucker asked that a Traffic:Study by done. Commissioners
'Siegfried and Pines favored the retention of two zoning districts and noted differences in the
two districts. Consensus reached by the Commission in favor of retaining C-H -I and C -H -2.
Comment 2: Consensus reached to prohibit the Third story on street; however, a third story to
the rear of the building would be allowed. Parking needs to be addressed.
Comment 3: Commissioner Harris noted there was no testimony that would change the plan to
phase out office use at street level; she favored the use of a. time limit. The City Attorney- stated
that a,time period was already specified; he noted the distinction between a non - conforming use
and a non - conforming structure. Ile question was whether the City would enforce the
removal of a non - conforming use for which the time had expired. A non- conforming office
use at ground level could be legitimized through a use perinirand subject'to conditions imposed "
by the Commission. He confirmed that the devise was already:in place as the Code presently
existed. Request made that the report state any applicable - Codes; the °Cotmission wished to
see the Code enforced as outlined by the'Ciry Attorney.
Comment 4: The City Attorney stated that the Code defined various types of services; these
definitions were consistent with comments made by the Consultant.
_
Comment 5: No additional.comment mach by theCo;mss.mmissionY
Vehicular Circulad on-
Comment 6: No additional comet' entrhade 8y the Cotru$ission,..,, . )�
Comment 7: No comment necessary.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5
FEBRUARY 25,198T.
.
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
De'tn Guidelines:
Comment 1: Commissioner Siegfried noted the unspecific nature of design guidelines.
Consensus reached to support the proposed mini -plaza on the south side of the Village.
Comment 2: Design review guidelines need to be-specific for the Village.
Comment 3: As above
Comment 4: No additional comment.
Comment 5: No additional comment.
Comment 6: Commissioner Harris asked that a limitation regarding size and non - moving '
images be placed on neon signs. Chairwoman Burger favored a ban on all neon signs.
Consensus reached that neon signs not be banned, however design and size to be severely
r G - restricted; Chairwoman Burger dissenting.
Comment 7: Commissioner Harris cited comments made.at Study Session; consensus that
Sign Ordinance already in place be enforced.
Comment 8: Details to be addressed in Design. Review guidelines.
Comment 9: Details to be addressed in Design Review guidelines, concurrence with
Consultant's comment
Comment 10: Concurrence with Consultant's comment.
Comment 11: Concurrence with Consultant's comment that "all awnings should be canvas."
Parking-
Comment 1: Commissioner Siegfried asked that long term parking requirements be met and
enforced. Consensus that employee and proprietor longterm parking be provided and
enforced; in, addition a Traffic. Study was requested.
Comment 2: Commissioners were favorable to in -lieu fees but asked how other cities handled
similar parking situations. Consensus in favor of in -lieu fees for every parking district �
Comment 3: No comment save that a parking structure was considered a long range issue.
Comment 4: No recommendation at this time; "requested a Traffic Study for further information
Commissioner Siegfried questioned the effects of intensification of office use (less square -
footage per user) in the Village as weltas in Saratoga. In response to Commissioner
Siegfried's comment, the City Attomeystated thapthe Ordinance did not address this issue
specifically; however, the-use permit could regulate intensity of use;
Commissioner Harris; noted thai a tum around was already being used; a Traffic and parking
study could address the issue. Consensus reached in favor of the turn around; Chairwoman
Burger and Commissioner Siegfried dissented. The Commission requested a detailed study.
Consideration of the establishment of a Design Review Committee as a decision making body;
consensus reached that the Commission wished to retain decision making power in regard,to
the Village. However, consideration would be given to the establishment of a design review v
.committee as an advisory body.
9. DR -86 -028 -1 Wayne Miller Investment Co., request for design review approval of `
15,400 sq.ft.retail Center on 1.42 acres of vacant property in the C -N
• zone, located east of Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. approximately 300 ft. south
of Cox Ave.
Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to Planning Commission, February 25, 1987,
and noted the revised Condition 16.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MARCH 25, 1987 Page 3
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued
10. DR -87 -018 Coffey, request for design review approval of plans to construct four (4)
DR -87 -020 new 3,929 sq.ft. one -story single fatrtily homes at 20449 Miljevich Dr., -
DR -87 -022 13264, 13286 and 13263 Glasgow Ct. in the R- 1- 12,500, zoning-district per -
DR- 87-025 Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Commissioner Tucker questioned in DR -87 -020 why there was no statement.prohibidng two-
story structures; Consensus that two-story structures were allowed on interior lots 5 and 6.
Commissioner Pines complimented the developer for presenting larger houses which did not
unduly impact the neighborhood
- TUCKER/SIEGFRIED MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-87-018,.020,022, AND 025. -
Passed 6-0. •
11. A -990.1 Sturla, request for a modification to a condition to allow applicant to enter
into ,a deferred improvement agreement rather than underground utilities -
prior to occupancy fora professional office building located at 19100 Cox.
Ave. in the P -A zoning district.
Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to Planning Commission, dated March 25, 1987;
Staff amended Recommendations to read, "1. Prior to final inspection of the office building
now under construction at 19100 Cox Ave., applicant shall enter into .a deferred. improvement
agreement to underground overhead utilities, and 2.•Applieant to underground overhead
utilities prior to final inspection of future building on an adjacent parcel.to the south or by
March 25, 1992, whichever comes first."
Chairwoman Burger noted on land use visit that overhead utilities were extremely unintrusive.
The Public Hearing was opened -at 7:25 P.M.
SIEGFRIED /GUCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7 :26 P.M.
Passed 6 -0.
PINES /GUCH MOVED APPROVAL OFA-900.1 WITH THE ADDITION OF TWO
CONDITIONS AS STATED. Passed 6 -0.
PUBLIC HRARINGSi
12. Saratoga Village Plan = Consider preliminary public "input on draft Saratoga
Village Planning Program.
Planning Director Hsia reviewed, the actions of the Planning Commission and presented a draft
of the Commission's comments.
Land Use/Zoning: b., Commissioner Pines suggested a statement addressing possible parking
impact from additional usage due to third story space.
Circulation and Parkin e., Consensus reached to delete the word "very" to read, "The
Commission believes a parking "structure" is a.lo range possibility..." ,.,..
In d:, Consensus reached that a Traffic Study assee best location for pedestrian crosswalks.
Commissioner Tucker suggested the use of limited parking (15 -20 minute) on Big BaQ;rWay;
Consensus reached that the Traffic Study consider this recommendation.
ISIEGFRIEDMINES MOVED ADOPTION OF THE SARATOGA VILLAGE PLAN 'DRAFT. •
Passed 6-0.
13. City of Saratoga, consider- reportand recommendation to the City Council
____� regarding' alternative uses for school sites. Continued to April 22, 1987.
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page
MAY 20, 1987
7. NEW - BUSINESS
A. Removal of Fruitvale Avenue Crosswalk at Redwood School
The City Engineer reviewed Staff Reports and recommended removal of the crosswalk
PETERSON/MOYLES RECOMMENDED REMOVAL OF CROSSWALK ON FRUITVALE
AVENUE AT REDWOOD SCHOOL. Passed 5 -0.
B. Resolution MV -171 Limiting Parking in Front of Village Library -_
The City Engineer reviewed Staff Report of May 20, 1987, reccnmending . approval of a
change in the parking limitation- along the library frontage; however, Staff was not in favor of
the elimination of parking•restrictions opposite the library.
PETERSON/HLAVA MOVED ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION MV -171 PROHIBITING
PARKING ON A PORTION OF OAK STREET AND LIMITING PARKING TO ONE
HOUR ON A PORTION OF OAK STREET. Passed 5 -0.'
C. Resolution 1011.3 Repealing Resolution 1011.2 Relating to Finance Advisory
Committee
CLEVENGER/HLAVA MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 1011.3 REPEALING
RESOLUTION 1011.2 CONCERNING FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Passed 5 -0.
Mayor Hlava proceeded to Public Hearings.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Ordinance amending Article 7 -20 of the City Code by adding Section 7- 20.225 --
relating to animals and vehicles (first reading)
The City Manager called'attention to additional information, namely, a Memorandum relative to
the Safety Commission's endorsement of the proposed Ordinance Amendment.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:25 P.M. There were no speakers.
ANDERSONICLEVENGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.AT 8:26 P.M.
Passed 5 -0.
CLEVENGER/ MOVED TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE 7 -20
OF THE CITY CODE BY ADDING SECTION 7- 20.225 RELATING TO ANIMALS AND
VEHICLES. Passed 5 -0.
B Consideration of Saratoga Village Plan recommended for_eonceptual.appmval by_.,
Village Task Force and Planning Comrmssion
Planning Director Hsia reviewed the history of the Saratoga Village Plan and stated that the
Planning Commission supported the proposed plan with the following exceptions:
Recommendation that the decision making authority for land use and design review for the
Village property rest with the Planning Commission and not with a separate Village
Committee as recommended by the consultant
Recommendation that a detailed traffic study be conducted.
Mr. Stephan Lafer, Consultant, reviewed the Village Plan as follows:
Land Use/Zoning
- Commercial zoning on the east side of Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. be rezoned for
Professional- Administrative use. Commercial/remil use on the west side only.
CC and CV zoning were not appropriate zoning districts, nor in character with the
' atmosphere of the Village;, inappropriate uses would be permitted,under such zoning.
1
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 5
MAY 20, 1987
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Proposed C -H Ordinance would restrict parking to the rear of buildings, prohibit
administrative /financial uses at street level, to the front of buildings, require design review
procedures, incorporation of open spaces and landscaping, in new buildings and would
permit Hotels only in upper levels or to the rear of buildings.
C-H -1 and C -H -2 zoning districts were reviewed; these two levels of intensity of
development would retain the current configuration, already present in the Village.
Inappropriate uses would continue at present as existing non - conforming uses.
Circulation and Parking;
On c., Councilmembers questioned the recommendation for a traffic study, noting the cost of
such a study and a preference for use of any monies on other improvements in the Village.
Mr. Lafer reviewed his• observations on traffic /parking problems and noted that working within
the limitation of Big Basin being a state highway and the fact that no one •was suggesting that
the fabric of the Village be destroyed, he suggested the following:
- Left rum lanes with adequate stacking space thus clearing the through lanes for traffic
- Parking District would restore the parking spaces eliminated -from left turn lanes
- Signs noting pedestrian traffic, directions for parking, traffic lights and a turn around.
- Utilization of parking on north side of the Village
- Public access from -the rear of shops on Big Basin Way
- Consideration, of a,parking, structure in the future; placement to be in Parking District 3.
Councilmember Peterson was not favorable to consideration of a parking structure and
suggested that such may give the perception of a hidden agenda; he was favorable to Parking
District 3. Councilmember Clevenger'concurred and noted, that her perception of the Creek
area would be the development of pathways; Mr. Lafer noted'that the development of pathways
by the Creek was suggested in the-Plan.
Consensus reached by the Council to eliminate the proposed parking. structure. --
Design Guidelines:
Imposition of ,a historical theme was rejected; the eclectic nature of the Village was noted.
- Intent of the Guidelines was to maintain a small scale, pedestrian environment
- Proposed Village Design Review Committee was rejected by the Planning Commission
- . Public improvements for the downtown area were discussed
Councilmember Moyles complimented Mr. Lafer on the section entitled; D2sittti Guidelines: in
response to questions, Mr. Lafer stated that materials used in the Village were specifically
detailed for legal and design review considerations as well as practical reasons.
Implementation: Estimated costs were noted.
The Public Hearing was opened at 9:23 P.M.
Mr. Miles Rankin, Village Merchants Association, presented a letter. from Mr. Frank Behnke,
President, Village.Merchants Association;. in- favor of the following issues:
- One commercial zone in the Village due to the limited size of the downtown area
- Height limitations should be the same throughout- -not to exceed two stories or 35 ft.
- Front and rear building entrances. available to the public
- Consideration of in lieu fees
Prohibition of neon sign; previously approved neon signs to be removed within. one year.
Ms. Betty Rowe, 20360 Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd., Saratoga, attended the meeting to insure that
the 500 ft. extension of the Village Boundary had beer deleted from the Village Plan.
.Ms. Jackie Welch, Jacks Rd., Saratoga, addressed the following issues:
New sidewalks in the Village with .a sidewalk:from 4th.Street to Wildwood Park
- Installation of a traffic signal at6th Street rather than at 4th Street
- Suggested the organization of a garden club to oversee maintenance of;plants and'flowers
- Favored restrictions on temporary signs
- Specification of canvas for awnings
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 6
MAY 20, 1987
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
PETERSON/HLAVA MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AT 9:40 P.M.
Passed 5 -0.
Land Use/Zoning;
a. Consensus reached by the Council in favor of two zoning districts
b. Councilmember Moyles stated that three stories would not be acceptable at the natural
grade of the Village. Consensus in favor of two stories on Big Basin Way, three stories
to the rear of the buildings. Limitation of 35 ft building height _
c Consensus in.agreement with Planning Commission Recommendations
d. Consensus in agreement with the Planning, Commission; further information requested.
Circulation and Parkine:
a. Consensus in favor of the concept, referral to the Commission.for implementation plan
b. Consensus to ask the Commission to research in lieu fees, reporting back to the.Council.
c. Consensus to delete.any consideration of a parking structure
d. Consensus to eliminate a detailed traffic study. Councilmember Peterson would considers
specific traffic study. Councilmember Moyles would not entertain the projected cost of a
traffic study; Mayor Hlava, Councilmember Clevenger concurred. Councilmember
Anderson expressed concern regarding turn around.
Design Guidelines:
a. Consensus in favor of recommendation of the Planning Commission
b. Consensus -in favor of.a clearly stated intent of the Design Guidelines
C. Consensus in favor of recommendation of the Planning Commission
Implementation:
Mayor Hlava concurred with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and felt that
action should betaken;, implementation to be tied to the Capital Improvements Program. '
Councilmember Moyles concurred and suggested that:
- The Saratoga Village Plan along with concurrent general plan and zoning textamendments
be acted upon with all due haste. He asked that the community be involved in this process
through a special'noticing of this Public Hearing:
- Financing; He asked that the Council and Staff review all possible sourcees of funding._
Councilmember Peterson.added that the above efforts should include improvements on Big
Basin Way; Councilmember Moyles suggested adding sidewalk and landscape maintenance
improvements in conjunction with the major improvements scheduled for Big Basin Way.
Mayor Hlava added Ms. Welch's suggestion of a, sidewalk from 4th Street to Wildwood Park.
.PETERSON/HLAVA MOVED APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPTUAL SARA-TOGA
VILLAGE PLAN, DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM WITH THE INCORPORATION OF SUGGESTIONS
MADE AT THIS HEARING. Passed 5 -0.
Mayor Hlava .returned to NEW BUSINESS
D. Resolutions 2420.2, 2420.3 concerning Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1
(Existing)
CLEVENGER/PETERSON MOVED ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 2420.2, PRE-
LIMINARY APPROVAL OF ENGINEER'S REPORT LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING
DISTRICT LLA -1. Passed 5 -0.
CLEVENGER /ANDERSON MOVED ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 2420.3 OF
INTENTION TO ORDER THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS
PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972. Passed 5 -0.
PLANNING' COMMISSION MEETING Page 7
FEBRUARY 24, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Break: 9:15 - 9:27 P.M.
14. GPA -88 -01 GPA- 88 -01, City of Saratoga, General Plan Amendment to adopt the
Saratoga Village Plan. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this
application.
- - - -- - - - -------------------------------
Planning Director Hsia presented the Memorandum, dated February 24, 1988 and reviewed the
Memorandum of the City Manager, dated February 23, 1988.
Planner Young confirmed that few changes had been made in either intent or content of the text.
The Public Hearing was opened at 9 :38 P.M.
Mr. Bill Carlson, President, Saratoga Village Association, commented as follows:
- Favored the CH -1 zoning the entire length of Big Basin Way
- Favored reinstating the proposed Parking District'6
- Supported a turn around area on Big Basin Way
- On Map 7, favored four ingresses/egress to Parking District 3
- Favored a traffic study to assess a possible right turn only restriction
- Street Lighting: one style of lighting fixture for the Village, i.e., carriage lights
- Elimination or prohibition of ingress /egress leading, to private parking areas over sidewalk_ s
- Prohibition of all neon lighting
- Installation of traffic lights on Big Basin Way and 4th Ave.
- In Parking District 3, consideration of a bike /pedestrian path with installation of a bridge
- Consideration of public rest rooms in the Village area
- Village Task Force in which the Village Merchants Association could participate
Mr. Miles Rankin asked that consideration be given to the existing zoning division in the
Village; it was vital to,the economic health of the Village to include the wider commercial area
presently zoned C -V. More commercial use was essential.
Mr. Alden Bloxham, Representing Chabre property, noted concern that there may not be a
clear understanding regarding property designated for a Parking District with respect to current
ownership of the property; it would not simply be donated with no transfer of funds, He
confinmed that such was private property and was not for sale.
Consensus reached to Continue the Application. The Public Hearing remained open.
TUCKER/CLAY MOVED TO CONTINUE GPA -88 -01 TO MARCH 23, 1988, WITH A
STUDY SESSION TO BE HELD MARCH 15, 1988. Passed 6 -0. r.
_ 15. DR -87 -159 Saffarian, 21657 Vintage Ln., request for design review approval of
plans to construct a new 6,192 sq. ft. two -story home on a 3.01 acre lot
in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued
to February 24, 1988 at the request of the Applicant.
Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit.
Planning Director Hsia presented the Report of the Planning Commission, February 24, 1988.
The Public Hearing was opened at 10:15 P.M.
Mr. Malik, Architect, presented a sketch and commented as follows:
- Applicants worked to mitigate Staff concerns; the recommendation for denial surprised them
- Attempts were made to delineate shapes and shadows on the rear.elevation of the house
- A balcony was added to recess the lower portion of the house
- Windows and breakfast nook were also added
- Landscaping and trees would be:installed.in the rear yard to farther mitigate impacts
- The house would not be fully visible from Toll Gate Rd. or Saratoga Heights
- Proposed square footage was.well below that allowed and in excess of setback requirements
Ms. Rose Gaspare, VintageLn., Saratoga, stated that she did not-intend to build on Lot C as
long as she owned the property.
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
DATE: Tuesday, March'15 •19 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: Comm- n er Ar s & Crafts Room, _19655 Allendale Ave..
TYPE: Committee -of- the - Whole
Roll Call - Present: Commissioners Harris, Kolstad, Burger, Guch,
Siegfried, Tucker
Absent :' Commissioner Clay
Staff: Planning Director Hsia, City Attorney Toppel,
Planner Young
Other': Five members of the public
------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
I. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION
A. GPA -88 -01 — Saratoga Village Specific Plan
Planner Young briefly reviewed the 2/24/88 staff report. It
was noted that there were no comments from the Commission on
the items in that report other than broader policy issues,
which-would be discussed later.
The Commission then went through the City Manager's comments
in the 2/23/88 memorandum. In relation to the proposed
wording for policy 2.9, Commissioner Tucker asked for an
example of a.property that could not provide parking on
site. Planner Young cited.the situation of the house on
Sixth Street that was required to be-raised to place parking
underneath when `it was converted from a residence to an
office.
Miles Rankin, Big Basin
the west side of Big R
bounded on the rear by
about people who wanted
or sometimes undesirable
should be allowed to pay
Way, gave examples of properties on
asin Way past 5th Street that were
Saratoga Creek. He was concerned
to develop but it was.not feasible
to cover the lot with parking; they
an in =lieu fee.
City Attorney Toppel stated that a problem of in -lieu fees
was that you needed a parking project or district in place
before you can assess the fees.
There was consensus to change the wording of Policy-2.9 to
read:
"The City shall explore alternatives to the
requirements for the provision of parking for
properties that are'not.within parking - districts and
cannot provide parking on-site or where it is
desirable to provide parking off - site."
1
Committee -of- the -Whole Report
3/15/88
In relation to the City Manager's concern about the sign
guidelines, there was consensus to delete reference to the
existing sign ordinance on page 79, and add a sentence
stating that special sign regulations would be developed
specifically for the Village. There was also consensus to
add a statement that neon signs would not be permitted.
.1, The Commission then went through the etter from the Village
I&ei- Ct(� Association, dated .2/24/88. Bill Ca son, president of
OLst"Dl�b1Ce�onse Saratoga Village Association, expressed support for one
tfi GtXei a� �� zoning district in the Village area, the CH -1. Miles Rankin
concurred. Commissioner Siegfried noted that this issue had
dr e been discussed previously by both the Commission and City
MinV,/ - Council; he did not favor a change at this point.
In relation to the possible development of a parking
district #6, there was consensus to add it back in on Map #7
and add a statement regarding it to the text of the parking
section.
In relation to the turnaround, Commissioner Burger expressed
concerns about safety and "cruising." Commissioner
Siegfried noted that Figure 1 showed stop signs on Hwy. #9
for the turnaround; he felt that might not be appropriate.
Planner Young noted that Figure 1 was meant to be conceptual
only. Bill Carlson expressed support for the turnaround,
especially for large trucks that could not turn easily in
the Village. Otto Crawford, Big Basin Way, also expressed
support, but felt that Caltrans and the City Engineer should
design it. There was consensus to delete Figure 1 showing
the turnaround because it was confusing and misleading, but
to keep it shown in symbol form on Map #6.
In relation to Parking District #3, planning staff and the
City Attorney confirmed that there would be four
ingress /egress points. Bill Carlson expressed support for
limiting left turns out of the district onto Big Basin Way
from 4 -6 p.m. on weekdays. There was consensus among the
Commission to add wording to that effect to Implementation
2.6 on page 26.
The Commission agreed with the Village Association on the
lighting fixtures and asked that the wording for that
section be changed. There was agreement with items #5, 6, 7
of the Association's letter and with the staff response.
In relation to the bicycle /pedestrian path along Saratoga
Creek in Parking District #3, there was consensus to add
language on page 26 to consider this. In relation to the
public restroom, there was acknowledgment of the need for
such a facility but not support for including it in the
Plan. Commissioner Siegfried cited all the problems
2
Committee -of- the -Whole Report
3/15/88
associated with such a facility. There was also consensus
to_ let Caltrans study a pedestrian- activated signal 'in
conjunction with the stop light at 4th Street.
There were no comments on the City Attorney's memo, other
than to' clarify the issue of the rear yard setback
requirement for the CH -1 district.
Jackie Welch, Jacks Road, asked that the wording regarding
the paving stone material for the crosswalks and plazas be
clarified. She presented samples to the Commission. There
was consensus to clarify the wording in support of the
samples submitted.
II. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
VY /dsc
3
Respectfully submitted,
Valerie You
Associate P- nner
PQ Boa 725 Sarw4a,CA.95071
RECEIVED
FEU C, 158p
PLANNING .DEPT.
Saratoga Planning Commission February 24, 1988
City Of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
867 -3438
SUBJECT: Adoption of Village Plan(GPA- 88 -01)
Dear Commissioners,
The Saratoga Village Association would like the Commission
to consider the following pointsrin the adoption of the
Village Plan. These are concerns that the Village
Association proposed at the public meeting on Wednesday
February 24, 1988.The following points are;
1.(Refer to map 4 on page 14) We would like to see the
entire length of Big Basin Way zoned CH -1 using the same set
of guidelines'.. Reinstate the original proposed plan to
develop Parking District #6 in that end of the Villa.ge.Refer
to map between section III -14 and III -15 of the
McKay Somps report of July 1986
2.(Refer to page 28) We are in support of the proposed
"turn - around" at the end of Big Basin Way business district.
3. (Refer to map 7 on page 29) As to the four egress and
ingresses to Parking District #3, we want to confirm that
this is the case. Also regarding these openings; we would
like you to consider whether it 'should be restricted to
right turns only during certain hours.
4. (Refer to page 66) With regards to street lights, we
would like to see the entire Village area have only one
style of light fixture, namely the carriage lights as
prQ!;Qntly in uoe,not globe or cube �it; p1ropos(-,d.
5. (Refer to page 73) Our vote was to eliminate or prohibit
any future egress or ingress over sidewalks leading to
p- rivate parking areas and have this included as one of the
goals.
6. (Refer to pages 79 &.80) We would like to prohibit any
future "neon" type signs and the eventual removal of any.
current "neon ". type signs in the Village.
7. (Refer to page 88) We are in'supp.ort of the proposed
traffic light installation on Big Basin Way at 4th Street.
4/
W.
�J
Request consideration of "NEW" proposed improvements to
Village.
A. Develop a bike /pedestrian path along the creek in the new
Parking District #3 to connect with the proposed foot bridge
from Parking District #1 (The Inn Of Saratoga) to Wildwood
Park.
(Argument for); This would redirect the many
bikers /joggers /skateboarders etc. from the hazardous Big
Basin Way traffic. It would also invite more of our public
to make use of our Park services and accent our scenic creek
area. Good area for more carriage lights and park benches
along pathway.
B.'Propose' the possibility of a public restroom somewhere
centrally located in the Village area. Perhaps with limited
hours of operation during the day.
(Argument for); The merchants are concerned that shoppers
have no facilities except.restaurants and the restaurants
are closed sometimes for hours during the day.
C. Propose a pedestrian /activated (push- button type) traffic
light somewhere on Big Basin Way (at Buy & Save Market or
3rd Street).
(Argument for); To provide safe crossings for pedestrians.
The traffic signal at 4th Street is necessary for cars and
we need it, but motorist will see a "'green" light and not
consider pedestrians further down the street.
The Saratoga Village Association continues to support the
Village Plan and it's swift completion. As the "NUTS &
BOLTS" of the Plan are implemented we would appreciate our
representative from the Village Association .at its
inception.Thank you for your consideration.
Cordially
Bill Carlson - President
Saratoga Village Association
c/o Bella Mia Restaurant
14503 Big Basin Way
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
741 -5115
Gen /Plan2/24/88
r'
March 11, 1988
Staff Response to Saratoga Village Association Letter
1. One zoning district only(CH -1)
The Commission and Council already considered this issue at
previous public hearings and recommended that two zoning
districts (CH -1 and CH -2) be used.
Parking District #6 - reinstate
The Mackay & Somps document recommended that Parking District ##6
(west of 5th Street -, north of Big Basin Way) should be
considered for future implementation as the intensity of uses
increased in the area. . Staff remembers that there was general
consensus to remove this district from Map #1 (Proposed Parking)
because the configuration and topography of the properties may
preclude such a project. Unfortunately, none of the minutes
from previous meetings have a discussion of this issue. If the
Commission wishes to add it back in, the change can be made on
Map #7 and an additional policy could be added to page 26. .
2. Support turnaround
No response necessary.
3. Ingress /egress to Parking District #3
The City Engineer confirms that there will be ' four
ingress /egress points to District #.3. In terms of restricting
left turns from these driveways, the City Engineer recommends
that this be addressed only if a problem arises after the
District is developed and functioning.
4. Light fixtures
Staff agrees that the old- fashioned carriage lights be used in
the Village, instead of the "globes or cubes on black metal
supports."
5. Prohibit ingress egress over sidewalks to private parking areas
This concern is addressed on p. 13 (paragraph i(2)) of the Land
Use /Zoning Chapter relating to the parking standards for the C -H
Districts. No additional changes are recommended.
6. Prohibit neon signs
This is a policy issue for which-the Commission will need to
make a recommendation to the City Council.
1
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5
MARCH 23, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
The City Attorney commented as follows:
- Suggested "Zoning regulations can be accommodated to meet the special needs of
designated historic structures
- Village boundaries: a map was distributed; under present zoning regulations, the term
"Village" was referenced; however, the new Village Plan would clearly, define boundaries.
The RM -3,000 multi- family residential district immediately south of CH -1, Ch -2 zones
and PA zoning east of Saratoga -Los Gatos /Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. would not be included;
the entire area east of Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. which is -now in the present Village would be
zoned PA under the proposed plan."
- One of the technical amendments intended in the new Village Plan was to amend the
definition of "Village" to become CH-1, CH -2 zones or one combined district. Such would
reduce present boundaries and would address concerns regarding the expansion of commer-
cialization of the Village to adjacent residential areas.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:46 P.M.
Mr. Jack Christian, 19022 Brookhaven Dr., Saratoga, commented as .follows:
- Noted concern regarding the area between Oak SL and Aloha Ave., the "hook'of land."
- Such was addressed by him as early as 1976
- Asked that this portion be rezoned PA or buffered from commercialization such as the
establishment of bed and breakfasts in the Young, Rowe or Kahle Houses
- Citizens had been fighting commercial encroachment into residential areas for years
- Asked that the Village boundary be clearly established at Oak Street
- Objected to any consideration of relaxing parking regulations
- Did not object to existing businesses at this location; however, he wished to prevent leap-
frogging of additional commercial enterprises
Mr. Miles Rankin:stated that the Merchants Association had not discussed the map presented.
BURGER /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:55 P.M.
Passed 6 -0.
Discussion by the Commission. regarding the following:
- Traffic improvements; namely; turn lanes from Parking District 3 and installation of left
hand . turn lane and/or turn around area; location to be determined at a later date
- Area between Oak St. and Aloha Ave., "hook of land," further consideration to be given to
a change in zoning from CC to PA
Commissioner Burger favored the commercial zoning at this time; she noted the city's care not
1 to allow encroachment of commercial uses into residential areas. Existing commercial uses had
operated'at this location for alength of time.
Chairwoman Harris concurred, questioning any attempt to artificially shrink the Village in
order to protect peripheral areas; she cited the Merchants Association's efforts to expand the
Village. Commissioner Kolstad, while agreeing that the best use of this area was as proposed,
was uncertain of the best action to be taken at this time with regard to, the map presented
Commissioner Guch was not favorable to rezoning the area between Oak St. and Aloha Ave. to
a PA zoning; designation; she cited recent public testimony unfavorable to such.
GUCH/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL
OF GPA- 88 -01, SUMMARY OF WORKING CHANGES TO SARATO A VILLAGE
PLAN AS AMENDED AT THIS HEARING. Passed 6 -0.
Break: 9:10 to 9:30 P.M.
17. V -87 -028 Lawrence, 21833 Via Regina, request for variance approval to allow the
expansion of an existing detached garage within the required front yard,
27 ft. from the front property line in lieu of 30 ft. required in the NHR
zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Application V -87 -028 Continued to April 27" 1988, per request of the Applicant
Y
�1
7. Support traffic signal at 4th Street
No response needed. The installation of either a signal or stop
sign is currently being studied by Caltrans in conjunction with
the City Engineer.
8. Request consideration of "new" improvements:
A) Bike /pedestrian path along Saratoga Creek
The footbridge alluded to is already included in the City's
Capital Improvement Program. The City Engineer advises that
the pathway is currently being studied and considered for
the Parking District. If the Commission wishes that wording
regarding this be added to the Plan, the appropriate place
would be on p. 26, under Policy 2.6.
B) Public restroom
This is, again, a policy decision. T:
associated with public restrooms, such
and on whose property), design, size,
ongoing maintenance, liability, etc.
public restrooms in Wildwood Park which
a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
here are many issues
as location (where
construction costs,
There are existing
are open from 7.00
C) Pedestrian - activated traffic light on Big Basin Way
A:vgassn
This item would be subject to Caltrans review and approval,
similar to the turnaround and the traffic light /stop sign.
The intent of the ornamentally -paved crosswalks is to call
motorist and pedestrian attention to the crossing, so a
light for this purpose may not be necessary-
2
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MARCH .23, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued
Page 4
Commissioner Guch responded that a 25 ft. distance from.the property line and.a 20 ft. drop in
the lot was a sizable difference; Commissioner.Kolstad concurred.
GUCH/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:06 P.M. Passed 6 -0.
BURGER/TUCKER MOVED APPROVAL OF DR -87 -162 PER THE MODEL. RESOLU-
TION. Passed 6-0.
15. V -87 -020 Chevron U.S.A., 20472 Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd., request for variance
approval from Section 15- 30.100 (c) to allow the construction of a
free- standing identification sign combined with fuel price information, into
one sign where a free- standing identification sign is not allowed. An
additional variance is requested to allow a second price sign on a single
site where only one is allowed. .
------------------------------------------------------ — ------ m ------------------------------------------
Planner Caldwell reviewed the Reportto the Planning Commission of March.23, 1988.
Commissioner Tucker questioned why price information could not be placed on one sign,
eliminating a variance; she was favorable to the design proposed.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:10 P.M.
Mr. Spencer Nilsen, Permii Service Company, presented site photographs and commented:
- About 50% of summer business was from tourists who required sign identification
- Improved visibility at the intersection would result from the design proposed
- Highest/lowest prices were required to be posted in full, self service and credit categories
- Sign proposed was the smallest sign Chevron.offered; such had 8 inch numerals rather than
6 inches allowed by the City
The City Attorney stated, that State Law minimum height of lettering was translated into the
City's maximum height allowed. In response to a question „Mr. Nilsen stated that.signs would
include credit prices even though such was inadvertently'not shown on the exhibit, presented.
Commissioner Siegfried did not object to the sign proposed; however, the Applicant must
comply with height requirements for numerals even if special arrangements had to be made.
Mr. Nilsen responded that Applicants had approached this.situation from a site improvement
approach; substantial improvements would be,made. Should the Application not be approved,
Chevron may not pursue the site improvements proposed.
BURGER/GUCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:30 P.M. Passed 6 -0.
Chairwoman Harris noted that if approved, the exhibit would be changed to "6 inch numerals;”
Condition 10 would be added to reflect such.
Commissioner Burger felt that the issue had been sufficiently discussed by the Commission;
the remaining question was the two -inch difference in height of the numerals; such would
probably be undetectible from the street scape.
BURGER/GUCH,MOVED APPROVAL OF V -87 -020 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION,
ADDING A CONDITION 10 TO INDICATE THAT BOTH FREE - STANDING AND
BUILDING SIGNS WOULD HAVE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT OF 6 INCHES FOR
NUMERALS. Passed 5 -1, Commissioner Tucker dissenting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
F -88 -01 City of Saratoga, General Plan Amendment to adopt the Saratoga Village
Plan. -A Negative Declaration hasbeen prepared for this application.
--- - - - - -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aldwell reviewed the history of this Application and noted the Summary of Working
Sarato ag Villa e Plan, dated March 23, 1988. Additional changes as follows:
: add "As an incentive to preserve the designated historic structures, zoning
s relating to such items as parking, height restriction and setbacks can be relaxed."
ner Siegfried questioned the phrase "can be relaxed" and suggested consideration of
e exploration of alternatives; other Commissioners concurred.
May 8, 1988
City Counsel
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
re: AUTOMOBILE 'TURNAROUND ON BIG BASIN WAY
Dear Councilmembers:
With respect to the AUTOMOBILE TURNAROUND ON BIG BASIN
WAY as proposed in the Saratoga Village Plan (GPA -01), Public
Hearing Draft, February, 1988, Hearing on May 18, 1988, I hereby
object to any turnaround at the end of Big Basin Way that would
involve our property or properties located at 14675 and 14669
Big Basin Way.
I previously objected to this turn -a -round at our property
February, 1987 in a letter I wrote to the Planning Commission
(copy of letter enclosed). I am still opposed to any turn -a -round
that involves our property in any way for the same reasons stated
in my February 1987 letter.
The objection is again made for the record in the event the
issue comes before a court of law.
There are other places where a turn -a -round could be placed
such as Big Basin Way at Sixth Street or further into the hills
near the entrance to Saratoga Oaks.
1 would urge the Council not to approve a turn -a -round
that would involve the properties at 14675 and 14669 Big Basin
Way.
Sincerely yours,
0
0
'Ann Fitz mmons
February 1-0; 1987'
Planning commission
Cit Y of Saratoga
re: Proposed Turn- Around on Big 'Basin Way
To Wh6m it May Concern:
With respect to the Proposed 'Turn- Around on Big Basin Wa
in the 'SarAtega Village Plan r. epard. b 1j
and romps. (.'page. 1,11-5,
of .the 'plan.) , we obje pct' to -eany * y turn'ackay -
around at thi&l6cation. This letter is written'so as to be of
record prior to'thes,ch.qdu1ed meeting of the Planning Commission
on February 25,'1987*tO fulrthe:e discuss the Saratoga
P.1an as proposed by Nacka'y•and Som' . Village
PSI
We. 'own the last tiro I propp I r /
ies immediately before the proposed turn-around, p4mely, it 675 and 14669 Eig, Basin.wa
y. Pur intent is to someday dwL lop
this. property%_60mmeicially.-
We: bel'ieve: this proposed turri-
.. a-r-ound would.greatly interfer with
ingres:aand egress Of our private driveway on the-14615 gig !
Basin Way property.. This driveway services•both,of our properties
in the back. In addition,, a turn- around would'use property that
could be used for parking.
It is true that many'cars•turn around this Point. The
turn - around could be eliminated if the city (or state) would
post a "No turn-around,"-sign-4t this site.-
Your consideration of th"
is, matter is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
'Ann Fi�ti
o ns
��
��a
r �,.,
,� ���r
�.
.• --��
� � �•e` �
�r + •�
f
David Johnston
20616 Brookwood Lane
Saratoga., CA 95070
Honorable Mayor and City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 9.5070
Dear Friends,
Today I read that the Saratoga Village Proposed Plan includes a pedestrian /bicycle
path along Saratoga Creek which the area residents and I are oppossed to. I would
have responded to the Planning Commission public herring had I been given such notice.
However, I am writting you now because you should know much more about the proposed'
trail before including it in our Village Plan. There are five reasons why we shouldn't
build such a pedestrian /bicycle trail along Saratoga Creek.
This creek site, however beautiful, has the potential of becomming a drug dealing
area for our Saratoga Youths. I have lived at the end of Brookwood Lane for nearly
all my life, and the Wildwood Park area has long been the site of drug abuse and
drug dealing. I am concerned that a trail along the Saratoga Creek will be used
as a new area for drug dealers, because it will be easy to move quickly through the
creek area without making much noise,thus providing escape routes. I do not believe
the City is prepared to have this new area patrolled both day and night on a nearly
constant basis.
This trail would create a new area for the City to maintain and clean on a regular
basis. There already exists property that the city owns connecting Wildwood Park
which in the past has accumulated broken bottles, cans, and other debris. Other
trashed areas occur along the creek where there is easy access from the parking lots.
I would like to know if the City is prepared to clean this up on a constant regular
basis.
The proposed pedestrian /bicycle trail appears to be planned in the flood way of
Saratoga Creek. Does the City have permission from the Santa Clara Valley Water
District to build such a trail, and is the City preparred to rebuild the trail
after even minor flooding. During a normal rainfall year, the proposed trail area
in some parts will probably be under water during winter storms.
Who will be liable for accidents and crimes committed along this trail - the City
or the property owners? This proposed trail, if ever built, wbbld increase all
of the property owners' and the City's liability risks.
This proposed trail will be in direct view of the residents on the north side of
Saratoga Creek. With lights shinning into homes from creekside businesses, is the
city planning to add lights to this trail? How can the City make this trail safe
and not add to the light poll tion already affecting the neighborhood? The trail
would adversely= affect the,- ndighborhood.
I strongly urge you to delete the proposed trail from the Saratoga Village Plan.
ft d ly your
ohn� s o
Saratoga resid