Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-15-1988 City Council Staff ReportsS SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM: MEETING DATE: 6/15/•88 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planning CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT': GP -87, -'003 -'Florence-Nelson :Foundation. Request for General Plan Amendment from OS -OR to ;medium density residential. Property located at 2.0:851 Saratoga Hill Road RECOMMENDED MOTION': Approve the amendment by; adopting• the negative declaration and Resolution GP -87 -003, establishing- two designations, medium and very low density residential. REPORT SUMMARY;: On May 11, 1988.,.the Planning Commission considered the recommendation on the proposed application. The vote to was 4•4- Qri,., The tie vote const;z-tuted a denial. The final decision on a General Plan •amendment must be made by the Council. The decision is based upon'the public interest,, internal consistency with ther General Pian, and analysis of the environmenta -1 concerns. PUBLIC 'NOTI:CING: GP -87 -003 has been noticed by advertisIng in the Saratoga News, direct mailing to property owners with-in-500 feet of the site and to the Community Groups mailing list. The property was also posted. FISCAL IMPACTS: None ATTACHMENTS: 1. Report from the Planning Director', 6%15/88 2. Negative declaration and initial study including_ wild life assessment and horticultural report. r 1. Resolution GP -87 -003' 4•. P -t. Minutes dated 5/11/88 and staff, ,report 5. Correspondence 6. Plans MOTION AND VOTE: 6/15: Continued-to '7/6. 7/6:_ Continued to 12/21; volunteer committee to be established to consider options. 12/21. Motion to approve GPA failed 2 -21; cont'd to 1/4. 1/4;: Continued to 2/1 at Ainsley',s :request. 000001 2/1: Motion to approve GPA faed 2. -3 (Anderson, Clevenger, Stlatzman opposed) , • i l -7-m /I IRYLD EXHIBIT A FLORENCE NELSON FOUNDATION APN 503-49-41 & 42 GP 87-003 hi OS OR 4f C F S"" " `' i an :. rj � - ( � � > /' ` Y i 'Ell r ---------- LA CR' -Wt PA '-PF, Os OR ES*!FRLEE AVE. RMF CR C 1*0005 PA CFS EXHIBIT A FLORENCE NELSON FOUNDATION APN 503-49-41 & 42 GP 87-003 hi OS OR 4f C F S"" " `' i an :. rj � - ( � � > /' ` Y i 'Ell r ---------- LA CR' -Wt PA '-PF, Os OR ES*!FRLEE AVE. RMF CR C 1*0005 PA CFS RES -ND File No. GP -87 -003, ZC -87 -003 Saratoga DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 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 653- 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 amendment of 5.1 acres of partially developed property from open space /managed resource to medium density residential, rezoning from A (Agriculture) to M- 1- 12,500 and resubdivision of 2 lots into 9 of unequal area. Property is located 1,500' west of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. and is bordered on the north by Trinity Avenue on the east by Pontiac Avenue and on the south by Saratoga Hills Road and Pontiac Avenues. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT Ainsley Development, Inc. 2195 Hamilton Ave. San Jose, CA. 95125 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION The project is essentially services are available and development according to City resolutions will mitigate any impact on the environment. Executed at Saratoga, California this day of ndgp003 YUCHUEK HSIA DIRECTOR OF PLANNING inf ill. All ordinances and , 198 . DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER 000006) r� I FORM EIA -lb CITY OF SARATOGA CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (TO BE COMPLETED BY PUBLIC AGENCY) PROJECT: �GG�lt2ri�iir* ° Ae FILE NO: r 1'91 -003 LOCATION: 15-00' 6p, Jy�sttc`.�6/- �cC2, �' � ✓ycn- t`t -�-� �,.,�,� . I. BACKGROUND (zr.4 1. Name of Proponent: _�eE'G� 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: X�A9-) 1 3. Date of Checklist Submitted: gB'7 �- 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: 0a 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe "answers are required on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over- crowding of the soil? C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, coverinq or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? r :.. .1 00000f' 4PPP_= YES MAYBE NO e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? V__X f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of a lake? ✓ g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? v_ 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of !� ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? Z- .� s c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or region- ally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of y/ water movements in fresh water? a b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ,Z4 aA-1 C. P('lterati s to t e course or flow of flood waters? Goo 008 -2- r__jr YES 14AYBE NO d. Change in the amount of surface water or any water in any water body? — e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? — g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? _ i s i. Exposure of people or property to water related ✓ hazards such as flooding? — j. Significant changes in the temperature, flow, or chemical content of surface thermal springs? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? — b. Red c ion of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? — 009099 I -3- i YES MAYBE NO C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of / existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? L' 5. Anima L fe. will the propo aY result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals includ- i/ ing reptiles, fish, or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? s.. d. Deterioration to existing wildlife or fish habitat? /`CftiC.c Qc5 /lr 0 /mil w 6e ) 6. Noise. will the proposal re ult i a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ✓ 4- 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? — 0Qi'r 1 fti -4- I YES MAYBE NO 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an v area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural / resource? k 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (inlcuding, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or—an emergency-evacuation plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, — or create a demand for additional housing? G/ 13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? � f9lr • �� G'- YES MAYBE NO b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation / systems? !/ d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or / movement of people and /or goods? v e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazardous to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ,, /ll y�� X�y7YY1..T2( f-c� ll.JV Gt a G ciA jCQc -X 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, Er result in a need for new or altered governmental services in aap of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? y C. Schools? ✓ d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? V/ 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? 0 0001 YES MAYBE NO b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? ✓_ b. Communications systems? ✓_ C. Water? ✓_ d. Sewer or septic tanks? ✓ e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health / hazard (excluding mental health)? V b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc- tion oFany scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon The quality or quantity of existing recreational j opportunities? V_ 00001 Z YES MAYBE NO 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or j the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? C. Does the proposal have'the potential to cause a physical.change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? (A short -term impact on the environment is one'which occurs in a rela- tively brief, definitive period of time while long -term impacts will endure well into the future.) 1 4 v V _mot d© U .4 I YES MAYBE NO C. Does the project have impacts which are indivi- dually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) ✓ d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION / i i 7 .�nv� �� - de�.rti/- �%�,r� .�- �tau�oJ.t���.�' -��.. �rX� ".�- uP,•�- �•-�' -9- rQ . IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: �I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. OI find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. OI find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. DATE: 411-1 3 S% ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: GNA E For: tet- 0000] :- I -10- (rev. 5/16/80) s r_z - -T L� FORM EIA -la CITY OF SARATOGA EN1'IRON)1LNTAL I'dpACT OULSTIONNAIRL• (To be crr7pleted by applicant) FILING FEE: S 75 DATE: July 20, 1987 FILE N — 0: GENER.at INFCR ?CATION: 1. ,lame and address of developer or pro ect • Inc., 2195 Hamilton Avenue San Jose, CA95125n�1Py nP��PI amen 2. Address of project: 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd. Assessor's Parcel Number: — — r — — 5.- Same, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: see attached list 00L 'gn Review. 1.2 sq. ft. a. Indicate number of the permit application for the ro P j eet to which this • fora pertains: _ N/A S. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: change of zoning, general plan — 6. amendment W; lliamson Act Cancellation subdivision Des: Existing zoning district. _A (agricultural) 7. Proposed use of site (project for which this form is filed): medium density single - family residential development. 8- Site size: 503- 49 -41 - 9. -1 49 42 77 A C Square footabe•503- 49- 41 - 9�4•g 10. -57 sq ft 503-49-42--164,221 Number of floors of construction: one 3 11. Amount of off - street parking: Code requirement 12• Attached plans? Yes • 13. _ No Proposed scheduling: 11• associated prcieets: NO 1S. Anticipated incremental dcvclopment: U /A • 16. If resi(_1cntial, incluJc the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, rangc of sale prices or rents, and t)•re of household v si =c expected: 9 homes; 3,000 to 3,200 sq.ft.; 4 -5 member households 00L 'gn Review. 1.2 sq. ft. 17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether nei ;hborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and facilities: N A loading 18. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment loading facilities: N/A Per shift, and 19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project: N/A 20. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning cation, state this and indicate clearl why g quire Y y the application is required: -- ural to residential is t construction of sin le famil residences. Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES NO ?� 21. Change in existing features of any lakes or hills, or sub- stantial alteration of ground contours. X 22. Chance in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. X 23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. X 22. Significant amounts of solid i:aste or litter. X 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. X 26. Chang, in laY.e, stream or ground water 'duality or uantit or alteration of existing drainage Patterns, q X 27. Sub stantial change in exist,,,, iiuis the vieinitY. c or vibration levels in I 0001 ,9; r- s a i e f 4s ' f YES NO X 23. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. -As to APN 503 -49 -41 only (1.33 acres X{ 29. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. X30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). X31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). X32. Relationship o la P a larger project or series of projects. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: 33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing struc- tures on the site, and the use of the structures. The 1.3 3 acre parcel slo es into the hillside & is a--qrassv knoll With trees as delineated on site plan. The 3.77 acre parcel is flat or gently slope . A out two acres o tha Parcel is a non -pro ci.n ug ore ar 7o aprico s wi a few walnut trees. On the remainder is a sma , vacan ermit 34. 'Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants" and aniL;als and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the tyje of lan-i ,ese (resider.tipl, commercial, etcs.), intensity of land use (one - famil). , apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.) and scale of development (height, frond, e, setback rear Surrounding properties are buift with single yfamily �)' residential; generally one story homes. Zonin is R1 -10,0 and R1 -12 500 surroundinq most of the site, with setbacks apparently according to code. Typical medium - density I su ivislons. CERTIFICATIO`;: f I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements and information presented arc true and correct to the best of my know- ledge and belief. J� DATE: For: i W _ a �� ,:rt " CITY of = ' ATOGA REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 6/8/88 COUNCIL MEETING: 6/15/88 GP -87 -003 - Florence Nelson Foundation. Request for SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment to change the designation on the property from Open Space Outdoor Recreation to Medium Density Residential. 20851 Saratoga Hills Road Description of Property The subject property is located west of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, north of Reid Lane. It is bordered by Trinity Avenue on the north, Pontiac Avenue on the east and Pontiac /Saratoga Hills Road on the south. The 5.1 acres is roughly divided into thirds, consisting of a two -acre apricot orchard, two homes sited in a grouping of mature trees in the center, and a grassy hillside marking the beginning of the Santa Cruz mountains to the west. It is included in the General Plan area "B," Congress Springs - Pierce Road. On May 11, 1988, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment. The motion to recommend approval of the amendment was a tie vote, which constituted a recommendation for denial. General Plan Amendment The current General Plan land use designation for the property is OS -OR (open space - outdoor recreation.) Applicant wishes to amend the General Plan to medium density residential (3.48 DU /acre) in order to accomodate a residential subdivision of the property. The enclosed plan is representative of the forthcoming application for a 9 -lot subdivision of the property, consistent with the medium density residential designation. The state guidelines for amending the General Plan indicate that the Plan may only be amended "in the public interest," must be consistent with the rest of the General Plan, and is subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. A brief discussion of each point follows: 2 000002 GP -87 -003; Florence Nelson Foundation 1. Amend in the public interest On February 17, 1988, the City Council tentatively cancelled the Williamson Act Land Contract on the property. The Council made the finding that since the Florence Nelson Foundation was unable to continue to maintain the property, the property could become a blight upon the neighborhood, a potential health hazard and an attractive nuisance. In addition, the Council made the finding that the City would receive a substantial donation of charitable funds for development of the park fund and Hakone Gardens from the sale of the property. Therefore, future development of the property is in the public interest - a broad range of citizens will benefit. 2. Internal consistency with the General Plan The subject site is located in "General Plan Area B - Congress Springs /Pierce Road." The text (p. 4 -4) refers to the Horticultural Foundation "with potential for significant development" and "the area is unanimous in the desire to assure that any development or redevelopment of sites within the area be only single family detached residential with a density consistent with the surrounding neighborhood." Medium density residential is consistent with the developed residential properties adjacent to Trinity, Malcolm and Pontiac Streets. The proposal is consistent with the goals of the land use element (LU 8.0), housing element (H 6.0) and the circulation element (CI 5.0). Specifically, LU 8.0 and H 6.0 stated that "the City shall continue to be predominantly a community of single - family detached residences." CI 5.0 stated that the City should "use street capacities in determining land uses and acceptable densities. If ... existing streets need to be improved to accomodate a project, such improvements shall be in place or bonded for prior to issuance of permits." The City Engineer has reviewed the proposal and will be requiring improvements to Saratoga Hills Road with the tentative map. All the remaining local streets are developed. 3. CEQA The California Environmental Quality Act requires that environmental assessment evaluate "the whole of a project." In this case, the "project" includes the General Plan Amendment, future rezoning and a subdivision of the property into a maximum of 9 residential lots. The project has been reviewed by City departments, the Parks and Recreation Commission, sanitation, water, storm drainage and fire district. All services are available for the project and no unusual conditions will be required on the tentative map. Biotic and wildlife assessments were completed on the site. Although there are no rare or endangered species of plants and 000003 GP -87 -003; Florence Nelson Foundation animals on the property, the City can require preservation of many of the trees identified in the wildlife assessment, at the subdivision stage. The City's Horticultural Consultant has analyzed the health of the trees and proposed protection measures that can be incorporated as a condition of a tentative map. ISSUE Several residents of the area requested a one acre designation on the entire property in order to ensure that future homes are compatible with the character of the surrounding homes, "single story with 2,500 square foot or less foundation footprints." The topography and surrounding land use designations, however, support the medium density proposal at the easterly portion with a low density designation beginning at the toe of the slope. The subject property, which abuts Pontiac and Trinity Avenues, has an approximate 5% slope in the flatter portion. The rear portion is 20 -25 %. In addition, the neighboring lots to the north, east and south are designated and developed at medium density in the flatter portions of the area; Upper Hills and Saratoga Hills Road are appropriately designated low density, consistent with the hillside topography. The issue of lot size and configuration will be determined during the subdivision proposal when the location of the trees and slopes will be studied in detail. The sizes of the homes (bulk and compatibility) will be assessed during the design review process, although the Planning Commission may condition single story homes for specific lots on the tentative map. Recommendation: Staff recommends two designations on the property: medium density (M- 12.5) on the eastern portion and very low density (RVLD) at the west. These designations would allow a maximum density of nine units on the property. The actual number of lots will be determined based upon the location of trees, access or slopes which may dictate an alternative to the nine lots suggested by the applicant. Yu t I ek Hsia, Planning Director 4 o00004 RECEIVED APR 1 a 198 GARY L. NEMETZ 13960 Pontiac Avenue PLANNING DEPT Saratoga, California 95070 (408) 291 -6240 - Days (408) 867 -4592 - Evenings April 14, 1988 Susan B. Guch, Chairman Yuchuek Hsia, Director Saratoga Planning Commi.ssion Saratoga Planning Department 12091 Plumas Drive 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: GP -87 -003 Florence Nelson Foundation -� 20851 Saratoga Hills Road Public Hearing Dear Ms. Guch and Mr. Hsia: I am sending this letter on behalf of a group of adjacent homeowners to the above - referenced property known as the Friends of the Nelson Gardens. We (residents list attached) and the over 800 signatories of the petition presented to the City Council meeting on January 20, 1988, are opposed to any change in the open space outdoor recreation land use designation of this property. Although we do not approve of any development on this property because of its former character as a State Park Foundation -run facility, we would also like to comment that nine homes and 12,500 square foot designation for six of those homes is not an appropriate designation when considering the character of the surrounding homes. The current practice of developers is to build out 12,500 square foot lots to the fullest extent, 3,000 to 4,000 square foot homes. It is true the homes on Pontiac Avenue and the corners of Trinity and Malcolm, adjacent to part of the Nelson property, are 12,500 square foot land designation; however, the homes are all single story with 2,500 square foot or less foundation footprints. The Nelson property is more appropriately contiguous with the one acre plus size lots and homes on the abutting hillside of Saratoga Hills Road, upper Tri::ity Avenue, and Upper Hill Drive. Thus, we submit that it is inappropriate to consider any development in excess of five one - acre plus size lots. 000063 Susan B. Guch, Chairman, and Yuchuek Hsia, Director April 14, 1988 Page 2 I am sending this letter to you as Planning Commission Chairman and Planning Director, respectively, and request that you distribute a copy of this letter to all the other Planning Commissioners and Planning Department staff in sufficient time for consideration at your April 27, 1988, hearing on this matter. Do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. GLN /dw -- Sincerely, / 7, z. GARY' NEMETZ o � behalf of, Friends of the Nelson Gardens 000064 Pat & Bonnie O'Conner 14001 Saratoga Hills Road Seema & Marcos Cicerone 14014 Saratoga Hills Road Idoline & Thomas Fryer 14029 Saratoga Hills Road Louise & Bob Gager 20972 Saratoga Hills Road Ann & Rick Waltonsmith, Blanche Walton 21060 Saratoga Hills Road Audrey & Mike Clair 21100 Saratoga Hills Road Robert H. Bitney 21352 Saratoga Hills Road Bud & Carolyn Alexander 20760 Trinity Avenue Jeanne Williams and Carol Adams 20777 Trinity Avenue Sung Hwang 20789 Trinity Avenue Gary & Lori Nemetz 13960 Pontiac Avenue Richard Eiler 13982 Pontiac Avenue Ellen & Dean Coleman 20756 Pontiac Avenue Dean & Lou Weston 20774 Pontiac Avenue Edwin & Jennifer Pinto 13901 Upper Hill Drive Hans & Mary Guth 20785 Reid Lane Nancy McKereghan 20590 Canyon View Drive Felix & Loretta Rosengarten 13902 Malcom Avenue Irene Ohlfs 13923 Malcolm Avenue James & Evelyn Gates 13945 Malcolm Avenue John & Keay Burtt 13886 Malcolm Drive Al & Anna Vindasius 14041 Saratoga Hills Road ., 000065 HARVEY AND STANLEY ASSOCIATES, INC. ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNERS RESOURCE MANAGERS N1�G�1VE[� MAR PLANNING DEPT. NELSON FOUNDATION PROPERTY WILDLIFE ASSESSMENT Prepared by HARVEY AND STANLEY ASSOCIATES Christopher Cutler, Field Biologist Dean'G.' Belch, Botanist David J. Hartesveldt, Project Manager Ronald R. Duke, Principal' Prepared for Jeff Wyatt Ainsley Development, Inc. 2195 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 7583 San Jose, California 95150 1 March 22, 1988 File No. 403 -01 906 Elizabeth Street • P.O. Drawer E • Alviso, California 95002 • (408) 263 -1 81 4 SETTING AND PRQJECT 'DESCRIPTION Harvey and Stanley Associates conducted a wildlife assessment of the five acre'Nelson Foundation Property on March 18, 1988. The purpose of this assessment was to identify potentially- significant impacts to wildlife by delinieating wildlife habitats on the site and generating a list of wildlife species likely to be found within them.. Special emphasis was placed on special status wildlife which may use the site. Such wildlife is often afforded protection under federal and state laws. A wildlife biologist and a botanist visited the site to assess the natural communities present on the site, and identify their value to wildlife. All species observed were recoi-ded, but no attempt was made to identify all species present. Birds, mammals, and repti -Le.s were named following The .American Ornithologists' Union Checklist of North American Birds (1983), Engels (1967), 'and Stebbins (1985).r.espectively. The project site is located in the eastern foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains at elevations between 500 and 600 feet. The site is in northwest Saratoga, Santa Clara County (Figure 1). Its boundaries are Saratoga Hills Road on.the southwest, Pontiac Avenue on the southeast'an'd east, and Trinity Avenue on the north. Development is' currently confined to two small houses with associated out buildings in the center the property. Planned development will result in the subdivision of the property into nine parcels and the construction of a home on each parcel.. Specific construction plans for each parcel were not available at the time of the study. The flora of the area is a mixture of native and horticultural species (Coate 1988). An apricot orchard is located on the eastern third of the site, while'the hill on the northern third is fallow grassland. The site is surrounded by other houses and (mostly) non - native horticultural plantings. However, the site is within one quarter mile of natural areas in the Santa Cruz Mountain foothills. 1 ®O.SJ U,4 HARVEY AND STAN LEY'ASSOCI ATE S ""4'. won, AObf. sible nL F� a D ea !!xe, Col Alarneda�N, A#- 62 :1 1 -Val n i�srw°ea,df 35 361 Rob, Gro Brisban M 0 6 Cre [TIC L _I 2 Oak 6 t IV. O"d 2 'AIamo 2 1 C off I n nCiSCO r "W, d� COW S_' Oaklan L%--, sei Saf `11 , __41. •{SLBsadl .7 C' rMOPOj1rAN\ to A111 No, A 'At • FARK motly q_" t 4 • U.. 4.4 M.M. 4r I ­ - PC, OM� San Off, 41 > . 'K ,I " 9 oppro Drae 21, ieandrp 3 ,FiLvL-d, lIIIlo, L i I A ingame 1 5 •R .1m H. 1W A, ,)'Coyote Ft. Fk 'Ll brahada ia' 4 hnIrfiflu a fan Mateo San Lorenzo - Castro V 1 9, (fall Moon 4 Maw',' , I v . Bay I f 2 - 11 . I S4. San Ramon 192 7 r Hay yard U.S. A• on Dublin U.S. re Half ' 6 N"* C: I' Mt Eden 2 0 G"; Mont v . n'.' - z� I,, w%.Awea Bay I , ---y 4 r 'Y� .' k. ­ ys N '6an 'Regronal Park 0 7 -,Car s Refuge I ion Ciq,, Purist 0 Ems. 9 1 t:d%pvood MIDI 12 Clty GroteN easa n i s Selcb 0 If 2 remon 4:f". as; �.on- "AW ther 7 84 1 C' 7 ton Siff F"­'­ 4 o 84 W 6 e 0 s2 31 R f "M 4 4 7 - �dliff e,-ge New1fK p n Gregono SIAM. '10 S4 0 6 toff., ru"Ifn b . -I Portoll'a I D'_ _ ' 91 va Ic 'Alto 4 :x' Valle G3 Maw. 84 no 84 Son Jose of, G5 3 POO( Hills f Iz 7 Mtn. 1 L orn�a IIA a( 'p"v A Qt 2 2 I Ed Lw )w - Wld, t Sunnyvale vdic GRCAr, -, . ,ate V \ C Ohio I tas - 82 I v 0 n a lava "a RA 101A 1.1 :'ROJECT STTE r tjn I T Ifw-S Et C.m— I Fr ek 6 `II XII 2! 4, 3 "DAY ira- 3 T. a 9 L Monte is ,rc Inca, 236 ­1 Sereno rl Los Gatos ;*' , /mar .- nil It a.. AINGTO DAN "A Lexingro. Boulder Creek -Res. Wife, Mon ReaAirJ Cow' I GS Gig v 41' Ben 9 Almaden Red % I I 'GI ! VAN r -.1 ION ,Lomond Estates 2 00004(11• N Twenty -five different species of birds, two species of mammals and one species of reptile were observed on the Nelson Property site. The signs of several other species of mammals and birds were discovered on the site. Because of the proximity of the site to a large, relatively natural parcel of oak woodland, it is thought that many species of wildlife use the property at different times of the year. The Nelson property may function as an ecotone, an area bordering a distinctive habitat type which has characteristics of more than one habitat. Due to the somewhat mosaic nature of the property, the area may be considered to be composed of a few different. habitat types, each distinct from the other but with an associated exchange of wildlife due to the small size of the property. Four main habitats (orchard, horticultural, riparian, and grassland) were identified on' the property and are discussed below (Figure2) . Dominant plant species were recorded in each habitat. Habitats were classified. as community types using Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Communities of California_ (Holland, 1986). Nomenclature for plant species follows A California Flora (Manz and Reck, 1968). Horticultural plant species are named following The Sunset New Western Garden Book (1979). r AREA 1: ORCHARD /NON- NATIVE GRASSLAND Approximately one third of the property is composed of an apricot orchard located at the eastern portion of the site. This area is dominated by apricot (Prunus armeniacus) planted in orderly- rows. Other woody vegetation present includes Chinese pistacio (Pistacia sinensis), and Italian stone pine (Pinus pi.nea). The herbaceous layer consists of non - native weedy grasses and forbs such as ripgut grass (Bromus rigidus), wild oats (Avena fat:ua), Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis pes- caprae), whiLeleaf filaree (Frodium moschatum), persian speedwell (Veronica persica), and burr clover (Medicago polymorpha). Weedy native species occurring here include blue -eyed grass (Sisyrhynchium bellum), California poppy (Eschscholzia cal.ifornica), and red maids (Calandrini.a ciliata). 0000403 3 HARVEY AND STANLEY ASSOCIATES .�^ � _— _ - fir.. A� �:•ti -y t �^ — — nn. �= �±� r�•�' r —iA ^ —. ~h � h �,l !y is — — — .+►"Iw '�_� h. .+� r nip. r... M.....•: :. hh— r, h cS9 r.�•, �� rrr. 3 _ K ORCHARD O :z::3::: HORTICULTURAL PLANTINGS LIVE OAK RIPARIAN FOREST O" NON- NATIVE GRASSLAND/ O WILDFLOWER FIELD tv STRUCTURES ✓ -9v v PV� 1 V� Z t (•� t, E.. o � J f^ CC�� •,i W ` 5;J €3 a^ O ca t , `Ltr Lam° cl s. n. SCALE: 1 4 1 INCH = 75 FEET HARVEY AND STANLEY ASSOCIATES, INC. NELSON FOUNDATION PROPERTY HABITAT MAP File No 403 -01 Date 3/21/88 Figure 2 During the reconnaissance eight.species of birds were observed in the orchard. In general, this area is not thought to be-.-very valuable to wildlife except perhaps as a foraging site.' The apricot trees themselves may be used by a variety of birds for foraging. Nectar feeding species such as Anna's hummingbird and Northern oriole may be attracted to the flowers produced on these trees. Insect eating birds, 20 or more different species of which may occur on the site, are likely to be .attracted to the dying trees due to the high numbers of insects they may harbor. As the trees mature, cavities formed by the falling of branches away from the main trunk may be utilized as nesting sites by several species including Chestnut - backed Chickadee, Violet Green Swallow, White- breasted Nuthatch, American Kestrel, and Acorn Woodpeckers. Black- tailed deer may use the area for feeding on young apricot shoots as well' as the abundant herbaceous cover beneath the trees. AREA 2: NON- NATIVE GRASSLAND /WILDFLOWER FIELD The northern area of the site is occupied by a steep hill. This area is covered with grasses and forbs. There are a few scattered oaks in this area. Large patches of scotch broom (Spartium junceum) have'in'vaded this community. Non- native grasses such as ripgut grass (Bromus rigidus), farmer's foxtail (Hordeum leporinum), and wild oat (Avena fatua) dominate. Native species are also very common throughout. These include purple needlegrass .(Stipa pulchra), Ithuriel's spear (Brodiaea laxa), blue dicks (Brodiaea pulchella), soaproot (Chlorogalum pomeridianum), and bicolored lupine (Lupinus bicolor). There were signs of black - tailed deer, Botta's pocket gopher and dusky- footed woodrat in this area. One house mouse was observed. Deer may use the area for foraging and move to an area outside the property, while the three rodent species live within the grassland habitat. The grassland,is so small in size that it is unlikely that any mammal or bird species associated specifically with a grassland habitat would be found in this area. The few trees present, some of which exceed 10m in height, may he used as perch sites for birds of prey such as American kestrel or red- O () () 0215 5 HARVEY AND STANLEY ASSOCIATES v tailed hawk. There was no evidence that these trees have been used as nest sites for these species in the past. ]'he th.icktt of broom growing in the middle of this area provides cover for a few species of birds, such as the Bewick's wren and brown and rufous - sided towhees, yet probably does not receive a great deal of use from many- other wildlife species. Furthermore, the broom is not representative of a natural micro - habitat since it was introduced from a different continent. Local wildlife species are therefore not adapted to the type of habitat created by a pure stand of broom. AREA 3: IiORTICULTURAL AREA The most important wildlife habitat on the property is found in the central portion, encompassing all of parcel 4 and the western portions of parcels 3 and 6. This area is characterized by a variety of horticultural and native trees which provide valuable cover and foraging areas for many different species of wildlife. Many of the trees planted in this area are fairly .large (many over twenty feet high). Common non - native tree species include Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa), Douglas fir (Pseud t uga menziesii), coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) , and incense v cedar (Calocedrus decurrens). Within this area there are some large, remnant, native, valley oaks ( uercus lobata) , and there is evidence that native species are recolonizing the site. Native species found growing in this area include California bay laurel (Umbellularia californica), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), California buckeye (Aesculus californicus), and coast live oak ( uercus agrifolia). These species indicate that the garden is slowing returning to the Coast Live Oak Community found in the nearby hills. Both ` gray and fox squirrels were observed in this area and signs of black- tailed deer and striped skunk were present. A majority of the birds observed on the property were found in this area, utilizing both the trees and the areas around them. 6 t .;, :, -y,_ 000026 Several of the tree species i.L this area, notably valley oak ( uercus lobata) and coast live oak (Q. ag'rifol.i-a), are valuable to a variety of wildlife species for the protective cover arid food resources they provide. Many different kinds of birds glean insects from the leaf and bark surfaces of these trees, nest in the natural cavities they provide and utilize their complex structures for protection against aerial predators. Oaks are important to mammals for forage and protection as well. A dense shrub thicket at the northeast corner of this area provides valuable cover for birds which would not otherwise be found in this habitat, such as the California thrasher and rufous -sided towhee. AREA 4: CENTRAL COAST LIVE. OAK RIPARIAN FOREST This area occupies 2000 square feet along a partially filled drainage within the horticultural area. Like the previous community it consists of planted non- native and adventive native species. Planted species include incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens) , coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), and jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi). Native species present are bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), California box elder (Ater negundo ssp. californicus), poison oak*(T'oxicodendron diversiloba), coast live oak, mexican elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), chain fern (Woodwardia fimbriata) , sword fern (Polysticum munittlm), and California polypody fern (Polypodium californicum). This fragment of riparian habitat is of little value to wildlife due to the very limited extent of typical riparian vegetation within it. A small stream channel up to five feet in width,180 feet in length is located in this habitat but water flow is intermittent and is not likely to significantly affect the occurrence of wildlife on the site. WILDLIFE WITH SPECIAL STATUS Although there were no federally or state listed threatened oz- endangered species found on the site, one species of interest is 000002 r HARVEY AND STANLEY ASSOCIATES known to occur near the site. The California mountain kin -snake (Lampropeltis zonata multifasciata), a talon considered loc-ally unique by the Santa Clara County Planning Department, has'beeri found within a mile and a half of the Nelson property (Castle Rock Ridge quadrangle, U.S.G.S. 1955, revised 1968, 7.5 ' map). State law prohibits the collection of this species without an authorized permit. 000024- 8 HARVEY AND STANLEY ASSOCIATES 'rt+cL�'f::it'�A"4- :_��°i 4eX. ..^`,•. ;` ;ir?- r:. RL. c ".:�YiZ' `4' v.. �..♦ POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO WII,DLIFE Potential removal of many of the trees now present. on the Nelson Foundation Property with the implementation of the development plan will result in habitat loss to wildlife. Several species of birds nest only in natural or woodpecker- created tree cavities. Two species of birds not native to this continent, the European starling and the house sparrow, are cavity nesters which have increased in numbers. Due to the aggressive behavior typical of both of these species, native birds are often displaced or excluded from tree cavities. In one native species, the Western bluebird, exclusion from nesting cavities has caused significant population declines in several areas within the range of this species. Fourteen different species of birds thought to occur on or adjacent to the property are .cavity nesters. Six of these species were observed during the site reconnaissance. Cavities suitable for nesting are found in coast live oak and valley oak, several individuals of which occur on the site. Natural cavities are also common to orchard trees. Although the trees of the site serve as habitat: for cavity nesting birds, the reduction of this habitat is not expected to be significant. Relatively undisturbed woodland habitats occur extensively near the site. Furthermore, it is expected that many ` trees on the site will not be destroyed. The extent of any habitat loss to wildlife will be significantly reduced, if development of the site is done such that large trees, particularly valley and coast live oaks, are avoided. In addition to their value to birds, oaks have value to a number of mammal species as well. Black- tailed deer utilize oaks and other trees with large canopy areas for fawning cover and foraging. Herbaceous plants which often grow in the shade of oak trees cannot survive without significant amounts of shade. Many of the types of plants which grow under oaks are eaten by deer. The acorns produced by oak trees provide a valuable dietary resource for several species of mammals, including deer. Any removal of oak trees will reduce the value of the site as habitat to deer and other mammals to some extent. Any fencing of t-* "JJti9 E :. `.Q.'�', ..1.''.? .°.S.n va•S'•.w - ♦.. -•2 c:F .;L� ?� ?k' rht?�. !)r,.' v.`f..'Gi�.� - .?'l.. -: xn .. wl''... N! #-�. •. ¢ .:Q :.4�Y'ti°;2_�- :..'''�..�:�:t W' �i:�3i- .as�d���!. site that may accompany develppment w:i11 p7:• -(�cl udr -. dcr: r 1'rom using the site as habitat. These impacts are not expected t-o be significant. Considerable deer habitat, relative to that found on the project site, can still be found in the vicinity. Although the remnant Coast Live Oak Riparian Community is poor and not likely to provide particularly valuable habitat to wildlife, it is generally protected under federal and state laws. No jurisdictional concerns with regulatory agencies are anticipated if construction activities avoid this habitat. 10 r If 'r a:" ...y. -,.._ - -`,. ?az >'+�.., -. '�'✓ro'.�'?"{.��'`�rc5�+, =h ,FiK��,: •.��,:�, ��;t�y� ?; "cy.:s+kt +:.?±f REFERENCES Anonymus. 1983. The American Ornithologists' Union checklist of North American Birds. Sixth Edition. Auk 102:680 -686. Coate, Barrie D. An analysis of the health and structure of the trees on the Nelson Foundation Property, Saratoga Hills Road, Saratoga. Prepared for Ainsley Development Inc. Engels, L.G. 1967. Mammals of the Pacific States. Stanford University Press. 506 pp. Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Department of Fish and Game. 155 pp. Munz, P.A. and D.D. Beck 1968. A California Flora. University of California Press, Berkely. 1681 pp. Stebbins, R.C. 1985, A Field Guide to Western reptiles and Amphibians. Second edition. Houghton Mifflin Co. 336 pp. Williamson, J. F. (ed.). 1.979. Sunset New Western Warden Book. Lane Publishing Co. 512 pp. r 000031 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I I I :�e'-�iu.'3: -.�. H- 4S6. 3C SL; aR. f" i-t i! eikz��": 'l�Y�`:.tt.�.a}'7- :-�.,;�«„!<ia :n- t�..a'�'�+ -.: •w., .4 APPENDIX A List of Wildlife Species Predicted to Occur on the Site (O= Species observed on reconnaissance, S =sign of species). CLASS AMPIIIBIA California Slender Salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatus) Arboreal Salamander. (Aneides lugubris) CLASS REPTILIA Western Fence Lizard (Sceloporus occidentaii-s) 0 Southern Alligator Lizard (Gerrhonotus multicarinatus) Gopher Snake (Pituophis melanoleucus) Common. Garter Snake (Thamnot3his sirtalis) CLASS AVES Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura) Red - tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) American Kestrel (Falco sparverius) California Quail (Callipepla californica) 0 Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) Common Barn Owl (Tyto'alba) Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus) 0 Anna's Hummingbird (Calypte anna) Acorn Woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus) S Red - breasted Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus ruber) O Nuttall's Woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii) Downy Woodpecker (Picoides pubescens) 0 Common Flicker (Colaptes auratus) Western Flycatcher (Empidonax difficilis_) Black Phoebe (Sayornis nigricans) Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) Violet Green Swallow (Tachycineta thalassi_na) Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) 0 Scrub Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) 0 Chestnut- backed Chickadee (Parus rufesc_e_n__s_) 0 Plain Titmouse (Parus inor-natus) 0 Common Bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus) 12 000032 White- breasted Nuthatch (Sitta ca-rolinensis) Pygmy Nuthatch (Sittap }gmaea) 0 Bewick' s Wren (Thr•yomanes bewick i. i 0 Ruby- crowned I {inglet (Regulus calendula) Western Bluebird (Sialia mexicama) 0 Hermit Thrush (Catharus guttatus) 0 American Robin (Turdus migrator:i.us) 0 -Northern Mockingbird (Mimus pol.yglot.tos) 0 California Thrasher (Toxostoma redivivuml 0 Cedar Waxwing (Bombycilla cedo.rum) European Starling (Sturnus yLilgar.°is ) 0 Hut-ton's Vireo (Vireo huttoni) 0 Orange - crowned Warbler (Ver.mivora ce..lata) 0 Yellow - rumped Warbler (Dendroica coronata) Black.- throated Gray- Warbler (Dendroica nigres(jens) Bla-cle -- headed Grosbeak (Pheuticus melanocephalus) 0 Rufous -sided Towhee.(Pipilo erythrophtlialmus) 0 Brown Towhee (Pipilo fuscus) Lark Sparrow (Chondestes grammacus) 0 Golden- crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia atricapilla) White- crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophr• .$) O Dark-eyed Junco (Junco hyemalis) Western Meadowlark (Sturnella neglecter) Northern Oriole' (Icter�us galbula) O Purple Finch (Carpodacus purpureus) O House Finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) 0 Lesser Goldfinch (Carduelis psaltr•ia•) American Goldfinch (Carduelis tristis) House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) CLASS MAMMALIA Virginia Opossum (Didelphis virginiana) Big Brown Bat (Eptesicus fuscus) Western Gray Squirrel (Sciur.us ari.seus) 0 Fox Squirrel (Sciurus ni er) S Botta's Pocket Gopher. (Thomomy -s bottae) Western Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys mme.galotis) Deer. Mouse (Pe.romyscus mamiculatus) 13 '' aP HARVEY AND STANLEY ASSOCIATES _ .,c,.+..,.t,:.r._t,«�:n.r•..ru4 s.:�{y..`. �.�m•�.:.s,r- ::rc,�xaxa -xn ?� _ ti�n.._di wy,� . �, y ��.+.. i�% t�.•��4.At'W)S�i:��' O House Mouse (Mus musculus) Coyote (Canis latrans) Gray Fox ( Urocyon cinereozrgenteus) Raccoon (Procyon lotor) S Striped Skunk (Mephitis mephitis) S Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) 1 Q ABARRIE D. CO . _ fE Horticultural Consultant " 1113 -353 -1052 23535 SUMMIT kl ., Los Gatos, CA 95030 1 f'1 AMNIAIG PEP j. AN ANALYSIS OF THE HEALTH AND STRUCTURE OF THE TREES ON THE NELSON FOUNDATION PROPERTY SARATOGA HILLS ROAD, SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Mr. Jeff Wyatt Ainsley Development Company P. 0. Box 7583 San Jose, California 95150 March 2, 1988 0®0035 e 'd iNIFQ1AATt(�NAt ^ - iSA . ;,fjt,r;.l Y UI AM14 )HIGULTUW AN ANALYSIS OF THE HEALTH AND STRUCTURE OF THE TREES ON THE NELSON FOUNDATION PROPERTY SARATOGA HILLS-ROAD, SARATOGA In summary, this site is composed of an old Apricot orchard that has been maintained in reasonably good health even though most trees presently are infested with Flathead Borers (in the lower portions designated as lots 1, 2, 7, 8, and 9). The balance of the arborial inventory on the site is composed pri- marily of Chinese Pistacio trees, Italian Stone Pine, Monterey Pine, Coast Redwood, young and old specimens of Valley Oak, Incense Cedar and Deodara Cedar. The northwestern portion of the property (labeled lot #5) is covered primarily with dead or dying Monterey Pines, Coast Redwoods and a few Incense Cedars. The primary cause of death in this case is drought and the insects that attack trees which are drought stressed. A few rare or unusual trees do exist on the site and should cer- tainly be preserved. The most obvious example being the Dawn Redwood tree #24. Some examples of Italian Stone Pine are present which would be worth preserving, but many others should be removed to leave room for the ones that are saved. Most of the Valley Oaks on the prop- erty are worth saving, including some small ones that were not included in the original tree survey. A grove of seldom -seen but not rare Eucalyptus leucoxylon - White Ironbark are seen on the east side of lot #5 but since they have such small trunk diameters, were not included in the original, tree survey, but might nonetheless be worth preserving if they do not intrude on construction plans. Several volunteer California Bay trees which have reached a fairly large size exist on the site near the old house. These trees are badly infested with a necteria blight which may gradually become such a heavy infestation that the trees should be removed. Several Incense Cedars in the lower portions of the property have already been killed by water mold root diseases and the remainder are in weak condition. If construction activity occurs in close proximity to trees of that species. they will probably proceed to die, and so only the best of them should be retained. Of the trees that are retained during construction, great care should be taken to avoid damage to the absorbing root tips which are near the drip line of these trees. Construction - period fencing should be installed before any construction equipment is on site. 000036 AN ANALYSIS OF THE HEALTH AND STRUCTURE OF THE TREES ON THE NELSON FOUNDATION PROPERTY SARATOGA HILLS ROAD, SARATOGA Page 2 including construction pick ups and such seemingly light equipment. Where proposed roadways or other construction would impinge on those tree protection fences, the fences should be moved only on the side where the construction is to take place only back to a space of 2 or 3 feet beyond construction. The remainder of the fence on a given tree should be left in tact at the drip line. The reason for tree decline and death in many cases on this site is just drought. If the species which are indigenous to moist environ- ments, like Coast Redwoods, Monterey Pine and such are to be main- tained, a watering program must begun which applies water infrequently but deeply to those tree roots. Pines on site which are infested with either Pine Bark Beetle or Turpentine Beetle should be removed from the site. The wood should not be kept but should be taken to a dump where it can be buried. Dead Pines should not only be removed now but should have been removed some time ago to prevent spread of these insects. Many Pines might have been saved if an irrigation program and a program of removal of infested trees had begun at a much earlier stage. The enclosed charts show in detail the health and structure of each of the trees which are worth separately noting. Many trees in lots #5 and #4 have not been numbered or recorded since large groups of them are in such poor condition it is obvious that virtually the whole hillside should be cleared of existing trees. BDC:rn Enclosures Respectfully submitted, Barrie D. Coate 000037 NELSON FOUNDATION TREE SURVEY 01 ," BARRIE D. COATE • HOf1lfYllYfal Consultant roe— sss.ios2 1 =best; 5 =worst v x U -H V) U a p G4 v U m w r+ I v z H W W z F D O a o V ) W A Ln v ca 3 C W v A x 6`4 Ln z :3C W z O V O a O w N ~ H zz NAME 1 Cuprossus sempervirens 6 1 30 1 4 1 3 Italian Cypress Pinus radiata 24 55 35 5 5 5 x Monterey Pine 3 Pinus pinea 20 55 35 1 5 — Cabld or emo e x Italian Stone Pine 4 Umbellularia californica 12 35 20 1 1 3 California Bay 5 Magnolia grandiflora 8 20 25 1 1 Southern Magnolia 6 Ouercus lobata 24 50 5 2 1 3 P t Scale Valley Oak 7 Valley Oak 26 50 40 2 1 3 Pit Scale 8 Pittosporum tenuifolium 6 x 4 3 20 2 1 1 Tawhiwhi 9 Pistacia chinensis 11 18 25 1 2 Chinese Pistacio 10 Chinese Pistacio 15 1 1 4 C mp tin wit 9, 11 x NELSON FOUNDATION TREE RTIRVRV q " BARRIE D D. COATE fien"Ifulfsl Consultant 406-353-1032 ( `; ♦� 1 =best; 5—worst ,. V M .. � A N , ,. a •.•i ... Ct1 A .. u a -r1 .. 7C A H H vai ri v �' ; r'-1 ... v pA4 �tcn'' � H Hx E� °' qA W z � v' Co 0. o z U O � o°c c°) tn W v2i i-� W � A in A 3 � A � W � Uj A a�4 H N a G4 3 q WW Z 0 0 WU a4 U 0 U PW, a ac y. F H o ►--t PE4 H x N W H Z" iY a NAME 3? Chinese Pistacio 7 18 20 1 4 12 Chinese Pistacio 6 18 15 2 4 Co et'n with 13 x 13 Italian Stone Pine 14 25 20 1 2 2 14 Chinese Pistatio 10 20 18 1 3 15 Chinese'Pi.stacio 8 17 20 1 1 16 Chinese Pistacio 10 17 20 1 1 17 Chinese Pistacio 12 17 25. 1 1 T8 Chinese Pistacio 8 17 25 19 Chinese Pistacio 101 x 8 8 18 30 20 Grevillea robusta .8 18 20 2 4 Brittile s eci s x Silk Oak 21. Italian Stone Pine 12 x 12 10 18 35 1 2 2 3 22 Italian Stone Pine 18 18 30 1 2 3 3 23 Albizzea julibrissin 6 12 15 3 2 P or Is pec men Silk Tree - 24 Metasequoia 'glyptostroboides 16 50 28 1 1 PE r'f ct sl)ecirien, protect Dawn Redwood TJVT COM rr)TT"TIATT(_)M TTZ1717 CTIRVFV BARR�I0! E — lD57 . IOCSY O ATE 1% Het l 1 =best; 5� orst u ryG y a7 Q H '� H v b Cd A p x A HW x vai C7 14 v V) z cqn W z A cqqn ;> W 0 z c0.) 0 C44 U Ecn+ En H W H A Ln v 0 q d kp a W �+ A H H 4 k. to z W 3 tqo W7 z � UW ct4 p47 c�Hi � Oc " P4 04 �. a O aP4 1-4 H x Y r7 NAME 25 Liriodendron tulipifera 12 40 2C 2 4 H is teen tub cut will ba x brittle Tulip Tree 6 Chinese Pistacio 8 18 2C 1 1 2 1 Jacaranda acutifolia 8 x 5 4 15 22 1 1 Jacaranda ?8 Chinese Pistacio 9 15 2 1 2 29 Quercus agrifolia 30 28 4 1 1 2 Coast Live Oak 30 Italian Stone Pine 24 50 30 1 2 2 3 2 31 Italian Stone Pine 28 55 28 1 1 2 2 32 Sequoia dendron gigantea 12 18 10 2 1 2 Inf (cted disEase wit Bo ryo pher a, a de ally Giant Sequoia 33 Pseudotsujaa menzeisii 10 20 20 1 3 Damaking ad' cent X134 x Douglas Fir 34 Sequoia sempervirens 13 50 20 1 1 Coast Redwood 35 Coast Redwood 12 50 20 1 1 36. Silk Oak 17 55 30 2 4 Dan roulc st uct e x NELSON FOUNDATION TREE SURVEY ' D. COATE id` i NKtMYIttl►aI rOt1�Y�l�AI �pf 4P0— !S!•IOSf ' 1-best; 5-worst U R7 A j H H " u .q CC .� CC A � U q .. x A WH x vai _ Ln �. Ln to z H xx q W z 3 ®O W b q W O z q •�+ O 004' 0 H u tWl� H t/1 W A ` i A O 3 q A A W � U Wj p; � p E+ to q W z W W q WW z 1011, WU ,T, w a OU �WW a aG a w FWi Z 1 G NAME ?? Cedrus deodara 22 70 48 2 2 3 Deodara Cedar -3 Deodara Cedar 20 DE 39 Coast Live Oak 10 x 6 20 20 2 4 4 C opV of tre s i thi area x 1) Coast Redwood 2 50 20 ' Deodara Cedar 18 70 45 1 1 '42 Deodara Cedar 14 70 35 1 2 R ta• ei h 4 -o d- 43 43 Coast Live Oak 13 30 20 1 3 T ey are ama ing each oth r 44 Coast Live Oak 12 x 8 5 30 20 3 2 x 45 Coast Live Oak 14 x 12 8 30 30 2 2 '•6 Coast Redwood 10 38 20 1 3 D ma ed by #51 1 ! +7 Italian Store Pine 14 x 91 35 20 1 2 C mp ting witli AE x 148 Italian Stone Pine 16 x 14 35 20 1 2 49 Monterey Pine 16 35 20 1 2 C mp ting wit X64 x 50 Coast Redwood 8 25 18 2 2 51 Coast Redwood 5 18 15 2 2 52. Monterey Pine 7 25 20 1 2 D ma ding `50, 4151 x 53 Monterey Pine 16 _ _ 35 30 2 3 - Da, n 46 x ____ NELSON FnTTNnATTnN TREE SURVEY 1 z . i9ftK1111Yfi1 (.Otl�Yil�Al 4J y wt- 353A051 u n u a Il � H v En 0 W H V H W 3 A k+ 3 ►�- U N z r 1 _ best; 5 -worst v H v v x C7 � A O H� W I QWQWW Q 0001 O W O W A pC WHw pH� W w WW O OU "I H v7 p p� W tau WU j H H .Y A NAME A x cn z z PC A E+ Z z P4 pL PG Pa+ z ".4 Monterey Pine 12 35 18 3 3 x Tirpentine Beetle x 55 Monterey Pine 16 35 15 3 1 x T rpentine Beetle x 5r Monterey Pine 15 35 25 3 1 x TjrpentinejBee le x 57 Monterey Pine 14 35 25 2 1 58 Monterey Pine 13 30 15 3 3 x Turper tine Bee le x 59 Monterey Pine 16 35 28 2 3 60 Monterey Pine 13 30 20 3 3 x x 61 Monterey Pine 13 35 25 3 3 x x 6- Deodara Cedar 20 50 35 1 2 63 Deodara Cedar 12 x 12 55 30 1 2 64 Monterey Pine 13 35 25 1 2 �5 Italian Stone Pine 10 25 20 1 3 (,6 Italian Stone Pine 12 25 15 1 3 67 Pinus ponderosa 17 551 18 3 1 Ponderosa Pine 68 Acer negundo 12 x 10 50 45 1 4 x 3 x Box Elder 69 Deodara Cedar 16 60 28 1 1 ._,�. ��r �. ::� � �. NhLSON FOUNDATION TREE SURVEY ` BARRtE D. COATE �' w n N Ln H ul q 411110 l =ort"11ural Consultant ` 'i 4 q 1-1 , ri z H H a `r q G z A d F W r H c' G G F O to W 0 w A w 3 a �. F z 1 =best; 5 =worst H v vA� cAn v 3 Q y V Q H a ►-+ WW 0 1O A m o oW � o : Y NAME A vi z z o x V z r+ z � z a a ac A. z 70 Deodara Cedar 12 60 20 2 3 7' Deodara Cedar 14 50 15 2 5 x 72 Calocedrus decurrens 12 20 10 2 5 x Incense Cedar 73 Incense Cedar 18 50 28 2 1 74 Incense Cedar 14 35 25 3 2 x Roo di eas s x 75 Douglas Fir 22 65 25 3 2 x Roo di eas s pt . on s x 76 Douglas Fir 20 DEAD x 77 Douglas Fir 19 65 25 3 2 x Roo disease s pto s 78 Box Elder 8 x 6 18 25 2 3 79 Pinus species 16 65 25 3 3 x Tur ent '.ne 4eetle x 80 Pinus species 12 5q 15 3 3 x Tur ent ne eet e x 51 Pinus species 14 DEAD x 82 Pinus species 16 65 30 3 2 x Tur ent ne leetle I x :,3 Incense Cedar 12 2 18 1 1 S4 Coast Live Oak 12 1 25 30 11 11 1 S5 Valley Oak 26 4 C 50 2 1 1 1 x 86 Douglas Fir 13 4 28 2 2 NELSON FOUNDATION TREE SURVEY BARRIE D. COATS Hoctiruliural Coruuliont 1 =best; 5 =worst .. to Cl A H .. to v .0 u ,1 .. A ., N v U u vj A E+ W x to � Ln Ln ,-.1 cn z n q z 0 z w F, a w `i' H En v¢� W "' A '^ I c� c A 'j p H PN is z N zZ w 000 cW' c>~ oc d ,-7 `W� r� o a a w o z -Y 0 NAME Valley Oak 13 1 25 28 1 1 x Monterey Pine 12 35 18 5 2 x x a Eucalyptus globulus 30 x 18 70 40 1 3 Tasmanian Blue Gum Trs manian Blue Gum 20 50 40 1 3 5 Ced us atlantica 10 40 15 1 1 Atlas Cedar Deodara Cedar 12 40 20 1 2 �3 Cupressus arizonica 10 25 20 1 2 Arizona Cypress 94 Deodara Cedar 13 50 25 1 1 95 through 106 are a mixture of In,-ense Cedar, lCoastRe woo and vai ious Pine spe ie all of wh ch are dle cli ing r are dead. ;lone are worth saving. 107 Valley Oak 12 30 30 1 1 '08 Valley Oak 13 30 28 1 1 1 '09 Valley Oak 8 15 15 1 1 '10 Valley Oak 7 15 10 1 1 - El NET qnm FnTITZT)ATTOTZ TRFF Q11T?17FV B ,.RR1E D. COATS Nwtcf„rly,ai cu,,.uruoc IUd— SSS•IOS2 r. 1 =best; 5�aorst v V G co H H N v U C A N v U it ,1 Q H can Ln � v ^ r v µ; cnn U z ,�G xHx F q En W z µ. 3 O U VN 9 W� W Uj 0 D z CMG PU U N U W rz� W q Ln r p � S Ca A i 4 a p9 H n� ►� H w N � z 3 N W� Z W0 � w' Gal U d W1 1 04 cE H 0 a C C z H W Y �% NAME 11 Acacia melanoxylon J12 9 20 30 2 4 Blackwood Acacia 1 Eucalyptus camaldulensis 45 40 3 River Red Gum 3 River Red Gum 10 45 3 - River Red Gum 10 45 3 ':5 Valley Oak 12 '._6 Coast Live Oak 12 x 10 8 i7 Eucalyptus leucoxylon 7 x 7 White Ironbark !18 White Ironbark 4 x 3 ;19 White Ironbark 4 x 4 120 White Ironbark 4 x 4 The east - facing hillside of lot r5 i primarily covered with ecl ning or d ad Pi es. It ay e d sir ble t retain the live ones along the nor bo der for scr eni g. -L-F F R� Ilk .• _.��• M. .. -+1 M:: M. ca�iGi�kw�c �yi+ �F�'.+ uL1JWM' If+ lJ�. lti�f�M�+a ti6b�W !t?4�•A!%�r..g��r41�7r't'�.� ,.�Wanii{� -s, :•y�}�y �•-inl',� i r � I�d�ci�V�tTitknl+8!.-57,� ! i r �Afsi� JAW- i�:�ilb�L. ..h �.i �,,, -. _t� •�M .uoi� •�{�.:� } F, EXHIBIT A FLORENCE NELSON FOUNDATION APN 503-49-41 & 42 GP 87-003 L -4. A . .4 1- O'S 'OR 1PRVLD 4? L US rl -ERALD PVL M_ III n 1A CR J- M, op PA D PF�. ----------- Os OR ESTEPLEE AVE CR 8 RMF CFS -47 �R A u PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 11, 1988 Page 4 PUBLIC 11 ARINGS: '15. GP -87 -003 Florence Nelson Foundation, 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd., request for General Plan Amendment of 5.1 acres of partially developed property to change the land use designation from OSOR (Open Space, Outdoor Recreadon) to medium density residential homes. A Negative Declaration has been prepared. Continued from April 27, 1988. ---------------- - - ---- Planner Caldwell reviewed the Memorandum of May 11, 1988. Letters from the Public cited: - Mr. and Mrs. Heger - Ms. Loretta Nemetz - Ms. Carol Adams - Ms. Maxine Slair - Ms. Jeanne Williams - Mr. Richard Eiler The Public Hearing was opened at 8:10 P.M. Ms. Linda Callon, Representing Ainsley Development Co., commented as follows: - Reviewed the Application for a General Plan Amendment and the Staff Report - Cited the consistency of the proposal with the surrounding neighborhood; proposal also met requirements of the Circulation, Land Use and Housing Elements of the General Plan - Cited Reports submitted on the Trees and the Wildlife Assessment - Presented exhibits comparing the Applicant's proposal and Staff Recommendation Mr. Roger Ross, Florence Nelson Foundation, confirmed•that there had never a running creek on site during the 20 years he had lived there; however, pond water had been re- circulated. Ms. Dean Weston, 20774 Pontiac Ave., Saratoga, noted the many valuable trees which should not be destroyed; examples of apricot, walnut and apple trees cited. One of the pleasures of life was to eat fresh fruit from the trees; she- questioned whether such would be denied in the future Mr. Charles Hager, •21050 Saratoga Hills Rd., Saratoga, felt that Commissioners appointed while Ms. Callon was a member of the City Council, should disqualify themselves. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 MAY 11, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Anne Waltonsmith, 21060 Saratoga Hills Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: - Cited her letter which had not yet been received by the Planning Department - Asked that an internal street (cul -de -sac) be considered for the development in question - Added that some understood that the Water Department would use this development as an opportunity to widen Saratoga Hills Rd; the Vice President of Operations assured her that there was no such plan Ms. Louise Gager, 20972 Saratoga Hills Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: - Requested a delay in making a final decision on the Nelson Gardens - Cited the recent decision of Mr. David Packard to donate a large sum of money to another cause; they wished time in order to ask his help in this matter - Cited the time, resources and money available to the Nelson Foundation - Councilmembers in favor of this proposal voted against the people and the General Plan - Noted the opposition of the adjacent neighborhood to the development of this property - Cited the interest of Saratoga Community Gardens and Youth Science Institute in this site - Reiterated her request for a delay on this decision Ms. Keay Burth, 13886 Malcom, Saratoga, commented as follows: Williamson Act Contract on the Nelson property was available for almost nine years Cited the slides on Upper Hill Ct. and the cost to both taxpayers and residents of the area Noted the ongoing instability of this hill and the impact on Saratoga Hills Rd. Felt that imprudent building would cost money and create problems Mr. R. G. Lawson, 14090 Elvira St., Saratoga, noted that there was an'opportunity to save a beautiful piece of property. Ms. Lori Nemetz, 13960 Pontiac Ave., Saratoga, would like to see the property remain as it presently was; however, if developed, she asked that one acre parcels be required. Mr. Robert H. Bitney, 21352 Saratoga Hills Rd., Saratoga, read into the record a letter of Mr. MacLean Clair, 21100 Saratoga Hills Rd., Saratoga, dated May 8, 1988. He added his own comment that when the Water Department installed a water line across Saratoga Hills Rd., this road was never adequately repaired/restored. Mr. Robert Gager, 20972 Saratoga Hills Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: - Was concerned regarding earth movement and drainage on the hillside as follows: — Landslides: cited the recent slides on adjacent properties — Gradual settlement and lateral movement of the soil causing significant structural damage to the houses; cited problems in his own house — Underground springs; cited examples on his and a neighbor's property — Drainage on hillside lots - Cited recent litigation on land slippage on Saratoga Hills Dr. - Asked for a reevaluation of the soil and hillside conditions before approval were granted Ms. Callon responded as follows: - Concurred with the above speakers on the necessity of geologic and soils reports - Applicants also wished to preserve the trees on -site - Property had been in public hands at various times; no one could afford to maintain the site - Cited dre length of time Item had been considered and the past participation of neighbors - Reviewed the history of the property, deliberations surrounding cancellation of the William- son Act Contract and the proposed zoning designation for the site Ms. Lori Nemetz asked to review the exhibit presented on zoning designation for the site and add information on the topography of the site and alternative access to the property. i SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 8:50 P.M. Passed 5 -0 Commissioner Siegfried objected to comments that a potential conflict of interest would exist for Commissioners appointed during Ms. Callon's tenure on the City Council; he cited the time and effort dedicated to the Commission and the City of Saratoga. He reviewed the Application in the light of the cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract and stated that the question was one of appropriate zoning for this site. He concurred with Staff Recunuucnd:ulnn; issues r:1iscd in thi., I lcaiinp would bc - 0411'essed :,I -lie proper time. 000049 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 11. 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Page 6 Commissioner Siegfried wished to see development on the flat portion of the property and in character with the neighborhood. He favored some rather severe limitations on the height and size of the homes to be built on this property; the Commission would address technical concerns at the appropriate time. Commissioner Burger concurred. Commissioner Tucker understood the neighbors concerns and wished this property could remain open space; however, the Council had cancelled the Contract on this property. Commissioner Harris noted that an Environmental Declaration was required and advised the public that an Environmental Impact Report would not be required; she would have preferred to see this property remain in the Williamson Act Contract. Delay of this Application in order to search for alternative funding was not the prerogative of the Commission; however, adoption of a General Plan Amendment did not prohibit those interested from researching other options. The City Attorney confirmed that regardless of the zoning, the site could be bought and sold; such depended upon the desire of the current owners. Commissioner Harris favored as few homes as possible on this site; information available confirmed Staff Recommendation and was consistent with the neighborhood. Commissioner Kolstad cited the Model Resolution and questioned whether development of this site was in the best public interest; while preservation of open space may not be economically feasible, parklands were difficult to restore to an area. He was unfavorable to a General Plan Amendment allowing more development; such would not be in the public interest. Chairperson Guch was not in favor of cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract; however, such was not before the Commission. The proposal for medium and low density appeared to be consistent with the General Plan in that surrounding areas were a similar designation; such appeared to be an appropriate designation for the site. Issues of drainage and preservation of trees would be addressed at the subdivision application. Commissioners Tucker and Harris questioned the term "public interest;" Planner Caldwell reviewed the history of this proposal and deliberations of the Council in cancelling the Williamson Act Contract; it would be in the public interest to develop the property consistent with General Plan policy for the area. The City Attorney added that the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments were legislative acts as opposed to approval of subdivision application which was a discretionary process. Staff Report stated that the "Plan may be amended in the Public Interest;" such to be detemtined on a reasonable basis in terms of a planning decision for this property. Planner Caldwell arnended the Model Resolution to read, "..Medium and Very Low Density.." BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION GP -87003 AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT DESIGNATING THE FLORENCE NELSON PROPERTY MEDIUM AND VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. Denied 3 -3, Commissioners Harris, Tucker, Kolstad dissenting. Break: 9:10 - 9:29 P.M. 0919W o2 0&m °(5& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission DATE: 5/11/88 FROM: Planning Department Ping. Dir. Approval SUBJECT: GP -87 -003, Florence Nelson Foundation --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- At the 4/27/88 meeting, the Planning Commission requested information on the trees, surrounding zoning, and the feasibility of a low density (RLD) designation on the property. Attached for the Commissioners' information are (1) Barrie Coate's report dated March 2, 1988, (2) a copy of the zoning map for the area surrounding the Florence Nelson property, (3) tree locational map, and (4) a low density layout map. The full size copy of the "tree locations" shows the existing trees with the lots laid out with the medium density designation (M -12) as proposed by the applicant for the entire 5.1 acres. The second map shows a lot configuration with a low density General Plan designation. Staff has reinspected the site and surrounding area to assess the issue of density. Based upon the size of the surrounding lots and the similarity of the topography of the site with the surrounding area, the medium density designation is appropriate for the eastern portion of the land. There is nothing unique to the subject property that would dictate a low density designation when the site is surrounded on three sides by medium density. Attached for the Commissioners use is the previous information from the April 27th meeting. Recommendation: Review the negative declaration and adopt recommending that the City Council approve General Plan, placing two designations on the 12) and very low density (RVLD). KC /dsc Resolution GP -87 -003, the amendment to the property: medium (M- 000051' • NNiR , ` j ,{ lVe�50A) (OZ14*104'17 Flo r-et9cc { l ri. s iI A ES*EMEE 1- 12,500 M -3,000 P -A C_V R - 1 � = k0,000 R -1- 12,500 i ,mo i i ,�, L27rAc 21 oC9 2.50L,Ac 4 I 2P vi \ --- L626 Ac. I Z \AQ I r~ �L74 II V ` 1 1 T_.. ----------------- T- 35 34 /3 /2 i i 12uYJ i r?-q sD LS 16 22 14 L7 ac s� 'Z 20 .i 23 O a IZ:L.�^o • � c1 . -- 5i7J '' 16 1 iM1µ - `,�` �� ID REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION GP- 87 -003 Florence Nelson Foundation n 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd. General Plan Amendment I�4 C ?1 ' !.� �`� 1 L-71451 05 OR ! I t - -- RVLD' CFS S �.. ,I tt It I 1' CR ` ` L D.. PF t J ' :'� f OR CR REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Kathryn Caldwell DATE: 4/27/88 APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: APPLICANT• GP -87 -003; 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd. Ainsely Development, Inc. APN: 503 -49 -41.42 ------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant is requesting an amendment to the General Plan to change the land use designation of 5.1 acres of partially developed property from OSOR (open space, outdoor recreation) to medium density residential (M -12.5) in order to accomodate a residential subdivision of the property. ISSUES: Several neighbors are requesting one acre minimum density in order to ensure the new homes are compatible with the character of the neighborhood. However, the surrounding development and topography of the site would support medium density at the easterly portion of the property (M -1 -12.5) and low density at the west (R -1- 40) . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Review the negative declaration and adopt Resolution GP -87 -003 recommending that the City Council approve the amendment to the General Plan; placing two designations on the property, medium (M- 1- 12.,5) and low density residential. PUBLIC NOTICING: The application was deemed complete on 4/5/88. GP -87 -003 has been noticed by advertising in the Saratoga News on 4/13/88 and direct mailing to property owners within 500' of the project. ATTACHMENTS: KC /dsc 1. Negative Declaration & initial study, including wildlife assessment 2. Resolution GP -87 -003 3. Staff report 4. Resolution of the Council re: Williamson Act. 5. Correspondence (2) 6. Plans 1 000054 STAFF REPORT GP -87 -003; 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd. Description of Property The subject property is located west of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd., north of Reid Lane. It is bordered by Trinity Avenue on the north, Pontiac Ave. on the east and Pontiac /Saratoga Hills Rd. on the south. The 5.1 acres is roughly divided into thirds, consisting of a two -acre apricot orchard, two homes sited in a grouping of mature trees in the center, and a grassy hillside marking the beginning of the Santa Cruz mountains to the west. It is included in the General Plan area "B ", Congress Springs - Pierce Road. Biotec and wildlife assessments were recently completed on the site. No rare or endangered species of plants and animals were found. General Plan Amendment The current General Plan land use designation for the property is OS -OR (open space - outdoor recreation). Applicant wishes to amend the General Plan to medium density residential (3.48 DU /acre) in order to accomodate a residential subdivision of the property. The enclosed plan is representative of the forthcoming application for a 9 -lot subdivision of the property, consistent with the medium density residential designation. The state guidelines for amending the Genral Plan reminds local officials that the Plan may only be amended "in the public interest," be consistent with the rest of the General Plan, and is subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. A brief discussion of each point follows: 1. Amended in the public interest On February 17, 1988, the City Council tentatively cancelled the Williamson Act Land Contract on the property. The Council made the finding that since the Florence Nelson Foundation was unable to continue to maintain the property, the property could become a blight upon the neighborhood, a potential health hazard and an attractive nuisance. In addition, the Council made the finding that the City would receive a substantial donation of charitable funds for development of the park fund and Hakone Gardens from the sale of the property. Therefore, future development of the property is in the public interest - a broad range of citizens will benefit. 2. Internal consistency with the General Plan The subject site is located in "General Plan Area B - Congress Springs /Pierce Road." The text (p. 4 -4) refers to the Horticultural Foundation "with potential for significant development" and "the area is unanimous in the desire to assure that any development or redevelopment of sites within the area be only single family detached residential with a density 060056 GP -88 -003; 20851 Saratoga Hills consistent with the surrounding neighborhood." Medium density residential is consistent with the developed residential properties adjacent to Trinity, Malcolm and Pontiac Streets. The proposal is consistent with the goals of the land use element and housing element (LU 8.0 and H 6.0 "...the City shall continue to be predominantly a community of single - family detached residences. ") and the circulation element (CI. 5.0 Use street capacities in determining land uses and acceptable densities. If ... existing streets need to be improved to accomodate a project, such improvements shall be in place or bonded for prior to issuance of permits). The City Engineer has reviewed the proposal and will be requiring improvements to Saratoga Hills Road with the tentative map. All the remaining local streets are developed. 3. CEQA The California Environmental Quality Act requires that environmental assessment evaluate "the whole of a project." In this case, the "project" includes the General Plan Amendment, future rezoning and a subdivision of the property into a maximum of 9 residential lots. The project has been reviewed by City departments, the Parks and Recreation Commission, sanitation, water, storm drainage and fire district. All services are available for the project and no unusual conditions will be required on the tentative map. Although there are no rare or endangered species of plants and animals on the property, the Commission will want to require preservation of many of the trees identified in the wildlife assessment. The City's Horticultural Consultant has analyzed the health of the trees and proposed protection measures that can be incorporated as a condition in the future tentative map. Issue Several residents of the area are requesting a one acre designation on the entire property in order to ensure that future homes are compatible with the character of the surrounding homes, "single story with 2,500 square foot or less foundation footprints." The topography and surrounding land use designations, however, support the medium density proposal at the easterly portion with a low density designation beginning at the toe of the slope. The subject property which abuts Pontiac and Trinity Avenues has an approximate 5% slope and the rear portion is 20 -25 %. In addition, the neighboring lots to the north, east and south are designated and developed at medium density in the flatter portions of the area; Upper Hills and Saratoga Hills Road are appropriately designated low density, consistent with the hillside topography. The issue of lot size and configuration will be determined during 00 u057 - $" V--L GP -88 -003; 20851 Saratoga Hills Road the subdivision proposal when the location of the trees and slopes will be studied in detail. The sizes of the homes (bulk and compatibility) will be assessed during the design review process, although the Planning Commission may condition single story homes for specific lots on the tentative map. Recommendation The Planning Commission is considering the maximum density to be allowed on the subject property. When the details of the subdivision are presented, the number of lots may need to be reduced based upon the location of trees, access or slopes which dictate an alternative subdivision to the nine lots suggested by the applicant. Based upon the surrounding designation and the slope of the subject lot, two general plan designations are appropriate: medium density (M -12.5) on the eastern portion and low density (R -1 -40) at the west. 80006 .. 000 WS 20760 Saratoga, April 17, 1988 Susan B. Guch, Chairman Saratoga Planning Commission 12091 Plumas Drive Saratoga, California 95070 Re: Dear Ms. Guch and Mr. Hsia: RECEiveu B. ALEXANDER APUt I a 1984 Trinity Avenue PLANNING DEPT. California 95070 Yuchuek Hsia, Director Saratoga Planning Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 GP -87 -003 Florence Nelson Foundation Public Hearing This letter is in response to the notice we received for the above hearing to take place on April 27th. We dor not approve of any change in the General Plan for this property. When we considered buying our home next to the Nelson property we were told it would remain an orchard "in perpetuity," guaranteed by the State of California. We understand that you are not responsible for keeping promises made by another government. We do believe that your responsibility is to develop and maintain the optimum land use plan for our city. We urge you to consider alternatives that will keep the Nelson orchard as one of the very last examples of the industry that is Saratoga's heritage. one viable alternative that has been advanced is to have the orchard operated by Youth Science Foundation and the Saratoga Community Gardens organization. It is possible that the Nelson Foundation directors are prevented from negotiating with such organizations by the terms of the option they sold to Ainsley Development. A decision by you not to change the General Plan for this developer could free the Foundation to explore other alternatives. This is the course we urge you to pursue in the best long term interests of our city. We are sending this letter in sufficient time for you to distribute copies to the other planning commissioners and Planning Department staff. We would be grateful if you would do that. Sincerely, W. B. Alexander Carolyn Alexander Richard and Ann Waltonsmith 21060 Saratoga Hills Rd. Saratoga, Calif 95070 April 20, 1988 Susan B. Guch, Chairperson Saratoga Planning Commission 12091 Plumas Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 RECEIVED AVR # 4 Wad PI- ANNING DEPT, Yuchuek Hsia, Director Saratoga Planning Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: GP -87 -003 Florence Nelson Foundation 20851 Saratoga Hills Road Public Hearing Dear Ms Guch, Mr. Hsia, and Commissioners: My husband and I are opposed to any change in the open space /outdoor recreation land use designation of the Nelson Property. There is a specific Conservation Element (CO.2.0) in the City General Plan which is relevant to all Williamson Act contracts. Enclosed is a copy of the page 2 -16. In CO.2.2, it specifies that "the City shall encourage renewal of Williamson Act Contracts ". In CO.2.3, it says "Williamson Act contract cancellations shall be discouraged to the maximum extent feasible ". This was not attended to during the City Counsel Hearings (as much as it should be). Thus we strongly recommend that the Planning Commission not ignore the General Plan dictates but stand firm in defending it. It is interesting to note that Mayor (at that time) Callon signed the General Plan into existance on 5/5/83. She is now, in 1988, the lawyer representing the developer who wants to break the General Plan dictates. Although we do not approve of any change in the zoning designation on this property, we want to comment on the specific plans now before the Commission. We are concerned about the potentigl development of nine houses on the Nelson property. We have three points of concern. They are as follows: , . 1 1 �������� �3 1. There are many beautiful large trees on the property. Their girth exceeds ten inches in diameter. It is my understanding they are to be protected under the General Plan CO.2.0 and specifically CO.2.5 (page 2- 17),In addition, the Saratoga Tree Preservation Ordinance must protect the trees. Mr. Barrie Coate has listed these trees in his report. He gives no map to designate their placement but they are in areas slated for house placement on the lot map in the Planning Office. We cannot see how they will be preserved with the present plan to build nine large houses. Not only the construction itself but the square footage of the houses, city easement of streets, and access into each property will promote the destruction of those trees. 2. Besides the trees, we are concerned also about the stream running through the property. I am a longtime resident of Saratoga. I grew up living on Saratoga Hills Road. A stream runs through our property. It is a function not only of runoff during storms but also a natural spring abouve us. We think the Nelson property stream is a function of that same process... runoff and natural springs. It may be quite small during dry years but it is quite large and can be detrimental to houses during "wet" years. This natural stream is protected under the General Plan page 3 -37. It is not clear to us that the developer's plans adequately protect both the houses and the natural stream bed. 3. The plan for nine large two -story houses on the property does not fit with the surrounding homes. This is not a Blackhgwk Country Club Community of large garish homes built on the Disneyland design. The Nelson property is in Saratoga. We believe that fewer homes built on a single story design would be more appropriate. The issues we have raise must be more adequately assessed and explained to the community before a change in the zoning or approval of building sites can be made. We would like to close with a quote from Stewart L. Udall, former U.S. Secretary of the Interior under J.F. Kennedy and L.B. Johnson. Mr Udall spoke last night at San Jose State University. 1111.• "If, in our hasteto 'progress', the economics of ecology are disregarded by citizens and policy makers alike, the result will be an ugly America. We cannot afford an America where expedience tramples upon esthetics and development decisions are made with an eye only on the present" S. Udall, The Quiet Crisis Please be careful about your decisions on this beautiful piece of property. Our community is in your hands. Sincerely, Ann Waltonsmith, Ph.D. CONSERVATION ELEMENT (CO) A conservation element for the conservation, development,. and utilization of natural resources including water and its hydraulic force, forests, soils, rivers and other waters, harbors, fisheries, wildlife, minerals, and other natural resources. CO.1.0 Control the density of development in hill areas, including the Sphere of Influence, to protect the unique quality of the City's mountainous backdrop and to protect the aesthetic qualities of the City. CO.1.1 The importance of the views of the mountains and hills from Saratoga shall be reviewed when. considering a development application within the City and its Sphere of Influence.. CO.1.1 (Imp) This policy is currently implemented through the Design Review Ordinance. The Ordinance implementing the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan also addresses this issue. CO.2 0 - Conserve natural vegetative and significant topceraphic features whi.ch exist in Saratoga and its Sphere of Influence. CO.2.1 Mineral extraction in the City and its Sphere oaf Influence shall be regulated and suc_ervisec to minimize physical and visual damage to. the existinS environment. C0.2.1 (Imo) Implemented through limited Industrial Ordinance and Gracing Ordinance. Use permit and revegetation program shall be rec_uired for all such uses. CO.2.2 The City shall encourage renewal of Williamson Act Contracts. CO.2.2 (Imp) Conform to Robinson Bill - AB 2074 CO.2.3 Williamson. Act contract cancellations shall be discouraged to the maximum extent feasible. CO.2.3 (Imp) See CO 2.2 (Imp) CO.2.4 Through implementation of the Tree Preservation. Ordinance, the City shall control the removal or destruction of trees. CO.2.4 (Imp) (The policy is specific and does not require an implementation measure) 2 -16 . r `°' 70 CO.2.5 In the process of all new development, particular care shall be taken to preserve native oaks, measuring at least ten inches in diameter at twenty -four inches above the ground, and other significant trees by careful siting of all improvements. CO.2.5 (Imp) Modify the Tree Preservation Ordinance to require tree removal permits for native oaks measuring 10 inches in diameter or greater. CO.3.0 Preserve the quality of the natural environment and the character of the City through appropriate regulation of site development. CO.3.1 The City shall strive to protect wildlife and wildlife habitats when considering proposals, for development or plans for active recreation. CO.3.1 (Imp) (The policy is specific and does not require an implementation measure.) CO.3.2 The impact on air quality shall be evaluated in connection with development and highway construction. Y CO.3.2 (Imp) (The policy is specific and does not require an implementation measure.) CO.3.3 The City shall minimize the impact that development may have on the quality of water within the City and its Sphere of Influence, including the application of strict standards to sanitation services to avoid ground water contamination. CO.3.3(Imm) Adhere to the provisions of CEQA and coordinate with the various public agencies concerned with water quality (County Health, S.C.V.W.D., San Jose Water Works, etc.) CO.3.4 The City shall minimize the impact that development may have on the quantity of water consumed by the development. CO.3.4 (Imp) City shall require when feasible that native vegetation be used in landscaping and requiring water use mitigation measures as conditions of develop- ment approval. CO.3.5 Watersheds shall be protected by stringent erosion control during development and by minimizing grading to the fullest extent possible. CO.3.5 (Imp) Implementation through Grading Ordinance and through building site approval conditions. Coordinate with Evergreen Resource Conservation Dist -ri_r -t, 2 -17 0 4' 00 11 I Rth-e -Q CO. 3.6 Maximum impervious coverage limits used by the Citj shall be evaluated and, if necessary, revised to ensure that runoff due to new development will not create flooding or erosion impacts. CO.3.6 (Imp) (The policy is specific and does not require an implementation measure.) CO.4.0 Encourage energy conservation, maximum energy efficiency and the utilization of renewable energy resources, keeping aesthetics in mind, in order to reduce dependence on non- renewable resources for satisfying basic and non -basic energy needs. CO.4.1 Consider developing an Energy Element within the General Plan to form the basis for energy con- servation ordinances. CO.4.1 (Imp) (The policy is specific and does not require implementation measure) y CO.4.2 Promote cooperation and coordination with federal, state, regional, and local governmental and private agencies in seeking to formulate and implement energy planning programs. CO.4.2 (Imp) Continue support of existing Cal SECDA Agreement sharinc solar and conservation information. Make this part of Energy Element. CO.4.3 Facilitate dissemination of information on energy - conservation techniques and alternative energy sources. CO.4.3 (Imp) Coordinate with PG &E and collect energy conservation pamphlets for public distri- bution. Develop staff experitse in conservation techniques. CO.4.4 The City will continue to support voluntary recycling efforts. CO.4.4 (Imp) Continue to allow the existing recycling center to operate on city property. 2 -18 e 05006 Geologic Hazards The land's capability of supporting development varies greatly throughout Saratoga and its Sphere of Influence. While many areas offer problem -free development sites, many others are plagued with hazards such as soil erosion, landslides, subsidence, and severe earth shaking. Much of the Sphere of Influence, in particular, is characterized by unstable soil conditions made even more hazardous to development by the steepness of the terrain. The San Andreas Fault, which crosses through Saratoga's Sphere of Influence, presents another serious hazard to any development within the fault zone. A major earthquake along the San Andreas Fault is expected to occur in the next several decades. In 1906, Santa Cruz Mountain residents suffered losses resulting from ground displacement, ground shaking, and landslides. During smaller earthquakes, the same phenomena may occur, however, with far less intensity and extent. The Safety and Seismic Safety Elements of the General Plan and the Specific Plan for the Northwestern Hillsides more specifically define the geologic hazards existing in Saratoga and its Sphere of Influenrce. Flood Control Saratoga is located in the North Central Zone of the Santa Clara County Flood Control District. Creeks in the City that are under District jurisdiction are Calabazas, Rodeo, Saratoga, Wildcat, and San Tomas. In general, flooding from these creeks has been confined to the rather narrow flood plain directly adjacent to the creeks. In the past, however, homes have been constructed in these flood plains which may be subject to severe damage. Flooding of the Saratoga, Calabazas, and San Tomas Creeks caused over $1.5 million in damage between 1955 and 1958. In January of 1982, a severe storm affected the entire penin- sula causing tremendous damage. The City lost a portion of an access road into Wildwood Park, but other than that, there were no major problems resulting from flooding. Several of the City's creeks have been widened and deepened to improve their water carrying capacity. The Flood Control District's main activities in Saratoga have been the routine maintenance of channels, including silt removal, clearing of underbush and other debris, and erosion control. Saratoga citizens have expressed disapproval of any plans to channelize the natural watercourses, arguing that aesthetic values should take precedence over flood control. In response to this, the Flood Control District has suggested that adequate flood plains be established which would include less land on either side of the creek bed but would require some dike or levee construction paralleling its banks. 3- 37 000073 In mid 1974 the City passed a Resolution which authorized its citizens to purchase flood insurance under the provision of the Federal Flood Insurance Program Act. In addition to the insur- ance, the City conditions subdivisions to improve streams or drainage ways to prevent flooding. The Flood Control District is notified of any proposed development that might impact a Flood Control District stream. New development in Saratoga and its Sphere of Influence will intensify runoff, putting an even greater strain on the local flood control network. Continued cooperation between the City and the Flood Control District will ensure the maintenance and protection of the flood control network. Water Resources Supply Domestic water is supplied to Saratoga by the San Jose Water Works, a private company serving central Santa Clara County. At the present time, water is available from two sources: local wells and streams, and purchased water from the Oroville Dam via -the California aqueduct. Well and stream water is purified at the San Jose Water Works treatment plan in Los Gatos. Purchased water is negotiated through the Santa Clara County Flood Control and Water District and purified at their Rinconanda Treatment Plant. In normal years, about 66 percent of the total water supply come from wells, 12 percent from streams, and 22 per- cent is purchased. The Water District has indicated that its water supply limit could be reached by 1985 if the San Felipe Water Supply importation project is not available by that time. The San Jose Water Works does not supply water to areas more than one lift (300 feet) above the City's service system. Groups of property owners in the Sphere of Influence buy water from the Water Works and pump it to higher elevations. Before parts of the Sphere of Influence or the western hillsides are opened up to further development, arrangements will have to be made to provide an adequate and economical source of water. Pollution Control Water quality in Saratoga has always been considered satisfactory and contamination of the water table has not, as yet, been a problem. Septic tanks are still used by some developments in the outlying areas of the City and remain a potential problem. All of Saratoga except the northwest third is in County Sanitation District No. 4. The balance of the City is served by the Cuper- tino Sanitation District. Both Districts have been involved in converting septic tanks to sewer systems. At present, about 95 percent of Saratoga is served by sanitary sewers. Both Sanitation 3- 38 0000'74 �b t e.e' () 0 Richard and Ann Waltonsmith 21060 Saratoga Hills Rd. Saratoga, Ca 95070 May 1, 1988 Susan B. Guch, Chairperson Yuchuek Hsia, Director Saratoga Planning Commission Saratoga Planning Department 12091 Plumas Drive 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca 95070 Saratoga, Ca 95070 Re: GP -87 -003 Florence Nelson Foundation RECEIVED 20851 Saratoga Hills Road Public Hearing IMIAY, 1�a� Dear Ms. Guch, Mr. Hsia, and Commissioners: PLANNING DEPT We attended the Planning Commission's open meeting on April 27,1988 and were heartened to find you responsive to neighborhood concerns about the proposed development changes to the Nelson property. As we watched you deliberate over the earlier agenda items of increasing deck size and hill overhang and garage enlargement, we realize that you were taking a careful look at proposed changes in those neighborhoods. We hope you will continue that careful review with the larger Nelson Property development proposal. Our stance continues to be that the Nelson Garden is too beautiful and special as an intact Garden and Orchard to allow it to be bulldozed under for houses. Saratoga will only gain a few more houses but lose a unique open space park. We realize that supporters of the developer argue that Saratogans with their bigger backyards don't need more parks even if we are under the quota for parks. It is our argument that this special property is not a run -of- the -mill park. It is a "special focus" one. If given the chance and truely opened on a regular, orq_anized basis to the public, it would be well utilized by Saratogans. The local neighbors support this option. As you may know, the Friends of t§h Nelson Garden, a group made up of immediate neighbors to thegarden, collected over 800 signatures of Saratogans who wished it to remain in open space /recreational land use. We request that you reject any zoning changes. Leave it as open space /recreational land. If the present owners don't want to be responsible for an open space /recreational area, then someone will buy it who will enjoy funding it and turning it over to a public agency. 000075 In addition, the Saratoga Hills Road Association is opposed to an so called "improvement" to the Nelson property which would damage the "country road" feel of our private road. Saratoga Hills Rd. is a beautiful anomaly from an earlier Saratoga. We first moved onto Saratoga Hills Rd. in 1950. The road continues to surprise and delight other neighbors from other streets as a pleasant country road on which to walk. The Nelson Garden and Orchard,given the proper treatment and care, could also be part of that "country feel" which is fast being bulldozed under in Saratoga. Maintaining and improving the orchard would make a unique Saratoga Park. We envision a beautiful constellation of parks, Villa Montalvo, Haikoni, and Nelson Garden and Orchard, which would draw visitors and money into Saratoga. Please do not change the zoning of the property. We know that one question remains. If the zoning were to be changed, how many houses could the property feasibly hold. Is it really a piece of land that can be developed? We think the land could maximally hold five houses. That is the number another prospective well -known developer previously suggested to the Nelson Foundation. There are many problems with building on that land. The Planning Dept. has not yet done a complete job of investigating. 1. We request that you deny the plan to put houses on the hillside. In our experience as people who live on the nearby hill, we know the hillside slippage and erosion will be a massive problem. In addition, homeowners tend to lay down lots of cement walks and drives. Mudslides and water runoff become encreasing problems for neighbors below. We know these problems engender lawsuits toward the city and developer. 2. The Saratoga Hills Rd Assoc. to which we belong is opposed to allowing driveway entrances on and any widening of our private road. We perceive that less change and damage to the environment can be accomplished by demanding that the driveways ultimately exit onto already existing regulation size streets. Leave Saratoga Hills Rd. alone. Go by the adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it ". 3. We request larger lot sizes and smaller number of houses on the entire property, i.e., perhaps R- 1/20,000 regulation. This will enhance the possibility of saving the mature trees. Placement, of the houses can be more easily juggled on larger lots. 000076 j T o oof 4. We request that any housing development plan be self- contained. That is, the houses should face an interior cul -de -sac which exits safely at a non -blind corner, i.e. on Trinity perhaps. Because of the present layout of existing streets and the hillside, there are already several blind corners. An interior cul -de -sac will decrease the problem. In addition, the cul -de -sac plan would protect the Pistachio Trees and the other mature trees on the perimeter of the property. Please move carefully. This is a special piece of property. And many people care about it. Sincere_].,y, Richard and Ann Waltonsmith 00007'7 GARY L. NEMETZ 13960 Pontiac Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 (408) 291 -6240 - Days (408) 867 -4592 - Evenings April 28, 1988 Susan B. Guch, Chairman Saratoga Planning Commission 12091 Plumas Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: GP -87 -003 Florence Nelson Foundation Application Dear Ms. Guch: AECEIVIEU IIPV". ,� i 1',;. PLANNING DEPT. I am sending this letter to express my appreciation for the Planning Commission's deferral of its decision for further study of the Nelson Gardens Development Plan. I would also like to apologize for any disruptions from comments made out of order from the floor. I think it is most important for all parties to concentrate on the issues so that this development, if it should be approved, be properly planned. My understanding is you will be conducting a closed session prior to the next hearing of this matter at your Wednesday, May 11, public hearing at 7:30 p.m. I would like to submit the following issues for your consideration: 1. The homes on Pontiac Avenue and the corners of Trinity and Malcolm adjacent to part of the Nelson Gardens property are not compatible with the development plan in that the homes have approximately 2,500 square feet or less foundation footprint and, including my partial second story addition, all the homes are less than 3,000 square feet. This comprises an impervious coverage of 20% or less for the living quarters on those 12,500 square foot lots. Again, I submit one acre plus zoning with extensive open space and setbacks should be the maximum general plan change; 2. The development plan does not adequately deal with increased traffic, safety problems and creates additional blind corners and driveway traffic on Pontiac Avenue which is currently very dangerous due to rir��06 ��v 000cl Susan B. Guch, Chairman April 28, 1988 Page 2 its layout encouraging high -speed automobile traffic. In addition, the access to the upper lots of the proposed development onto Saratoga Hills Road presents several issues dictating that any development should not be encouraged without reviewing a single internal access plan to all the lots proposed within the Nelson Property, most likely at or near the current entrance to the two homes existing on the property; 3. Although comments have been made regarding the intention to save significant trees on the property, the general plan change should not be encouraged at this time that does not specifically identify the placement and the continued existence of individual trees; 4. With respect to the hillside lots, I would strongly recommend that the city planners review the slippage problems on Michaels Drive, Upper Hill Court and Sara Hills Drive. In fact, I am aware of at least one home on Michaels Drive that suffered such severe slippage that the home was required to be removed and the lot is presently unbuildable. For all these reasons above, and a number of others that were brought out at the April 27th hearing, a change in the General Plan should be delayed until all these items have been studied, especially in fact of the expense and time consumption that would be encouraged on the proposed development plan when after necessary changes are made may become economically unfeasible. I respectfully request that you distribute this letter to other members of the Planning Commission and Planning staff in sufficient time for your working session and the May 11, 1988, hearing on this matter. Sincerely, GARY L. NEMETZ GLN /dw cc: Yuchuek Hsia Editor, Saratoga News r� i 000077 •,.171R , 'M 0 i SARATOGA HILLS ROAD ASSOCIATION Such, Chairman Panning Commission u m a s Drive 9 ' A 95070 h and Mr. H s i a : RECEIVEU API( 19�5r, PLANNING DEPI Yuchuek Hsia, Director Saratoga Planning Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 I am sending this letter on behalf of the members of the Saratoga Hills Road Assoc'ation. We are concerned that the density of the homes in the housing development proposed for the Nelson property is too high. We request that the Property be developed in minimum one (1) acre lots to conform with the current density of the other lots which have access to the private road portion of Saratoga Hills Road. This density would be ecologically the least damaging to the environment and conform with the current general plan of Saratoga. We also request that the building plan be approved with the primary ac;c4ss to each home's garage provided from existing public streets rather tht.,, fron the existing private road. This wiII maintain the rilral atmosphere of the hi is anc the beauty of Saratoga Hills Road. We would like to preserve this lovely wooded area and country road as much as possible for all to enjoy. Sin cereeIy, / Robert T. Gager, President Saratoga Hills Road Association 20972 Saratoga Hills Road Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 867 -0561 000080 M.A. Cicerone 14014 Saratoga Hills Road Saratoga, CA 95070 April 22, 1988 Mr. Yucheuk Hsia, Director Saratoga Planning Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Yuchuek: RECEIVED NPR 9 .t. 1� PI ANNING DEPT I am writing to express my support of the arguments made to you by Mr. Gary Nemetz in his letter of April 14 regarding GP -87 -003, the Florence Nelson Foundation Public Hearing. Throughout the hearings regarding the cancellation of the Williamson Act for the Nelson Gardens, the proponents of development, and especially the members of the City Council, stated over and over again that one of the principal reasons for such a cancellation was that development of the Gardens would be consistent with, and in fact enhance, the character of the existing neighborhood. As Mr. Nemetz has explained, one has only to look at the property in question to realize that the proposed development of nine houses, six of which would be clustered at one end of the property along Pontiac Avenue, is totally inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed development plans seem to consider comparative lot size alyl r and completely ignore the more important elements of the neighborhood, such as proportion of the existing foundation footprints to lot size, setbacks, building heights, and the total square footage of existing residences. It seems eminently clear that if the Planning Department truly seeks to keep development consistent with the existing neighborhood, it must consider either limiting the size and elevation of the proposed houses or require that the area be zoned 1- 40,000 as is the case of the homes already existing on Saratoga Hills, Trinity Avenue, and Upper Hills Drive. Saratoga residents in the neighborhood unanimously support the second alternative. It is also imperative that you look very seriously into the impact that the proposed development will have on traffic in the immediate area. The intersections of Saratoga Hills /Pontiac, Pontiac /Trinity, and Trinity /Malcom are already extremely dangerous since roadways are narrow and there are no stop signs. In addition, the Saratoga Hills- 000081 Pontiac- Trinity route is heavily used by children going to and from the Foothill School site, not only for school but also for the many other, comrnunity- sponsored activities such as Soccer and Little League. The additional traffic generated by new housing in this area poles a serious threat to the safety of neighborhood residents (including any residents of' the new housing); any development of the Nelson property must take into account substantial modifications of existing roadways, access routes, and traffic patterns. Thank you very much for your attention. The Planning Department ha ;.1 been a strong advocate of development in the interests of Saratoga citizens and has not sacrificed the well -being of the city to the financial interests of developers. I am sure you will continue this role and give the current matter the very careful, serious consideration it deserves. Sincerely, M.A 6 000082 e April 26, 1988 TO THE PLV?NING Ci'i'MISSICN A ND CITY MANAGER OF SARATOGA I hereby serve notice that I object not only to the fact that the City of Sa.rat -ga did not provide adequate time for public involvement on the cancellation of the Nelson Gardens Propeety in Saratoga before cancelling it, but als- to the incredible absence of any preliminary work sessions before this scheduled April 27 th hearing on changing the zoning and General Plan of Saratoga for such property. I request an extension of time on behalf of all interested parties and several work sessions sc that the complicated matters of tree preservations brook preservation, aesthetic considerations, study of building plans im regard t-: heigth, number of appropriate homes, design and capatability of neighboring structures, city easement of streets, access into property etc, are discussed thcr -ughly and worked cut satisfactorily. It will be impossible to do an honest study in such a limited, allcted time rant. at this April ?7th meetingo Before the General Flan and zoning regulations are changed, it should be known what exactly the changes are to be. Since the City Council vcte on cancellation of the Williamson Act protecting the Nelson Gardens Property was so close, 2 -2, with the mayor casting the decisive vcte, would it n -t be prudent that all parties involved proceed cautiously and thoughtfully to achieve a good alternative solution to the General Plan? �Itll: C00000 a NELSON GARDENS - 2 If the interest of citizens, the aesthetic beauty of Saratoga, and the envirnn^enta]. c ^nsiderations as objectives as stated in the Saratoga General Flan count for nothing, just what guidelines is the Planning Department fcllowin?,? Therefore, I request the Planning Commission delay anrlconsideration of chanrin,, any city ordinances until several working sessions are hEld and Interested Terties and neighbors have an opportunity to work things out. Sincerely, Notes I wnald like to add that it is also quite possible that if there is a slight change of the city council this coming; June, the decision on the Nelson Gardens might conceivably be reversed. titi:° b0000® A t CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES VVIL ENGINEERS: /LANNEMS: SURVEYORS •lLLVILATM "•,uTrEAI•Ld O•TW,VVOIwJ lNO•MVl!!►m --• v - �� "' _ PLAT TO ACC4VA4)YV,4PPL /CAT /ON �^ °� °•n•• FOR REZON /NB _ /.fLI /Rp0 /GR � A /NSCEY D�'�! CO /VA,TgG/ CI L�fOII i -- - I —.> N : o• M. M. iV4Lti: rv4lyln{ OL�i11{ �jLl. rEw�OY> �MIMYMTiiM�'.LLLNZ4T1•TN•i�GTI� t! i +M+ ���� jjy.� ! • 1, Mlf1YRMY.1�..•.. _ _ L .. i !r " r..,..�,,'.�- ,.......r...a -. y +t�"�1►!lb!R7 'r . M1 '! J r VIM i r'! o¢! !p /+:Q�l(t1w�ryud�1T1'�1�✓1ry►C bfpauewti.�q�.n' r. .. ,._ ENT 1 L I MacLean Clair 21100 Saratoga Hills Road Saratoga, California 95070 M U. 8) 19 88 MA. 14AAIA-) DULL'-- 13 77 'iZ V111- tu tk 'Pot tau 1*16 � tkw o" 4/ tA &JJILI u /tA.L VI S Saratoga, California 95070 wA a w� v�, � ,o n.X� )L�d rxa.� �•o� �, � cep- � ,�a �v ,£e -w.l e-HQ- Qe. &J) d&rk o-�"I 9 -,Io W'l�L Ae ceuo�� . �6U ,tom 4,'91 J, .[bt• %2D0 DDO.00 wk LUC c I - G MacLean Clair 21100 Saratoga Hills Road Saratoga, California 95070 P � 140 m.A tb 008) 7VI �?6 get, 0000$9 000090 I l - , tj a doo . ..y.L oe- j . .i . 000091 j. KT 4 00, • r��v"� _ .`p J.. /.f.:� /cam � ♦. r# . . . . . . . .. ] C, v Pj jS L ti dt 1. Of, V K-; zon gP y-, % 4L V C-4 ,gip., -- rL 00-0091 I om P, carol adams 7: 7Y 24 'ict4)2P" - Zc.,,#C ". ()ppp93 VILSOO (JO /L)& i"e- 4"a-" d{,-o ",e (pi / tau 3 44L,r-;� X-V-� 4411 WL-e- 0, A -/Yy� 651-� _J/ G --yL,)t4L,t 00009;� 0011 414 4 C11- -wl- ell JE� IL -,/6rLr- 11<_eI4 000095 "IM000 Richard M. Eiler 13982 Pontiac Ave. Saratoga, California 95070 408 - 867 -7007 May 5, 1988 Yuchuek Hsia, Director Saratoga Planning Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Hsia, I wish to address this letter to the complete Saratoga Planning Commission. I'm enclosing 8 copies so that your office can distribute one copy to each of the Planning Commisioners. Thank you for seeing that this distribution occurs prior to the May 11th Commission meeting. I am writing each of you over my concern about the conversion of the Nelson Gardens area in Saratoga into 9 home sites. Zoning these home sites as a medium density development does a sharply visible disservice to the surrounding homes in the immediate area. The maturity and upgrading of the homes in that area, the size of the homes built on the hillsides in the immediately abutting vicinities, and the general ambiance of the neighborhood deserve your closest inspection and consideration before granting the developers all that they seek in order to maximize their return on investment. I strongly encourage you to visit the Foothills Road/Pontiac/Trinity location, traveling on your way there by way of the new homes being built on the newly developing property at Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Miljevich Drive. Then envision if you can these same homes, sitting in the orchard in the same proximity to one another as off Miljevich Drive. I believe if you take the time to conscientiously do this, the concerns and objections we express concerning the medium density zoning of the Nelson Gardens' property will be readily apparent. Losing the Nelson Gardens after living opposite them for 24 years is a sad occassion for me, but I understand and respect the principle of property ownership, and the ultimate right of the owners to sell it. But I also understand the Commission's obligation and dedication to serving the best interests of Saratoga and its residents, and I pray you excercise this prerogative wisely and do not grant medium density housing where it so obviously is not appropriate. Your thoughtful attention to our concerns is appreciated Sincer ly, Richard M. Eiler LORETTA M. NEMETZ 13960 Pontiac Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 (408) 867 -4592 May 2, 1988 Susan B. Guch, Chairperson Saratoga Planning Commission 12091 Plumas Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: GP -87 -003 Florence Nelson Foundation Application Dear Ms. Guch: I would like to thank the Planning Commission for making the motion to continue the discussions regarding the Nelson Garden property until the May 11, 1988, 7:30 p.m. meeting. Consideration of amending the general plan to change the land use from Open Space, Outdoor Recreation (OSOR) to medium density residential (M -12.5) in order to construct nine new homes is a major general plan and zoning change for this 5.1 acre foothill property and will have a major effect on the neighborhood and community at large. The Planning Commission has the responsibility to review the general plan, public opinion and impact of the proposed project before making any change of the Saratoga General Plan. At the April 27, 1988, Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Toppel, Saratoga City Attorney, instructed the Commission that although the recent tentative cancellation of the Williamson Act is subject to the rezoning of the property to residential, the density or lot size requested by the developer is not a prerequisite to the Williamson Act cancellation. I feel that a zoning of medium density (M -12.5) will have a negative effect on the neighborhood and I urge the Council to explore every avenue to ensure the preservation of open space, an environmentally sound development and the overall quality of the area. Other safety and preservation issues must also be considered before rezoning and developing this property. The proposed new homes will create blind corners and driveways on already dangerous curves surrounding the property. The preservation of rare trees, natural vegetation, wildlife, and natural springs and creekbeds also need to be studied further. Watershed and land 000097 MOM) Susan B. Guch, Chairperson May 2, 1988 Page 2 stability are among major concerns voiced by the neighbors and the community. Although the Commission may have reports and recommendations submitted by the developer regarding these concerns, I recommend consideration of community input and even further expert professional consultation regarding environmental impact. I would also suggest a citizen committee, not connected with the Nelson Foundation or the Ainsly Development group, meet with you to discuss issues and inspect the property. The neighborhood and general public has enjoyed this property in its protected state, under the Williamson Act and as a State Park Foundation -run facility, for over seventeen years. I appeal to the Planning Commission to represent the needs and desire for open space expressed by the community. Saratoga residents come from miles around to this small tract of land to to view its trees, wildlife and enjoy the calming atmosphere. The developer will build, profit and move on to another project, but Saratoga citizens must live with the results which I hope the Planning Commission will consider with utmost care. I respectfully request that you distribute a copy of this letter to all other Planning Commissioners and Planning Department staff in sufficient time for consideration before and at the May 11, 1988, hearing on this matter. Sincerely, LORI NEMETZ LMN /dw lii!'' NOW) M. B. ALEXANDER CAROLYN G. ALEXANDER 20760 Trinity Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 HAND DELIVERED June 8, 1988 City Council City of Saratoga, California 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Re: Request for General Plan Ammendment, Nelson Gardens Dear Council Members: This letter is to express our desire that you NOT ammend our General Plan to change the Nelson Gardens from Open Space Outdoor Recreation to Medium Density Residential. Our recommendation is based on three areas of concern: 1. Doubt that the Williamson Act cancellation was legal. 2. The Negative Declaration is obviously flawed. 3. The June 7th election confirms that Saratogans want to preserve the beauty of our neighborhoods. We doubt that the Williamson Act tentative cancellation was legal because of the language of the Sierra Club v. City of Hayward decision. A few sentences from the decision will provide the flavor: "In short, we harbor no doubt that the Legislature intended cancellation to be approved only in the most extrordinary circumstances.... The Attorney General has consistently agreed that nonrenewal is the preferred termination method." "The act is intended to preserve open space land. But if those with an eye toward developing such land within a few years are allowed to enroll in contracts, enjoy the tax benefits during their short holding period, then cancel and commence construction on showing that the land is ripe for needed housing, the act would simply function as a tax shelter for real estate speculators." omof.'Off We note below some of the more incredible statements in the Negative Declaration: "4.a. Plant life. Will the proposal result in: Change in the diversity of species, or any number of species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? NO. Apricot orchard will be replaced with maximum 9 single family homes. However, 2 acres is not significant." To whom is this not significant? It is evidently significant to the eight hundred Saratoga residents who signed the petition asking the Council not to cancel the Williamson Act agreement on this property. 114.d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? NO. 5+ acres under Williamson Act Land Conservation Contract will be eliminated. 2+ acres of the land consists of apricots & walnuts. Not significant as a state agricultural resource." Again, "NO" is a wrong answer. Significance as a state agricultural resource is not even the question. 1118. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? NO." How can anyone claim that these two story 3200 square feet houses packed onto 12,500 square foot lots will not obstruct the scenic vista that is there now? 1119. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality of quantity of existing recreational opportunities? NO." Try telling that to all the walkers, joggers, cyclists, neighbors, and school children of Saratoga who now benefit from watching the plant and animal life in the orchard. It just won't wash. As we understand the rationale, Negative Declarations are supposed to justify avoidance of Environmental Impact Reports. This one surely does not. An EIR should be required if the General Plan is changed. Finally, we just experienced an election which resulted in two conservation - minded candidates displacing one pro - development Incumbent on the City Council. We have personally talked with Mrs. Clevenger, Dr. Stutzman, and Mrs. Hlava to verify their 000100 positions on the Nelson Gardens. The electorate of Saratoga have made it as plain as possible that we want open space. Please help us find viable ways to preserve the Nelson Gardens. Sincerely, Lil/�J GL� W. B. Alexander Carolyn G. Alexander 000101 RESOLUTION NO. GP -87 -003 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT DESIGNATING THE FLORENCE NELSON PROPERTY MEDIUM AND VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga City Council has determined that it is in the public interest to allow development of 5.1 acres of the Florence Nelson Foundation property located on Saratoga Hills Road; and WHEREAS, the property is currently designated Open Space Outdoor Recreation in the land use element of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the eastern portion of the property should be designated medium density, consistent with the slopes and surrounding properties and the western portion should be designated very low density, consistent with hillside development; and WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga City Council reviewed the negative declaration and found there are no adverse impacts on the environment as a result of the proposal; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing in accord with Government Code Section 65351 and reviewed the proposed amendment to the Land Use element; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council amends the Land Use designation of the property shown on Exhibit A to medium and very low density residential. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga City Council, State of California, this 15th day of June, 1988 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk 5 Mayor 0000 �� RESOLUTION NO. GP -87 -003 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RECOMMENDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT DESIGNATING THE THE FLORENCE NELSON PROPERTY MEDIUM AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has determined that it is in the public interest to allow development of 5.1 acres of the Florence Nelson Foundation property located on Saratoga Hills Road; and WHEREAS, the property is currently designated Open Space - Outdoor Recreation in the land use element of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the eastern portion of the property should be designated medium density, consistent with the slopes and surrounding properties and the western portion should be designated low density, consistent with hillside development; and WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission reviewed the draft negative declaration and found there are no adverse impacts on the environment as a result of the proposal; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing in accord with Government Code Section 6535.1 and reviewed the proposed amendment to the Land Use element; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council amend the Land Use designation of the property shown on Exhibit A to medium and low density residential. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City'of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 27th day of April 1988 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Chairperson, Planning Commission Secretary, Planning Commission 2 PAUL B. SMITH LEONARD J. SIEGAL HAROLD S. TOPPEL ROBERT K. BOOTH, JR. STEVEN G. BAIRD NICHOLAS C. FEDELI, JR. HENRY D. CRUZ ATKINSON • FARASYN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 660 WEST DANA STREET P.O. BOX 279 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042 (415) 967 -6941 June 21, 1988 Ms. Linda Callon Berliner, Cohen & Biagini 99 Almaden Boulevard, Suite 400 San Jose, California 95113 Re: Nelson Gardens Dear Linda: de J. M. ATKINSON (1892 -1962) L. M. FARASYN (1915 -1979) This letter constitutes the formal notification of continuance, as requested by the Council at its meeting on June 15, 1988. As you know, the public hearing on the application for general plan amendment as filed by Ainsley Development was continued by the City Council to its next regular meeting on July 6, 1988, at which time a determination will be made with respect to a further continuance the length of which is dependent upon an agreement by your client to extend the deadline under the permit streamlining act for an additional 90 days. If your client consents to the extension, I will be happy to prepare the appropriate documentation. In any case, the Council will need to know your client's position on this matter at the time of its next meeting on July 6th. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, HAROLD S. TOPPEL Saratoga City Attorney HST /ns cc: Mr. Harry Peacock June 21, 1988 /- 13777 FRU-ITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ainslie Development c/o Linda Callon Berlinger, Cohen, Biagini 99 Almaden Boulevard, Suite 4.00 San Jose, CA 95113 Florence Nelson Foundation c/o John C. Higgins, President 120 Montgomery Street, Suite 2425 San Francisco, CA 94104 Subject: Development Options Exploration Committee Dear Ms. Callon and Mr. Higgins: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Joyce Hlava David Moyles Donald Peterson At the conclusion of its public hearing on the Nelson Foundation general plan request, the City Council continued the matter until its meeting of July 6 to: o seek a continuance of 90 days from the applicant so that the final determination of the matter could be extended beyond October 5, 1988; o establish an ad hoc committee of the applicant, city officials and community residents. In taking these actions the Council hopes to create a committee and allow it sufficient time to explore both development and financing options which would allow all or part of the property to remain in an open space condition. The City would invite your participation in the p.roc•ess a.s the owners anal potential developers of the property. The committee should be formed by July 12. Please let me know if you or someone who can represent you will be able to serve on this ad hoc committee. Si cerely, Harry Peacock City anager 3m cc: City Council City Attorney PETER K. SMITH 14688 STONERIDGE DRIVE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 February 10, 1988 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Calif. 95070 Subject: Nelson Gardens Dear Members of the City Council, I would like to offer some further thoughts on the Nelson Gardens Property now that the decision has been made to rescind the Williamson Act Contract. While I regret the loss of the demonstration orchard Mr. Nelson orginally intended for the property, the physical and economic conditions of the property seem to preclude continuation of that intent. I appreciate the time and effort the Council provided for the public hearing process and support your decision regarding the property, as I agree that all Saratoga residents will benefit from the conditions to be imposed on the sale and /or development of the property. It has come to my attention that Mr. Nelson has acquired over the years agricultural equipment to be used in conjunction with his Demonstration Apricot Orchard. I have not seen, nor do I know the exact extent of the equipment, but I would like to suggest the city investigate the equipment to determine its condition and quantity. If the equipment is appropriate and found in reasonable condition, I would suggest further that it be acquired by the city and included in the demonstration orchard and other historical developments adjacent to City Hall. Finally, in response to Mr. Nelson's efforts and those of the Nelson Foundation to preserve the property over the past years, the City Council or other appropriate city commission consider officially recognizing those efforts. It seemed an important consideration that was unfortunately not mentioned in the public hearing. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Peter K. Smith i GARY L. NEMETZ 55 SOUTH MARKET STREET, SUITE 1630, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 85113 [408] 291 -6240 February 10, 1988 The Honorable Don Peterson City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: The Nelson Gardens Dear Mayor Peterson: The Friends of the Nelson Gardan are firm in their determination to save the Nelson Garden and Orchard for open space and agricultural use as an important Saratoga historical and environmental asset. Please be advised we are drafting an Initiative specifically focused on maintaining the present open space /agricultural General Plan and zoning status of the property in question. The Council should consider the impact of its haste in continuing with its support for the property's development. We have contacted established conservation groups which specialize in finding the funds and providing the mechanism for purchasing and taking ownership. Enclosed is a copy of one letter which you have already received. We encourage the City Council to reconsider its prior vote on the Williamson Act cancellation. The issue is greater than just a small residential development. Saving this historical orchard is being viewed by Saratoga residents and interested; organizations in a wider context of preserving open space important to Saratoga and Santa Clara Valley. I Sincerely, FRIENDS OF THE NELSON GARDENS I By GARY NEMET G LN/ dw Enclosures cc: City Council members Florence Nelson Foundation Saratoga News San Jose Mercury Ainsley Financial T, H E TRUST F O R _ PUBLIC LAND February 3, 1988 The Honorable Don Peterson City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: The Nelson Gardens Dear Mayor Peterson: My organization, the Trust for Public Land (TPL) - -a national nonprofit specializing in the acquisition of public recreational, scenic and agricultural lands- -has been contacted by the Friends of Nelson Gardens to aid them in their effort to preserve the open space character of the above - referenced property. With respect to the Gardens, we believe that there are viable alternatives to the proposed development of the 5.1 acre site. TPL's approach to this project would be to arrive at a "win -win" solution for the City, the community, the owners and even the developer. The work we did to save the Grace Marchant`Gar ;de;n: in San Francisco, for example, typlifies the manner in which we are able to accommodate what would normally be considered adverse interests. The Nelson Gardens project possesses many of the same elements of the Marchant situation. In closing, we urge you to give serious _consideration- to the— — __ -_ _ ___ potential and real ramifications of allowing this development, as it is presently conceived, to move forward. Thank you. Sincerely, Thomas J. Mills Senior Project Manager TJM /CE Encls. cc: Ann Waltonsmith, Ph.D., Friends of the Nelson Gardens :;` identical -lettexs to: Vice Mayor Karen Anderson Councilwoman ?dart: a Clevenger Councilwoman Joyce Hlava_ Co6nciliiian 'David Moyles , t 116 NEW MONTGOMERY FOUR T H FLOOR SAN - FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 941.05 1 1 1 5 1 4 9 S - 4 0 1 4 T H E TRUST F O R PUBLIC LAN D r-7"77�- FACT SHEET January 1988 The Trust for Public Land (TPL) conserves land as a living resource for present and future generations. As a results - oriented organization, TPL works closely with urban and rural groups and government agencies to: 1) acquire and preserve open space to serve human needs;. 2) share knowledge of non- profit land acquisition processes; and, 3) pioneer methods of land conservation and environmentally sound land use. Since its founding in 1973, TPL has protected 388,000 acres-of scenic, recreational, urban, rural and wilderness land in 34 states and Canada. These lands reach from Massachusetts' Parker River National Wildlife Refuge and the Florida Keys to waterfront parks in downtown Seattle, Washington and Cleveland, Ohio. In 1987, TPL helped add 3,000 acres of canyons and beaches along the northern California coast to Sinkyone Wilderness State Park. Because donations of land value to the Trust are tax - deductible, individuals or corporations may be able to take advantage of substantial tax benefits. Computerized tax benefit analysis aids landow "&tg °_and TPL in structuring customized transactions that benefit all parties. By sharing land and cash donations with acquiring public agencies, TPL has transferred 433 parcels of land valued at $310 million into publicly protected ownership -- ranging from single lots to tracts of thousands of acres -- representing a savings of $89.6 million to public agencies and other non- profit organizations. In metropolitan areas, TPL works with community organizations to revitalize and enhance neighborhood life. Typical projects include organizing land trusts and identifying and acquiring key parcels of land, principally for open space preservation or other important public- benefit purposes. These TPL actions frequently provide open space or enhance recreation at reduced cost to local governments because of the participation of citizen groups. Some projects result in compromise negotiations where community lands are preserved as open space while adjoining lands are utilized for appropriate development such as housing. The Trust also works with concerned citizens to preserve significant land resources in suburban and rural communities. Successful projects range from protecting the - dramatic coastline of Big 'Sur, California, to helping ranching and farming communities in Colorado. To date, TPL has helped establish more than 100 local land trusts, which now protect more than 20,000 acres. The national office of the Trust for Public Land is in San Francisco. Regional offices are located in Boston, New York, Cleveland, Tallahassee, Santa Fe, and Seattle. 1 16 NEW MONTGOMERY F O U R T H F L O O R SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 94105 14151 493.4014 PUBLIC CA _ND SUMMER/ 1986 F' Saving Grace's Garden "Tearing down a small wooden cottage and$ per, building a larger house in its place is small potatoes 82 Setond Street San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 495 -4014 as development issues go, unless you know the garden into which the new house will' poke John W. Baird — Rob Morse, San Francisco .Examiner r.,L When Grace Marchant moved to the house at the comer of Napier Lane and the Filbert Street , Steps in 1949, the surrounding hillside lay littered With tires, trash and bits of broken furniture. She made up her mind to clean up the mess, then spent the next 30 years planting and tending the roses, daf fodils and hundreds of other plant species from all y } over the world. Today, Grace's legacy is a garden so special that Alistair Cook once called it his favorite place in America and so horticulturally diverse that it serves as an outdoor laboratory for botany students. Like the surrounding Gold Rush -era cottages, Graces .. garden became an integral part of the historic and cultural fabric of Telegraph Hill. Though Grace March ant planted most of her garden lit on public right -of -way, one large patch extended into the yard of a privately -owned cottage. Last year, the owner decid- ed to level the cottage and build a bigger house for his,grow- ing family. Neighbors became concerned about the impact of the new house on the garden. When they learned that a demolition permit had been issued, they founded. Friends of the Garden (FOG).to stop the proposed development. FOG took its concerns to City Hall, and two San Francisco super- visors in rum asked the Trust for Public Land to help. TPL project managers•Thomas Mills and Jean Driscoll' devised a plan for preservation of the garden that involved purchasing the cottage property, imposing sufficient deed restrictions on it to protect the garden permanently and then reselling the cottage. Money had to be raised, however, to cover the difference between the property's high purchase price and the.lower resale price resulting from the new deed restrictions. In the days that followed, TPL staff and FOG volunteers laun- ched a fundraising campaign through which supporters of the garden could''adopt" square inches of the botanical landmark. San Francisco Supervisor Bill Maher helped set the Square N U M B E R 1 6 FU BUC: LAN D Inch Campaign in motion by enlisting • r t ! the help of the San X Francisco Examiner m _ c and of a local de- veloper who agreed to contribute the first $10,000. A With the lead gift promised, the Telegraph Hill Dwellers Association generously t r4 o put up the A risk money TPL needed to make b Z the first e option payment 0 on the cottage. The response from the. public was overwhelm- ing. By spring, nearly 4,000 people had adopted square inches of the Grace Marchant Garden and received special certificates gratefully acknowledging their contribution. Donations, many accompanied by letters shar- ing fond personal recollections of Grace's tiny paradise, came - in from many Bay Area and California "Friends of the Garden' and from garden lovers in such faraway states as Nebraska, New York and Florida. The outpouring of public support, the proceeds from several special benefit events and the generosity of local cor- pomcions and foundations helped TPL and FOG exceed the original goal. Future maintenance of the garden has thus been assured by creating an endowment with the surplus funds. In this way, without expenditure of any public dollars, the garden's many friends ensured that this urban oasis will continue to blossom in all its splendor. Board of Directors The Trust for Public Land Douglas P. Ferguson, 82 Setond Street San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 495 -4014 Chairman John W. Baird Northwest Office 625 Commerce Suite 330D • Tacoma, WA 98402 (206) 627 -7774 Robert Cahn William M. Evans, Jr. Northeast Office 666 Broadway ew York, NY '10012 Y (212 677 -7171 ) Francis S. Foote, Jr. Paul Hawken Southwest Office P.O. Box 2383 Santa Fe, NM 87504 (505) 988 -5922 Terese T. Hershey Vivian R. Johnson Southeast Office 322 Beard Street Tallahassee, FL 32303 (904) 222 -9280 James K. Kessler Eugene C. Lee New England Office 33 Harrison Avenue Bosun, MA 02111 (617) 451 -7208 Richard D. Marshall ,,Stephen C. Morris Ohio Office The Old Arcade • 401 Euclid Room 608 • Cleveland, OH 44114 • (216) 241 -7630 Margaret Mull Martin J. Rosen t, 33"r"xt-�4- -I H C TRUST PUBLIC LAND 1 NUMBER 1 9 • WINTER/1988 ARCHAEOLOGISTS .DISCOVER HERNANDO DE SOTO SITE IN TALLAHASSEE Evidence Confirms Location of Expedition's 1539 Winter Encampment when archaeolo- gist B. Calvin Jones discovered the evidence confirming that a six -acre tract of land in northeast Tallahassee had been the site of the 1539 winter encamp- ment of the expedition - led by the Spanish ex- plorer Hernando de Soto, a local story became one <_ of national and interna- tional significance. z. While historians knew that de Soto and his men had wandered more than 4,000 miles around F southeastern United State period, Jones' discovery unez evidence of the expedition Although the owners of teaming of the.site's import . tracts were forcing their han development plans. Racing Calvin Jones and a team of volunteers began a comprehensive cataloging. By late May, an impressive body of evidence had been painstakingly uncovered: 16th century Spanish ceramics, the metal tip of a crossbow arrow, Spanish beads used for trading, tam ished copper maravedis minted'in:Spain in the early 1500s which rank among the oldest coins found in North America and iron links of chain mail armor. But time was running out. An emergency grant from the Elizabeth Ordway Dunn. Foundation permitted excavation and research to proceed, but it was unclear whether efforts to per- manently protect the site would succeed. At this point, the staff of TPIS Southeast regional office in Tallahassee began a dialogue with the owners to determine if a preservation alter- native could be formulated. By July, a transaction had been structured calling for protection of 75% of the site with a scaled- down version of the original construction plan. The owners signed an option agreement with TPL, allowing excava- tion to continue uninterrupted from mid -sur to December. In September, the Trust formally entered into its first archaeological /open space pro- ject by signing a purchase agreement with the landowners, launching a campaign to raise $1.6.milliontopermanently.pro-- - tect what is now known as the Hernando de Soto- Apalachee Archae- ological and Historic Site. Continuing research has unveiled much about the past of this property in a quiet Tallahassee neighborhood. It is now believed that five strata of cultural debris span - ning five centuries reveal various human activities at the site. Evidence in- dicates that the Apala- chee Indians lived in a major village here, a vil- :ured by de Soto and used the expedition during the mall portion of a 17th Cen- ion has been identified as e from a hundred -year old )n the crest of the property .930s mansion of former John Martin. So much iistory crowded onto one smart parcet nas:attracted much support and the attention and suppomof state and federal legislators, including Senator Bob Graham who sponsored 1'e;islation to study adding the de Soto Trail to the National Trail System. The Metropolitan Life Foundation made its largest social investment loan ever in the southeast region, loaning $600,000 to the site protection campaign. The National Trust for Historic Preservation awarded a $200,000 loan, a demonstration of its commitment to preserving archaeological sites of national importance. Individual donations and T-shirt sales have «cnerated nearly $15,000. At press time, this partnership of interests — archaeologists, volunteers, a national land conser- vation.organization, a national historic preservation organiza- tion, several foundations and publicagencies has raised more rhan half of the money needed and is determined to succeed. Top: Florida Secretary of State Jim Smith gets sonic first - ,xcavation experience from B. Calvin Jones it), state archaeologist and discoverer of the e Soto site while Jim Miller (left), chief of the state Bureau of Archaeological Research, and a volunteer look on. Inset: Hernando de Soto, 1728 woodcut. Bottom: 15th Cen- tury Spanish 4- maravedi coin. Scenic W, h-fibu land rewue'd MALIBU (AP) — A large piece of unspoiled canyon property nestled above this upscale beach community will be spared the bulldozer and build- ing crews of developers after a public trust bought the land for recreational use. The virtually untouched property on the old Roberts Ranch in Malibu's Solstice Canyon fea- tures mountain scenery, natural wildlife, several camping areas and a stream. The remaining 345 -acre parcel of the 556 -acre ranch was purchased for $3 million by The Trust for Public Lands, a San Francisco -based environ- mental agency. The planned recreational area will be run by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservan- cy, which owns the lower 211 -acre parcel of the ranch. ' The natural area will make its public debut June 19 to mark the advent of the summer solstice. °Being there is like going back in time," said Bill Dempsey, project manager for the trust. "It's a spectacular place ... It's just amazing that it has remained undeveloped." The acquisition marks the end of a seven -year s`'mygle tn •ave the pristine property from devel- opment. Dempsey said the large canyon area will probably become the most heavily used recreation area in the coastal mountains. To block developers from acquiring pieces of the property, the conservancy, the Sierra Club and the trust put up 8250,000 in an option to buy the remaining land. In October, Gov. George Deukmejian signed a bill that set aside about $20 million in state tide- land oil revenue, including $1.4 million that the mountain conservancy funneled to the trust to purchase the property. The trust put together.,$1.6 million from other sources to make thee' $3' million acquisition last month. The property is insulated from traffic along the busy Pacific Coast Highway and is hidden from most of, the custom homes built in neighboring canyons to the east. The land runs from the ridge of the Santa Moni- ca Mountains to within several hundred yards of Corral Beach and Dan Blocker State Beach in Malibu. Hikers will be able to walk from the beach to a 1,500 -foot vantage point overlooking the prop- erty, Dempsey said. . Pat & Bonnie O'Conner 14001 Saratoga Hills Road Seema & Marcos Cicerone 1401.4 Saratoga Hills Road Idoline & Thomas Fryer 14029 Saratoga Hills Road Louise & Bob Gager 20972 Saratoga Hills Road Ann & Rick Waltonsmith, Blanche Walton 21060 Saratoga Hills Road Audrey & Mike Clair 21100 Saratoga Hills Road Robert H.'Bitney 21352 Saratoga. Hills Road Bud & Carolyn Alexander 20760 Trinity Avenue Jeanne Williams and Carol Adams 20777 Trinity Avenue Sung Hwang 20789 Trinity Avenue Gary & Lori Nemetz 13960 Pontiac Avenue Richard Eiler 13982 Pontiac Avenue Ellen & Dean Coleman 20756 Pontiac Avenue Dean & Lou Weston 20774 Pontiac Avenue Edwin & Jennifer Pinto 13901 Upper_Hill Drive Hans & Mary Guth 20785 Reid Lane Nancy McKereghan 20590 Canyon View Drive Felix & Loretta Rosengarten 13902 Malcom Avenue Irene Ohlfs 13923 Malcolm Avenue James & Evelyn Gates 1.3945 Malcolm Avenue John & Keay Burtt 13886 Malcolm Drive Al & Anna Vindasius 14041 Saratoga Hills Road d Y-,, 4 a. 4l. e LETTERS RECEIVED ON ITEM 6A (Nelson Gardens) 1.• Letter from Yuen T. Gin, Florence Nelson Foundation, enclosing resolution - promising funds to Saratoga Park Development Fund and Hakone Foundation. 2. Letter from Martin Dait, Sierra -Club, favoring preservation of'Nelson Gardens as omen space. 3. Letter from L.A. Weston favoring open space rather than developmnt. LAW OFFICE OF YUEN T. GIN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 120 MONTGOMERY STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 (415) 989 -2700 February 12, 198.8 Members of the City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Members of the .City Council: This letter is to advise you that The Florence Nelson Foundation has unanimously adopted resolutions to make cash contributions to the City of Saratoga's Park Development Fund.and Hakone Foundation from the proceeds of the sale of Nelson Gardens. At the present time, The Florence Nelson Foundation is under a binding contract to sell Nelson Gardens to Ainsley Development, Inc., a corporation. There is enclosed herewith a copy of the corporate resolutions of The Florence Nelson Foundation setting forth the amounts of the cash contributions and the conditions under which the cash contributions will be made to the City of Saratoga's Park Development Fund and Hakone Foundation. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please let me know. John C. Higgins, President of The Florence Nelson Foundation, and I intend to be present at the City Council meeting on Wednesday, February 17, 1988. Yours very truly, YTG : swy Enclosure 11 cc The Florence Nelson Fou ation (with copy of enclosur ' UNANIMOUS WRITTEN'CONSENT OF DIRECTORS OF THE FLORENCE NELSON FOUNDATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION WHEREAS, The Florence Nelson Foundation has petitioned the City of: Saratoga for cancellation of its Williamson Act Contract with respect to the Nelson Gardens; and WHEREAS, The Florence Nelson Foundation deems it appropriate and in its best interest to make cash distributions to the City of Saratoga for its Park Development Fund and to the Hakone Foundation operating a.public park in the City of Saratoga known as Hakone Gardens from the proceeds of the sale of Nelson Gardens upon the final cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract; NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, constituting all of the Directors of The Florence Nelson Foundation, a California corporation, acting pursuant to the authority of Section 307(b) of the California Corporation Law, hereby adopt the following resolutions: RESOLVED, that The Florence Nelson. Foundation shall contribute from the proceeds of -the sale of Nelson Gardens, and upon final cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract, the sum of One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($120,000.00) to the City of Saratoga for deposit into the City's Park Development Fund and contribute the sum of One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($1:20,00.0.00) to the Hakone Foundation, or such lesser amount in aggregate equal to ten percent (10 %) of the gross sales price of Nelson Gardens divided equally between the Park Development Fund and the Hakone Foundation, and provided that the final cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract shall only be made upon the conditions and contingencies as required under California law being fully satisfied; and RESOLVED, FURTHER, that the contributions from the proceeds of sale.to the City of Saratoga's Park Development Fund and Hakone Foundation shall be deposited in an escrow and disbursed only when the City of .Saratoga has deposited in escrow a written cancellation of said Williamson Act Contract executed in a form which will allow said written final cancellation to be recorded with the County Recorder's office, County of Santa Clara, State of California; and RESOLVED, FURTHER, that the President, Vice President and /or Secretary of The Florence Nelson Foundation are, or as the case may be is, authorized to make, execute and deliver such written documents -as may be reasonably necessary in order to effect the contributions to the City of Saratoga's Park Development Fund and Hakone Foundation on the conditions set forth above. Date February 11, 1988 hn C. Higgins —� February 11, 1988 Fr ]; Nelson February 11, 1988 Yu T. Girt;-' Helen R. Nelson Roge W. Ross Edwina Kump t- -2- February 11., 1988 February 11, 1988 February 11, 1988 SIERRA CLUB SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVE. SARATOGA CA 95070 LOMA PRIETA CHAPTER San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito Counties Located at the Peninsula Conservation Center 2253 Park Blvd., Malo Alto, CA 94306 (415) 327 -8111 (1:00 -5:00 p.m., Mon. - Fri.) February, 14, 1988 To the Mayor and Councilmembers for the City of Saratoga: It has recently come to the attention of Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club that the City of Saratoga is considering approving the cancellation of a Williamson Act contract concerning the 5.1 acres located at 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd. by the Florence Nelson Foundation. The Loma Prieta Chapter strongly supports efforts to preserve the remaining agricultural and open space land in the Santa Clara Valley particularly through the existing state legislation enacted through the Williamson Act. The Chapter would prefer that the parcel in question be permanently preserved as it is or with compatible other uses. If the Council does however decide in favor of development of the land, then the Club takes the position that a Williamson Act Contract should expire through non - renewal rather than early cancellation in keeping with what we believe are the intentions of the Act. In addition the Loma Prieta Chapter hopes the Council will examine to the fullest extent any propositions that the public concerns may substantially outweigh the objectives of the Williamson Act and that would favor cancellation. Again, open space is such a preciously dwindling resource in our area that a high priority should be placed on its preservation for the public interest. It seems that the current cancellation issue is generating a lot of possible public support and resources that might be utilized in helping to find compatible uses for the land that are consistent with the intent of the Williamson Act. Thank you for allowing the Club time to express its views. Sincerely, IN't'— ba'+ Martin Dait Chairperson, Conservation Committee Guadalupe Regional Group Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club cc Saratoga City Council Friends of the Nelson Gardens L.A.WES UN 20774 PON T IAC AVE. SARATOGA, CA. 16 FEBURAI Y, 1:9SB AN OPEN LETTER 'TO: SARATOGA 9 T TY COUNCIL MEMBERS DEAR MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL FEB 1619$8 MAY I CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THE SARATOGA NEWS OF F EBURARY 10, 19x8. ON PAGE #18 UNDER THE HEADING "COMMENT" WILL BE FOUND AN ARTICLE DESCRIBING AN ATTITUDE PREVAILING AMONG THE VOTERS OF SARATOGA YOU SERVE TO REPRESENT. MAY I TAKE A MOMENT OF YOUR TIME TO QUOTE SEVERAL. SENTENCES FROM THIS ARTICLE OR IF YOU WILL A COPY IS ATTACHED FOR YOUR PERUSAL IN TOTAL. "ONE THING ABOUT THIS VALLEY HAS ALWAYS STARTLED ME IS THE SUPRISE OF SPRING." "TODAY, IN FEBURARY OF 1900 AS I DRIVE FAST THE APPLE BUILDINGS( AN "ORCHARD" THAT DOES NOT BLOOM IN THE SPRING!) I TELL MYSELF THAT I SHOULD FEEL THE EXCITEMENT OF LIVING YN THE BELLY BUTTON OF THE MODERN COMPUTER WORLD.'' "WHAT ONLY COMES TO MIND IS WHAT LOVELY TREES ARE GONE, WHAT RICH SOIL_ HAS BEEN BURIED'' "I CONTINUE ON AND OFF TO MY RIGHT IS THE PARKER RANCH. TODAY, FOR ALL TO SEE IT IS A DEVELOPED NEIGHBORHOOD OF 'HUGE- HOMES. BUT AS I LOOK AT THAT FARCE OF LAND FOR ME IT WILL ALWAYS BE TREES AND TRAILS AND MEADOL =JS. "I AM LURED TO THE LIBRARY AT THE CORNET; OF FRU I TVALE. S ILENTLY THANE: GOD THAT SOMEONE OR SOME GROUP HAD THE FORESIGHT TO PRESERVE THE SURROUNDING HISTORICAL ORCHARD.BECAUSE,I FIND THAT IF I POSITION MYSELF JUST SO,ALL_ I. CAN SEE ARE PINK BLOSSOMS OUT OF THE CORNET; OF MY EYE, YELLOW MUSTARD AT MY FEET AND THE SOOTHING SIGHT OF MISTY CLOUDS MODESTLY VEILING THE FOREVER HILLS." PLEASE DWELL ON THESE THOUGHTS AS-YOU DRIVE ABOUT,VISIT WITH YOUR CHILDREN,REFLECT ON YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO THE THE COMMUNITY OF SARATOGS. FRIENDS OF THE NELSON GARDENS AND SARATOGA VOTERS ENDORSE THE ABOVE. L. A. I�JESTOtJ 1 E o. c 0 c. V 0. c 0 X �e q w 0 U 0 w c d u ro ro a N a a `o a 0 U COMMENT She knows it's silly to cry Writer will miss the familiar sight of Cali Bros. EDITOR: It is silly, of course, to cry when an old feed store is de- molished. But I did. I am refer- ring to the Cali Bros. Feed store at the corner of Stevens Creek Blvd. and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road (old Highway 9). I have a friend who once said, "When Cali Bros. goes, so do I." How we laughed. I first saw the building as we drove up Highway 9 with the realtor in the mid -50s. We bump- ed our way along the two lane road from Sunnyvale to Sara- toga with orchards in bloom on either side. At one point, we even ran through a swarm of bees. As we passed the intersec- tion, the realtor pointed to the feed store and said, "If you ever get your kids ponies or horses, this is where you'll buy the hay." Well, we did get a pony. One clear, crisp Christmas morning all the visiting relatives piled in- to our old station wagon for the short ride down Highway 9 and over Prospect Avenue. Our des- tination was the Parker Ranch to watch our youngest daughter receive her new pony, Dandy. She had so wanted this parti- cular animal, and her joy was boundless as her cousin and her sisters appeared through the trees leading her surprise. And so, we became custom- ers of the feed store. We would park in front and go into the sales office, not just to pay for the hay we were buying, but to let the little fingers run through all the various grains in the open gunny sacks, a tactile pleasure few • children today will ever experience. We smelled the leathery scent of new tack and the pungent odor of medicinal remedies for the animals. We heard the gossip of the locals and the laughter of long -time friendship. Cali Bros. spelled "country," and cuuntry we were. One thing about this valley that has- always. startled me, Js :.the surprise of Spring. While wearing heavy woolens and lis- tening to dire weather reports, in my mind I am still in the mid- dle of Winter. Spring and tulips and baby -bird sounds seem far away. And then, in February, I'd pass an empty lot and a wild almond would be bursting its popcorn blossoms,­ -saying, "Aha, I caught you, didn't IT Today, is ' February of 1988, as I drive past the Apple build- ings (an `orchard" that does not bloom in the Spring! )i I tell my- self I should feel the excitement of living in the oelly button of the modern computer world. Here is where it is all happening, this is life in the fast lane, and I am a vital and active part of it. But I look at the buildings, at all the cars, and at the empty skyline where that old feed store used to be and.what only comes to mind is what lovely trees are gone, what rich soil has been buried. I continue on and off to my right is the Parker Ranch. To- day, :. for all to see, it.:is a developed neighborhood of huge homes. But as I look at that parcel of land, for me it will always be trees and trails and meadows and the echoing happy, cry of that Christmas morning. "It's Dandy, oh, it's Dandy, is he really mine ?" I then cross over Cox Avenue and turn up Saratoga Avenue passing the closed Masson wine cellars and the ominous freeway corridor. My turn off is ahead, but I am lured to the library at the corner of Fruitvale. I stop and get out of the car and then silently thank God that someone or some group had the foresight to preserve the sur- rounding historical orchard. Because, I find that if I position myself just so, all I see are pink blossoms out of the corner of my eye, yellow mustard at my feet, and the soothing sight of misty clouds modestly veiling the for- ever hills. I can then pretend that behind me, my valley is still clothed in soon - to-blossom fruit' trees, that there are empty lots with wild almond to cause sur- prise, that kids still walk to town for a lo¢ toy at the Variety, and that Cali Bros. is still really there. .N&M.WatsonAnderson Saratoga Council prefers houses to trees EDITOR: •- Our city _ council" in its ultimate wisdom hasonee again decided--that the residents of Saratoga prefer_houses_to.oz,- chards. -= ""� It is always so strange that the council decides what is in the "public interest" without ever consulting the general public. Oh well, who likes apricots anyway? Give me concrete or give me death. Nick Einasik 'Saratoga Financial aid guide available California Senator Pete Wil- son announced that a 1988 -89 stu- dent financial aid guide is avail- able at no cost through his Wash- ington, D.C. office. The Department of Educa- tion publication titled "The Stu- dent Guide: Five Federal Finan- cial Aid Programs, 1988 -89" gives information on the Pell Grant, Supplemental Education- al Opportunity Grant, Perkins Loan, College Work Study and the Guaranteed Student Loan -Programs. The Guaranteed Stu- dent Loan section contains in- formation about the PLUS Loans and Supplemental Loans_ for Students. Due to changes made by Con -. press, students will be able to receive $200 more than last year under the Pell Grant and Guar- anteed Student Loans programs, Wilson said. Students interested in the free guide can write to Senatof Pete Wilson, 720 Hart Senate OF fice Building, Washington, U-C: 20510. � f. �._a. (. Y'�°���.%.: .(, 1"�.�`.,i(. < r l'rr t1►YM:r{ a T`v \`�, t r T. �C`. �, Y'.`C .�i 7 '•The � ' GP -87 -003- FLORENCE NELSON FOUNDATION STAFF REPORT OF JUNE 15, 1988. Missing from your Agenda packet, but included in the original Council packet for your meeting of June 15, 1988 is the Staff Report recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment, and setting forth why such approval makes sense and meets with State law. Staff gives the facts explaining why the Amendment is in the public interest, is consistent with the General Plan policies, and is appropriately a negative declaration under CEQA. (Please note that the environmental assessment evaluated the entire project, including the rezoning -and subdivision of the property into a maximum of nine residential lots, as required under CEQA. The assessment resulted in the negative declaration.) The following is verbatim from the Staff Report: 1. Amend in the public interest On February 17, 1988, the City Council tentatively cancelled the Williamson Act Land Contract on the property. The Council made the finding that since the Florence Nelson Foundation was unable to continue to maintain the property, the property could become a blight upon the neighborhood, a potential health hazard and an attractive nuisance. In addition, the Council made the finding that the City would receive a substantial donation of charitable funds for development of the park fund and Hakone Gardens from the sale of the property. Therefore, future development of the property is in the public interest - a broad range of citizens will benefit. 2. Internal consistency with the General Plan The subject site is located in "General Plan Area B - Congress Springs /Pierce Road." The text (p. 4 -4) refers to the Horticultural Foundation "with potential for significant development" and "the area is unanimous in the desire to assure that any development or redevelopment of sites within the area be only single family detached residential with a density consistent with the surrounding neighborhood." Medium density residential is consistent with the developed residential properties adjacent to Trinity, Malcolm and Pontiac Streets. The proposal is consistent with the goals of the Land use element (LU 8.0), housing element (H 6.0) and the circulation element (CI 5.0). Specifically, LU 8.0 and H -1- 6.0 stated that "the City shall continue to be predominantly a community of single- family detached residences." CI 5.0 stated that the City should !'use street capacities in determining land uses and acceptable densities. I.f . . . existing streets need to be improved to accommodate a project, such improvements shall, be in place or bonded for prior to issuance of permits." The City Engineer has reviewed the proposal and will be requiring improvements to Saratoga Hills Road with the tentative map. All the remaining local streets are developed. 3. CEQA The California Environmental Quality Act requires that environmental assessment evaluate "the whole of a project.'' In this case, the "project" includes the General Plan Amendment, future rezoning and a subdivision of the property into a maximum of 9 residential lots. The project has been reviewed by City departments, the Parks and Recreation Commission, sanitation, water, storm drainage and fire district. All services are available for the project and no unusual conditions will be required on the tentative map. Biotic and wildlife assessments were completed on the site. Although there are no rare or endangered species of plants and animals on the property, the City can require preservation of many of the trees identified in the wildlife assessment, at the subdivision stage. The City s Horticultural Consultant has analyzed the health of the trees and proposed protection measures that can be incorporated as a condition of a tentative map. ISSUE Several residents of the area requested a one acre designation on the entire property in order to ensure that future homes are compatible with the character of the surrounding homes, "single story with 2,500 square foot or less foundation footprints." The topography and surrounding land use designations, however, support the medium density proposal at the easterly portion with a low density designation beginning at the toe of "the slope. The subject property, which abuts Pontiac and Trinity Avenues, has an approximate 5% slope in the flatter portion. The rear portion is 20 -25 %. In addition, the neighboring lots to the north, east and south are designated and developed at medium density in the flatter portions of the area; Upper Hills and Saratoga Hills Road are appropriately designated low density, consistent with the -2- d hillside topography. The issue of lot size and configuration will be determined during the subdivision proposal when the location of the trees and slopes will be studied in detail. The sizes of the homes (bulk and compatibility) will be assessed during the design review process, although the Planning Commission may condition single story homes for specific lots on the tentative map. Recommendation: Staff recommends two designations on the property: medium density (M -12.5) on the eastern portion and very low density (RVLD) at the west. These designations would allow a maximum density of nine units on the property. The actual number of lots will be determined based upon the location of trees, access or slopes which may dictate an alternative to the nine lots suggested by the applicant. -3- r a_ r• SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ` b MEETING DATE: 6 -8 -88 (6- 15 -88) ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING DEPT. AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL ] I SUBJECT: Award Contract for "Reconstruction and Overlay of Various City Streets" Recommended Motion: Award contract for "Reconstruction and Overlay of Various City Streets" (Schedule A only). Report Summary: The City received three bids on June 7, 1988 for above project. The.lowest bid was Raisch Construction Company of It. V_aw,lwith a total bid of $507,182.62. This project is part of the Street Management Program, proposal included ;schedules "B" and "C" fmr• the improvement -,of- Lomita, Avenuenand we-zre�W.oxking'hw: th :.the property owners. We will have report for you on July 6, 1988 Council Meeting. Fiscal Impacts: $507,182.62 General Fund. This project was approved in the 1987 -1988 Capital Improvement Budget and is part of the Street Management Program. Attachments: 1. Bid Summary. Mot-inn an(9 Vnf-a ))A=: June 7 __wlQ $ 8 MME_: 2 00 P . .M- City of . Saratoga . -Sheet .1 of 2 Community Development Deoartrient -BID SUMMARY*. -AU10JECT RECONSTRUCTION AND i OVERLAY OF VARIOUS CITY STREETS ENGINEER RAISCH CONSTR. GRADE WAY CONSTR. O'GRADY PAVING,I 1 2 Description Road Excavation A re ate Base Cl . II tity 2292 1550 - t C.Y Ton. i Amount Amount it Amount t Amount it Amount - 16 14 36,672.0 1 08..0 lo•o f 22 7n.o 10 • o /2•o ►'Z. o 07 504. / o o l8 -So �Z•o 4z ,4o •o 'P? boa- 6 3 2" A.G. Overlay 4060 Ton 33 .-1 31•o 151760. CZ a /60,704. Z -D /5 7Zo•o 4: Install Fabric 37,291 S.Y .5ID 18,645.50 0,6Z 73 D- o.SD %8 6 5D 0-48 /7 Bc! -6S 5 A.R. 4000 Binder .11,186 Gal 1.001 11,186.0 1.0 1 1 ,ot3z-.-0z7)) /1 IQ6. IZ 04.60 6 Repair Failure Street 29,940 S.F. 2.0 59,880.0 1 ZD 35 92S o53 S D•o 1•S 4 o ..aa Construct New Street 2.4 011 S.F 3;.30 - =79- 23b_.30_ Z•20 5Z Z¢.Z Z 033 -b ;Z-5V 60 02-7, SD 8 Wedge Cut 2,,785 L.F 1.0 2,78'5.00 Z• 5-,5-70.o 5 -5�7o•0 Z• /s' %g 9 Remove & Re lace As halt Concrete Drivewa 2;1116 S.F. 4.0- 8,464*.•0 310 6 34 •O 2.0 4 Z ,Z -'o ,gyp 6771-26 :0 Construct A.-'C. Swale 1,230 S..F 3.3 4.059.0 Z• 3075 3 990•6 2.0 a¢6a•o Construct A. C. Qu rb 950 L.F 6.0 2,856.0 0 3Qo0'o 5•o -6 2.60 X470-0 106 ea. 1 1 I (6o.p t 63 0 - 0 2 0. Z3,680- 2.z i3 ISV- o :3 Build Shoulders Con•fprm A..C. Driveway 416 ton 33.0 .13,728.0 4 Install 12" R -.G.P. 1485 L.F 35.:,0: 51,975.0 SS' -o 91,675-1) .a 9 1 oo -O Go -o 03"100-0 5 Construct Manhole 8 ea. 1000 0 8',00&,'0 00 14'4nD -O I / oa !¢ o•o 6 Construct Catach Basin 6 ea. 8 oD• /O 00•D 16co 9 06 0,0, n 2,000 /Z"000-0 7 Construct Flat Grate 600, 600.0 Z&O'D Z/ Z100,0 Zoo 2 2 2 .3oo -D 8 Remove & Replace z bao Z 6 0 • P� Catch Basin 1 ea. 1000 0 1000.0 Z,Sbo Z S`oo• a t 2na oD• in z 600 600• a OA =t June 7 __vj98 g TrTME: .2 S 00 Pte. City of.Saratoga CommunitY Development Denartndent . ---BID SUMMARY -- -She at. 2 o i 2 --PR O J E C T RECONSTRUCTION AND OVERLAY OF VARIOUS CITY STREETS ENGINE RAISCH CONSTR. 1 • 0 1 Y PAVING .. Description Stripe Double Yellow , . e �.. is Paint Pavement Markin�, i , e Install Type "B" Marke'rs Install iff- :• �� Ie 1.1 a ,.. .,, ., . .., .. , •.e • -A SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0. 4 AGENDA ITEMa! MEETING DATE: 6 -3 -88 (6- 15 -88) CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING /A SUBJECT: "Grant.Construction Acceptance" and Release 50% Cash Bond Paul Avenue, Dave Cunningham, SD 87 -013 Grant "Construction Acceptance" and Release Cash Bond. Report Summary: The work has been satisfactorily completed. This "Construction Acceptance" will begin the One '(1) Year Maintenance Period. Fiscal Impacts None. Attachments: 1. Memo describing bond. Motion and Vote: 1 t f s 0919W o2 • 0&UUSUQ)0& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARrATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 . TO:, City Manager DATE: 6 -3 -88 FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Construction Acceptance for SD 87 -013 Name & Location: David Cunningham - - - - -- -Paul -Avenue Public Improvements required for SD 87 -013 have been satisfactorily completed. I, therefore, recommend the City Council accept the .improvements for construction only. This "construction acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance period. During that year, the improvement contract, insurance and improvement security will remain in full force. The following information is included for your use: 1. Developer: Hill and Company Investment Address: 700 S. Bernardo•, Suite 101 . Sunnyvale, Ca. 2. Improvement Security: Type: CASH. Amount: $21456.50 Issuing Company: N.A: Address: Receipt, Bond or Certificate No.: 3. Special Remarks: Please release 50% Bond $1,228.25. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Ivy AGENDA ITEM `- MEETI -NG DATE: 6 -3 -88 (6- 15 -88) CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING - SUBJECT • Construction Acceptance for Tract 7795 Via Escuela Drive, J. Lohr Properties Recommended Motion: Grant "Construction Acceptance" and release cash bond. Report Summary: The work has been satisfactorily completed. This "Construction Acceptance" will begin the One (1) Year Maintenance Period. Fiscal Impacts None. Attachments: 1. Memo describing bond. Motion and Vote: MEMOORANDL_1M 09TE O:T O&MAMOO& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 TO: City Manager DATE: 6 -3 -88 FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Construction Acceptance for TRACT 7795 Name & Location: J. Lohr Properties 2021 The Alameda, San Jose --------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Public Improvements required for TRACT 7795 have been satisfactorily completed. I, therefore, recommend the City Council accept the improvements for construction only. This "construction acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance period. During that year, the improvement contract, insurance and improvement security will remain in full force. The following information is included for your use: 1. Developer: J. Lohr Properties Address: 2021 The Alameda, Suite 145 San Jose, Ca. 2. Improvement Security: Type: CASH & SECURITY Amount: $18:000.00 Issuing Company: N/A Address: Receipt, B=dxx=x x cte No.: 08399 3. Special Remarks: Release cash bond of $18,000.00. RSS /dsm Robe t S. Shook SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL [� EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM 6 MEETING DATE: 6 -3 -88 (6- 15 -88) CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING DEPT. - SUBJECT: CONSTRUCTION ACCEPTANCE FOR TRACT 7794 Glen Brae Drive, J. Lohr Properties Recommended Motion: Grant "Construction Acceptance" and release cash bond. Report Summary: The work has been satisfactorily completed. This "Construction Acceptance" will begin the One (1) Year Maintenance Period. Fiscal Impacts None. Attachments: 1. Memo describing bond. Motion and Vote: 1. $ •` n��a® 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 , MEMOORANDt1M TO: City Manager FROM Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Construction Acceptance for TRACT 7794 Name & Location: J. Lohr Properties DATE: 6 -3 -88 ---------- _ 2021 The Alameda, San Jose,-Ca - Public Improvements required for TRACT 7794 have been satisfactorily completed. I, therefore, recommend the City Council accept the improvements for construction only. This "construction acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance period. During that year, the improvement contract, insurance and improvement security will remain in full force. The following information is included for your user 1. Developer: J. Lohr Properties Address: 2021 The Alameda, Suite 145 San Jose, Ca. 2. Improvement Security: Type: CKSH Amount: $7,,500-00 Issuing Company: N /A:' Address: Receipt, 08399 3. Special Remarks: Release cash bond of $ 7,500.00• RSS /dsm Robert S. Shook t SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. I I (O7 MEETING DATE: 6/15/88 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planning AGENDA ITEM: CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: SD -87 -008, 22631 Mt. Eden Road, Appeal of Planning Commission decision approving tentative map to subdivide 52.5 acres into 5 lots 70 RECOMMENDED MOTION: Deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning Commission. REPORT SUMMARY: On May 11, 1988, the Planning Commission approved an application to subdivide 52.5 acres of land into 5 lots. Four of these lots, which range in size between 2 -14 acres, will be developed with single family homes. The fifth lot, 31 acres, will remain under a Williamson Act contract. The appellants are requesting that the City Council reverse the Planning Commission's decision on grounds that an Environmental Impact Report should have been prepared in connection with the project. PUBLIC NOTICING: SD -87 -008 has been noticed by advertising in the Saratoga News on June 1, 1988. In addition, property owners within 500 feet of the subject property were mailed a public hearing notice and public hearing notices were posted at the site. Lastly, public hearing notices were mailed to persons who spoke at the City Council public hearing considering the Williamson Act cancellation request. FISCAL IMPACTS: A slight increase in the City's tax base will result. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Report from the Planning Director, 6/15/88 2. Appeal letter /petition dated 5/20/88 3. Planning Commission minutes, 5/11/88, 4/27/88 4. Staff report to the Planning Commission, 5/11/88 5. Plans MOTION AND VOTE: 1 A. 10 REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 6/8/88 COUNCIL MEETING: 6/15/88 SUBJECT: SD -87 -008; 22631 Mt. Eden Road - Appeal of Planning Commission decision approving a tentative map for a 5 -lot subdivision. Background On 5/11/88, the Planning Commission considered and approved a tentative map application to subdivide 52.5 acres of land into 5 lots four of which will be developed with single family homes. The fifth parcel (approximately 31 acres) will remain under a Williamson Act contract. A majority of the Commissioners adopted the Negative Declaration for the project; the resolution approving the subdivision was approved unanimously. On 5/20/88, the Planning Commission's decision was appealed to the City Council. The petition, signed by several property owners in the area, suggests that an Environmenal Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared for the project. Analysis The appellant's petition requests that an EIR be prepared for the project which specifically addresses the following areas of concern: geology, drainage, water supply, wildlife, and noise. The staff report prepared in connection with the tentative map application included an initial study. The purpose of the initial study is to assist the City in determining whether to prepare a negative declaration or an EIR and, if necessary, to identify the impacts to be analyzed in the EIR. In this case, staff found that after preparing the initial study and consulting other agencies, i.e. City Geologist, Cupertino Sanitary District, and Santa Clara Valley Water District, the proposed project would not produce significant adverse environmental impacts. In addition, staff determined that the project was consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code and all of the required subdivision findings in City Code Section 14- 20.070(b) could be made. Consequently, staff recommended the Planning Commission approve the project by 2 SD -87 -008 adopting the Negative Declaration and Resolution SD -87 -008. With regard to the appellants specific environmental concerns, staff found that the proposed subdivision and eventual construction of four residences on the already graded portion of the property would not have a detrimental impact on the environment. The City Geologist performed an extensive review of the project and recommended approval; however, the applicant will be required to conduct further geological and geotechnical reviews prior to final map approval and /or issuance of building permits. Also, specific site drainage plans will be required to be prepared, and reviewed and approved by the City Geologist and City Engineer prior to site development and building permits are issued. The project's effect on native vegetation is expected to be non existent since the proposed building site has been graded flat in connection with the Quarry Creek Repair project and is currently void of any significant plant life. In addition, a significant portion of the 21.5 acres proposed to be subdivided into 4 lots has been designated as "open space" on the tentative map and will remain in its natural state. No impacts on wildlife habitats are expected to occur, and any noise associated with construction activities will be addressed and mitigated by the City Code. Lastly, while a specific plan to provide the building sites with water has not been prepared to date, any plan will be required to be reviewed and approved by the City Geologist and City Engineer prior to final map approval. C. Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission's decision. Y uek Hsia P1 fining Director YH /rc /kh 3 I TO: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL FROM: UNDERSIGNED SARATOGA RESIDENTS ,. dn,�,, DATE: MAY 20, 1988 `q ` SUBJECT: NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SD 87 -008 We, the undersigned, hereby.appeal the tentative map approval for SD 87 -008 (Cocciardi, 22631 Mt. Eden Road), granted by the Saratoga Pl.anning Commission in its meeting of 5- 11 -88. In particular, we appeal the Negative Declaration for this 21.5 acre development taken out of the Williamson Act. Since the original Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Mount Eden Estates (which is adjacent to the new development we are presently appealing) was apparently never sent to the State, and since the drainage project (the unfinished Quarry Creek Restoration Project) was undertaken without an EIR, a formal EIR for this 21.5 acre development is required. The EIR should include, but not be limited to, the following: o Complete disclosure of the geologic conditions. Many areas are potential slides, deep moving slides, old landslides and old and potential quake faults. o Provide a thorough analysis of the overall drainage. There is extreme danger of erosion on the steep slopes of this development and in the adjacent Quarry Creek, particularly followi.ng the removal of hundreds'of mature trees from the subject area and the adjacent Quarry Creek. o Address the cumulative impact of a policy which extends water service into areas such as these and the water supply into the proposed development. At present, no firm plans for the water supply are available and no. geologic studies of the terrain to be trenched for water lines have been made. o Address the overall impact of the run -off of this project on the adjacent homeowners on Via Regina and Old Oak Way, who are now exposed to increased slide hazards as a result of past and future excavations, and as a result of tree and other vegetation removal. Account for increased sedimentation into the Calabazas Creek along Pierce Road, and downstream, due to existing and future erosion. o Discuss loss of wildlife habitat and native vegetation. 0 Address the impact of construction noise. L TO: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL FROM: UNDERSIGNED SARATOGA RESIDENTS ,. dn,�,, DATE: MAY 20, 1988 `q ` SUBJECT: NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SD 87 -008 We, the undersigned, hereby.appeal the tentative map approval for SD 87 -008 (Cocciardi, 22631 Mt. Eden Road), granted by the Saratoga Pl.anning Commission in its meeting of 5- 11 -88. In particular, we appeal the Negative Declaration for this 21.5 acre development taken out of the Williamson Act. Since the original Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Mount Eden Estates (which is adjacent to the new development we are presently appealing) was apparently never sent to the State, and since the drainage project (the unfinished Quarry Creek Restoration Project) was undertaken without an EIR, a formal EIR for this 21.5 acre development is required. The EIR should include, but not be limited to, the following: o Complete disclosure of the geologic conditions. Many areas are potential slides, deep moving slides, old landslides and old and potential quake faults. o Provide a thorough analysis of the overall drainage. There is extreme danger of erosion on the steep slopes of this development and in the adjacent Quarry Creek, particularly followi.ng the removal of hundreds'of mature trees from the subject area and the adjacent Quarry Creek. o Address the cumulative impact of a policy which extends water service into areas such as these and the water supply into the proposed development. At present, no firm plans for the water supply are available and no. geologic studies of the terrain to be trenched for water lines have been made. o Address the overall impact of the run -off of this project on the adjacent homeowners on Via Regina and Old Oak Way, who are now exposed to increased slide hazards as a result of past and future excavations, and as a result of tree and other vegetation removal. Account for increased sedimentation into the Calabazas Creek along Pierce Road, and downstream, due to existing and future erosion. o Discuss loss of wildlife habitat and native vegetation. 0 Address the impact of construction noise. 14 Appeal of SD 87- Mcont. page 2 of 3 Planning Commissioners Harris and Kolstad voted against the Negative Declaration for this project. Please study their positions and consider the above points. We trust the Council will reach the same conclusions. We respectfully request that a proper EIR be written and all possible mitigations be discussed before a tentative map is approved. ILIA Ur h 1 (signed) ADDRESS 343 9 Ode( �a (L-P / %�� 6 .. Appeal of SD 87-008(cont.) NAME. ti WMAN 2 0 IP 88 '09d'3 of 3 ADDRESS - /'?6 'Z- -7 c /- Loa Planning Commission Minutes 5/11/83 16. • SD -87 -008 Cocciardi, 22631 Mt. Eden Rd., request for tentative map approval to subdivide 52.5 acres of land into a total of 5- lots; four of which will be developed with single family homes (21.5 acres), the last parcel (31 acres) will remain under a Williamson Act contract. A Negative Declaration has been prepared. Continued form April 27, 1988. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Caldwell presented the Report to the Planning Commission, May 11, 1988; she noted Amended Conditions 40 and 41 addressing requirements of the.equestrian trail easements and the Revised Tentative Map showing the proposed location of the 15 ft. wide trail easement. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he recommended Continuing this Item pending a site visit by the Commission; he had now completed such. City Attorney answered the Commission's questions on equestrian trail easements, mainten ance of such and the process referenced in Exhibit A. SDOCific Conditions -City Geologist 25; he reviewed the Quarry Creek Repair Project, adding that such did not relate to this subdivision .nor was the Repair Project done to enable and/or facilitate this project. Planner Caldwell suggested a statement be added to Condition. 25 to insure that the work called out be reviewed by Mr. Cotton and the City Engineer. Commissioner Kolstad stated that he had talked with the City Engineer regarding this project. Mr. William E. Brooks, 20230 Merrick Dr., Saratoga, noted that neither Commissioners Tucker nor Kolstad were present for previous hearing on this Item; however, Commissioner Kolstad had now participated in the discussion. He asked that the Public Hearing be reopened. SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC I•iEARING AT 9:45 P.M. Passed 6 -0. Mr. George Tobin, Attorney for the Applicant deferred to other speakers. Mr. Wilhem Kohler, President, Pierce Canyon Homeowners Association, commented: - Questioned whether the scenic easement on Lot 4 was part of the Creek and if so, he asked that problems associated with the Creek be considered - Main concern was the lack of an Environmental Impact Report; reviewed specific concerns - Asked that the required studies be completed before the project was approved Mr. William E. Brooks, 20230 Merrick Dr., Saratoga, commented as follows: Was pleased to see the equestrian easement trails on the Maps Asked that isolated sections of die trails lx; connected to existing trails; cited examples Suggested consideration of a roadside easement in this Subdivision Application Ms. Dora Grens, 13451 Old Oak Way, Saratoga, reiterated concerns expressed April 27, 1988: - Urged that an Environmental Impact Report be completed - Whether or not the drainage system were located on the property in question, runoff would impact other sites. Noted the placement of her home in relationship to this system - Question of a failure of the storm drainage system had not been addressed - Cited lack of requirements for a site drainage system on a lot currently being built on - Reiterated her concerns and asked that they be addressed formally 'Mr. Tobin commented as follows: - Cited revisions made to the Subdivision Maps for the scenic and equestrian trail easements - Cited reports already submitted on environmental impacts - Quarry Creek Repair Project was not the subject of this Application BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:07 P.M. Passed 6 -0. Commissioner Siegfried felt that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was not the answer for concerns raised; such would only indicate the need for a detailed geological report. Commissioner Kolstad raised questions on a Negative Declaration and environmental. concerns; The City Attorney responded: - Implicit in a request for an Environmental Impact.Report was that unless an EIR were done, nothing was done; such was not the case - Adoption of a Negative Declaration did not mean construction could be initiated; there were detailed requirements for site specific geotechnical studies as well as Conditions on drainage - Investigations and plans would have to be prepared for the construction phase of the project to satisfy the City and all concerned ; - With respect to the concern that environmental questions should be investigated before the adopting of a Negative Declaration, the distinction was that these investigations related to built'ing rccquirements - An li;;: would not identify Ih ; ;nes to he studied as Commissioner Siegfried already noted 5/11/88 (con't) C&nt iissioner- Kolstad questioned whether impacts had been property addressed in the Criteria for Determining Sienificant FnvironmPnt ,31 Impacts and the relationship, if any, of the Proposed subdivision to the Quarry Creek Repair Project. The City Attorney responded that the Quarry Creek Repair Project had been designed with the assistance of geotechnical, civil engineering and hydrologic expertise to accommodate all of the water shed that would.feed into it. Commissioner Harris raised the concern about the disruption to "Borrow Hill" and the runoff/ erosion resulting from such; Conditions did not address this issue. The City Attorney responded that the site was being dealt with as it presently existed; however, it was within the prerogative of the Commission to add a Condition stating that plans were to be furnished showing how the existing road was to be repaired /restored as well as requiring the replanting of the area. Improvement Plans to be submitted before Final Map Approval would include drainage plans- for the entire site; it might be appropriate for the Commission to state that particular attention was to be given to the area that was the subject of the Quarry Creek Repair Project in terms of restoration, geologic stability, drainage and landscaping. Commissioner Harris felt that the Sienificant Environmental Impact questionaire was answered in response to specific building sites; such was not the problem. She was concerned that without an EIR, all the issues would not be adequately addressed. Planner Calkins reviewed the preparation of the Negative Declaration statement..He concurred that erosion resulting from the creation of a road was a concern; such was the result of the Quarry Creek Repair Project and in his estimation the four lot subdivision under consideration would not change the existing conditions. In response to Commissioner Siegfried's.question, he stated dial if there were appropriate conditions placed on the Tentative Map, the granting of a Negative Declaration would be in order; however, if major concerns remained on the project under consideration, a focused EIR could be prepared. Chairwoman Guch concurred with concerns raised by the neighbors; however, the recom- mended Conditions addressed the concerns with the exception of a Condition on landscaping for areas where erosion had occurred. Commissioner Kolstad remained concerned regarding the issues surrounding this subdivision; he felt that-adequate answers had not been provided. Commissioner Burger stated that the major issues had been identified, namely, drainage and geologic stability; such were addressed in Exhibit A, under Specific Conditions - En ine rirz Department and _Specific Condition's - City GeoLoaig. Chairwoman Guch concurred and added that there were other concerns raised at the Hearing; Commission Burger agreed and suggested a Condition be added to 5Ncific Conditions - Plan- ning Department 43. to require plantings for erosion control on the road cut and Barrow Hill. The City Attorney advised that addressing the Mt. Eden Estates Equestrian Trails Easement as . requested by Mr. Brooks, was not within the scope of this Application; he suggested that a 'Memorandum be sent to the.Parks Commission asking them to review this situation. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Passed 4-2 Commissioners Harris, Kolstad opposed. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED APPROVAL OF SD -87 -008 PER THE MODEL RESOLU- TION ADDING A CONDITION TO REQUIRE PLANTINGS FOR EROSION CONTROL ON'THE.ROAD CUT AND BARROW HILL. Passed 6 -0. Planning Commission Minutes 4/27/88 13. SD -87 -008 Cocciardi, 22631 Mt. Eden Rd., request for tentative map approvai.to subdivide 523 acres of land into a total of 5 -lots; four of which will be developed with single family homes (21.5 acres), the last parcel (31 acres) will remain under a WilliamsonAct contract. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to,the Planning. Commission, April 27, 1988. The City Attorney stated that the General Plan designation was residential with an NI.lR zoning classification; density of the subdivision had been determined in accordance with such. , The Public Hearing was opened at 10:50 P.M. Mr. George Tobin, Attorney, reviewed the background of this property and the settlement i reached between the City and die Applicant and he concurred with die Staff Report. Mr. Wilhem Kohler, President, Pierce. Canyon Homeowners Association, .presented photographs of the area and commented as follows: - Was no Negative Declaration nor Environmental Impact Report for this unstable, steep. area - Asked that an EIR be prepared on this property - Cited drainage and. erosion problems in this area Mr. Bill Peretti, 13485 Old Oak Way; Saratoga, commented as follows: Main concern was the unusual sequence of events surrounding development.of this site - Property was cleared and leveled for development before cancellation of the Williamson Act - There was no Environmental Impact Report - There were no roads to the site; drainage for this project would go through his back yard - While not opposed to the project, he wished a resolution of issues addressed above Mr. William T. Brooks, 20230 Merrick Dr., Saratoga, cited Staff Report Exhibit "A ": Con- ditions 40..and 41. and commented as follows: - Noted the considerable diversity in equestrian, trail easements between various subdivisions - Condition 41. to be modified to 8 ft, easement and all weather surfaces required on the trails - Asked that overall view of equestrian trail easements be done by the Commission - Asked that citizen involvement be allowed in the review of these easements Ms. Dora Grens, 13451 Old Oak Way, Saratoga, commented as follows: - Cited concerns regarding the,lack of an Environmental Impact. Report - The crux of the issue was drainage; such was the cause of thc,initial problems - Topography of the subdivision was the same as the land slippage that had occurred - Strongly urged that an Environmental Impact Report be completed Mr. Papken Der Torossiav, 21978 Via Regina, Saratoga, commented as follows: - Was favorable to the development of four lots - Was concerned regarding the drainage pipe; should such break, his house would be flooded t ' Had already had land slides in his rear property; was concerned regarding further sliding Ms. Rosemary Neuman, 22641 Mr. Eden Rd., listed her concerns regarding the project. Mr. Vince Garrett requested information.on the, proposal under consideration. Mr. Tobin stated that an Environmental Assessment was completed; approval of the proposal requested. In response to Chairwoman Guch,'he reviewed agreements with the Water District. The City Attorney provided additional information on the proposed water'source. Mr. Kohler stated that an Environmental Impact Report had not.been completed. BURGER/FlARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 11 :35 P.M. Passed 4 -0. Commissioner Siegfried suggested that a site visit would be beneficial., Commissioner Burger stated that she was not concerned regarding the proposed development. In response to her question, the City Attorney confirmed that there was an Environmental Assessment for the cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract and for this Application; a Negative Declaration was also required for the Item under consideration. However, an Environmental Impact Report had not been completed. Commissioner Harris concurred that a site visit was desirable at this time. Chairwoman Guch added that she was favorable to the request for a four lot subdivision. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CONTINUE SD -87 -008 TO MAY 11, 1988. Passed 4 -0 � . - REPORT TO PLANNING COMM,IS-SIQjj SD-87-008 COCCIARDI 2�631 Mt. Eden'Rd. Tent. Map � � MT � � ! '�` \ ' � ! /' . J ^ NHR- Lr pf NHR 1-4Q. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Robert T. Calkins Ping. Dir. Approval DATE: May 11, -1988 APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: 'SD -87 -008, 22631 Mt. Eden Road APPLICANT: Cocciardi APN: 503 -12 -024 (partial), 5.03 -12 -025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pursuant to City Code Section 14- 20.0.70 (b), the applicant is requesting tentative map approval for a 5 -lot subdivision of 52.5 acres of land in the NHR zone district. Four of the five lots, a total of 21.5 acres, will be developed with single family homes; the other parcel (31 acres) will remain under a Williamson Act contract. This item is continued from the April 27, 1988 regular Planning Commission meeting. ISSUES'• The proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code, and all of the subdivision findings can be made. The request for exemption to exceed the maximum cul -de -sac length is reasonable given that only one access to the site is available and no impacts on public safety are expected. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Negative Declaration and Resolution SD -87 -008. PUBLIC NOTICING: The application was deemed complete on 4/20/88. SD -87 -008 has been noticed by advertising in the Saratoga News on 4/13/88 and direct mailing to property owners within 500' of the project. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Negative Declaration and Initial Study 2. Resolution SD -87 -008 3. Technical Information /Staff Analysis 4. Planning Commission minutes dated 4/27/88 5. City Council Minutes dated 4/6'/88 6. City Council Resolution 2475 cancelling Williamson Act Contract for 21.5 acres 7. Exhibit "C ", Plans 1 TECHNICAL INFORMATION /STAFF ANALYSIS COMMISSION MEETING: May 11, 1988 APN: 503 -12 -024 (partial), 503 -12 -025 APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: SD -87 -008; 22631 Mt. Eden Road. ACTION REQUESTED: Tentative map approval for a 5 lot subdivision of 52.5 acres of land in the NHR zone district. APPLICANT: Cocciardi PROPERTY OWNER: Same OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED: final map, building permits ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Negative Declaration prepared 4/12/88 ZONING: NHR GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RHC (Hillside conservation) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North - vacant agricultural preserve land South - vacant (final map approved, 23 lots) East - vacant (tentative map approved 11 -lots) West - vacant PARCEL SIZE (Proposed): Lot 1: 2.0 acres, Lot 2: 2.0 acres Lot 3: 2.2 acres, Lot 4: 14.3 acres NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: The proposed building sites have been graded flat as part of the Quarry Road Repair Project. The perimeter of the 21.5 acre site is moderately to heavily vegetated with mature oaks, shrubs, and bushes and is moderately to steeply sloped. SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: level GRADING REQUIRED: N/A PROPOSED SETBACKS: N/A HEIGHT: N/A IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: N/A SIZE OF STRUCTURE: N/A AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 32% ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does not meet all the requirements and standards of the City Code in that the length of the proposed cul -de -sac exceeds the 500 ft. maximum specified in City Code Section 14- 25.030(d). 7 v SD -87 -008 STAFF ANALYSIS A. Proposal /Background The applicant is requesting tentative map approval of plans to subdivide a total of 52.5 acres of land into 5 lots; 4 of which (21.5 acres) will be developed with single family residences, the fifth parcel (31 acres) will remain under the Williamson Act and not be developed. In 1973, a Williamson Act Contract to preserve the subject property as agricultural land was entered into between the.City of Saratoga and Mr. Anthony Coccardi. On April 20, 1988, the City Council adopted a resolution cancelling the Williamson Act Contract for 21.5 acres. (.See Memorandum to City'Council dated April 6, 1988 and City Council minutes dated 4/6/88.) . . The proposed building site for each lot has been graded flat, and the dirt used for the Quarry Creek Repair Project. The perimeter of the site, however, is characterized by moderately steep to very steep slopes with mature vegetation including a number of mature oaks. Proposed access to the four lots include a 26 ft. wide paved street extending from Mt. Eden Road to the westerly edge of the subdivision, and a minimum access "road (Nina Court) with a cul -de- sac turnaround. Since the length of the proposed cul -de -sac is greater than 500 ft, i.e.. it is approximately 800 ft.. long, the applicant is requesting the Planning Commission grant an exception to the subdivision ordinance limiting the length of cul -de -sacs. B. Analysis During the City Council's debate on the applicant's request to remove the 21.5 acres from the Williamson Act., several property owners in the area voiced a concern regarding the loss of the land as open space and wanted assurances that when the property was developed, access to this site,or from TRACT 7761 -Mt. Eden Estates, was not permitted from the existing Quarry Road. In-response to the above concerns, the applicant has designated a large portion of the site as a "Scenic Easement." In doing so, the areas of the site that have not been graded for the repair project will remain in a natural state.. In addition, as a condition of approval for TRACT 7761, .this site and TRACT 7761, will be connected to the existing this Road by a 18 ft. wide paved emergency access road. Gates will be at erected at both ends of this "road" and through access permitted only during emergencies. The required findings'to support the applicant's request to exceed the maximum length for a cul -de -sac can be made. Specifically, since there is no other reasonable alternate access to the site, the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of SD -87 -00`8 substantial property rights of the applicant.' In addition, granting the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare since access to the site, in times of an emergency, will not be impaired. The proposal is consistent with the.City's General Plan and zoning code requirements. Specifically, the width, depth and footage of the four lots meet the requirements of the NHR zone district. In addition, the project's density meets the site density requirements of the zoning code. Conclusion Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the application by adopting Resolution SD -87 -008. The project and improvements are consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code, will not- create public health or safety problems, or cause substantial environmental damage. 9 RES -ND Saratoga DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 rime No.SD- R ? -nnR 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 653- 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 Five lot subdivision of 52.5 acres of land. Four lots will be developed with single family homes; the other lot will remain under a Williamson Act Contract. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT Anthony Cocciardi 2263 Mt. Eden Road Saratoga,_ CA 95070 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION The project is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zone Code and will not create any adverse environmental impact. Executed at Saratoga, California this 11th day of May, 1988. YUCHUEK HSIA DIRECTOR F PLANNING DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER FORM EIA -lb CITY OF SARATOGA CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (TO BE COMPLETED BY PUBLIC AGENCY) PROJECT: �;- �� �S(C� FILE NO :ST_ LOCATION: Ecl-_n rA Ch I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent: C 2. Ad�ddr�e�s�s� and Phone Number o Proponent: 3. Date of Checklist Submitted: JT Sf 81 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: 01-1 OF 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe "answers are required on attached sheets.) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE NO a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in / geologic substructures? ✓ b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over- crowding of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? YES MAYBE NO e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, / either on or off the site? I f1�►'�R1.Ee l_ R I T,�t ar7.l� CQl7r.(� W 11( 1�1C�aQ?�L' 1C�, h(�!�"�f � — f. Chan esl}in s -i tatidn, po(sitibh �orreosion' w i may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of a lake? , g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of / ambient air quality? V b. The creation of objectionable odors? v c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, / or any change in climate, either locally or region - ally? 3. Water.. Will the proposal result in:. a. 'Changes in currents, or the course or direction of / water movements in fresh water? V b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or / the rate and amount of surface water runoff? V -A DA kwo-9e I E. I mo. tUl us cwc c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? t .,i -2- i d. Change in the amount of surface water or any water in any water body? YES PLAYBE NO Y e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited / to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of l ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? _ f h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water other- / wise available for public water supplies? ✓✓✓ ............. i. Exposure of people or property to water related / hazards such as flooding? Y j. Significant changes in the temperature, flow, or /• chemical content of surface thermal springs? y 4. Plant Life.. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass crops, and aquatic plants)? _ �n �6'5t3 ore LAC cn Ps�cCc►� fir ri . . b.. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? -3- YES MAYBE NO C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? I/ 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of / s any species of animals (birds, land animals includ- ing reptiles, fish, or insects)? Y b. Reduction of the numbers of any 'unique, rare or ��- endangered species of animals? C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, J or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing wildlife or fish habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new ,light or glare? 1 -4- 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned -land use of an area? c Rd kre -?I'MWA Wj 9. Natural ReSOUrr Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (inlcud'ing, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? r� w,> YES MAYBE NO Y V V b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? -5- YES MAYBE NO b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand / for new parking? VVV / C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation / systems? V d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or / movement of people and /or goods? ✓ e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazardous to motor vehicles, / bicyclists or pedestrians? vvv 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? _ b. Police protection? C. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: 1/ •a. Use of substantival amounts of fuel or energy? Y -6- wpm!--, YES MAYBE NO b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following ,utilities: a. Power or natural gas? V/ b. Communications systems :? c. Water? ' d. Sewer or septic tanks? ✓ " ,e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health / hazard (excluding mental health)? V b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics.. Will the proposal result -in the obstruc :ion oTany scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public. view? Rec "re'ation. Wi11 the proposal resu t A n i ct upon . thethequal:tty or quantity of existing recreation / ..opportunities? Y -7- YES MAYBE NO 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archeological site? V b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure,.or object? C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic . cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? _V 2,1. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining-levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of thL major periods / of California history or prehistory? V b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? (A short -term impact on the envi- ronment is one which occurs in a rela- tively brief, definitive period of time while long -term impacts will endure well into the future.) -8- YES MAYBE NO C. Does. the project have impacts which are indivi- dually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may .impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the / total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d.. Does the project have environmental effects which / will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly_or indirectly? III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION -9- IV. DETERMINATION On e basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLAP.ATION will be prepared. OI find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,.there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION .WILL BE PREPARED. OI find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRON14ENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. DATE: 1 1()fl tY I; �'� ee ........ . ADDITIONAL COMMENTS S A7 ^ n� For:•.. J...... ... ......... -10- (rev. 5/16/80) .. ate.. FILING FEE: $ 7 ,;�1Y :11987 PLANNING DEPT CITY OF SARATOGA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT QUESTIONNAIRE _(to be completed by applicant)-. ,f DATE: E)-;5-,9"1 GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor - Tonv Cocciardi 22631 Mt. Eden Roa6, Saratoga, CA 95070 2. Address of project: Ht. Eden Road, Saratoga FORM EIA -la FILE NO: Assessors Parcel Number: APN 503 -12 -25 & PTN 503 -12 -24 3. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: Velimir Sulic, MASON -SULIC 2021 The Alameda Suite 195 San Jose, CA 95126 4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains: Tentative Hap SD S. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: N.A. 6. Existing zoning district: Agricultural 7. Proposed use of site (project for which this form is filed): 4 lot subdivision - single family residence 8. site size: 21.4+ acres 9. Square footage: 932,184 10. Number of floors of construction: 2 story 11. Amount of off - street parking: 5 per lot 12. Attached plans? Yes X No 13. Proposed scheduling: Start construction A.S.A.P. (Summer 1987) 14. Associated projects: Quarry Creek -Slide Repair 1S. Anticipated incremental development: N.A. 16. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected: .4 Single home residences 4,000 s.f. to 6,000 s.f. living space size 17. If commercial, -indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities: N.A. 18. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities: N.A. 19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project: N.A. 20. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning appli- cation, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required: N.A. Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES NO — X* 21. Change in existing features of any lakes or. hills, or sub- After Grading - borrow site stantial alteration of ground contours. for Quarry Creek Slide Repair and Quarry Road Stabilization - (Settlement of court case) X* 22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. X 23. Change in pattern, project. scale or character of general area of �( 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. X 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. X 26. Change in lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. X 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. t +_ * House location on flat portion of lots. Entire site in a hilly area. *Repair of Quarry Road' and Quarry Creek. YES. NO X* 2`8.. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. _ X 29. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, f,lammables or explosives. X 30.. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). _ X 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). X* .32. Relationship to a larger project or series o'f projects. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: 33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing struc- tures on the site -, and the use of the structures. Hilltop site-: Small oaks, manzanita, sage brush and hPavy poison oak; stable soil (see soil report). No structures on site. 34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and- aninials -and any - cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate 'the type of land use (residential,\commercial, etcs.), intensity.,of . land use (one - family„ apartment houses, shops; department stores, etc.) and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.). _ S,ingle family residential, 2 acre minimum sites Surroundi,ng hills are habited with natura -1 wildlife. - some birds, rodents, and deer). CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements and information presented are true `and rrect to the est f my know- ledge and belief. \ (11111 r DATE: April 27, 1987 For: Owners ,Ab 4) ,. RESOLUTION NO. SD -87-008 RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF APN #'s 503 -12 -024 (partial.), 503 -12 -025; Cocciardi WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tentative subdivision of 5 lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD -87 -008 of this City, and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the Staff Report dated May 11,1988 being hereby made for further particulars, and WHEREAS, this body has heretofor received and considered the Negative Declaration prepared for this project in accord with the currently applidable provisions of CEQA, and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a.) through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with 'respect to said subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision., which map is dated the 1st day of March, 1988 and is marked Exhibit C in the hereinabove referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as more particularly set forth on Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. .The above and foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission at: a meeting thereof held on the 11th day of May, 1988, at which a quorum was present, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: / hairman, Planning Commiss66n Secr ary, Planning Commission A :RESTM 1. sm . SD -87 -008, 22631 Mt. Eden Road EXHIBIT A 1. The applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. - SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2. Pay storm drainage fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval. 3. Submit Parcel Map for City for checking and recordation and pay required fees. 4. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 20 ft. half- street on Nina Court and improve to. minimum access road standards as prescribed by the City Engineer. 5. Provide evidence of access rights to Mr. Eden Road from the proposed cul -de -sac. r 6. Improve the existing right -of -way between Mt. Eden Road and the beginning of the subdivision to City standards including: a. designed structural section 26 ft. between flowlines. b. P.C. concrete curb and gutter (V -24). C. undergrounding existing overhead utilities. 7. Construct storm drainage system as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff to street, storm sewer, or watercourse,.including the following: a. storm sewer trunks with necessary manholes. b. storm sewer laterals with necessary manholes. C. storm drain inlets, outlets, channels, etc. S. Construct-standard driveway approaches. 9. Provide adequate sight distance and remove :obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections., 10. Watercourses must be;kept free.of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. 11. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills. 12. Obtain Encroachment Permit from Santa Clara County for work to be done within.their.right -of- way.., 13. Engineered Improvement Plans required for: a. street improvements b. storm drain construction 2 SD -87 -008 14. Pay plan check and inspection fees as determined from Improvement Plans. 15. .Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval. 16. Post bond to guarantee completion of the-required improvements. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH. DEPARTMENT 17. A sanitary sewer connection from Cupertino Sanitary District is required. 18. Domestic water shall be supplied by San Jose Water Co. 19. Seal any well in accordance with County standards. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS _ BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION 20. 'Submit a• geotechnical investigation.and report professional for the following: a. geology b. soils (for each lot) c. foundation 21. Submit detailed on -site improvement plans showing: by a .licensed a. grading .(limits of ,cuts,, fills, slopes, cross- sections, existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities.) b. drainage details C. retaining structures including design by A.I.A. 'or R.C.E. for walls greater 3 ft. or higher d. erosion control measures' SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CITY GEOLOGIST' 22. Prior to final map approval the applicant's geotechnical consultant should evaluate the potential for slope failure and erosion within Lot #4 (including all area outside the building area which may impact adjacent properties or local roadways.) 23. . Prior to issuance of building permits for individual lots, the applicant's geotechnical consultant should, prepare detailed geotechnical design recommendations which address, but are not necessarily limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and design parameters for driveways, residential foundations and retaining walls. The geotechnical design recommendations shall be submitted to the City Engineer and Geologist. 3 SD -87 -008 24. The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements, and design parameters for foundations, and retaining walls) to ensure that his recommendations have been properly incorporated.. The results 'of the plan review should be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of site development and building permits. 25. The applicant's geotechnical•consultant should evaluate the long- - term stability of the proposed building site considering: 1) the proximity of the residence to steep slopes, 2),the site's seismic setting, 3) apparent dip - slope conditions and 4) the area of potential slope instability identified by John O'Rourke in the referenced report. Appropriate geotechnical design should be proposed (as necessary) to ensure the long -term stability of the proposed development. The evaluation.shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance. of a permit. r I. - SPECIFIC CONDITIONS _ SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 26. Prior to final map approval,, the applicant shall- submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the Santa Clara Valley Water District for review and approval. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS _ CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT 27. Annex property to Cupertino Sanitary District prior to Final Map approval-. 28. The developer of TRACT NO. 7761, Mt. Eden Estates, is obligated to construct sanitary sewers in Quarry Road in accordance with' the plans and specifications approved by the; District.. : These facilities must be constructed and accepted by the District prior to being able to provide sanitary sewer service for the proposed development. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS -_ SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT 29. Fire hydrants shall be located within five hundred feet from all future residences and deliver no less than one thousand gallons per minute of water for a sustained period of two hours. 30. The developer shall install fire hydrant(s), the exact number to be determined by the Fire Chief, that meet Fire District specifications. Hydrant(s) shall be installed and accepted prior to construction of any building•. 31. All future driveways shall be constructed to the following standards: 4 I � 32. SD -87 -008 a. Slopes from 0% to 11% shall use a double seal coat of O & S or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. b. Slopes from 11% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2 1/2" of A.C. or better on 6" aggregate base from a public street to proposed dwelling. C. Slopes from 15% to 17'% shall be surfaced using a 4" PCC concrete rough surfaced on 4" aggregate base from a public street to-proposed dwelling. d. Driveways shall have a minimum inside radius of 21 feet. Construct an emergency access road, as required as part of TRACT 7761, for use in the event of an emergency only. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS _ PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 33. ­'­P ro'lvide a 10 ft public utility easement along the edge of the street right -of -way. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PLANNING DEPARTMENT 34. Prior to final.map..approval, the applicant shall submit CC &R's to the City for review and approval. 35. Dedicate scenic easement as shown on the tentative map. 36. Prior to .Final Map approval, the applicant shall enter into a Scenic Easement Agreement with the City. At a minimum, the agreement shall prohibit structures within this easement and require vegetation and topography to be kept in their natural states. 37. Tree removal prohibited unless in accordance with'the City:Code.� 38. Future homes on each lot.require Planning Commission Design Review approval. 39. All applicable requirements of State, County, City and other Governmental entities shall be met. 40. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall dedicate a 15 ft. wide trail and pathway easement as shown on the Tentative Map and /or approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission. 41. The all weather equestrian'trail shall be improved to be a minimum of 8 ft. wide or approved alternate. Trail to be comparatively level from side to side and unobstructed. All trail and pathway grading shall be completed prior to final map approval. 5 SD -87 -008 42., Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall submit evidence to the City Engineer indicating that the City"s water requirements including adequate fire flow and domestic water supply, as well as appropriate system appurtenances will be provided to the site. _ 43. The applicant shall submit an erosion control planting plan for . the "Pioneer Road" area and the perimeter of the "Barrow Site." This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and the landscaping installed prior to approval of the final map. 6 N *%J J , ic..LC 1 -goo• _f�i � t �\ � � \ _�`.�� "D��J r �1, � [�,• •'o sto 00° yo wY. aLrM sa-...rsa / �' rM \_ � � 1 ���•� ,Ib Q` wr b 1, LOCAYION MAP I `�Q.�..- `\�Y V� ♦ r } ; ��. - ►Q� _ '� ` L ��\� \ 1 r[ 1 Q•. �4f- `\ ---�? , 4 ! \l � {,��J� 1 - \�_ ,�r � .T`%�� !Fa,�. f, �`�, \ -"��' a e rJ e R A L VICINITY M A P OF OpRDq 1yQ• r: O! ¢OQt3 Al RDI_� ;�, ` - .. ! , ?\ _C+. �.\ • j i %� /�, _ +6� ' t rl \.. 11'-1 �'`` 1 \ \ i • \ \ \,/ r _7>b \ \ \� C. 1' „� p�1 r f( \ r IN O�q . \��•l'�~" /, 'r ' Ito - R.O.S. 283141 � '� _ sx °. {' - 1 BOUNDARY TRAVHR93 i` �1 'I �~ ,• ♦ ` \ ����..;r. /t 'u /f \\ K,_ . \` sown a.wat.6 nts•+rcr r ��1 \0• \\�. :\ `# w . \` \ f ^rC �"_"y 'to e1i"lT.Y0 .o- -•�i_[ s s. u ar.ole 131.+000 \ . \\, •\ Peso tp. � ••1 ` �-- � ~�. -_ !;� T•J � v • • -- ----- \r.. 5! 1+ ! M • \ ` ♦51�,' 4�" ' tY. \ :`�` .. < - •, k-_F «a r M ���1 AU `'l am r \ \��i i -/ 76_02 07.6 a 271.1200 7 ,•1 1 t ��\ 1' .i ` \�'.� 1�f a �c. _, _f- ,r ' \� "tit '�\ \�, -_. \.4 f 7 M N 70 20.01 616.1[4 42 + A,' ` �r` \`, y` 1 �- \. //• ru -� 1 j rs s o[ st s2.c r loYa./+fa a t" l�. 1 � `� \�\ �~ - __ Y \ c• \�,' . \ _�\ -\ 71. .if0�'1,, w�l: °%" / 1� �^ 1� 1 1 I 1 fA_ r M as 2330 r 4443.6300 6, ff 11 �' \�_� .♦ ,,�, /. t - \' \\ ♦ \ \� \ M•]O'['S[ f�i4! ! { \ (� \ .! fs ,1 7{-21 17.0. .&D.4640 i7 .. 1 \ �T . \\ \\�._ Y \\ i •f M.• .' .1 ., f err �'� �� ` \j \ G \�=� \� \ sE o Sort i n r to al u.c r s .0000 3r '.N GA" 230.0000 60 ri r �% • ` , •~ 114.1'" �', '�• IAIICiL Ibj w�TWIN �nst�f.1 *: !� 1 610 Ot IIw -'s1 lzisls7'7 . • am • ,`' [!C,L1. ! . I iAl[C[L• ! + ' 1 t.s00 Lr._ • } !J . \\• •�%, I f ., '�,� , I �--� '�r.��•��" `•' ' `- �� _I + � � �- ��`� _°� � "•�:\ i / _ � ,.:� �� s110 'f ', 9 �\u [ . '° ti , �.• •. rlY' .SD ��,T0�fJ1 / . , ./ y! "1 _ '� �-d.'.�r- - \ . - te /iao .•. r •. - � .. ` "' e,'+•1 . ir F � \ \ ♦. I j r _� � , \ � \ ` `• ♦ - -_ y - �.f.f yj �,f r ` � J� r � � f I / �1 t I � I � � 1 ' ;- t V � I ` � l ` � 14 • r -Ya 26 � 11.6 a 6Wts,.. 7+96f0 A 3a 6 - a0- r 77 It 03.0 t.ata" 'rov 33 0 O- 1; 07. I_ a• htt,a.T�v.,a e6 +t raK,6T ' sue_ `'b�6.at / r j^' ea , • >m„ '�„ R's >"P, lj 1 [ ' - "[ ` ` 1 1 I _ 1• r a.�a 1:: ,e -� 11 1`T I S +s.6•aa sa A+.T.I A -b TZA. I 1 .1 1= at'- - M . \ / t � • a :,,�! � 666 6 ; +.�}� I 1 1 � �i _ _ 1 [ 22.6 i 223-7903 33 •`a la�• f r 1 ` 1 �t �_� S2 r 60 37 33.. r 2+2.401 9 I `�rli !' }� I ;'• • 1 6666 V ' I lt+o"P e -_- ✓�- s p�� �1 ! \ `y1 � \.- o ♦ Mao os 2360 • 31.3336 3: .j1Q �y St f 6° 22 a•.0 IE 37 6Ia s,. /LoY 1• ;`�� % f �'��,� , . \ • (� /J�.� / /�) _` 0.7740 29 - , [ �' _ 1 {" �/ V 70 M G, 47 02.0 Y a ♦ t f �` \ \ 21 33 o3.a r 26.Iaw 3a = V6*sTlaaaa J - S rJ1 1 Mq \ 49. / 1 --- _°- - -- -- r � e ` I r f T q `1 "6 j• \ ' f" r` `\ 20 M u of 36.0 r _bETAIL EQ- JIEST@OAW Tr.AIL ;' �' ° �CT 7y�7� �ljr `~ ` (/1 ! f 11 132 s3.c4c 27 J ',irk �� { 1 `• ,\ 27 M tot 33 02.0 r 3:.1240 21 rf6 �� J�' .I i/r Gj Vy• ( `\ \ ` \ M',)�� °Z� -!� �•�\ ` '• �•..• r it 7A Y to S7'19.r1Y 133.•444 O of rrf 6lAL NOTE tLAOlNO 1 •'�•'' /•t �f ` 'i :y •• I:- A -- �•_ -'�-�" 1 \ �, rJ 1 27 M 11 41 44.0.1 3o.)Gao 39- •, ', f---. r '! M :'i •+ U 03.0 r 30.7/00 a . ;t3 R Taus n .r r!0• s a �'. e; 7 `a pp ' ► 7 1 { ^a 1, �1 i( - 1 . ! . I -. -33 3a 24 +ul aa:•ius �- alou•ro.wy 1 \ I` �!� ' /// ���'� \�� \`� 1 1( E 1 - 1 �J _ . ( 2a M o1 +s 3060. sacra 22� K Oa.O r 17. 3430 2L :,41.121 IMiis -s It - 'TO -_ aTSlrr.6car.lvw 1 ♦ [ v [ r1\ 21 M u w Or .o r 202! '•E 11A+[DY1 co.•.1owa rus.ri• t' # - \ \♦ \\ �` , - a0,�• �'- -�.ti \. \` • titi. 1 \\ i �- �\ - vull 0. IC3'/312811� •,DC. r1uw,,.• br1Pa•H Wi► -.wT - �� �� �1►-a�K + 9Aa,°rn•o.T/nlRO V . 3atn♦•••r• O r•l.Itfr A alatwaww a T '� { e`11�` O asp!' ; - -. - . !�`°�'{1yp•. v•� ♦•; t . \� \\� ° ��\` .� �At• -2-a M-01 [s w.4 a ..ww s• wrli[..A15151 214 [ • M 29 to 02.0 J 31.3200 is '•AtQ 011191CM AM; nor. r!o.T 1. wT A N•AT ar 7N..f ia:a♦p.v,3•,a.l i � .E , ! , p tf , ��y; n'� � �•f? ` \0�;�� .�� , :[ 33 L_o r 27.77m 17 +. Wlta tI LOTS. 6 . aMaT•i•S..CY v4.•[i/ r•�a 1a.a•M[I•T .. H '. i `�. .- :M9 a' •6Q'4` die; (4 6*0 A ; \ 97 N 3: t7 lf.: r 23.7w0 N f IOTy tArO WA: 21.61 AV[S _ • - ••.•e•ca a•7p - _ \\ M I• M 43 73.3 r 32.6300 :s K•.�i R• +aaav•�aa„y arp • �•r [. 791513! VS[: aG11C;itiJW 1� -9136, rn.a«•r+r A,y a ' 1�.� -.., o:p- f�.l °�• � \j)� fl. ',. } . � �1 � "i��� -' [a M 37 36 3a.c r 39.[700 1+ 7 PIXWOSEO 0S[: SUMt:ITIU SiOSI AII[11.01 (a -It • • Ia Lq�i ,t ' •' (iI ' ' - [•' LOT R [. raOrOS[D WTq SUM t: SAi ,lOSL WI(I �.tia13 ' la Y 12 2A [9.0 r 36.0 r00 l7 r "OPMO U-M 01SICLL: CU7[ai1r0 sA ITUr 01IT[ICI -'_ - �' •, y - ' w w� �4.t[ �i1J✓ ``� _ ��,�. 0 t3 t3 a7 26 31.r: Y 17.3 W 13 r. MIFIM [D 0:1[1. 7AI- 1C [AS t [[[[tall t2 M 39 30 34.0 r 76.'000 11 n- tt5tn� Ir11 a1A1: f' tlrl a SAAAIOG 1.113! ix A•r.t ••\ i• 0��. � - l ♦1 J 4' _ I. ALL ST1[[i II ►60r13faIS • CITY Or SMATO&A STA0WOS -_ • ,� 9\ _I I r 30 03 97.0 a 1]1.1230 10 r vary. •aas� 1 �� 1 : 111 �-- '^1111 iI t w 1 Y 17 IO. o a [3/. [000 [ •tCTtON A -w ��'. ,111 If ` ••••1_.,f'•'� /. ! � t'�- � `` . ~To, mwilAm[ 932sar.16�6 TY }lQAL RO WAY f�OY1QN C ,t. p \1►(I '' / �� �� % t �- ;pX _ Atrt1 a~ . uj W y ! - .1 o fr � �•rl Li ! e Q C LI r= C r , i C L J 4 1 frr�. yd a •� • �1 A oARROO ' L/�NO• O• ,.-720 =_ V '8 ✓ /�J C u tr NINA � COUR p� Gpcapl 4 �� p • . 94¢ . �.i �/� c = - ... °'*•`- -r t' 1 . q ,:i � � '8- � II JJ � j IS r / PARCEL # \N BUILDING SITS PAD 9L. 766.0 pu1LnlNO slTa MD KL. 77..0 mU1LO1N0 61Tb _ od i X B ..o ,...a to >> •n �` •� je s. / �' �. �j.•. - Q ]jam ' 9 �. d71: {j� i \� v �_ rQ.J(Id +\�\\\ 40, \ • '? SUILOINO llTS \ 2.20O Ao. ". '•�- V red PAO 1L. \ o 2.0110 Ac- 90 jr U ( \` �\ ~ Q -40 JL TRACT 7761 MOUNT CORN 9IDTA.T2a9 Z a, L _Z f1t c— Z a 63 LIJ > C �. u 94¢ . �.i �/� c = - ... °'*•`- -r t' 1 . q ,:i � � '8- � II JJ � j IS r / PARCEL # \N BUILDING SITS PAD 9L. 766.0 pu1LnlNO slTa MD KL. 77..0 mU1LO1N0 61Tb _ od i X B ..o ,...a to >> •n �` •� je s. / �' �. �j.•. - Q ]jam ' 9 �. d71: {j� i \� v �_ rQ.J(Id +\�\\\ 40, \ • '? SUILOINO llTS \ 2.20O Ao. ". '•�- V red PAO 1L. \ o 2.0110 Ac- 90 jr U ( \` �\ ~ Q -40 JL TRACT 7761 MOUNT CORN 9IDTA.T2a9 Z a, L