Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
12-15-1999 Agenda Item 5A
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO: 2 Z% AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: December 15, 1999 CITY MANAGER: ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: SD -99-005, UP -99-018 and DR -99-037; Azule Crossing, 12312 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. Request for Subdivision, Use Permit and Design Review approval to construct 25 new residential units of approximately 1,524 sq. ft. to 2,345 sq. ft. and remodel the existing retail building located at the front of the property. The commercial building will be expanded from its current 11,931 sq. ft. to 14,233 sq. ft. The property is located in a Commercial Neighborhood zoning district. The residential component of the project would occupy 2.62 acres while the commercial component would occupy 1.28 acres. Please refer to the attached staff report from October 27, 1999 and Memorandum from November 10, 1999 for further details. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive the staff report and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the Subdivision, Use Permit and Design Review applications. REPORT SUMMARY: The Planning Commission first reviewed this application on October 27, 1999. Due to the complexity of the project two meetings were held in order to provide the Planning Commission, applicants and neighbors ample opportunity to discuss the issues. At the first meeting the Commission directed the applicants to make changes including adding single story elements to the designs, creating a more gradual transition between the proposed development and the existing neighborhood, providing more open space within the residential parcel, and providing a pedestrian link between the residential and commercial parcels. The applicants responded to these requested changes by redesigning the residence at the corner of Seagull Way to a single story structure, reducing the second story proportions on the next two units, eliminating two units, changing the row houses into a group of duplex units, adding open space areas, and providing a pedestrian and vehicular connection to the retail parcel. Architectural modifications were also made to the commercial building in response to comments made at the October meeting. At the November 10 meeting the Commission took further comments from the applicants and neighbors. The primary concerns expressed by the neighbors were the density of the residential proposal, the amount of guest parking available, and the impacts to traffic in the neighborhood and on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road. After a lengthy discussion the Commission did approve the proposal with additional requirements that the utilities at the front of the property be under -grounded, that the park in -lieu fees still be collected (even though the applicant was providing some on-site open space), that the applicants pay for half of the cost of the new traffic signal at Seagull Way and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, that an agreement be made to allow overflow parking in the evening (off-peak retail hours) in the commercial parking lot, and that the commercial building be changed to a wood rather than stucco exterior. FISCAL IMPACTS: The loss of commercial land could potentially cause a negative fiscal impact. This issue was raised by staff early in the process and was addressed by the applicants' economic consultants. Please refer to the discussion in the staff report of October 27, 1999 and the attached Economic Analysis for further information on these impacts. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: If the City Council reverses the Planning Commission's approval, the project will be denied ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Alternative development considerations could include: ■ A reduction in residential units and a larger commercial component at the front of the property. This alternative project would likely require the demolition of the existing commercial building in order to design a new building that better utilized street frontage to maximize the site's retail viability. The current application request is to retain, renovate and expand the existing commercial building at the property corner, or • An entirely commercial project. This alternative would likely result in retail commercial at the front of the site and offices at the back, as currently exists. FOLLOW UP ACTION: The City Attorney will prepare a Resolution for the next available meeting memorializing the decision of the City Council on this matter. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: A hearing notice was mailed to surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and published in the Saratoga News. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report of October 27, 1999 (including attachments) 2. Staff Memorandum of November 10, 1999 3. Planning Commission Minutes dated October 27, 1999 and November 10, 1999 4. City Council Minutes of November 17, 1999 5. Exhibit "A", plans Please Note — A site visit is scheduled for Tuesday, December 14, at 3:00 p.m. for interested Council members. The meeting will convene at City Hall in the Community Development Department. REPORT '10 THE PLANNING COMMISSION Applicant No./Location: SD -99-005, UP -99-018, & DR -99-037; 12312 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road Applicant/Owner: AZULE CROSSING, INC. Staff Planner: Heather Bradley, Associate Planner Date: October 27, 1999 386-53-001, 386-53-029 APN: Department Head: RKMOP4i ' KJI�tL!.'J m" I RKIONTOR S Y 11W GULL fr North GOLETA O lefi AY •4•411 �Cd Cis, warrtiii tril- II/IIIii COX A 12312 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road 000001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 08/05/99 Application complete: 10/05/99 Notice published: 10/13/99 Mailing completed: 10/14/99 Posting completed: 10/07/99 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for Subdivision, Design Review and Use Permit approval to construct 27 new residential units of approximately 1,815 sq. ft. to 2,345 sq. ft. and remodel the existing retail building located at the front of the property. The commercial building will be expanded from its current 11,931 sq. ft. to 14,233 sq. ft. The property is located in a Commercial Neighborhood zoning district. The residential component of the project would occupy 2.62 acres while the commercial component would occupy 1.28 acres. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Open the public hearing for discussion on the project and continue the item to the meeting of November 10, 1999 to allow the applicants to incorporate changes. Draft Resolutions are attached and will be fmalized for the meeting of November 10, 1999. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Memorandum from the City Public Works Director dated October 22, 1999 3. Draft Resolutions SD -99-005, UP -99-018 & DR -99-037 4. Economic Analysis 5. Environmental Initial Study with attachments (including Traffic Impact Analysis Report and Arborist report dated August 31, 1999) 6. Subdivision Plans, Exhibit "A" 7. Residential Plans, Exhibit "B" 8. Commercial Plans, Exhibit "C" 000002 File No. SD -99-005, UP -99-018 & DR -99-037; 12312 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: C -N GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial Neighborhood MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 3.9 acres (Commercial Site = 55,964 sq. ft., Residential Site = 114,127 sq. ft.) Parcel size of Residential Lots: Vary from 2,145 sq. ft. to 5,736 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 3.3% MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The proposed residences have eight different color schemes all in varying shades of beige, taupe and gray with accents in darker shades and shutters and front doors in dark shades of blue, green and red. The plans also show various material choices in stone and brick with composite shingle roofs. The remodeled commercial building is proposed to have a lavender color along the stuccoed lower portions of the building, a terra cotta pink color along the stuccoed upper portions, a gray -blue color for the horizontal siding, a darker gray -blue for awnings and a gray concrete tile roof. PROPOSAL CODE REQUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE LOT COVERAGE: Commercial Building Coverage: 24% 60% Residential Impervious Coverage: 27% 40% (including streets) HEIGHT: Commercial Building: 18 ft. 20 ft Residential Buildings: 26 ft. 30 ft. SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Commercial Structure: Existing: 10,314 sq. ft. Addition: 2,302 sq. ft. Existing Basement: 1,617 sq. ft. TOTAL: 14,233 sq. ft. 32,263 sq. ft. (60% of lot) 000003 File No. SD -99-005, UP -99-018 & DR -99-037; 12312 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Residential Structures: PROPOSAL CODE REQUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE Plan 1: 1,815 sq. ft. (with 403 sq. ft. garage) Plan 2: 1,884 sq. ft. (with 357 sq. ft. garage) Plan 3: 2,345 sq. ft. (with 450 sq. ft. garage) N/A SETBACKS: Commercial Building: Front: 24 ft. Rear: 65 ft. Exterior Side: 32 ft. Interior: 41 ft. Residential Buildings: PROJECT DISCUSSION Front: 10 ft. Rear: 30 ft. Exterior Side: 30 ft. Interior Side: 0 ft. Front: Vary from 10 ft. (majority) to 25 ft. N/A Rear: Vary from 10 ft. to 25 ft. (majority) N/A Sides: Vary from 0 ft. (attached) to 5 ft. N/A The project has been divided into two components with two separate developers. The Griffin Company is representing the property owners in redeveloping the remaining commercial portion of the site and Classic Communities is developing the residential portion of the site. The residential component of the project would occupy 2.62 acres while the commercial component would occupy 1.28 acres. The applicants are requesting Subdivision, Design Review and Use Permit approval in order to construct 27 new residential units of approximately 1,825 sq. ft. to 2,345 sq. ft. and remodel the main existing retail building located at the front of the property. The commercial building will be expanded from its current 11,931 sq. ft. to 14,233 sq. ft. The property is bounded to the south by the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way and PG&E easement with residential uses beyond, by commercial uses to the west across Sunnyvale -Saratoga Road, by commercial and residential uses to the north across Seagull Way, and by residential uses to the east. Background A previous application was submitted for this property in October of 1998 that proposed nine attached units and 26 detached units with a new commercial building located at the front of the property. The designs were of a Mission or Monterey architectural style. The residential units ranged in size from 1,967 to 2,434 sq. ft. and the commercial building was proposed to be a two- story totaling 15,400 sq. ft. Although the proposed layout and individual designs were acceptable, 000004 File No. SD -99-005, UP -99-018 & DR -99-037; 12312 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road staff felt that the residential portion was too dense. Staff also had concerns about the two-story commercial structure. Ultimately the application was withdrawn and the current proposal was submitted. SUBDIVISION The applicants are proposing to subdivide this 3.9 acre parcel into 28 parcels. The majority of the site would be divided into 27 residential lots while the remaining parcel would be a commercial lot. The individual residential lots range in size from 2,145 to 5,736 sq. ft. Staff had determined that this project is consistent with other mixed-use commercial/multi-family residential developments in the area, particularly across Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road. Although the Seagull neighborhood is comprised of larger lot single-family homes, this project will maintain similar setbacks from those properties and will be separated by a wall and landscape buffer. The commercial lot will continue to be consistent with the zoning district. The Public Works Director has asked as a condition of project approval that all utilities be under -grounded. The General Plan designation for the area is Retail Commercial, which does support a mixed-use development of this nature. Staff has determined that this site is physically suitable for this type of development and that the proposed density is consistent with the General Plan guidelines. As detailed in the Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration, staff has further determined that the creation of this subdivision will cause a less than significant impact to the environment pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act. Traffic As part of the Subdivision submittal staff required the applicants to prepare a Transportation Impact Analysis. This document is attached to the Environmental Initial Study for further review. The report analyzes the impacts of the proposal on the volumes of traffic and level of service provided at key intersections. The conclusion of the report is that the proposed project would have a negligible impact on traffic along Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and would not affect the level of service at either the Cox Avenue or Prospect Road intersections. The report does state that a traffic signal is warranted at the Seagull intersection under current conditions and that this project would affect the level of service at this intersection. City staff, including the Community Development and Public Works Directors and the City's Consulting Traffic Engineer, have concluded that a traffic signal is necessary at this time and that the developers should contribute a proportionate share of the proposed cost. In 1995 the City approved the Courtyards of Saratoga, a 26 multi -family project across Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road. At that time it was also determined that the project would have a significant impact on the Seagull intersection and the developer was required to contribute $65,000 (one half of the estimated cost) toward a future signal installation. Although the applicant's traffic analysis estimates that this project will only contribute 1% additional traffic on Seagull Way they have concluded that the project is estimated to have a potentially significant impact to the intersection during the AM peak hour by adding an estimated 13 additional trips, a figure that staff believes is optimistic. File No. SD -99-005, UP -99-018 & DR -99-037; 12312 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road USE PERMIT The applicants are requesting Use Permit approval for the residential portion of the proposed project. Multiple -family residential projects are allowed as a conditionally permitted use within commercial zoning districts provided they meet the necessary findings outlined in Section 15- 55.070 of the Zoning Ordinance. Due to the physical layout of this parcel which has a limited frontage onto Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road it is less than ideal for retail commercial use. Office and some types of service uses would be more appropriate at the rear of the parcel as retail would simply not have the necessary visual exposure to be successful. Much of the available space in the center is currently vacant. However, staff raised issues concerning the loss of commercial land and its affect on available shopping alternatives and sales tax revenues. Staff asked the applicants to prepare an economic analysis of the project and various project alternatives to provide some verification that this mixed-use alternative was the best one for the City. The four alternatives that staff asked to have analyzed are as follows: A) The existing Azule Crossing center at full occupancy. B) A new, larger retail center development. C) The current mixed-use development proposal. D) The mixed-use development with a larger commercial component than proposed. The analysis is attached to the Environmental Initial Study for further review. It concluded that; A) the existing center at full occupancy would not have any affect on the amount of sales tax generated as the vacant spaces would most likely be occupied by office uses, B) that there would be no market support for an exclusively commercial project at this location, primarily due to the proximity of other more viable retail centers such as Argonaut Shopping Center and others north of Prospect Road, C) that the mixed-use development as proposed is the most viable alternative and would generate only about $1,200 less in annual sales tax revenue, and D) that a larger commercial component than proposed might not attract more retail uses, but only more service uses, which would not contribute to sales tax revenues. DESIGN REVIEW Residential Structures The 15 attached residences are designed in several contemporary styles described as Craftsman, French, English, and American Cottage. The 12 detached residences are designed in Craftsman, American Bungalow, American and European Cottage styles. All structures are designed with wood, stucco, stone and brick details and composite shingle roofs. The units are all two -stories with attached garages and parking/driveway aprons. The setbacks are less than the typical single- family lot setbacks in Saratoga, but are a market-driven response to current real estate conditions 000006 File No. SD -99-005, UP -99-018 & DR -99-037; 12312 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and provide a different housing alternative than what is currently being provided by most developers in the City. The proposed density is 10.3 dwelling units per acre or one unit per 4,229 sq. ft. of gross site area. This density is similar to the requirements of the R -M-4,000 zoning district and is also consistent with the General Plan which allows a maximum of 14.5 dwelling units per acre, or one unit per 3,004 sq. ft. This project is somewhat less dense that two similar projects across Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road which were built at approximately one unit per 3,000 sq. ft. Commercial Structure The main existing commercial building at the front of the lot is proposed to remain and will be remodeled with the addition of 2,302 sq. ft. This structure includes space leased to a lighting store and florist. All other buildings on site will be demolished. The plan also includes renovation of a basement for use as retail space which is currently being used for storage. The building would renovated to give it a more contemporary look. However it is expected that the existing businesses would remain. Staff has concerns with the color scheme and is requesting a revised color board utilizing darker earthtone colors than the pastels proposed. Parking For the commercial portion of the project the parking requirement is one space per 200 sq. ft. of floor area which applies to retail businesses, professional and administrative offices and service businesses. With a 14,233 sq. ft. commercial building 72 parking spaces would be required. The applicants have proposed 75 spaces, and an additional 16 spaces are provided in the railroad right- of-way to which the applicants have a renewable easement and are trying purchase. The residential portion of the project requires one space within a garage and one and one-half additional spaces on site per unit. All of the units are designed with a two -car garage, therefore an additional 14 spaces are required for extra parking. Those spaces have been provided between some of the residences throughout the site. The landscape plan shows the extra spaces to be paved with interlocking pavers. Trees/ Landscaping There are 27 trees on the entire property which are large enough to be considered protected by the City's Ordinance. This includes 10 Monterey Pines, 8 Ironbark trees, 2 Canary Island Pines, 4 Italian Cypress, 1 European Olive, 1 African sumac and 1 Coast Live Oak. There are several other trees surrounding the perimeter of the property which do not meet the Ordinance criteria for protection but do provide a screen for the property. The Arborist did not proved overall ratings for each tree, but did state that most of the trees offer "insignificant aesthetic value". He does recommend that the trees along the eastern property line be saved for screening purposes. This has been done as evidenced in the landscape plan for the residential portion of the site. 06667 File No. SD -99-005, UP -99-018 & DR -99-037; 12312 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road The applicants have submitted two separate landscape plans, one for the commercial portion of the property, and one for the residential. The commercial plan incorporates drought tolerant landscaping while the residential plan incorporates some California natives with many decorative varieties, many of which are also drought tolerant. The commercial plan indicates that the existing street trees along Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road will remain and new trees will be planted along the Seagull Way side. A pre -cast concrete wall is proposed to separate the commercial parcel from the residences while a good -neighbor wood fence is proposed to replace the concrete wall along the rear (east) property line. The existing trees which are proposed to remain in this location may pose some obstacles to removing this wall and it will require the applicant's contractor to work diligently to preserve these trees. Although they do not meet the Ordinance standard to be saved they have been specifically recommended to remain by the City Arborist and conditions in the Resolution reflect this recommendation. Materials and Colors The color and material choices for the proposed residences appear to be appropriate selections and should be compatible with one another and the existing homes in the neighborhood. However, staff has concerns regarding the color choices for the commercial building and finds it difficult to visualize how they will blend together. Therefore staff has recommended that a revised color board be submitted using deeper earthtone colors. The color board should also contain a reduced elevation drawing to clearly show where the various colors would go. Conclusion Staff has concluded that this mixed-use development is consistent with City Ordinances and development standards. Because this site is less than ideal as an exclusively commercial development it is appropriate to develop the rear of the parcel for residential use. The overall layout of the residential component and design of the residences is acceptable and compatible to similar types of developments in Saratoga. The redevelopment of the main commercial building should help attract new tenants and revitalize the gateway area. RECOMMENDATION Open the public hearing for discussion on the project and continue the item to the meeting of November 10, 1999 to allow the applicants time to incorporate the physical improvements noted to be required to date such as the bus stop parking pad and sidewalk improvements as required by VTA, road widening to 42 feet and under -grounding of utilities as required by the Public Works Director and any other changes that result from the Public Hearing. Draft Resolutions SD -99-005, UP -99-018 and DR -99-037 are attached and will be finalized for the meeting of November 10, 1999. 000008 Public Works Department Memo To: Heather Bradley, Associate Planner From: John Cherbone, Acting Public Works Director Date: October 22, 1999 Re: SD 99-005; 12312 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road (Azule Crossing) Attached are the standard subdivision conditions for SD 99-005, a proposed 27 lot residential and renovated commercial development. In addition to the standard conditions, it is staffs recommendation that the developer pay half of the approximate $130,000 cost to install a traffic signal at the intersection of Seagull Way and Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road (See Attached Condition No. 26) due to the significant impact the project will generate at this intersection, particularly on Seagull Way during the a.m. peak hour. Past and current studies conclude that a traffic signal is warranted at this intersection, a conclusion also reached by the developer's traffic consultant, Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. This requirement is also consistent with conditions imposed on previous developments along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, in particular, SD 90-003 located at 12297 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road (Peninsula Townhomes). This development, located north of Seagull Way, is similar in both density and use to the new development. As a condition of approval the developer was required to post a cash bond in the amount of $65,000 for half the cost of the future installation of a traffic signal at Seagull Way. At the time, it was concluded that when a future development in the vicinity of Seagull Way was proposed a condition would be placed on that development to post a cash bond to fund a proportionate cost of the signal. • Page 1 000009 RESOLUTION NO. SD -99-005 RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF Azule Crossing; 12312 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for Tentative Map approval of 25 residential lots plus one private street and one commercial lot, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD -99-005 of this City; and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby fords 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 are compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the staff report dated October 27, 1999, and Memorandum dated November 10, 1999 being hereby made for further particulars; and WHEREAS, this body has heretofore received and considered the environmental Negative Declaration prepared for this project in accord with the currently applicable 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; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Tentative Map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated August 1999 and is marked Exhibit "A" with revisions, in the herein above referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as follows: 1. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the City Engineer for examination, the owner (applicant) shall cause the property to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an authorized Civil Engineer. The submitted map shall show the existence of a monument at all external property corner locations, either found or set. The submitted map shall also show monuments set at each new corner location, angle point, or as directed by the City Engineer, all in conformity with the Subdivision Map Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act. 2. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Final Map in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, along with the additional documents required by Section 14-40.020 of the Municipal Code, to the City Engineer for examination. The Final Map shall contain all of the information required in Section 14-40.030 of the Municipal Code and shall be accompanied by the following items: File No. SD -99-005, UP -99-018 & DR -99-037; 12312 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road a. One copy of map checking calculations. b. Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within 90 days of the date of submittal for the Final Map. c. One copy of each map referenced on the Final Map. d. One copy of each document/deed referenced on the Final Map. e. One copy of any other map, document, deed, easement or other resource that will facilitate the examination process as requested by the City Engineer. 3. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, as determined by the City Engineer, at the time of submittal of the Final Map for examination. 4. Interior monuments shall be set at each lot comer either prior to recordation of the Final Map or some later date to be specified on the Final Map. If the owner (applicant) chooses to defer the setting of interior monuments to a specified later date, then sufficient security as determined by the City Engineer shall be furnished prior to Final Map approval, to guarantee the setting of interior monuments. 5. The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of Dedication for all required easements and/or rights-of-way on the Final Map, in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, prior to Final Map approval. 6. The owner (applicant) shall submit engineered improvement plans to the City Engineer in conformance with the approved Tentative Map and in accordance with the design and improvement requirements of Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the appropriate officials from other public agencies having jurisdictional authority, including public and private utility providers, prior to approval of the Final Map. The following specific conditions shall be included on the improvement plans: a. Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road shall be widened as required to provide a 42 foot minimum wide paved half street. b. Appropriate traffic control measures shall be included in the improvement plans for the purposes of limiting commercial development ingress and egress onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road to right turn only. c. Seagull Way shall be overlaid with 1.5" of Asphalt Concrete from Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road to Zorka Avenue. File No. SD -99-005, UP -99-018 & DR -99-037; 12312 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road d. Existing curb, gutter, and sidewalk along Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way within the limits of the subdivision shall be replaced as deemed necessary in the field by the Public Works Inspector. 7. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Subdivision Improvement Plan Checking fee. as determined by the Public Works Director, at the time Improvement Plans are submitted for review. 8. The owner (applicant) shall enter into an Improvement Agreement with the City in accordance with Section 14-60.010 of the Municipal Code prior to Final Map approval. 9. The owner (applicant) shall furnish Improvement Securities in accordance with Section 14- 60.020 of the Municipal Code in the manner and amounts determined by the Public Works Director prior to Final Map approval. 10. The owner (applicant) shall furnish a written indemnity agreement and proof of insurance coverage, in accordance with Section 14-05.050 of the Municipal Code, prior to Final Map approval. 11. Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall furnish the City Engineer with satisfactory written commitments from all public and private utility providers serving the subdivision guaranteeing the completion of all required utility improvements to serve the subdivision. 12. The owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from the City and any other public agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to commencement of subdivi- sion improvement construction. Copies of permits other than those issued by the City shall be provided to City Engineer. 13. The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park and Recreation fee prior to Final Map approval. 14. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to obtain coverage under the State General Construction Activity NPDES Permit. Satisfactory evidence of the filing of the NOI shall be furnished to the City Engineer. 15. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction - Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. 16. Applicant shall deposit a $65,000 cash bond with the City prior to Final Map approval for funding of one-half the cost of the design and installation of the warranted traffic signal at the intersection of Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way. If the cost of one-half the File No. SD -99-005, UP -99-018 & DR -99-037; 12312 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road design and installation is less than $65,000, the difference will be refunded. If the cost of one half the design and installation is greater than $65,000, applicant will not be required to make any additional contribution. 17. The owner (applicant) shall underground all existing overhead utilities along the perimeter of the subdivision fronting Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way. 18. The owner (applicant) shall install three (3) fire hydrants at locations to be determined jointly by the Fire Department and the San Jose Water Company. Maximum spacing shall be 250 feet, with a minimum single hydrant flow of 1500 GPM at 20 psi, residual. If hydrants exist, reflect their location on the civil drawing included with the building permit submittal. Required fees to be paid ASAP to prevent engineering delays. Prior to design the project civil engineer shall meet with the fire department water supply officer to jointly spot the hydrant locations. 19. Required Fire Service and Fire Hydrant installations shall be installed tested and accepted by the Fire Department, prior to the start of framing. Bulk construction materials shall not be delivered to the site until installations are completed as stated above. Building permit issuance may be withheld until installations are completed. 20. Prior to project final inspection, the general contractor shall ensure that a "Blue dot" has been placed in the roadway as a Fire Hydrant Location Identifier, as directed by the Fire Department. 21. Fire access roads shall be paved in all weather surface with a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications A-1. 22. The required width of fire access roadways shall not be obstructed in any manner. Parking shall not be allowed along roadways less than 28 feet in width. Parking will be allowed along one side of the street for roadways 28-35 feet in width. For roadways equal to or greater than 36 feet parking will be allowed on both sides of the roadway. Roadway widths shall be measured face to face of curb. Parking spaces are based on an eight foot wide space. 23. Required driveways and/or access roads up through first lift of asphalt shall be inspected and accepted by the Fire Department prior to the start of construction. Bulk combustible materials shall not be delivered to the site until installations are completed as stated above. Building permit issuance may be withheld until installations are completed. 24. Provide marking for all roadways within the project. Markings shall be per Fire Department specifications. Installations shall also conform to Local government Standards and Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications A-6. File No. SD -99-005, UP -99-018 & DR -99-037; 12312 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road 25. The applicant shall install a PCC bus stop pavement pad (9' by 50') for the length of the bus stop consistent with VTA Bus Stop Pavement Details (Figure 26 and Technical Specification) 26. The existing 5 -foot wide sidewalk should be widened to 10 feet along South Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road for the area between the intersection Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road/Seagull Way and approximately 12 feet past the existing tree in the sidewalk. An area of approximately 3 feet on either side of the tree can be left unpaved in order to provide adequate space for the tree. This should result in a continuous concrete area of about 20 feet north of the tree and another area about 9 feet south of the tree. This should allow sufficient space for a passenger waiting area for both doors of the bus. 27. A wheelchair curb ramp at the intersection of South Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way shall be installed in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) pedestrian access standards. A pedestrian signal phase and a crosswalk should also be considered for this intersection. 28. Subdivision construction hours shall be restricted between 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except in the event of an emergency which imperils the public safety. The City Engineer may grant an exemption upon his/her determination of an emergency. No construction work shall be permitted on legal holidays. 29. The owner (applicant) shall, upon the City's request, defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees and volunteers harmless from and against any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void or annul this approval, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to such approval, which is brought within the time specified in Sec. 14-85.060 of the Municipal Code. If a defense is requested, the City shall give prompt notice to the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the defense thereof. Nothing herein shall prevent the City from participating in the defense, but in such event, the City shall pay its own attorney's fees and costs. 30. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. expire. Section 1. Conditions must be completed within twenty-four (24) months or approval will Section 2. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. File No. SD -99-005, UP -99-018 & DR -99-037; 12312 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 10th day of November 1999, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Jackman, Page, Patrick, Roupe and Chair Bernald NOES: Commissioner Barry ABSENT: Commissioner Kurasch ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: g Cmmission RESOLUTION NO. UP -99-018 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Azule Crossing; 12312 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Use Permit approval to allow a 25 unit residential development in a Commercial Neighborhood (CN) zoning district; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission fmds: a. That the proposed residential development is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the CN zoning district in that the property is constrained by it's linear configuration and can only feasibly support commercial use on the front half of the property. Further, by developing the rear of the property with small lot single-family units the City is able to provide an alternative housing stock and a transition between the commercial uses on Saratoga - Sunnyvale and the lower density residential uses on Seagull Way. b. That the proposed residential development is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies in that the project: • Does not exceed the maximum density standard for residential development in Commercial districts. • Does not exceed the maximum building coverage standard for residential or commercial development in Commercial districts. • Preserves and enhances the residential character of the Seagull Way neighborhood while also preserving the commercial character of Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road. c. That the proposed residential development and the conditions under which it would be maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that appropriate conditions have been placed on the project to minimize potential impacts. d. That the proposed mixed-use development will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has received and considered the negative Declaration prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act; File No. SD -99-005, UP -99-018 & DR -99-037; 12312 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, UP -99-018, the application of Azule Crossing for Use Permit approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed project shall be as shown on the approved plans, Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B", incorporated by reference. 2. All conditions of Resolutions SD -99-005 and DR -99-037 shall apply. 3. Per the Planning Commission's November 10, 1999 motion to approve the project, the following additional conditions shall apply: a. A parking agreement shall be prepared and recorded providing for residential "over- flow" parking onto the commercial parking lot at times that the commercial parking lot is not at full use (e.g. evening and early morning hours). b. The existing eastern perimeter masonry sound wall shall not be removed or replaced without the consent of the adjacent property owners. This agreement shall be reflected in recorded CC&Rs for the new homes. c. The commercial component property owner has agreed that every effort will be made to provide retail commercial tenants in the renovated commercial building. To acknowledge this agreement, any future tenant in a perimeter/building-frontage location that is not either retail or service oriented per the Municipal Code definition shall require a Conditional Use Permit. This CUP requirement does not apply to interior tenant space that does not have any building frontage. Restaurants require more parking (1 space per each 75 sq. fl. of gross building area) than has been provided for in this proposal (1 space per each 200 sq. ft. of gross building area). 4. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damage the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to the City per each day of the violation. Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced, or a certificate of occupancy issued, within 24 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other governmental entities must be met. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. File No. SD -99-005, UP -99-018 & DR -99-037; 12312 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road Section 3. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 10th day of November, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Jackman, Page, Patrick, Roupe and Chair Bernald NOES: Commissioner Barry ABSENT: Commissioner Kurasch ABSTAIN: None Chair, Platuning(Commission ATTEST: RESOLUTION NO. DR -99-037 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Azule Crossing; 12312 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to construct a 25 residential units and remodel and expand an existing commercial building on a 3.9 acre parcel located in the Commercial Neighborhood zoning district; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: -The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed residences, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that the proposed residences meet the same minimum setback requirement for rear yards that applies to homes in the adjacent neighborhood, and are also limited to the same maximum height of 26 feet. - The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas, in that the trees along the perimeter of the property will be maintained in order to provide a screen between the neighboring properties and the development, and the amount of grading is limited to the amount necessary to accommodate the structures foundations. - The proposed residences in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment, in that the structure's design incorporate elements which articulate the elevations to minimize the perception of bulk and integrate the residence into the surrounding environment. - The residences will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy, in that the height of the residences are compatible with surrounding residences in the neighborhood. - The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. File No. SD -99-005, UP -99-018 & DR -99-037; 12312 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road -The proposed residence will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section 15-45.055. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Azule Crossing for Design Review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibits "B" and "C", incorporated by reference. 2. All conditions of Resolutions SD -99-005 and UP -99-018 shall apply. 3. Per the Planning Commission's November 10, 1999 motion to approve the project, the following additional conditions shall apply: a. A parking agreement shall be prepared and recorded providing for residential "over- flow" parking onto the commercial parking lot at times that the commercial parking lot is not at full use (e.g. evening and early morning hours). b. The existing eastern perimeter masonry sound wall shall not be removed or replaced without the consent of the adjacent property owners. This agreement shall be reflected in recorded CC&Rs for the new homes. c. The commercial component property owner has agreed that every effort will be made to provide retail commercial tenants in the renovated commercial building. To acknowledge this agreement, any future tenant in a perimeter/building-frontage location that is not either retail or service oriented per the Municipal Code definition shall require a Conditional Use Permit. This CUP requirement does not apply to interior tenant space that does not have any building frontage. Restaurants require more parking (1 space per each 75 sq. ft. of gross building area) than has been provided for in this proposal (1 space per each 200 sq. ft. of gross building area). 4. Prior to submittal for Building or Grading permits, the following shall be submitted to Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. b. Four (4) sets of engineered grading and drainage plans, also incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. File No. SD -99-005, UP -99-018 & DR -99-037; 12312 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road c. The plans shall indicate that there will be no more than one wood burning fireplace in each of the residences and the wood burning fireplace shall be equipped with a gas starter. 5. No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height. 6. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. 7. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit with the exception of those trees shown in the Arborist report and map to be removed. 8. All requirements of the City Arborist's Report dated August 31, 1999 shall be met. This includes, but is not limited to: a. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance the site and grading plans shall be revised to indicate the following: . The Arborist Report shall be attached, as a separate plan page, to the plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plan. Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shown around all trees to be retained, as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. b. Prior to issuance of Building or Grading Permits: • Tree protective fencing shall be installed and inspected by staff. c. Prior to Final Inspection approval: . The surrounding existing hardscape including the wall at the perimeter of the property shall be removed by pulling it out or off the ground and not by running into it with a skip loader and lifting. Upon completion of the project the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and approval by the Community Development Director the bond shall be released. File No. SD -99-005, UP -99-018 & DR -99-037; 12312 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road 9. All proposed landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to Final Inspection approval. 10. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed in all residential units and maintained in accordance with the provisions of Article 16-60 City of Saratoga. 11. Early Warning Fire Alarm Systems shall have documentation relative to the proposed installations and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. 12. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in all garages. 13. Buildings requiring a fire flow in excess of 2,000 GPM or excess of 10,000 sq. ft. (town - home buildings depending on area) shall be equipped throughout with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. The system shall be hydraulically designed per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard #13, 1994 Edition. 14. A Fire Department approved key box and appropriate building keys shall be provided. Installation shall conform with Fire Department Standard Detail and Specifications K-1. 15. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan for the residential and commercial portions of the development and a sign program for the commercial building for Planning Commission approval prior to the issuance of Final Occupancy Permits. 16. The applicant shall submit a soils report for the proposed project. 17. Residential units shall have a minimum three foot clearance from property lines or use a one hour rated fire wall without openings. 18. All building related activities shall adhere to New Development - Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. 19. Applicant agrees to hold the City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of the City in connection with the City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 20. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. File No. SD -99-005, UP -99-018 & DR -99-037; 12312 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission. State of California, this 10th day of November 1999 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Jackman, Page, Patrick, Roupe and Chair Bernald NOES: Commissioner Barry ABSENT: Commissioner Kurasch Chair, P1 ATTEST: g C bmmission PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND STUDY PURPOSE Azule Crossing is an office/retail complex located in the City of Saratoga at the intersection of Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way. The complex consists of four buildings. The two buildings situated closest to Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road are 1920s -era structures totaling 21,257 square feet. This old farmhouse (Azule building) and drying barn (De Tour building) toward the lot's front were constructed when the property was still a working orchard. The other two existing structures (the Seagull and B.T. buildings) are two-story office buildings built in the 1980s. These are located at the back of the lot and together comprise 19,187 square feet of space. In total, the Azule Crossing center currently has 40,444 total square feet of leasable floor area, with 15,000 square feet (37%) in retail uses, 21,400 square feet in office -based uses, and the balance (approximately 10 percent) standing vacant. The Griffin Company in conjunction with residential developer Classic Communities is proposing to redevelop the site as a horizontal mixed-use project featuring 14,233 square feet of leasable retail space and 27 small -lot single-family houses. In response to this proposal the City of Saratoga has expressed concerns about the impact the new project will have on the City's sales tax revenues. Staff has requested that the developer provide an independent assessment of the sales tax revenue generation potential from various retail and mixed used development scenarios for the site. This report, prepared by Strategic Economics, an urban economics consulting firm based in Berkeley, CA, presents findings regarding such sales tax generation estimates for four development scenarios as defined by City staff. Study Methodology The findings of this study are based on interviews with key informants to define market context, a review of published data sources, including an economic analysis of retail sales tax generation evaluating the same site completed earlier this year, and quantitative modeling of the retail sales and sales tax generation for the four development scenarios. Additionally, City staff and other public agency staff were interviewed to gain an understanding of sales tax revenue generation issues and the likely costs of providing key municipal services such as police and fire protection for the various scenarios. This study of retail sales tax generation potential for the site is based on three tasks. The first task was to interview key informants, including local real estate experts, leasing agents and property managers, to gain an understanding of the opportunities and constraints of the site specifically as well as to assess retail market conditions in general. The second task was to use this information gathered through interviews to quantify the retail tenant potential of the various alternative development scenarios. The third task was to define per -square -foot sales performance assumptions and apply them to the scenarios. Azule Crossing Retail Analysis 000024 The general scenarios defined by City Planning Division staff were: A) The existing Azule Crossing center at full occupancy. B) A new, larger retail center development. C) The current mixed-use development proposal. D) The mixed-use development featuring a larger commercial component than proposed. These scenarios were initially defined by City staff in a letter to the Griffin Company dated September 3, 1999. Strategic Economics further refined the scenarios to quantify the number of square feet devoted to retail uses for each case, as shown in Table L SALES ASSUMPTIONS For purposes of estimating potential sales tax generation for the various alternative development scenarios, it was necessary to develop assumptions regarding average per -square -foot sales that could be applied to different configurations of the retail component in each scenario. If the development scenario included a rehabilitation of the existing Azule building, then a lower sales generation rate was used than if all buildings on the site were demolished and the center was to be completely rebuilt. This is because the orientation and location on the parcel of the existing Azule building fails to makes the best use of the limited frontage of the parcel on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. A renovated center including the Azule building would lack the visibility and exposure of a completely new but smaller center. Thus this building is only likely to attract smaller, Lower -grossing retailers looking for low rents. To attract regional and or national chains with higher per -square -foot sales performance, the center would need to offer its tenants spaces more comparable with new leasable space being offered in the area. Furthermore, local brokers agree that 61,000 square feet of total leasable space (the most that the site could physically accommodate) is probably too small to assemble a proper shopping center with an anchor tenant. The sales tax generation assumption for the 61,000 square foot scenario is thus probably somewhat generous in light of the fact that it would be unlikely to have the draw that would accompany a major anchor tenant. The baseline sales tax generation of the existing Azule Crossing center was calculated from sales tax data for fiscal year 1998 supplied by the City's finance director. Tenants that are no longer occupying space at the center were not included in the analysis. The leasing agent for the center supplied the amount of floor area occupied by each of the tenants currently generating taxable sales in the center. Dividing the taxable sales by the floor area of existing tenants produced the actual taxable sales per square foot of retail space in the Azule Crossing center in 1998. This per —square -foot sales assumption was then applied to all scenarios that included the existing Azule building, based on the reasoning that the a new shopping center would not maximize its potential to generate retail sales unless it were to be "modernized" (i.e., building set back further from the street, more convenient parking in front of the building, etc.). For the scenario proposing a larger, all new retail shopping center, the sales assumption used was taken from the 1998 Dollars & Cents of Shopping Center published by the Urban Land Institute. A median sales per square foot Azule Crossing Retail Analysis 000025 assumption of $269 was used, based on a sample of 43 neighborhood shopping centers in the West. PROJECT ANALYSIS Information gathered from key informants provided the first step in this analysis of retail sales potential for the site. This included anecdotal evidence of retail sales performance for other small retailers in the area, likely sources of competition for retailers choosing to locate at the Azule Crossing site, and general impressions of the market demand for retail goods in this part of the City. This information was then used to formulate the likely retail tenant mix for the various alternative sales tax generation scenarios requested by the City. Finally, assumptions about per - square -foot sales performance were applied to the scenarios defined above to develop a comparative analysis of potential sales tax generation outcomes for the Azule Crossing center depending on hypothetical buildout sizes and tenant mixes. Retail Market Conditions A review of existing competitive centers shows that there are already seven local and community serving shopping centers within the primary trade area currently served by Azule Crossing. Although these centers generally have very low vacancy rates, interviews with managers and leasing agents indicate that in most cases the real leasing demand is from businesses that provide services rather than those that sell retail goods. Brokers and leasing agents familiar with the Saratoga market confirm a previous analysis of the market area served by the Azule Crossing site. The area is already saturated with drug stores and particularly with supermarkets, six of which can be found within three miles of Azule Crossing. Furthermore, construction has already started on a new Home Depot and Rite-Aid coming online at the intersection of Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and Bollinger Road, only 1.6 miles from the Azule Crossing site. In light of this recent development activity and based on the opinion of key informants, it appears that the strongest market demand in this area of Saratoga is generated by services and office -based uses, rather than by retailers. Therefore, the Azule Crossing site seems an unlikely location to locate a new shopping center. In addition, when leasing agents, local developers and other key informants were asked to provide information about what retail users could potentially tenant a new retail center at the Azule Crossing location, all felt that there were physical constraints to the site that limited its potential for generating a high volume of retail sales. The previous analysis of the project site similarly concluded that limited frontage on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, ingress/egress constraints, and the center's location relative to larger shopping centers with stronger market draw all limit the site's potential to support any significant increase the amount of retail activity beyond what is already existing. Scenario Evaluation Baseline: Current Sales Tax Revenue from Azule Crossing. The taxable sales generated by the current Azule Crossing center are attributable to eight tenants on a total of 14,953 square feet, Azule Crossing Retail Analysis 3000026 though two of these tenants are really service firms that generate negligible taxable events. Sales tax data provided by the City indicates that current Azule Crossing tenants generated $26,147 of sales tax for the City's General Fund in fiscal year 1998. Based on a local sales tax allocation rate of one percent, this figure implies gross taxable sales of $2,614,700 for fiscal year 1998. Divided by the square footage occupied by these tenants, the current retail tenants of the center collectively gross approximately $175 in sales per square foot of leasable floor area. Scenario A: Existing Center at Full Occupancy. Under this scenario it is assumed that retail tenants occupy all of the ground floor area in the De Tour and Azule buildings, totaling approximately 18,857 square feet. This figure excludes the leasable ground floor area of the Seagull and B.T. buildings, which were originally intended for office and service tenants, and which lack the visibility to arterial traffic necessary to make them viable retail addresses. Applying a sales tax generation rate of $175 per square foot to this scenario, an estimated $32,974 of sales tax could be generated for the City's General Fund. Scenario B: New Retail Center Development. This scenario assumes that the existing center would be demolished and a new shopping center built in its place that maximizes the amount of ground floor space permitted by the parcel's zoning and setback requirements. A previous analysis of the site determined that a maximum of 61,000 square feet of ground floor retail space with 305 parking spaces could be constructed and City staff indicate that this level of development potential is still viable. While the site could physically accommodate 61,000 square feet of leasable floor area, it is very unlikely that the location could ever actually support this much retail activity. Limiting factors include access constraints particular to the site, as well as the center's relative proximity to existing larger shopping centers and a proven power center, which make for a less than optimal retail location. For purposes of discussion, this scenario has been sub -classified into three sub - scenarios that assume 25 percent 50 percent and 100 percent retail occupancy levels. It is important to reiterate that interviews with real estate experts familiar with the local market and the site identified the site's limited frontage on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road as its biggest physical constraint, stating that the site is unlikely to support much more than 10,000 square feet of retail. At 25 percent retail occupancy of the hypothetical 61,000 foot commercial center seems the most realistic scenario, with approximately 15,250 square feet of retail space generating $41,010 of sales tax for the City. For discussion purposes the 100 percent retail occupancy was analyzed and would generates $164,041 in sales tax revenue. The 50 percent retail occupancy scenario would generate $82,021 in sales tax revenue. Scenario C: Current Mixed -Use Development Proposal. The Griffin Company has submitted a proposal to redevelop a 1.25 acre portion of the Azule Crossing site into a renovated a 14,233 square foot single -story shopping center. The remainder of the parcel would be devoted to construction of 27 small -lot, single-family homes. The proposal anticipates demolition of all current structures but the Azule building, which will be rehabilitated and expanded to total 14,233 square feet of commercial space fronting on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road. Azule Crossing Retail Analysis 4 000027 This building has been included in the proposal to rebuild the center because it has the best exposure to through -traffic of any of the existing buildings and because constructing a completely new retail center on the parcel apportioned for commercial development would have resulted in a couple thousand less square feet of leasable space. In addition to new construction, the renovated center would include several hundred square feet of basement space in the Azule building currently being used for storage that will be converted into a retail bay. The leasing agent for the proposed project intends to include only retail tenants in the new center, which would generate an estimated $24,888 in sales tax for the City. A conversation with the architects responsible for the preliminary design of the proposed mixed- use project indicated that they had put a lot of thought into trying to maximize the retail potential of the site while still permitting for a viable residential project. The configuration of the proposed retail center on the site, and the apportionment of the parcel between commercial and residential uses, makes the most efficient and rational use of the irregular parcel at Azule Crossing. A lot line adjustment to increase the acreage devoted to the retail component would be unlikely to substantially increase the amount of leasable floor area. Furthermore, it would be likely to hinder the feasibility of the proposed residential component, as even a minor reapportionment of the acreage on the site could prevent the construction of as many as eight of the proposed 27 residences. Scenario D: Mixed -Use Development with Larger Conunercial Component Than Proposed. As a purely hypothetical exercise, this scenario assumes that the commercial component of the mixed-use project could be increased beyond the 14,233 square feet proposed by the developer. Since this scenario would require a reapportionment of the site to increase the amount of land devoted to commercial development and decrease the amount devoted to housing construction, it was necessary to make some a basic assumption regarding the amount of retail floor area that might be accommodated. Assuming that a maximum of 61,000 square feet could be built on the entire site, and assuming that the land area of the four acre site devoted to commercial development were to be increased to two acres, then roughly 30,000 square feet of retail might theoretically be built under this scenario. Staff agree that this approach is an acceptable way to characterize this otherwise undefined scenario. Under conditions of full occupancy by retail tenants, this larger retail component could generate an estimated $52,458 in sales tax revenues for the City. Conclusions Not surprisingly the scenario with the greatest number of square feet allocated to retail development generates the largest amount of sales tax revenue for the City. However, all sources indicate that there is virtually no market support for a 61,000 square foot retail center in this location. The preponderance of evidence suggests that the Azule Crossing site could not support much more than 15,000 square feet of retail space. In light of this evidence, the most viable of the alternative scenarios is the proposed mixed-use project. The 14,233 square foot retail component included in the mixed-use project proposed by the Griffin Company would generate an expected $24,888 of retail sales tax for the City's General Fund, or only $1,259 less per year than the center currently generates. Furthermore, the proposed project makes the best use of the Azule Crossing Retail Analysis 5 0000 8 parcel by capitalizing on the exposure and visibility of the portion best suited to commercial activities and converting the less viable remainder to residential uses. Any additional retail space built on the site beyond the proposed amount would likely be occupied by services or other tenants that do not generate sales tax revenues. Azule Crossing Retail Analysis 6 000029 Table 1: Azul Strategic Economics, 1999; Gty of Saratoga Finance Department; Urban Land Institute Baseline/ Existing SCENARIOS Existing Center at Full Occupancy New Retail Center Proposed Mixed Use Proposed Mixed Use With Larger Retail A B C D 100% Retail 50% Retail 25% Retail Retail Space (Sq. Ft.) 14,953 18,857 61,000 30,500 15,250. 14.233 30,000 Estimated Sales per Sq. Ft. $ 175 $ 175 $ 269 $ 269 $ 269 $ 175 $ 175 Estimated Taxable Sales $ 2,614,700 $3,297.358 $16,404.120 $8,202.060 $4,101,030 $2,488,800 $5.245,837 Estimated Sales Tax $ 215,713 $ 272,032 $ 1,353,340 $ 676.670 $ 338,335 $ 205,326 $ 432.782 Estimated Sales fax Revenue to City of Saratoga Gen • eral Fund $ 26,147 $ 32,974 $ 164.041 $ 82,021 $ 41,010 $ 24,888 $ 52.458 Strategic Economics, 1999; Gty of Saratoga Finance Department; Urban Land Institute ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Prepared For The Azule Crossing Mixed -Use Development October 1999 Project Description: Request for Subdivision, Use Permit and Design Review approval to construct 27 new residential units of approximately 1,815 to 2,345 sq. ft. and remodel the existing retail building located at the front of the property. The commercial building will be expanded from its current 11,931 sq. ft. to 14,233 sq. ft. The property is located in a Commercial Neighborhood zoning district. The residential component of the project would occupy 2.62 acres while the commercial component would occupy 1.28 acres. Project Location: 12312 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road Applicant: Azule Crossing, Inc. 12378 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road Saratoga, CA 95070 Lead Agency: City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 City of Saratoga Azule Crossing Environmental Evaluation/Checklist uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuui 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1101111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111110011111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111110111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111110111 CONTENTS Environmental Initial Study Negative Declaration Attachments: A - Traffic Impact Analysis B - Horticultural Consultant Report C - Responsible Agency Correspondence City of Saratoga Azule Crossing Environmental Evaluation/Checklist 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Impact Significant Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated I.LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a)Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ❑ ❑ 0 ■ The General Plan designation for this property is Retail Commercial, permitting one dwelling units per 3,004 sq. ft. The Zoning Designation is Commercial Neighborhood permitting multi -family dwellings and mixed-use commercial developments. The residential portion of this property is 2.62 acres with 27 proposed units equates to one unit per 4,229 sq. ft., consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The commercial building is also consistent with the General Plan and all necessary provisions of the Zoning Ordinance b)Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies 0 0 0 • adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c)Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? 0 0 0 • The adjacent land uses include commercial development and single-family homes. d)Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established 0 0 0 • community? e)Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to 0 0 0 • soils or farmlands)? Sources: City of Saratoga General Plan - Land Use Element, Saratoga City Code - Zoning Ordinance H.POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a)Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population 0 0 0 • projections? b)Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or 0 0 0 • indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c)Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 0 0 0 • Sources: City of Saratoga General Plan - Housing Element HI.GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a)Fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, seismic ground 0 0 0 • failure, including liquefaction? b)Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? 0 0 0 • c)Landslides or mudflows? 0 0 0 • City of Saratoga Azule Crossing Environmental Evaluation/Checklist ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Impact Significant Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated d)Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? e)Subsidence of the land? 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 ■ f)Expansive soils? 0 0 0 • g)Unique geologic or physical features 0 0 0 • Sources: City of Saratoga General Plan - Safety Element, Terra Tech Inc. Geologic Report, Memorandum from Cotton Shires and Associates IV.WATER. Would the proposal result in: a)Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate 0 0 0 • and amount of surface runoff? Absorption rates will change as a result of development, however the amount of impervious coverage will be within the limits set by the General Plan and will not cause a significant environmental impact. b)Exposure of people or property to water related hazards 0 0 0 • such as flooding? c)Discharge into surface waters or other alterations of surface 0 0 0 water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? d)Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e)Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water 0 0 0 • movements? f)Change in the quantity of groundwater, either through direct 0 0 0 ■ additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g)Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? 0 0 0 • h)Impacts to groundwater quality? i)Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater 0 0 0 • otherwise available for public water supplies? Sources: City of Saratoga General Plan - Conservation Element V.AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: City of Saratoga Azule Crossing Environmental Evaluation/Checklist ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Impact Significant Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated a)Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing 0 0 0 ■ or projected air quality violation? b)Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 ■ c)Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any 0 0 0 ■ change in climate? d)Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 ■ Sources: City of Saratoga General Plan - Air Quality Element VI.TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a)Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? The project is expected to add 72 net daily trips. These results indicate that the signalized intersections in the area would experience additional impact. The Transportation Impact Analysis concludes that the existing level of service and the intersection of Seagull Way already warrant a traffic signal and this project would contribute to that need, therefore causing a significant impact unless mitigated by the installation of a traffic signal. b)Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or 0 0 0 ■ dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c)Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? 0 0 0 • d)Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0 0 0 • e)Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? 0 0 0 ■ f)Conflicts with adopted policies supporting altemative 0 0 0 ■ transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g)Rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 ■ Sources: City of Saratoga General Plan - Circulation and Scenic Highway Element, Traffic Impact Analysis submitted by applicant, Correspondence from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. VILBIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a)Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to, plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b)Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? 0 0 ■ c)Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, 0 0 ❑ ■ coastal habitat, etc.)? City of Saratoga Azule Crossing Environmental Evaluation/Checklist ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than Significant Impact Significant Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated \o Impact coastal habitat, etc.)? d)Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e)Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? Sources: Arborist Report prepared by Barrie Coate and Associates ❑ 0 0 ■ VIII.ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a)Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 0 0 0 • b)Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient 0 0 0 • manner? c)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource 0 0 0 • that would be of future value to the region and state residents? Sources: Saratoga General Plan - Conservation Element IX.HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a)A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous 0 0 0 • substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b)Possible interference with an emergency response plan or 0 0 0 • emergency evacuation plan? c)The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? 0 0 0 • d)Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health 0 0 0 • hazards? e)Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, 0 0 0 • or trees? Sources: Saratoga Fire Department X.NOISE. " Would the proposal result in: a)Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 ■ 0 Noise levels at the site would increase temporarily as a result of construction activity. However, the noise would be limited to daytime hours and would not result in a lasting impact. City of Saratoga Azule Crossing Environmental Evaluation/Checklist ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Less Than Significant Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated \o Impact b)Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Sources: City of Saratoga General Plan - Noise Element XI.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services, in any of the following areas: a)Fire Protection? 0 0 0 • b)Police Protection? 0 0 0 • c)Schools? 0 0 0 IN d)Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 0 0 0 • e)Other governmental services? 0 0 0 • These services are available and would not have to be extended or improved. Sources: Correspondence from; Santa Clara County Fire Department, Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority XILUTILI'1IES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 0 • b)Communications systems? 0 0 0 • c)Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? 0 0 0 • d)Sewer. septic systems, or wastewater treatment and disposal 0 0 0 • facilities? e)Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 • f)Solid waste materials recovery or disposal? 0 0 0 • g)Local or regional water supplies? 0 0 0 • These services are available and would not have to be extended or improved. Sources: Correspondence from; Santa Clara County Fire Department, PG&E, XIILAESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a)Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? 0 0 0 • b)Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? The 27 new residences and renovated commercial building would visually change this site. However the design and density of the structures is sensitive to the existing commercial areas and surrounding City of Saratoga Azule Crossing Environmental Evaluation/Checklist ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Impact Significant Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated neighborhood and would not cause a significant environmental impact. c)Create adverse light or glare effects? Changes to light and glare levels will stay within acceptable residential levels Sources: City of Saratoga General Plan - Land Use Element XIV.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a)Disturb paleontological resources? 0 b)Disturb archaeological resources? 0 c)Affect historical resources? 0 d)Have the potential to cause a physical change which would 0 affect unique ethnic cultural values? e)Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential 0 impact area? Sources: City of Saratoga General Plan - Conservation Element. Heritage Resource Inventory ❑ 0 ■ ❑ 0 • ❑ 0 • ❑ 0 • ❑ ❑ ■ XV.RECREATION. Would the proposal: a)Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or 0 0 ■ 0 other recreational facilities? The addition of 27 new residences would add to the demand on the City's parks, however this will be offset by the collection of the park in -lieu fees. b)Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 ■ Sources: City of Saratoga General Plan - Open Space and Recreation Element, Correspondence from the Saratoga Parks and Recreation Commission, Correspondence from the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of 0 0 0 ■ the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a 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 rare or endangered plants City of Saratoga Azule Crossing Environmental Evaluation/Checklist ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Impact Significant Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated or animals, 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? c)Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d)Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Sources: City of Saratoga General Plan, Saratoga City Code - Zoning Ordinance ❑ 0 0 ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ City of Saratoga Azule Crossing Environmental Evaluation/Checklist XVII. 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. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Staff Report dated October 27, 1999 and included in the Resolution conditions of project approval. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Q Q ' t 1 cncl DATE SIGNATURE For: JAMES WALGREN Community Development Director City of Saratoga Azule Crossing Environmental Evaluation/Checklist MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Declaration That Environmental Impact Report Not Required SD -99-005, UP -99-018 & DR -99-037; 12312 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road The undersigned, Director of Community Development 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, and based on the City's independent judgment, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for Subdivision, Use Permit and Design Review approval to construct 27 new residential units of approximately 1,815 to 2,345 sq. ft. and remodel the existing retail building located at the front of the property. The commercial building will be expanded from its current 11,931 sq. ft. to 14,233 sq. ft. The property is located in a Commercial Neighborhood zoning district. The residential component of the project would occupy 2.62 acres while the commercial component would occupy 1.28 acres. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROPONENTS Azule Crossing, Inc. 12378 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road Saratoga, CA 95070 REASON FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION The proposed 27 residential units and expanded commercial building are not anticipated to cause any substantial adverse impacts on the environment. Although the proposed project will effect and change the existing land use of the property, with mitigation measures it will not cause significant environmental impacts pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act. Executed at Saratoga, California this day of , 1999. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR City of Saratoga Azule Crossing Environmental Evaluation/Checklist 100110000000000000000000001 0000001H00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00111000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Attachment A Traffic Impact Analysis City of Saratoga Azule Crossing Environmental Evaluation/Checklist 11111111111111111111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIhllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS CLASSICS AT SARATOGA (Saratoga, California) Prepared for: Classic Communities Prepared by: Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. fp October 1999 Fehr & Peers Associates Transportation Consultants 1153 Lincoln Avenue Suite I San Jose, CA 95125 408 278-1700 FAX 408 278-1717 Final Report TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS for the CLASSICS AT SARATOGA (Saratoga, California) Prepared for: Classic Communities Prepared by: Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. October 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii 1 - INTRODUCTION 1 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS 5 Roadway Network 5 Existing Transit Service 6 Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 6 Existing Traffic Volumes and Intersection Lane Configurations 8 Level of Service Methodology 8 Existing Levels of Service 12 3 - BACKGROUND CONDITIONS 14 Background Traffic Estimates 14 Background Intersection Levels of Service 14 4 - PROJECT CONDITIONS 17 Project Traffic Estimates 17 Project Intersection Levels of Service 18 Intersection Impacts 23 Mitigation Measures 94 Site Access and On -Site Circulation 24 5 - CONCLUSIONS 26 Technical Appendices Appendix A - Intersection Traffic Counts Appendix B - Level of Service Calculation Sheets Appendix C Signal Warrant Worksheet 995-197 LIST OF TABLES Table Page ES -la. Signalized Intersection Level of Service Summary iv ES -lb. Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road/Seagull Way Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Summary iv 1. Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Using Average Stopped Vehicular Delay 11 2. Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Using Average Total Vehicular Delay 11 3a. Existing Signalized Intersection Levels of Service 12 3b. Existing Unsignalized Intersection Levels of Service 12 4. Approved Developments 14 5a. Background Signalized Intersection Levels of Service 16 5b. Background Unsignalized Intersection Levels of Service 16 6. Trip Generation Estimates 18 7a Background and Project Signalized Intersection Levels of Service 77 7b Background and Project Unsignalized Intersection Levels of Service 22 LIST OF FIGURES Figure a Pae 1. Site Location 2 2. Site Plan 3 3. Existing Transit Service 7 4 Existing Peak -Hour Intersection Volumes 9 5 Existing Lane Configurations 10 6. Background Peak -Hour Intersection Volumes 15 7. Directions of Approach and Departure 19 8. Project Trip Assignment 20 9. Background Plus Project Peak -Hour Intersection Volumes 21 Classics at Saratoga TIA October 1999 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the results of the transportation impact analysis (TIA) conducted for the proposed Classics at Saratoga development in Saratoga, California. The site is located in the southeast quadrant of the Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road/Seagull Way intersection. The proposed project is the redevelopment of the existing 40,444 -square foot commercial center (including 10,739 s.f. of retail, 24,755 s.f. of office, and 4,950 s.f. of vacant space) to 14,233 s.f. of retail space, 12 single-family dwelling units, and 15 townhomes. Direct access to the commercial portion of the project site will be provided via one driveway on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, which will be restricted to right turns in and out, and one full access driveway on Seagull Way. The residential units will be served by one full access driveway on Seagull Way. Internal access will not be provided between the commercial and residential components. The purpose of the analysis is to identify the likely transportation impacts of the proposed redevelopment project on the surrounding roadway system and to identify improvements to mitigate significant impacts. Project impacts were estimated following the guidelines of the City of Saratoga and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), which is the congestion management agency for Santa Clara County. The operations of the intersections were analyzed during the morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak periods under Existing, Background, and Project Conditions. Project Traffic The amount of traffic generated by the proposed redevelopment project was estimated by applying appropriate trip generation rates to the number of square feet of retail space and the number of dwelling units. Peak -hour traffic generated by the existing uses on the site was measured with driveway counts. The traffic associated with the existing uses on-site was subtracted from the trip generation estimates for the proposed uses to determine the amount of net -added traffic due to the proposed project. The project is estimated to add 72 net daily trips and 2 net AM peak -hour trips (-12 inbound/14 outbound) and to reduce PM peak -hour trip generation by 26 trips (-18 inbound/ -8 outbound). The project -generated traffic was assigned to specific street segments, intersections, and turning movements based on existing travel patterns in the vicinity of the site. Intersection Impacts Level of service (LOS) calculations were conducted for three key intersections for Existing, Background, and Project Conditions using existing count data and lane configurations, a list of approved developments supplied by City of Saratoga staff, and the project -generated trips. The calculations were conducted using the methodology described in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board) for signalized Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. iii Classics at Saratoga TIA October 1999 intersections with adjusted saturation flow rates, per CMP guidelines. The unsianalized intersection of Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way was evaluated using the methodology for two-way stop sign controlled intersections described in the 1994 Highwav Capacity Manual. Tables ES -la and ES -ib present the results of the intersection level of service calculations. Table ES -1a Signalized Intersection Level of Service Summary Existing Background Project Avg. Avg. Avg. Int. Int. Int. A in A in Intersection Peak Delay Delay Delay Crit. Crit. Hour (sec)' LOS2 (sec) LOS (sec) LOS Delay3 V/C' Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road AM 29.6 D 29.6 D 29.7 D +0.1 +0.001 and Prospect Road PM 22.2 C 22.3 C 22.2 C -0.1 -0.001 ........... Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road AM 11.9 B 11.9 B 11.9 B 0.0 -0.002 and Cox Avenue PM 13.0 B- 13.2 B- 13.2 13- 0.0 -0.002 Notes: Whole intersection weighted average stopped delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. z LOS calculations performed using the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual methodology contained in TRAFFIX, a level of service analysis program. 3 Change in critical movement delay between Background and Project Conditions. Change in critical volume -to -capacity ratio from Background to Project Conditions. Table ES -1b Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road/Seagull Way Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Summary Intersection Worst -Case Approach Peak Avg. Total Avg. Total Scenario Hour Delay (sec)' LOS2 Delay (sec) LOS Existing Conditions AM 7.8 B >120 F PM 4.2 A >120 F Background Conditions AM 8.2 B >120 ._._ F PM 4.6 A >120 F Project Conditions AM 11.6 C >120 F PM 2.4 A >120 F ` Notes: Whole intersection weighted average total delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. 2 LOS calculations performed using the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual methodology contained in TRAFFIX, a level of service analysis program. Project intersection impacts were identified based on the LOS C goal of the City of Saratoga. While the intersection of Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and Prospect Road is projected to operate at LOS D during the AM peak hour, the addition of project traffic is estimated to cause a Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. iv Classics at Saratoga TIA October 1999 negligible increase in critical movement delay and critical V/C. Therefore, the results indicate that the proposed project would have a less -than -significant impact on the key signalized intersections. The project is estimated to have a potentially significant impact on the intersection of Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way during the AM peak hour. This unsignalized intersection is projected to operate at an overall LOS C during the AM peak hour and LOS A during the PM peak hour under Project Conditions, acceptable levels. However, both minor street approaches are projected to operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours both with and without development of the proposed project. The project is estimated to add 13 trips to the westbound approach (Seagull Way) during the AM peak hour and to reduce the traffic volume on this approach by four vehicles during the PM peak hour. The project is not estimated to add traffic to the eastbound approach at this intersection. Both the existing AM peak -hour volumes at the Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road/Seagull Way intersection and the projected AM peak -hour volumes after completion of the proposed project satisfy the Caltrans Peak Hour Volume Warrant for traffic signal installation. It is recommended that the City of Saratoga consider signalizing this intersection and that, as mitigation, the project contribute its fair share of the cost of the traffic signal installation. Fair share contributions are typically calculated based on the proportion of traffic associated with a project at the subject intersection. At the Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road/Seagull Way intersection, 28 trips associated with the proposed project are estimated to travel through the intersection during the AM peak hour. This volume is equivalent to 1.1% of the total estimated AM peak -hour volume under Project Conditions. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. v Classics at Saratoga TIA October 1999 CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the transportation impact analysis (TIA) conducted for the proposed Classics at Saratoga development project in Saratoga, California. The site is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way. The site location and surrounding roadway network are presented on Figure 1. The proposed project is the redevelopment of the existing 40,444 -square foot commercial use (including 10,739 s.f. of retail, 24,755 of s.f. office, and 4,950 s.f. of vacant space) to 14.233 s.f. of retail space, 12 single family dwelling units, and 15 townhomes. Direct access to the commercial portion of the project site will be provided via one driveway on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, which will be restricted to right turns in and out, and one full access driveway on Seagull Way. The residential units will be served by a second full access driveway on Seagull Way. Internal access will not be provided between the commercial and residential components. The site plan is shown on Figure 2. The purpose of this analysis is to identify the potential impacts of the proposed development MI the transportation system in the vicinity of the site. Project impacts were estimated following the guidelines of the City of Saratoga and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), which is the congestion management agency for Santa Clara County. Since the proposed redevelopment project is estimated to generate fewer than 100 net new peak - hour trips, a Congestion Management Program Transportation Impact Analysis is not required. The following key intersections were analyzed for this project: 1. Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and Prospect Road* 2. Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way 3. Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and Cox Avenue. *Designated Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersection. The operations of key intersections were evaluated during the morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak periods for the following scenarios: Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3: Existing Conditions. Existing volumes obtained from counts, representing peak one-hour traffic conditions during the morning and evening commute periods. Background Conditions. Existing peak -hour volumes plus traffic from approved but not yet constructed developments in the area. Project Conditions. Background peak -hour traffic volumes plus project -generated traffic estimated for the proposed redevelopment project. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 1 Classics at Saratoga TIA October 1999 Key: Mil 0 Prosect Rd. Cox Ave. Project Site Study Intersection ED N Not to Scale Figure 1 107-11-01 SITE LOCATION fp Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. V. s:• Ix 12 ce- SITE PLAN Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Classics at Saratoga TIA October 1999 The remainder of this report is divided into four chapters. Chapter 2 presents Existing Conditions in terms of the existing roadway facilities, transit service, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, traffic volumes, and operating conditions at the key intersections. Intersection operations under Background Conditions with traffic from approved but not yet constructed developments are discussed in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 describes the methodology used to estimate project traffic and its impacts on the key intersections. Chapter 5 presents the study conclusions and recommendations. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 4 Classics at Saratoga TIA October 1999 CHAPTER 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS This chapter provides a description of Existing Conditions in terms of the roadway facilities, traffic volumes, intersection operations, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and transit service. Roadway Network Regional access to the project site is provided by State Route 85 (SR 85) and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. Local access is provided by Prospect Road, Seagull Way, and Cox Avenue. Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way also provide direct access to the site. These roadways are described below. SR 85 is generally a six -lane freeway with one lane in each direction restricted to use by high occupancy vehicles (carpools, vanpools, buses, and motorcycles) during the commute hours. SR 85 extends westward from U.S. 101 in South San Jose through the West Valley area and then northward to U.S. 101 in Mountain View. Access to and from the project site is provided via the SR 85 interchange at Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road. Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road is a four- to -six lane divided arterial in the vicinity of the project site. It is six lanes wide north of Prospect Road and four lanes wide south of Prospect Road to downtown Saratoga. The segment between Prospect Road and Seagull Way has a center lane for left turns. Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road extends northward from downtown Saratoga becoming De Anza Boulevard, north of Prospect Road. De Anza Boulevard continues north along the western edge of San Jose and through Cupertino and Sunnyvale as Sunnyvale - Saratoga Road and Mathilda Avenue. Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road was designated SR 85 prior to the construction of the Highway 85 freeway. Caltrans retains control of the roadway within the City of Saratoga. Prospect Road, east of Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, is a four -lane roadway that extends eastward through San Jose, along the Saratoga border. At its intersection with Saratoga Avenue, it becomes Campbell Avenue and continues eastward into the City of Campbell. Turn pockets are provided at major intersections. West of Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, Prospect Road is a two-lane street with a center turn lane provided between Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Stelling Road. Seagull Way is a two-lane, residential collector street. It extends eastward from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, terminating at Cox Avenue near the SR 85 overcrossing. Cox Avenue, east of Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, is a two-lane street that continues eastward through San Jose to its terminus at Quito Road. West of Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, Cox Avenue becomes Wardell Road, a two-lane residential street. Fehr & Peers Associates. Inc. 5 Classics at Saratoga TIA October 1999 Existing Transit Service The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) operates bus service in Santa Clara County. The existing bus routes in the vicinity of the site are shown on Figure 3. Individual bus -routes are described below: Route 53 is a local bus route that provides service between the Sunnyvale CalTrain Station and Westgate shopping center. It operates along Prospect Road in the vicinity of the project site. The hours of operation are 6:30 am to 7:00 pm on weekdays only. No weekend service is provided. The commute headway is 30 to 60 minutes while the midday headway is 60 minutes. Route 54 is a local bus route that operates along Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road near the project site. This line provides service between West Valley College and Sunnyvale/Lockheed Martin. The hours of operation are 5:30 am to 10:00 pm on weekdays and 8:30 am to 8:00 pm on weekends. The commute headway is 15 to 20 minutes while midday, evening and weekend headways range from 30 to 60 minutes. Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Pedestrian facilities comprise sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals. Near the site, sidewalks are provided along Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way. Crosswalks and pedestrian signals are provided at the signalized study intersections. Bicycle facilities comprise bike paths (Class I), lanes (Class II), and routes (Class III). Bike paths are paved trails that are separated from roadways. Bike lanes are lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles by striping, pavement legends, and signs. Bike routes are roadways that are designated for bicycle use by signs only and may or may not include additional pavement width for cyclists. In the vicinity of the site, bike lanes are designated on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, south of Prospect Road, and on Prospect Road and Cox Avenue, east of Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 6 Classics at Saratoga TIA October 1999 Key: G •• Route 27 1.1 Route 53 i ) Route 54 11.m Route 58 Route 102 ED N Not to Scale Figure 3 ,67.,3-0, EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE fp Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Classics at Saratoga TIA October 1999 Existing Traffic Volumes and Intersection Lane Configurations Intersections were analyzed under weekday AM and PM peak -hour traffic conditions. Peak conditions usually occur during the morning and evening commute periods between 7:00 and 9:00 am and 4:00 and 6:00 pm, respectively. Intersection operations were evaluated for the highest one-hour traffic volumes measured during these periods. New turning -movement counts were conducted at two of the key intersections in September 1999 (see Appendix A). Peak -hour volumes at the Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road/Prospect Avenue intersection were obtained from the 1998 CMP monitoring TRAFFIX file supplied by the VTA. The peak -hour traffic volumes at each study intersection are shown on Figure 4. The intersection lane configurations and traffic control devices at each intersection (traffic signals or stop signs) are presented on Figure 5. Level of Service Methodology The operations of roadway facilities are described with the term level of service. Level of Service is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on such factors as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six different levels are defined from LOS A, as the best operating conditions, to LOS F, as the worst operating conditions. LOS E represents operations "at -capacity." When volumes exceed capacity, stop -and -go conditions result, and operations are designated as LOS F. The City of Saratoga's Level of Service goal is LOS C. The level of service calculation methodology for intersections is dependent on the type if traffic control device (traffic signals or stop signs). Two of the study intersections, Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road at Prospect Road and Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road at Cox Avenue, are controlled by traffic signals. The third study intersection, Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way, is controlled by stop signs on the westbound Seagull Way approach and the eastbound funeral home driveway approach. Different methodologies were used for each type of intersection control. The signalized intersection level of service methodology approved by the VTA, and accepted by the City of Saratoga, evaluates an intersection's operation based on the average stopped vehicular delay calculated using the method described in Chapter 9 of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) with adjusted saturation flow rates. The average delay for signalized intersections is calculated using the TRAFFIX analysis software and is correlated to a level of service designation as shown in Table 1. The operations of the unsignalized intersection were evaluated using procedures outlined in Chapter 10 of the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual for two-way stop controlled intersections. Table 2 presents the level of service criteria for unsignalized intersections. Unsignalized intersection level of service criteria are based on average total delay as opposed to average stopped delay for signalized intersections. Level of Service A represents conditions with Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 8 Classics at Saratoga TIA October 1999 . 411(260) ._ 320(210) 119(293) 155(143) —% 363(232) 71(233) ..‘ Prospect Rd. 122(53) .4— 0(0) .- 17(21) SeaQull Wy. C, .-... N m Cn n- CI CV N OJ 211(97) f— 8(19) - 136(170) Cox Ave. Key: INN Project Site O Study Intersection XX (XX)=AM (PM) ED N Not to Scale Figure 4 197.1401 EXISTING PEAK -HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES fp Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Classics at Saratoga TIA October 1999 Prospect Rd. Key: ME Project Site Traffic Signal Stop Sign ED N Not to Scale Figure 5 197-15-01 EXISTING INTERSECTION LANE CONFIGURATIONS fp Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Classics at Saratoga TIA October 1999 Table 1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Using Average Stopped Vehicular Delay Average Stopped Delay Level of Per Vehicle Service (Seconds) Description A 5.0 Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle lengths. B+ 5.1 to 7.0 Operations with low delay occurring with good progression B 7.1 to 13.0 and/or short cycle lengths. B- 13.1 to 15.0 C+ 15.1 to 17.0 Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression C 17.1 to 23.0 and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to C- 23.1 to 25.0 appear. • D+ 25.1 to 28.0 Operations with longer delays due to a combination of D 28.1 to 37.0 unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C D- 37.1 to 40.0 ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. E+ 40.1 to 44.0 Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, E 44.1 to 56.0 long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures E- 56.1 to 60.0 are frequent occurrences. Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring F > 60.0 due to over -saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. Source: VTA's CMP Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, May 7, 1998, and Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual (Special Report 209), 1994. Table 2 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Using Average Total Vehicular Delay Level of Service Average Total Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds) A B C D E F <5 >5 and 10 >10and <_20 >20 and 30 >30 and _< 45 > 45 Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual (Special Report 209), 1994. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Classics at Saratoga TIA October 1999 sufficient gaps in the traffic flow on the major street for minor street traffic to cross safely. In contrast, LOS F represents long delays and limited gaps for minor street traffic to cross the major street. Existing Levels of Service Current operations of the key intersections were evaluated with the existing peak -hour volumes, lane configurations, and traffic signal phasings/timings used as input to the TRAFFIX level of service calculation program. The results of the existing LOS analysis are presented in Tables 3a and 3b. The corresponding calculation sheets are contained in Appendix B. Table 3a Existing Signalized Intersection Levels of Service Avg.Int Peak Count Delay Intersection Hour Date (sec)' LOS2 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and AM 10/98 29.6 D Prospect Road* PM 11/98 22.2 C Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and AM...... 9/99 11.9 B Cox Avenue PM 9/99 13.0 B - Notes: ' Whole intersection weighted average stopped delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. 2 LOS calculations performed using the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual methodology contained in TRAFFIX, a level of service analysis program. * Designated CMP intersection. Table 3b Existing Unsignalized Intersection Levels of Service Worst -Case Intersection Movement Peak Count Avg. Total Avg. Total Intersection Hour Date Delay (sec)' LOS2 Delay (sec) LOS Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and AM 9/99 7.8 B >120 F Seagull Way PM 9/99 4.2 A >120 F ' Notes: Whole intersection weighted average total delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. 2 LOS calculations performed using the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual methodology contained in TRAFFIX, a level of service analysis program. The results of the LOS calculations for the signalized intersections indicate that the intersection of Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and Prospect Road is operating at LOS D during the AM peak hour, below the City's level of service goal of LOS C, and at LOS C during the Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 12 Classics at Saratoga TIA October 1999 PM peak hour. The intersection of Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and Cox Avenue is operating at LOS B during both peak hours, acceptable levels based on the City LOS goal. Table 3b presents both the level of service for the unsignalized intersection based on delay to all movements at the intersection and the level of service for the worst-case movement or lane group. For a two-way stop sign controlled intersection, this movement is usually the left -turn movement from the minor (stop sign -controlled) street. At the Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road/Seagull Way intersection, movements from each of the minor street approaches share one lane. Therefore, the results for the worst-case approach are presented. The intersection of Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way is operating at an overall LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS A during the PM peak hour, acceptable levels. However, both the eastbound approach (the worst-case approach) and the westbound approach are operating at LOS F during both peak hours Caltrans Peak Hour Volume Warrant for traffic signal installation was investigated for the intersection of Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way. The existing AM and PM peak - hour volumes the intersection were compared to the peak hour warrant for rural areas or locations with speeds greater than 40 miles per hour. (The speed limit of Saratoga -Sunnyvale near the site is posted at 45 miles per hour.) The AM peak hour volume satisfies the peak hour warrant under Existing Conditions. The signal warrant analysis is contained in Appendix C. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 13 Classics at Saratoga T1,4 October 1999 CHAPTER 3 - BACKGROUND CONDITIONS This chapter discusses the operations of the key intersections under Background Conditions. Background Conditions are defined as conditions prior to completion of the proposed development. Traffic volumes for Background Conditions comprise existing volumes from counts plus traffic generated by approved developments in the area. This chapter describes the procedure used to estimate background traffic volumes. The results of the level of service analysis for Background Conditions are also presented. Background Traffic Estimates The traffic volumes for Background Conditions were estimated by adding existing volumes and traffic generated by approved but not yet constructed projects in the study area. City of Saratoga staff identified three approved developments in the vicinity of the site. Descriptions of these developments and their associated traffic estimates are presented in Table 4. The trip assignments and/or trip generation and distribution information for these developments were obtained from City staff (from traffic analyses conducted for each development) and supplemented with trip generation estimates based on rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation (6`h Edition). The trips associated with these projects were added to the existing traffic volumes at each study intersection. The resulting background traffic volumes are shown on Figure 6. Table 4 Approved Developments Development Kennedy Residential Development Location Description Peak -Hour Trips AM PM Herriman Avenue Residential Development Argonaut Shopping Center West of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, south of Blauer Drive West of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road at Herriman Avenue Northeast corner of Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and Blauer Drive 12 single family homes 9 11 15 single family homes 12 16 13,359 s.f. shopping center expansion 13 57 Background Intersection Levels of Service Levels of service were calculated for the study intersections using the background traffic volumes. Tables 5a and 5b present the LOS results under Background Conditions and the corresponding LOS calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 14 Classics at Saratoga TIA October 1999 Table 5a Background Signalized Intersection Levels of Service Avg. Int. Peak Delay Intersection Hour (sec)' LOS' Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and AM 29.6 D Prospect Road PM 22.3 C . Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and AM 11.9 B Cox Avenue PM 13.2 B - Notes: ' Whole intersection weighted average stopped delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. 2 LOS calculations performed using the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual methodology contained in TRAFFIX, a level of service analysis program. Table 5b Background Unsignalized Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Worst -Case Approach Peak Avg. Total Avg. Total Intersection Hour Delay (sec)' LOS' Delay (sec) LOS Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and AM 8.2 B >120 F Seagull Way PM 4.6 A >120 F Notes: ' Whole intersection weighted average total delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. 2 LOS calculations performed using the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual methodology contained in TRAFFIX, a level of service analysis program. The results indicate that the key signalized intersections will continue to operate at levels consistent with Existing Conditions. The intersection of Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and Prospect Road is projected to operate at LOS D during the AM peak hour and LOS C during the PM peak hour, while the intersection of Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and Cox Avenue is projected to operate at LOS B during both peak hours. The unsignalized intersection of Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way is projected to operate at an overall LOS B during the AM peak hour and overall LOS A during the PM peak hour. During both peak hours, both minor street approaches are projected to operate at LOS F. These operating levels are similar to Existing Conditions operations. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 16 Classics at Saratoga TIA October 1999 Prospect Rd. Key: Project Site © Study Intersection XX (XX)=AM (PM) O N Not to Scale Figure 6 197-16-01 BACKGROUND PEAK -HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES fp Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Classics at Saratoga TIA October 1999 CHAPTER 4 - PROJECT CONDITIONS The impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding transportation system are discussed in this chapter. First, the methodology used to estimate the amount of traffic generated by the proposed project is described. Then, results of the level of service calculations for Project Conditions are presented. Project Conditions are defined as Background Conditions plus traffic generated by the proposed project. Project impacts are then identified by comparing the results of the level of service calculations under Project Conditions to those under Background Conditions. Project Traffic Estimates The amount of traffic associated with a project is estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In the first step, the amounts of traffic entering and exiting the project site are estimated on a daily and peak -hour basis. In the second step, the directions the trips use to approach and depart the site are estimated. The trips are assigned to specific street segments and intersection turning movements in the third step. The results of this process for this analysis are described in the following sections. Trip Generation The amount of traffic generated by the proposed project was estimated by applying appropriate trip generation rates to the number of square feet of retail space (gross leasable area) and the number of dwelling units. The standard source used to estimate vehicle trip generation is Trip Generation (Sixth Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers). Traffic generated by the existing uses on the site during the peak hours was measured with driveway counts. Daily trip generation associated with the existing uses was estimated using ITE trip generation rates for the currently occupied uses on the site. The traffic associated with the existing on-site uses was subtracted from the trip generation estimates for the proposed uses to determine the amount of net -added traffic due to the redevelopment project. The trip generation estimates are summarized in Table 6. The proposed project is estimated to add 72 net daily trips and 2 net AM peak -hour trips (-12 inbound/14 outbound) and to reduce PM peak -hour trip generation by 26 trips (-18 inbound/ -8 outbound). Trip Distribution The trip distribution pattern for the proposed development was estimated based on existing travel patterns in the vicinity of the site and the relative locations of complementary land uses in the area. Distribution patterns were developed separately for the retail and residential uses. The major directions of approach and departure for the project are shown on Figure 7. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 17 Classics at Saratoga TIA October 1999 Table 6 Project Trip Generation Estimates Weekday AM Peak -Hour Trips PM Peak -Hour Trips Use Size Rate' Trips Rate' In Out Total Rate' In Out Total Proposed Uses Retail 14 233 s.£- 4.0.67 579 1.30 11 8 19 2.59 Single Family 12 d.u. 9.57 115 0.75 2 7 9 1.01 Townhouse 15 d.u. 5.86 880.44 1 6 7 0.54 Total 782 14 21 35..... Existing Uses 16 8 5 29 21 4 3 m 37 12 8 57 Retail 10,739 s.f.2 40.67 437 Office 24,755 s.f.j 11.01 273 36 -8 83 -26 Vacant 4,950 s.f. 0 Total' 40,444 sl. 710 N/A 26 7 33 N/A 47 -18 Net Added Traffic 72 -12 14 2 (Proposed less Existing) Notes: I Rates based on data published in Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation (6th Edition). 2 Gross leasable area. ' Gross building area. AM and PM peak -hour trips based on counts conducted at site driveways with existing uses. Trip Assignment Net trips generated by the proposed project were assigned to the roadway system based on the directions of approach and departure described above. The trips assignments for both peak hours are shown on Figure 8. Project trips were added to background traffic volumes to estimate volumes under Project Conditions as shown on Figure 9. Project Intersection Levels of Service Intersection level of service calculations were conducted to evaluate intersection operations under Project Conditions. The results of the LOS analysis for Background and Project Conditions are summarized in Tables 7a and 7b. The corresponding LOS calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 18 Classics at Saratoga TIA October 1999 120%/20% Prospect Rd. 0%/5% Cox Ave. Key: 5%/10% = Residential/Retail 11.1 Project Site 0 Study Intersection 0 N Not to Scale Figure 7 133-17-01 DIRECTIONS OF APPROACH AND DEPARTURE fp Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Classics at Saratoga TIA October 1999 Prospect Rd. Key: E Project Site © Study Intersection XX (XX)=AM (PM) (i) N Not to Scale Figure 8 197-18-01 PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT fp Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Classics at Saratoga TIA October 1999 Prospect Rd. Key: 11111 Project Site © Study Intersection XX (XX)=AM (PM) ED N Not to Scale Figure 9 197-19-01 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT PEAK -HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES fp Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Classics at Saratoga TIA October 1999 Table 7a Background and Project Signalized Intersection Levels of Service Background Project Avg.Int. . Avg. Int. A in A in Intersection Peak Delay Delay Crit. _ Crit. Hour (sec)' LOS2 ; (sec) LOS Delay3 V/C' Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and AM 29.6 D 29.7 D +0.1 +0.001 Prospect Road PM 22.3 C 22.2 C -0.1 -0.001 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and AM 11.9 B 11.9 B 0.0 -0.002 Cox Avenue PM 13.2 B- 13.2 B- 0.0 -0.002 Notes: ' Whole intersection weighted average stopped delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. 2 LOS calculations performed using the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual methodology contained in TRAFFIX, a level of service analysis program. 3 Change in critical movement delay between Background and Project Conditions. Change in critical volume -to -capacity ratio from Background to Project Conditions. Table 7b Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road/Seagull Way Background and Project Unsignalized Intersection Levels of Service Worst -Case Intersection Movement ___..... _.. Peak Avg. Total Avg. Total Scenario Hour Delay (sec)' LOS2 Delay (sec) LOS Background Conditions AM 8.2 B >120 F PM 4.6 A >120 F Project Conditions AM 11.6 C >120 F PM 2.4 A >120 F Notes: 1 Whole intersection weighted average total delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. 2 LOS calculations performed using the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual methodology contained in TRAFFIX, a level of service analysis program. With the addition of project -generated traffic, the key signalized intersections are projected to continue to operate at levels consistent with Existing and Background Conditions. The intersection of Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and Prospect Road is projected to operate at LOS D during the AM peak hour. This operating level is unacceptable based on the City's goal of LOS C or better. During the PM peak hour, this intersection is projected to continue to operate at LOS C, an acceptable operating level. The intersection of Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and Cox Avenue is projected to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS B during both peak hours. The intersection of Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way is projected to operate at an overall LOS C during the AM peak hour and LOS A during the PM peak hour. The minor Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 22 Classics at Saratoga TIA October 1999 street approaches are projected to operate at LOS F during both peak hours. The reduction in traffic volume on the westbound approach during the PM peak hour due to the redevelopment project improves the operating level of this approach (from 129.0 seconds total average delay to 65.0 seconds), however, the operating level is still LOS F. Intersection Impacts The impacts of the proposed redevelopment project were evaluated by comparing the results of the level of service calculations under Project Conditions to the results under Background Conditions. Signalized Intersections For this analysis, traffic impacts at signalized intersections are defined to occur when the addition of project traffic causes: 1. Intersection operations to deteriorate from an acceptable level (LOS C or better) under Background Conditions to an unacceptable level; or 2. Exacerbation of unacceptable operations (LOS D, E or F) by increasing the critical delay by four or more seconds and increasing the volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.01 or more. Based on the impact criteria listed above, the proposed project would have a less -than - significant impact on the key signalized intersections. Although the intersection of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Prospect Road is projected to operate at an unacceptable LOS D during the AM peak hour, the addition of project traffic is not estimated to increase the critical movement delay by four or more seconds or the critical V/C ratio by 0.01 or more. Unsignalized Intersections For this analysis, traffic impacts at unsignalized intersections are defined to occur when: 1. The addition of project traffic causes overall intersection operations to deteriorate from an acceptable level (LOS C or better) under Background Conditions to an unacceptable level (LOS D, E or F); or 2 The proposed project adds traffic to a movement/lane group that is operating at an unacceptable level (LOS D, E or F) and the traffic volumes at the intersection satisfy the requirements of the Caltrans Peak Hour Volume warrant for traffic signal installation. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 23 Classics at Saratoga TIA October 1999 Based on this definition, the project would have a potentially significant impact on the unsignalized intersection of Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way during the AM peak hour. The project would add 13 trips to the westbound approach, which is projected to operate at LOS F under Background and Project Conditions. Caltrans Peak Hour Volume Warrant for traffic signal installation is satisfied with both the existing AM peak -hour volumes at this intersection and the projected AM peak -hour volumes, after completion of the proposed redevelopment project (see Appendix C). During the PM peak hour, the project would not have a significant impact because, although the westbound approach is projected to operate at LOS F, the project would reduce the traffic volume on this approach by 4 vehicles. The project is not estimated to add traffic to the eastbound approach of the intersection. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures were identified to reduce project impacts on the intersection of Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way. The installation of a traffic signal at this intersection would improve operations to LOS B during both the AM and PM peak hours. As noted above, the Caltrans Peak Hour Volume Warrant for traffic signal installation is satisfied with the AM peak -hour volumes estimated under both Existing and Project Conditions. It is recommended that the City of Saratoga consider signalizing this intersection and that, as mitigation, the project contribute its fair share of the cost of the traffic signal installation if the City constructs the signal. Fair share contributions are typically calculated based on the proportion of traffic associated with a project at the subject location. At the Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road/Seagull Way intersection, 28 trips associated with the proposed project are estimated to travel through the intersection during the AM peak hour. This volume is equivalent to 1.1% of the total estimated AM peak -hour volume at the intersection under Project Conditions (2,597 vehicles). Site Access and On -Site Circulation The site plan shown on Figure 2 was reviewed in terms of site access and on-site circulation. Direct access to the commercial portion of the project site will be provided via one driveway on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, which will be restricted to right turns in and out, and one full access driveway on Seagull Way. The residential units will be served by one full access driveway on Seagull Way. Internal access will not be provided between the commercial and residential components. The number of driveways will be more than adequate to serve estimated traffic volumes associated the proposed uses. Circulation through the residential portion of the project is provided by a 20 -foot roadway that extends southward from Seagull Way past three units and then loops through the Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 24 Classics at Saratoga T1A October 1999 remainder of the residential units. This circulation roadway provides clear and direct access through the site. On -street parking is not feasible with the proposed 20 -foot width of the residential circulation road. The site plan shows 12 on-site guest. parking spaces. Residents should be required to park in their garages or driveways so that guest spaces are available for visitors. As shown of Figure 2, the commercial portion of the site includes two buildings surrounded by a circulation road with the majority of the parking spaces provided on the north and east sides of the buildings. This roadway will provide adequate circulation for the proposed retail uses. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 25 Classics at Saratoga TIA October 1999 CHAPTER 5 - CONCLUSIONS The proposed project is estimated to add 72 net daily trips and 2 net AM peak -hour trips (-12 inbound/14 outbound) and to reduce PM peak -hour trip generation by 26 trips (-18 inbound/ - 8 outbound). The impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding transportation system were evaluated following guidelines of the City of Saratoga and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The results indicate that the proposed redevelopment project would have a less -than - significant impact on the key signalized intersections. The project is estimated to have a potentially significant impact on the unsignalized intersection of Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way during the AM peak hour. This intersection is projected to operate at an overall LOS C during the AM peak hour and LOS A during the PM peak hour under Project Conditions, acceptable levels. However, both minor street approaches are projected to operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours both with and without development of the proposed project. The project is estimated to add 13 trips to the westbound approach (Seagull Way) during the AM peak hour and to reduce the traffic volume on this approach by four vehicles during the PM peak hour. The project is not estimated to add traffic to the eastbound approach at this intersection. Both the existing AM peak -hour volumes at the Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road/Seagull Way intersection and the projected AM peak -hour volumes after completion of the proposed project satisfy the Caltrans Peak Hour Volume Warrant for traffic signal installation. It is recommended that the City of Saratoga consider signalizing this intersection and that, as mitigation, the project contribute its fair share of the cost of the traffic signal installation if the City constructs the signal. Fair share contributions are typically calculated based on the proportion of traffic associated with a project at the subject location. At the Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road/Seagull Way intersection, 28 trips associated with the proposed project are estimated to travel through the intersection during the AM peak hour. This volume is equivalent to 1.1% of the total estimated AM peak -hour volume at this intersection under Project Conditions. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 26 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Attachment B Horticultural Consultant Report City of Saratoga Azule Crossing Environmental Evaluation/Checklist 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111101111111111111111111111 BARRIE D. -GATE and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408-353-1052 Fax 408-353-1238 23535 Summit Road, Los Gatos, CA 95033 AN ANALYSIS OF TREES AT THE AZULE CROSSING INC., 12312 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Heather Bradley City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Barrie D. Coate August 31, 1999 Job #08-99-209 AN ANALYSIS OF TREES AT THEAZULE CROSSING INC., I 12312 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD, SARATOGA Assignment I was asked by Heather Bradley to inspect the Azule Crossing site at 12312 Saratoga — Sunnyvale Road at Sea Gull Way to determine the effects of proposed construction on trees and to estimate their condition and value. This analysis used a plan Prepared by Basssenian and Lagoni Architects 7-12-99 which showed planned development but not existing tree locations, so many tree locations are estimated by us. Summary There are twenty-seven trees on the property that are large enough to be controlled by City Ordinance. This inventory includes: 10- Monterey Pines (Pinus radiata) 8- Ironbark (Eucalyptus sideroxylon `Rosea') 2- Canary Island Pine (Pinus canariensis), 4 Italian Cypress (Cupressus sempervirens), 1 - multi -stem European Olive (Olea europea) and 1- African sumac (Rhus lancea) and 1- Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia). These trees are scattered in various places near buildings or in the parking lot. For the most part they are individual specimens of marginal value. There are many other trees which are smaller than the size controlled by City Ordinance on the property that are very important to screening between this property and other adjacent properties. As an example there are six fine Silver dollar gums (Eucalyptus polyanthum) fronting Saratoga -Sunnyvale Highway. There is a row of Pink Ironbarks against the back east fence line which are smaller than 12 -inch diameter @ 2 -feet above ground. Several of those trees are included in this report but many others are too small to be included but nonetheless help to serve a screening function between this project area and the neighbors to the east. I would suggest that some consideration be given to maintaining some of those trees for there continued screening benefit. Most of the trees included in this report offer insignificant aesthetic value as individuals or would be too difficult to transplant. Many of the Monterey pines will decline in ensuing years. Value of the trees in this report totals $25,871. I do not see a way that the trees except those along the east boundary can be saved. For those trees that are to be saved the following general recommendations should be followed; Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate August 31, 1999 AN ANALYSIS OF TREES AT THE AZULS CROSSING INC., 2 12312 SARA TOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD, SARATOGA 1. Remove surrounding existing hardscape very carefully by pulling it out or off the ground not by running into it with a skip loader and lifting. 2. Install a fence at the dripline of each tree composed of 5 -foot tall chainlink fencing installed on steel posts driven at least 18 -inches into the ground. 3. Avoid allowing contractors or subcontractors to store materials of any kind beneath the canopies of trees which are to be preserved. Respectfully submitted, �_ „ Barrie D. Coate BDC/sl Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate August 31, 1999 0 0 r F Job Title: Azule Crossing Inc. Job Address: 12312 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road 602-66-80 # clot O) (I1 A W N -+ BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES (408) 353-1052 23535 Summd Road Los Galos, CA 95030 Key # Plant Name Monterey Pine 'Monterey Pine 'Monterey Pine Monterey Pine IPinus radiata 'Monterey Pine ' O/ea europaea •O m 75 X $27/sq. in. = $ 2,025 X sp. class 100% = $2,025 X cond. 90% 283 X $27/sq. in. = $ 7,651 X sp. class 20% = $1,530 X cond. 90% = $ 1,377 X loc. 95% S° 0 0 w 201 X $27/sq. in. = $ 5,426 X sp. class 20% = $1,085 X cond. 90% 0 m w o 201 X $27/sq. in. = $ 5,426 X sp. class 20% _ $1,085 X cond. 100% 0 0 0 iv 95 X $27/sq. in. = $ 2,565 X sp. class 20% = $513 X cond. 100% - 0 a iv 380 X $27/sq. in. = $ 10,258 X sp. class 20% = $2,052 X cond. 90% N 0 N 50 0 x o N DBH MULTI -SYSTEM DBH DBH DIAMETER ©2 FEET Measurements o v HEIGHT SPREAD N N w N — co w N w N w N w A X sp. class 100% w . W HEALTH (1-5) STRUCTURE (1-5) CONDITION RATING (2-10) HAZARD RATING (3-9) -- — --, CROWN CLEANING CROWN THINNING CROWN RESTORATION CROWN RAISING REMOVE END -WEIGHT CABLES NEEDED # PRUNING PRIORITY (1-5) 1 Prunina/Cablina Needs 1 Pest/Disease Problems 1 Recommend. 1 INSECTS (1-5) TREE CROWN DISEASE (1-5) DEAD WOOD (1-5) TRUNK DECAY(1-5) ROOT COLLAR COVERED (1-5) ROOT COLLAR DISEASE (1-5) _ -- NEEDS WATER (1-5) NEEDS FERTILIZER RECOMMEND REMOVAL REMOVAL PRIORITY (1-3) Job Title: Azule Crossing Inc. Job Address: 12312 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road 602-66-80 # clot N a i^ m • V V d 11 r 11 11 11 * n • A 0 0 No 0 O - N 7J cfcm d dm m 0 o d 11 11 11ER 69 C - m o w o u 80 Job Title: Azule Crossing Inc. Job Address: 12312 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road 602-66-80 # qot (J N _. p �D OD 0 BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES (406) 353-1052 23535 Sum Road Los Gatos, CA 95030 Key # Plant Name Ironbark Eucalyptus 19.0 22 22 28 1 3 4 I I f Ironbark Eucalyptus IIronbark Eucalyptus IIronbark Eucalyptus Eucalyptus sideroxylon 'Rosea' Ironbark Eucalyptus (Monterey Pine w o Zvi AN, ns) Co' O nNi o oIV N o ra 8 N 0 x co 0 m o ro o 0 a DBH MULTI -SYSTEM DBH DBH DIAMETER @2 FEET 1 Measurements m w HEIGHT SPREAD X sp. class 20% = $610 X cond. 75% X sp. class 20% = $716 Xcond. 75% -' co A -• w a X sp. class 20% = $610 X cond. 75% w A X sp. class 20% = $745 X cond. 75% — w A X sp. class 20% = $1,696 X cond. 75% — -. N HEALTH (1-5) STRUCTURE (1-5) CONDITION RATING (2-10) HAZARD RATING (3-9) c a o• o _ $1,373 Xcond. 75% = $ 1,030 Xloc. 60% CROWN CLEANING CROWN THINNING CROWN RESTORATION CROWN RAISING REMOVE END -WEIGHT CABLES NEEDED # — — PRUNING PRIORITY (1-5) Pruning/Cabling Needs 1 Pest/Disease Problems 1 Recommend 1 i. 1NEEDS INSECTS (1-5) TREE CROWN DISEASE (1-5) DEAD WOOD (1-5) TRUNK DECAY(1-5) ROOT COLLAR COVERED (1-5) ROOT COLLAR DISEASE (1-5) j1 ''i NEEDS WATER (1-5) FERTILIZER RECOMMEND REMOVAL REMOVAL PRIORITY (1-3) Job Title: Azule Crossing Inc. Job Address: 12312 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road 602-66-80 # qot CO CDw 0 N m 0 0 m 0 0 d113 x x x 11 11 11 11 to n VI en e» w m U P 0 0 0 ° m 00 Z N am 0030m amm x 11 u u M m 8NQO' O 0 1S2lOM = S '1S38 = L Job Title: Azule Crossing Inc. Job Address: 12312 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road 602-66-80 # qof 1 N O t0 -.. OD V .+ O) V) 0 BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES (408) 353.1052 23535 Suomi! Road be Gatos, CA 95030 Key # Plant Name Pinus canariensis sq. in 'Canary Island Date Palm Ironbark Eucalyptus (Canary Island Date Palm 112.0 t � 16 128 14 1 1 1 2 1 1 I I I 1 Ilronbark Eucalyptus 23.0 I 28 j 40 1 38 1 2 3 II 1 1 i t I 1 1 I s J14.0 1 118218145 1.11 I I! 1 1 I 1 1 1 0 74 N cn o 0 N o n) 0 0 DBH MULTI -SYSTEM DBH DBH DIAMETER @2 FEET Measurements ^) w HEIGHT SPREAD X sp. class 20% = $3,323 X cond. 75% X sp. class 90% = $3,224 X cond. 90% -, h.) w X sp. class 30% = $636 X cond. 60% — a cn X sp. class 30% = $1,431 X cond. 60% - a co HEALTH (1-5) STRUCTURE (1-5) CONDITION RATING (2-10) HAZARD RATING (3-9) 1 Condition 1 Prunina/Cablina Needs 1 PestlDisease Problems 1 Recommend 1 CROWN CLEANING CROWN THINNING CROWN RESTORATION CROWN RAISING REMOVE END -WEIGHT CABLES NEEDED # PRUNING PRIORITY (1-5) INSECTS (1-5) TREE CROWN DISEASE (1-5) DEAD WOOD (1-5) TRUNK DECAY(1-5) ROOT COLLAR COVERED (1-5) ROOT COLLAR DISEASE (1-5) x NEEDS WATER (1-5) NEEDS FERTILIZER RECOMMEND REMOVAL i REMOVAL PRIORITY (14) Job Title: Azule Crossing Inc. Job Address: 12312 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road 602-66-80 # qof x 44 N M m x G n N w V 0 i II (Mpp 8 V O H4 0 CO N N N 0 x 8 n 8 M pN 0 Et W x H {A W NJ N x a () N O N O) x 0 a 8 tie II 14 N N m 8 II N 7' w x M IV N M (.1 N x N G) 8 ae M N O) x 0 E. 8 e N V) m x 8 be a 0 N O ET N 44 N CO x 8 E. 8 M N O) x 8 w 4) NJ r n N 0 3 H N x N 44 w x N F$ NJ N 3 n v 7z a O a z 3 A DBH MULTI -SYSTEM DBH DBH - DIAMETER (gl2 FEET HEIGHT rn SPREAD squawains HEALTH (1-5) STRUCTURE (1-5) CONDITION RATING (2-10) HAZARD RATING (3-9) a o' x 8 8 N N NJ N N CROWN CLEANING CROWN THINNING CROWN RESTORATION CROWN RAISING REMOVE END -WEIGHT CABLES NEEDED # c n v 5' n 3 PRUNING PRIORITY (1-5) INSECTS (1-5) TREE CROWN DISEASE (1-5) DEAD WOOD (1-5) TRUNK DECAY(1-5) ROOT COLLAR COVERED (1-5) ROOT COLLAR DISEASE (1-5) n n u M nt 3 N NEEDS WATER (1-5) NEEDS FERTILIZER RECOMMEND REMOVAL REMOVAL PRIORITY (1-3) 0 3 3 60z-66-80 # qof a h 0 12 xzb� �po. ((food neighbor I'rnel> �.:.�. : Olail r, • ...vitallyand...vitallyblur n and .nalbw 0 p rmn reta%hellM urnd to applywort alfewnrly JI he kited.. trees M1 MA L1( WI In sdewenw. horn.. diddled we 27 S..X.11 War d here ,5vs-r/N6 fo P-EMi%/N 17 \10 oh .ld .Ice 18 7r70odd1. Ap. frr SIRS . . 0 BARRIE D. COAIE find ORMS]TES N NOPTICUI ITINAI. CONSULTANT CONSULTING APHORIST An Atul1_al_J 1 tos al III. M::Ie l 1011.3III... 11311 Safin64-Suv:s�alc N:uJ lob W11,49-1114 nAli:_Auguw !I Ir149 n 23 25 4 c/ 24 o�q 4 Shrui ground• els and accent pia ling.. oncretc t(a++ ice/ Q' E1 ti Standar04ray redi-.tis enncrer\ Sidewalks lyleditirn broom finish stan&nd gray redi-mix eunarate drixcwa) oergreen shrub and tree screen Shrubs.gra and accent I ,_C4.1"fair BPI Stucco finish painted to match architect .� UI/ ICIDILr] igri n.nr m RufirROaOraAlAa .! i f II !e�aiaflie: '.. " P :.;Ir II s r%lamia a a 1 y V ► W.:r�a'Y 7:IP.MPI ti. his Pre -cast concrete wal Attachment C Responsible Agency Correspondence City of Saratoga Azule Crossing Environmental Evaluation/Checklist 10/22/99 09:30 V^408 378 9342 CFPL CODE/SEC. 1JFC Appendix 11I -A '903.2 City S.TG SECJFLOOR FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 (phone) • (408) 378-9342 (fax) 4.0102, UUa CONTROL NUMBER BLDG PERMIT NUMBER PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 9 9- 2 9 3 8 FILE NUMBER DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS SHEET NO) REQUIREMENT 1 2 3 Review of a Tentative Map and subdivision plans for a new 27 -lot residential subdivision and the addition of of 2,600 square feet to an existing commercial property. Within the residential development, Lots 24 & 25 are a duet town home, Lots 13, 26 & 27 are a three unit town home and lots 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 are a five unit town home. Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits. Required Fire Flow: Required fire flow for this project is 1,000 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure. The required fire flow is available from area water mains and fire hydrant(s) which are spaced at the required spacing. Public Fire Hydrant(s) Required: Provide 3 public fire hydrant(s) at location(s) to be determined by the Fire Department and San Jose Water Company. Hydrant spacing shall not exceed 500 feet, with a minimum single flow of 1,000 GPM at 20 psi, residual. Prior to applying for building permit, provide civil drawings reflecting all fire hydrants proximal to the site. To prevent building permit delays, the developer shall pay all required fees to the water company ASAP. PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS NAME OF PROJECT AREA OCCUPANCY LOAD CLASICS OF SARATOGA Seagull Way @ Saratoga-sunnyvale CONST. TYPE DESCRIPTION PERMITTEE BRAIN KANGAS FOULK Residential Development ILOCATION DATE 10/21/99 BY PAGE 1 4 OF Hokanson, Wayne A California Fire Protection District serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hul, and Saratoga 10/22/99 09:31 n408 378 9342 CFPD FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY CONTROL NUMBER 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 BLDG PERMIT NUMBER (408) 378-4010 (phone) • (408) 378-9342 (fax) 003,005 PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 9 9- 2 9 3 8 FILE NUMBER DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS CODE/SEC. I SHEET UFC 901.3 LTFC 902.2.2 JFC 902.2.4.1 1JFC 4+01.4.2 STG NO. REQUIREMENT 4 Timing of Required Water Supply Installations: Installations of required fire service(s) and fire hydrant(s) shall be tested and accepted by the Fire Department, prior to the start of framing or delivery of bulk combustible materials. Building permit issuance may be withheld until required installations are completed, tested, and accepted. 5 Fire Hydrant Location Identifier: Prior to project final inspection, the general contractor shall ensure that a "Blue" dot has been placed in the roadway, as directed by the fire department. 6 7 8 Fire Apparatus (Engine) Access Roads Required: Provide access roadways with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet A-1. Parking Along Roadways: The required width of fire access roadways shall not be obstructed in any manner. Parking shall not be allowed along roadways less than 28 feet in width. Parking will be allowed along one side of the street for roadways 28-35 feet in width. For roadways equal to or greater than 36 feet parking will be allowed on both sides of the roadway. Roadway widths shall be measured face to face of curb. Parking spaces are based on an 8 ft wide space. Fire Lane Marking Required: Provide marking for all roadways within the project. Markings shall be per fire department specifications. Installations shall also conform to Local Government Standards and Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications A-6. Cliy PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS S EC./FLOOR NAME OF PROJECT AREA OCCUPANCY LOAD CONST. TYPE DESCRIPTION PERMITTEE BRAIN KANGAS FOULK Residential Development DATE 10/21/99 BY LOCATION CLASICS OF SARATOGA PAGE 2 4 OF Hokanson, Wayne Seagull Way ® Saratoga-sunnyvale A California Fire Protection District serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga 10/22/99 09:31 VV408 378 9342 CDDEFSEC. UFC 901.3 1JFC 901.4.4 .;MC 16-15.110 SMC 14-25.110 UFC 903.3 as A mended by SMC 16-20.150 City PLANS STG D SI-IC/FLOOR NAME OF PROJECT CFPD L0004/003 FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY CONTROL NUMBER 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 BLDG PERMrrNUUBER (408) 3784010 (phone) • (408) 378-9342 (fax) PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 99- 2938 FILE NUMBER DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS SHEET f NO. 9 10 11 12 13 REQUIREMENT Timing of Required Roadway Installations: Required access roads, up through first lift of asphalt, shall be installed and accepted by the Fire Department prior to the start of construction. Bulk combustible materials shall not be delivered to the site until installation is complete. During construction, emergency access roads shall be maintained clear and unimpeded. Note that building permit issuance may be withheld until installations are completed. Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background. Garage Fire Sprinkler System Required: An approved, automatic fire sprinkler system designed per National Fire Protection Association Standard #13D and local ordinances, shall be provided for the garage. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. Early Warning Fire Alarm System Required: Provide an approved Early Warning Fire Alarm System throughout all portions of the structure, installed per City of Saratoga Standards. Prior to installation, a licensed C-10 contractor shall submit to the fire department, plans, specifications & listings, a completed permit application, and applicable fee's for review and approval. Automatic Fire Sprinkler System Required: Buildings requiring a fire flow in excess of 2,000 GPM or, is three (3) or more stories in height or, in excess of 10,000 square feet, shall be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system, hydraulically designed per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard #13. Sprinklers l a r be required in Townhomes depending on area calculations SPECS NEW RMDL AS O 0.00 AREA OCCUPANCY LOAD CLASICS OF SARATOGA CONST. TYPE DESCRIPTION PERURTEE BRAIN KANGAS FOULK Residential Development LOCATION DATE 10/21/99 BY PAGE 3 OF 4 Hokanson, Wayne Seagull Way C? Saratoga-sunnyvale A California fire Protection District seruing Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga 10/22/99 09:32 ^C408 378 9342 CFPD CODE/SEC. l SHEET I NO.1 REOUIREMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 (phone) • (408) 378-9342 (fax) I�J UUo: UUo CONTROL NUMBER BLDG PEANUT NUMBER PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 99- 2938 FILE NUMBER DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS Concerning the new commercial additions to the property: lro 14 See items #6, 7 & 8 above regarding access roadways around the new commercial building addition. City PLANS SPECS NEW RYDL AS s,rG SF:CJFLOOR AREA ❑ 0 0 ❑ ❑ NAME OF PROJECT OCCUPANCY LOAD CLASICS OF SARATOGA CONST. TYPE (PERMITTEE BRAIN KANGAS FOULK DESCRIPTION Residential Development LOCATION DATE PAGE 10/21/99 1 4 OF 4 BY Hokanson, Wayne Seagull Way @ Saratoga-sunnyvale A California Fire Protection District serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga S A N T A C L A R A /fir /23 Valley Transportation Authority December 7, 1998 City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Attention: Heather Bradley Subject: Azule Crossing Dear Ms. Bradley: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) staff have reviewed the project referenced above for construction of 26 single family homes, 9 town homes, and a 15,400 - square foot commercial building which will replace the existing commercial development. We have the following comments. VTA provides bus service along South Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road via Line 54 and maintains a bus stop adjacent to the project site. In order to provide convenient access to existing transit service, VTA recommends that the City condition the project to provide the following improvements: • A PCC bus stop pavement pad (9' X 50') for the length of the bus stop consistent with VTA Bus Stop Pavement Details (Figure 26 and Technical Specifications, attached). • The existing 5 -foot wide sidewalk should be widened to 10 feet along South Saratoga - Sunnyvale for the area between the intersection of South Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road/Sea Gull Way and approximately 12 feet past the existing tree in the sidewalk. An area of approximately 3 feet on either side of the tree can be left unpaved in order to provide adequate space for the tree. This should result in a continuous concrete area of about 20 feet north of the tree and another area about 9 feet south of the tree. This should allow sufficient space for a passenger waiting area for both doors of the bus. • A wheelchair curb ramp at the intersection the intersection of South Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Sea Gull Way in compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) pedestrian access standards. A pedestrian signal phase and a crosswalk should also be considered for this intersection. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions, please call Roy Molseed of my staff at (408) 321-5784. Sincerely, Environmental Program Manager TDR: RM: kh 3331 North First Street • San Jose, CA 95134-1906 • Administration 408.321.5555 • Customer Service 408.321.2300 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 1. P.C.C. pavement with monolithic curb and gutter shall conform to the provisions in Section 40, " PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT," and Section 90, " PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE" of the State Standard Specifications and these special provisions. 2. P.C.C. pavement shall be class A with a compressive strength of 4000 psi at the age of 28 days. Polypropylene fibers (Fibermesh or approved equal), length 1/2", shall be added to the concrete at a rate of 1 1/2 lbs/cy. 3. After spreading and compacting, P.C.C. shall be given a preliminary finish which shall be smooth and true to grade. In advance of curing operations, the pavement shall be given a final rough broom finish with grooves having a depth of 1/8" perpendicular to the curb and gutter. 4. All newly - placed concrete shall be cured in accordance with the provisions in Section 90-7, "Curing Concrete," of the State Standard Specifications. Curing compound to be used shall be applied to the P.C.C. following the surface finishing operations immediately before the moisture sheen disappears from the surface and before any drying, shrinkage or craze cracks begin to appear. Curing compound shall be applied at a nominal rate of one gallon per 150 square feet. At any point, the application rate shall be within +/- 50 square feet per gallon of the nominal rate specified. 5. Sawcutting of the contraction joints must be performed within 24 hours after concrete has received final surface finish. 6. Contractor shall protect P.C.C. pad as specified in Section 90-8.03, " Protecting Concrete Pavement." Where public traffic will be required to cross over new pavement, and if directed by the Engineer, Type III Portland Cement shall be used in concrete. When Type III Portland Cement is used in concrete, and if permitted in writing by the Engineer, the pavement may be opened to traffic as soon as the concrete has developed a modulus of rupture of 550 pounds per square inch. The modulus of rupture will be determined by California Test Method 523. No traffic or Contractor's equipment, except as hereinafter provided, will be permitted on the pavement before a period of ten (10) calendar days has elapsed after the concrete has been placed, nor before the concrete has developed a modulus of rupture of at least 550 pounds per square inch. Concrete that fails to attain a modulus of rupture of 550 pounds per square inch within 10 days shall not be opened to traffic until directed by the Engineer. Equipment for sawing contraction joints (weakened plane joints) will be permitted on the pavement as specified in Section 40-1.08B, "Weakened Plane Joints," of the State Standard Specifications. 7. Contraction joints, expansion joints and gaps between the P.C.C. pad and the existing pavement section shall be cleaned and sealed prior to permitting traffic on the pad. Removable cap joint shall be placed around the perimeter of the concrete pad excluding curb and gutter. Joint sealing compound shall be type "A" joint seal and shall conform to the provisions of Section 51-1.12F of the State Standard Specifications. The Z component polyurethane sealant shall be State Specification 8030 - 61J - 01 or approved equal. SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BUS STOP PAVEMENT DETAILS ATTACHMENT 1 FOR FIGURE 26 F.0.C.� LIP/ SIDEWALK pA C U C •B B C C 1 U L 50'± TYP 10't TYP SAWCUT AND EXCAVATE EXISTING PAVEMENT. INCLUDING CURB & GUTTER. REPLACE WITH P.C.C. PAVEMENT SECTION AND MONOLITHIC CURB & GUTTER. ---4. SIDEWALK 9 14 DOWEL AT 18' 0.C. (OPTIONAL) PLAN VIEW N 'WHEN PAD IS 75' OR LONGER. PLACE EXPANSION JOINT AT 1/2 THE LENGTH OF THE P.C.C. PAD. IN LONG PADS, EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE PLACED AT APPROXIMATELY 75 -FOOT INTERVALS OR AS SPECIFIED BY THE ENGINEER. r 6 I 10' - 12' VARIES 11=0.10i MATCH EXISTING CURB & GUTTER - jjCALCjTARDSAS REQ'D INSTALL 3/4" WIDE FIBER FABRIC TO 1/2" BELOW FINISHED SURFACE. FILL REMAINDER WITH APPROVED SEALING COMPOUND: ROUND CORNERS TO 1/4" R. SECTION A -A CONCRETE PAD IV/MONOLITHIC CURB & GUTTER 49 DOWELS -18" LONG SMOOTH BAR 0 18" 0.C. LUBRICATE BOTH ENDS OF DOWEL 44 BARS TO STABILIZE 4 9 DOWELS P.C.C. AGO. BASE J ............... 8 1/2" CL. A P.C.C. W/POLYPROPYLENE Fl HERS 8" CLASS 2 AGC. BASE - 955 COMPACTION 955 RELATIVE COMPACTION ON NATIVES OIL 44 BARS TO STABIUZE 4 9 DOWELS P.C.0 ACC. BASE DOBIE SUPPORTS DOBIE SUPPORTS SECTION B -B EXPANSION JOINT NOTE FOR TECNICAL SPECIFICATIONS REFER TO ATTACHMENT 1. EXISTING PAVEMENT 2- X 1/4" WIDE SAWCUT CONTRACTION JOINT. FILL WITH APPROVED WITH APPROVED SEALING COMPOUND 49 DOWELS -18" LONG SMOOTH BAR 0 18" O.C. LUBRICATE BOTH ENDS OF DOWEL SECTION C -C CONTRACTION JOINT SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BUS STOP PAVEMENT DETAILS FIGURE 26 Pacific Gas and Electric Company November 14, 1998 CITY OF SARATOGA Community Development Heather Bradley 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CA 95070 Re: Plan Review 12340 S Saratoga Avenue PG&E file No 0541L6-2954 Ms. Bradley: South Coast Area, Land Right. jfice 111 Almaden Boulevard Suite 814 San Jose, CA 95113 Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment to the proposed development of the property at the above referenced location. PG&E owns and operates a variety of gas and electric facilities which (may be/are) located within the proposed project boundaries. To promote the safe and reliable maintenance and operation of utility facilities, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has mandated specific clearance requirements between utility facilities and surrounding objects or construction activities. To ensure compliance with these standards, project proponents should coordinate with PG&E early in the development of their project plans. Any proposed development plans should provide for unrestricted utility access and prevent easement encroachments that might impair the safe and reliable maintenance and operation of PG&E's facilities. Any tentative subdivision maps should be sent to this office for review and comment. Some examples of activities which could have an impact upon our facilities include permanent/temporary changes in grade over or under our facilities; construction of structures within or adjacent to PG&E's easements; and planting of certain types of vegetation over or underneath our gas and electric facilities respectively. Developers will be responsible for the costs associated with the relocation of existing PG&E facilities to accommodate their proposed development. Relocation of gas and electric facilities may require long lead times and are not always feasible, and developers are encouraged to consult with PG&E early as possible in their planning stages. Please contact me at 408.282.7546 if you have any questions regarding our comments. We would also appreciate being copied on future correspondence regarding this subject as this project develops. Thank you Nicholas C. Arellano Lead Land Technician S:\De Anza\Map reviews441162954\I6-2954.doc 3, v- DEPA TME+ 1F ENVIRONMENT L HEALTH L,. """) USE SURVEY 1 Referred From: Crtiktin Recd: Il ( Le 4 Due: t�_ ( of File #: Location: t234D S. NZ_ Proposal: �u (rn, Applicant: t 2 Phone #: r: Owne� ley Phone #: Existing yes no D r Wells: # active # inactive_ Use ❑ Septic Tanks (describe, permits) ❑ Structures (describe) Referrals Needed (describe under miscellaneous - indicate if referred and to whom) Hazardous Materials: ❑ Yes lid. No Vector Control: ❑Yes C No Solid Waste: ❑ Yes Sewage Disposal ❑ Not Applicable I,` li /, Sewered: `Yes ❑No (If no, distance to sewer (miles): ) District Name ll" U t'Y\ • ❑Yes ❑No Date Completed: Depth (feet) ❑Yes ❑No Date Completed: Leachfield Requirement (lineal ft.): plus (❑plus 100% expansion in Lexington Drainage) Drainfield Slope: 00-10% 010-20% 020-30% 030-50% ❑>50% [ Geotech. Report: ❑ Req'd. ❑Approved] Features Near Drainfield: ❑Creeks ❑Drainage Channels ❑Cut/Steep Banks ❑Wells ❑None Soil Profile Required: Perc Test: Required: Size Septic Tank Req'd (gal.): Water Supply ❑ Not Applicable Public/Mutual Water System (name) W� Shared (# connections) Private Supply: ❑Well ❑Spring ❑Other (des be below) Distance to Public Supply (miles) Miscellaneous: 7Complete/Approved with following conditions El Add'I Info. on Back e ommendation (check only one): ❑ Add'I. Info on Back n./b t(A)A4-c Specialist: ❑ Incomplete (provide following) Date: 1' t� I Supervisor: O Disapprove for following reasons Date: i1 cPN TO: cot 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 9507(1 • ;-lu: tii;S-1_'m TRANSMITTAL - CITY OF SARATOGA �►ap ; t1�k-sz:r )t \c'11. \II;\I13E1;� SARATOGA FIRE DIST. CITY GEOLOGIST S.C. CO. CENTRAL FIRE CITY ARBORIST SAN JOSE WATER CO. SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER • / OTHER )J 1 Mti0&O`, DISTRICT FROM: Heather Bradley, Associate Planner DATE: November 6, 1998 OWNER'S NAME: Galeb ADDRESS: 12340 S. Saratoga Avenue PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for Subdivision, Design Review and Use Permit approval to construct 26 single family homes, 9 new town -houses, demolish the existing commercial buildings totaling 40,000 sq. ft. and construct a new 15,400 sq. ft. two-story commercial building at the center known as Azule Crossing. The single family homes will range in size from 1,967 to 2,434 while the town -houses will be between 1,967 to 1,971 sq. ft. The site is 3.95 acres located in a Commercial Neighborhood zoning district on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road at Seagull Way. Your agency has been requested/invited to review and comment on this proposal. Please submit your comments by December 7, 1998 to Heather Bradley in the Community Development Department. This will ensure that we can incorporate your concerns into the review process. Thank You. REPLY: 1 — i=po ►2-'l' 14 (3112.---;t> rr70- 1 L4- pit.ritio ro > kr, P ty-o 1—r 2' '�`P >i_4�n1 12�=tet f12--1-lh Com_ 3_ I2-aS i D; t Tr A L O nl 1 tc-, ' Et -Mt- MA A1, o r 3' c l s p o M %2-. j' -p-ivi N c, 0 I div e-, 6..1v 1kz, V tz i- a V-/A-"4As W I TIA T 0.124s.,,►c10 . 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200 Incorporated October 22, 1956 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Heather Bradley, Associate Planner DATE: November 10, 1999 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Evan Bake! Stan Bogosian Jonn Mehaffev Nick Streit Ann Waltonsmith SUBJECT: SD -99-005, UP -99-018 and DR -99-037; 12312 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road AZULE CROSSING DESCRIPTION The applicants are requesting Subdivision, Use Permit and Design Review approval to construct 25 new residential units of approximately 1,524 sq. ft. to 2,345 sq. ft. and remodel the existing retail building located at the front of the property. The commercial building will be expanded from its current 11,931 sq. ft. to 14,233 sq. ft. The property is located in a Commercial Neighborhood zoning district. The residential component of the project would occupy 2.62 acres while the commercial component would occupy 1.28 acres. Please refer to your staff report from October 27 for further details. Background This item was open for Public Hearing at the meeting of October 27, 1999. The Planning Commission heard from the applicants and interested neighbors at that time. The Commission's discussion focused on various concerns including the lack of open space within the proposed subdivision, lack of a connection to the commercial site from the subdivision, compatibility with the neighborhood and lack of transition between the existing neighborhood and the proposed subdivision. Draft minutes of that meeting are included in this packet for reference. Discussion In response to the Planning Commission's concerns, the applicants have revised the site plan and residential designs by eliminating two of the proposed lots (bringing the density down from 10.3 to 9.6 dwelling units per acre), providing more open space, changing the design of the attached units 000001 Printed on recycled paper. File No. SD -99-005, UP -99-018 & DR -99-037; 12312 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road so that they are a combination of duplex units and smaller detached units, and also changing the residence at the corner of Seagull Way to a single -story. The applicants have also included a pedestrian connection and a vehicular connection to the commercial development. Specific details of the plan revisions are provided in the applicants' attached correspondence. In response to the Commissioners' concerns regarding the transition between the existing neighborhood and the proposed subdivision, the applicants have removed some of the interior attached row -type units and replaced them with duplex -type units. The proposed lots that would back up to the existing single family neighborhood are still the largest of the proposed lots. All of these are detached units and all have 25 foot rear yard setbacks, the same as apply to the homes in the adjacent neighborhood. The duplex units would then be located in the middle of the project and would be buffered from the single family neighborhood by the proposed detached units. These attached units would in turn serve as a buffer between the commercial use and the larger lot detached units. The one attached row -type unit would be located furthest from the existing single family neighborhood. For a multiple family project, the transition provided by these various unit types appears to be relatively logical and appropriate. Commissioner Kurasch will not be present at the November 10 meeting. She did provide the attached schematic site plan of a more integrated mixed-use development alternative that represents her suggestions for the property. RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that the applicants have substantively addressed each of the specific concerns raised at the October 27 meeting. Staff is therefore recommending that the Planning Commission approve the applications by adopting Resolutions SD -99-005, UP -99-018 and DR -99-037 and the environmental Negative Declaration. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolutions SD -99-005, UP -99-018 and DR -99-037 2. Applicants' Correspondence 3. Letter from Katie Alexander dated November 4, 1999 4. Schematic site plan from Commissioner Kurasch 5. Revised Plans, Exhibit A 000002 11/04/99 14:24 $650 493 9050 MOZART 1I .►nn CLASSIC COMMUNITIES November 4, 1999 Mr. James Walgren Planning Director City of Saratoga 13 777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Walgren: CO 002/003 Enclosed for your review, evaluation and presentation to the Planning Commission are revised plans for the proposed redevelopment of the Azule Crossing property located at the intersection of Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and Sea Gull Way. The objective of these revisions is to address and resolve, in a comprehensive and systematic manner, the issues identified by Planning Commissioners at the October 27, 1999 Planning Commission meeting_ The following modifications have been made to the residential element of the proposed redevelopment plan: 1. Two townhome units have been eliminated from the plan, thereby decreasing the total number of units in the development from 27 to 25. reducing the density of the development and further reducing the already limited traffic impacts of the development. 2. Two open spaces have been introduced to the plan, where the two townhomes units were formerly located. Both of the open spaces are located on the center island and are well distributed across the property. The open space located adjacent to Lot 20 provides a visual terminus for the entry drive from Sea Gull Way and a visual transition to the commercial portion of the property. The open space located adjacent to Lot 13 is opposite the rail corridor and is positioned to complement a "rails to trails" open space within the rail corridor. 3. A band of duplex units has been developed between the single-family homes to the north east and the townhome units on the south. This increases the diversity and variety of building types; adds a layer to the transition from residential to commercial use: and enables the single-family homes to address duplex units across the private street. 4. A vehicular connection between the commercial and residential elements. designed to provide secondary ingress/egress from the residential zone to Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, has been introduced. One of the effects of this modification will be to minimize the already limited traffic impacts of the development on Sea Gull Way. 1068 EAST NiE.\DOW CIRCLE. PALO ALTO. (.:AI.IFC)RNIA 9 ;03 TELEPI IONF. (650) 496.4946 FACSIMILE (650) ?9(.9';; e00019 11/04/99 14:25 $650 493 9050 MOZART g003/003 5. A pedestrian connection between on of the two open spaces and the commercial portion of the property has been introduced, further enhancing the pedestrian environment of the residential element_ 6. A single -story home has been designed and introduced on Lot 1 to provide more consistency with single -story homes fronting on Sea Gull Way. The floor area for this home is substantially smaller than the floor area for home previously proposed on this lot. 7. The floor plan and elevations for the home on Lot 2 have been modified to eliminate a portion of the second floor and to provide a transition from the single -story home on Lot 1 to the two-story homes on the balance of the property. The floor area for this home is significantly smaller than the floor area previously proposed for this lot. 8. The floor plan and elevations for the home on Lot 3 have been modified to continue the transition in height Sea Gull Way. 9. The existing masonary wall along the northerly boundary of the property is be retained (a "good neighbor" wood fence was originally proposed). In addition, a masonary wall extending from Sea Gull Way to the east along Lots 1 and 2 has been substituted for the originally proposed wood fence. 10. A portion of the masonary wall extending from Sea Gull Way between the commercial and residential elements has been redesigned to provide a visual connection from the commercial zone to the open space area adjacent to Lot 20. CCI has carefully considered the comments made by Planning Commissioner at the October 27. 199 meeting and believes that these revisions effectively respond to those issues. CCI looks forward to Planning Commission review of the modified plans. If you have any questions or would like additional information regarding this letter or the enclosed materials, please contact us at 650+496-4496. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, alk-ru-c( Scott Ward Vice President Pee')?® THE GRIFFIN COMPANY 12302 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road Saratoga, CA 95070 www.thegriffincompany.com (408) 252-8124 FAX (408) 252-7465 November 2, 1999 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitdale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Attn: James Walgren and Planning Commissioners RE: Azule Crossing Project Planning Commission hearing Wednesday, October 27, 1999 Residential Development and Re -vitalizing Retail Building at the corner of Seagull Way and Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road Mr. Walgren and Planning Commissioners, The purpose of this letter is to familiarize you as to the ownership of the Azule Crossing property. The Galeb family purchased the land in and has been residences of Saratoga since 1937. The original home site was an apricot and prune orchard until the development of the existing site in the late 1960's and early 1980's. Zorka Ficovich and Desanka Popovich, the daughters, have operating the corporation for some 20 years. The importance of the family is to maintain a presence in Saratoga and maintain the name of "Azule Crossing". The Azule Crossing was one of the original train stops that picked up people on the way to San Francisco and back. The name itself has significant history. The family also wants to assure the City of Saratoga that they will do everything in their power, through reconfiguring of the building, to maintain a retail presence, not as offices. We've noted various concerns that were brought up from the public and the commissioners regarding this re -development. The following are some responses. 1) Regarding the concerns of the neighbor with the proposed signal at the corner of Seagull Way and Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road. It appears to me that eventually the pressure from the neighborhood is going to show that a signal will be needed. Therefore his concern for the signal would be present whether this development occurs or not. 2) The traffic impacts of the proposed redevelopment are very limited. The proposed development clearly generates dramatically less traffic than would be produced if the property were to remain the same as a retail/office development. In particular, the residential development type that is proposed here would generate far fewer peak hour trips than a retail/office development. Retail/office traffic is all day long, in and out, while residential traffic would mostly occur in the AM and early PM. Moreover, with the introduction of a second ingress and egress to the residential homes, through the retail site, the traffic impact of this development on Sea Gull Way will be even more limited. 021 Page Two Planning Commission / Azule Crossing, Inc. We understand that the developers of the residential development have decided to reduce the number of residential units. This will have even a less traffic impact on Seagull Way. 3) Regarding the sales tax implications. The outline in the economic study conducted by Strategic Economics, shows that there will be no appreciable loss of sales tax revenue as a result of this redevelopment. An example of increased tax revenue lets take the Front Window, a retail store currently on the site. With increased visibility and better accessibility, sales income should increase and therefore generate more sales tax revenue. We believe that using the Front Window for an example and us committed to leasing to retail instead of office space, we believe that future income will increase at least 50% to 60% over the years to come. Thank you very much for taking this under consideration, looking forward to talking with you again on November 10, 1999. Dennis E. Griffin, CCIM GUOO22 Thursday, November 04, 1999 11:53 To: Planning Commission CC: City From: Thomas Soukup, Saratoga Planning Commission CC: Saratoga City Council 4 November 1999 Re: Azule Crossing Development Dear Planning Commissioners: 253-5798 Page: 1 of 1 The Azule Crossing development is very good in many aspects, including design of retail and residential spaces. Generally, I am against high-density homes. The higher density homes make the area look less like the rest of Saratoga. However, I must admit that those high-density homes adjacent to retail and RR tracks might be the most reasonable development. This development would generally be an improvement over the current dark retail and office buildings with huge parking lot. However, there are two issues impacting the broader neighborhood -residential side of the development that have been overlooked. Traffic: Although a traffic light at Seagull Wy. and Sunnyvale -Saratoga Rd. will improve safety at the intersection, it will create other serious safety issues in the nearby residential area. The added traffic light on Seagull Way will encourage many drivers outside the neighborhood to use Seagull as a shortcut rather driving down to the next light on Cox Ave. Seagull is a curvy street in a residential area adjacent to a Blue Hills Elementary School. This past Spring a neighborhood dog was killed, hit and run, on a weekday afternoon. Since many schoolchildren cross Seagull Way to and from school, I wony that it could have just as easily been a child rather than a dog. At our request, the Sheriffs Dept. is providing us with higher enforcement of traffic laws in the area (running stop signs, speeding, etc.). Since there is already a safety issue here, I feel that this problem will become worse due to the traffic light. I would also like to point out, that by placing a light at that intersection, the turn becomes easier and safer, so daily traffic to the school will increase on Seagull. Cars will queue up in front of homes close to the intersection, perhaps blocking driveways. Due to the light, the overall pattern of traffic flow will change, so that the total volume of cars will be higher than the mere impact of the Azule Crossing Development itself. I have read the traffic study and I can find no mention of cut-thru traffic issue or change in the flow pattern due to the traffic light. I would suggest that this issue be researched further, especially the impact to school safety. We certainly want any safety problem to be addressed prior to the installation of the traffic light. I would also highly recommend a passive hindrance to through traffic on Seagull Way, perhaps speed bumps, dips, additional stop signs, postings for 'no thru traffic", etc. I feel this is a serious safety concern that must be addressed before proceeding with this development Tot Lot/Park Development Fund: At the planning commission meeting on 27 October, inclusion of a Tot Lot in lieu of Park Development Funding (PDF) was mentioned. I am absolutely opposed to this idea! The $7,000 per new home for the PDF is a pittance to the developer. Considering the financial constraints of the Parks and Rec Dept, there is no reason why this should be spent on private play areas. I am chairperson of the Azule Park Neighborhood Association, which is trying to have nearby Azule Park developed. Azule park is an undeveloped park a short 5 -min walls from Azule Crossing and adjacent to Blue Hills School. A pre- school age tot lot has always been included in the park development plan and would be welcomed by all residents. A community tot -lot would have many benefits: the new residents of Azule Crossing will meet others in the neighborhood, it would bring enjoyment to all citizens, and the Azule Crossing developer would effectively have more space to enhance homes at Azule Crossing. I would like to have either the developer develop part of Azule in lieu of the Park Development Fee, or the Park Development Fund Fee somehow be earmarked for nearby Azule Park. I realize this is an unusual request, but it has many benefits to all parties. I hope you will consider these broader issues, when deciding on this matter. Sincerely, Katie Alexander 12340 Goleta Ave. Saratoga 95070 257-6692 katie@alexander.org 000023 000024 /1-415( op OOMMAc/ -cSIDEm-lAv D 12Qo7E&T 6oTN s/Tx Ase of- 9 11 klege--04- 'COW QH0/1.46 1. 4117( piokiE� lu0( 9ME Wr( T TO a--E4-fE ©PEN z()'/K6E: PtSeNWT �Y t?sQ.,E/ -4 H1I I t CfP co,u M oF1 '-T-7... %tr ? CES 012- c -4'(E !NTS AUY Fol- CTAS P -f ICSAILIE -wp Tar- -146 PiIAC& var. as 0 1 ■11 !%ism 11, 11111 4114anerANIN=lard Of-j! SSW N0 Acat �tt moors v vow./ IZ-$V' IVA 601,4 MD NS y l AA►:0111 rior p goal \j Alt G1P9f3t9AP AgC-f e2-14-0 6-ruS. ,_kzut-E ><IF - 1006 Alfilte 000025 000026 10/27/1999 13:38 408-257-0104 SARATOGA CUTERT1NO F RAuc w. 12341 S. Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road • Saratoga, California 95070 • (408) 257-6262 • FAX (408) 257-0104 • www.saratogafuneral.com October 27, 1999 Mary Lynne Bernald, Chair Saratoga Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13 777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Chair Bemald and Commission, 1 am unable to attend the meeting tonight regarding the project for Azule Crossing. After reviewing and analyzing the development proposal for Azule Crossing, 1 want to register my strong support for the development plan proposed by Classic Communities and the Griffin Company. My family business is a neighbor of the project( for 30 years) and we are excited to see Azule Crossing refurbished. For quite some time we have sought revitalization of the "Gateway" area and I participated in the Gateway Project Task Force. Both the housing and commercial development are well thought out in terms of design, location, type and mix. Also, I have found the Griffin Company and Classic Communities to be collaborative, responsible and responsive in their design and approach to developing in Saratoga and this site. Please approve the proposal when it comes before you. Thank you for your time and consideration on this issue. Sincerely, >riazz- oe Cowherd Alameda Funeral Director and owner of Alameda Family Saratoga -Cupertino Funeral Home Oct 27 99 03:57p Colour Shoppe Colour Shoppe Draperies & Interiors Since 1958 Calif. Contractors License #532025 408 996-1224 p -i eSiFeialilts. in eoLo¢ c41 avnontn. • WALLPAPER • DRAPERIES • CARPET • SHUTTERS • UPHOLSTERY • SHADES 12361 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA • PHONE 408-996-1223 Correspondence to: P.O. Box 252 • Saratoga, California 95071-0252 • FAX 408-9961-224 October 26, 1999 James Walgren, Community Develop Director Planning Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga CA 95070 Dear James: As a longtime Saratoga business owner, I am writing to express my support for the redevelopment of the Azule Crossing Center for mixed use development on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. My business, Colour Shoppe Interiors, is located across the street from the proposed project. The Azule Crossing proposal seems like the perfect fit for development in the Gateway corridor and will mean tremendous improvement for the site. I reviewed the plans and architecture, I walked the area and feel this development would be an asset to the neighborhood, the Gateway area and the City of Saratoga. As you may know, I have been involved with Gateway revitalization efforts for many years. My hope is that this will be a catalyst for other revitalization in the area. I urge the City of Saratoga to approve the plan as presented as it represents a vast improvement over the most recent development in the Gateway corridor, namely the development of the Hubbard & Johnson property. (A real blight in urban planning!) I cannot attend the October 27, Planning Commission meeting to speak in favor of the proposal. Please forward my letter to the Planning Commission and the City Council. Yours vel. Carl Orr Colour Shoppe Interiors Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 14 October 27, 1999 Commissioner Kurasch had no problem with the proposal, liked the use, and stated it would serve a good purpose. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with other Commissioners. She said the project conforms to the development standards and occupancy requirements. She agreed that the oleanders should be kept or other planting should be installed along the fence line. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/JACKMAN MOVED TO APPROVE SUP -99-001 WITH ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS, SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL, THAT A PLANTING STRIP AREA BE INSTALLED IN THE RIGHT SIDE, AND THAT A DRIVEWAY TREATMENT BE INCLUDED TO BREAK UP THE VISUAL EXPANSE. PASSED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS PAGE AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KURASCH MOVED TO APPROVE DR -99-030. PASSED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS PAGE AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT). 4. SD -99-005, UP -99-018 & DR -99-037 (386-53-001 & -029) - AZULE CROSSING INC., 12312 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road; Request for Subdivision, Use Permit and Design Review approval to construct 27 new residential units of approximately 1,815 to 2,345 sq. ft. and remodel the existing commercial building located at the front of the property. The commercial building will be expanded from its current 11,931 sq. ft. to 14,233 sq. ft. The property is located in a Commercial Neighborhood zoning district. The residential component of the project would occupy 2.62 acres while the commercial component would occupy 1.28 acres. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared by the City of Saratoga and are on file in the Community Development Department. Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting this was a request for a mixed use development approval for a 3.9 acre parcel within a commercially zoned district located at the southeast corner of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way. He noted the property is currently developed with four commercial buildings, and one of the buildings is retail. He said the other three buildings are primarily office uses, and one is a restaurant. The application is being presented to the Commission tonight as the first of two public hearings. The project is subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. He said staff has done an environmental initial study on the project comprised of a traffic analysis, and staff is in the middle of the public review period for the initial study; however, given the several land use issues that the Commission needs to consider for this type of project, staff felt it was useful to present the project tonight to generate public input as well as Commissioners' input so that changes could be incorporated as the project develops. Director Walgren reported that specifically the project requires tentative subdivision map approval to subdivide the rear 2.6 acres into 27 residential sites consisting of 12 small lot single-family sites and 15 single-family, owner -occupied, attached units. The 28th parcel would be the commercial use of the front of the property. He said the application requires conditional use permit. He conveyed that this is a commercially designated and zoned property within commercial districts; multiple -family and mixed-use projects of this type are permitted. He noted that to do a mixed-use project and not something that is entirely commercial requires discretionary approval by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 14 October 27, 1999 Director Walgren added that the residential buildings and commercial buildings require design review approval. A mitigated negative declaration has been circulated for public review which is also part of what the Commission needs to consider. When the public review period expires, the Commission will need to either adopt or reject the mitigated negative declaration. The site is under 4 acres and is currently developed with commercial structures of which the majority would be removed. The site abuts the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way to the south and residences beyond that, single-family homes to the east and northeast, commercial development to the northwest and to the west of the property across from Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road. Director Walgren outlined the three primary land use issues identified by staff . He said numerous discussions have been held regarding the loss of development activity in the City as the little bit of land designated for commercial development is being pressured to be developed with residential projects. These projects have been approved when at appropriate locations, and they have been denied when they were deemed to be inappropriate locations where commercial activity should be preserved and retained. He said in this particular site staff has worked with the applicants for a relatively long period of time, noting the previous application submitted over a year ago for this property had a larger commercial component with a two-story building which the Zoning Ordinance does not permit, and it had approximately 35 residential units which is one-third denser than tonight's proposed project. That project had Zoning Ordinance development regulation problems and staff expressed concern about the configuration in density of the project. That plan was ultimately withdrawn and the plan presented this evening has also gone through significant revisions and is now submitted with 27 units, which is significantly less dense. Director Walgren conveyed that staff review concludes that the overall mixed-use proposal is fairly appropriate for this site. He referred to the property maps, color rendering elevations of the residential units, commercial elevations, building footprint and streets, etc. mounted on the wall. He said though the site is almost four acres of commercial property, very little of the land has commercial frontage that would result in a truly commercial, viably successful retail project, and this is one of the factors staff took into consideration. Director Walgren continued reporting that to augment its review, staff required an economic analysis be prepared and submitted by the applicants, and the analysis is attached to the staff report. He explained that the analysis contains four scenarios outlined by staff. The first scenario includes the buildings as they currently exist but at full occupancy with a limited commercial frontage, and the conclusion was that the buildings would remain to be largely office uses and would not meet the City's objective of trying to expand and encourage retail activity at this particular property. The second scenario is the proposal being considered tonight. The third scenario was where the property was entirely redeveloped at approximately 60,000 square feet of new commercial construction, and the findings were that that would be largely dedicated to office type uses. The fourth scenario was a proposal that would result in a lot line shift and a reduction in residential units with an increase in the commercial component. The applicant's study has cited anecdotal or market reasons why the fourth scenario might not work, noting proximity to existing shopping centers, the current real estate market for retail space. Their conclusion was that the site could not successfully support doubling of retail square footage at approximately 30,000 square feet. Director Walgren referred to the primary issue as land use, asking whether this would be an appropriate mix for this type of project within a commercially zoned piece of land. He said another issue is the environmental initial study, noting that the focus is on the traffic analysis which concludes that the project would result in an anticipated net traffic increase of 72 daily trips and should not affect the level of service on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road as measured at north- and southbound intersections on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 14 October 27, 1999 Road at Prospect, Seagull, and Cox Avenue. He noted that the applicant's report notes that a signal is warranted at Seagull and Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and that this project will significantly impact particularly westbound egress traffic in the morning and late afternoon peak hours through that intersection. He said that as a mitigation effort, staffs report concluded that this project should pay towards a proportionate share of a traffic signal at Seagull and Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road. In determining what the proportionate share should be, staff referred back to a similar project approved many years ago for the old Hubbard & Johnson site. and based on a City Council decision, staff is proposing that the developers contribute a 50 percent cost -share. Director Walgren added that another land use issue is the design review aspect. He said the commercial buildings are proposed to be renovated with new elements that would bring the building up to a more contemporary standard. The staff report is supportive of the architecture of the building with a recommendation that the colors and materials be amended to reflect the colors and materials of the residential units which are deeper earth -tone colors versus the pastels proposed for the commercial building. One amendment staff would further recommend is the actual roof pitch element that covers the internal walkway connecting the buildings. Staff would recommend that the roof pitch be brought down to reflect the roof pitch of the existing building which would bring it closer to the 20' height limit imposed on the Zoning District. Lastly, Director Walgren commented that by combining a large residential component to a commercially zoned property, and by its design, it achieves a buffer that does not exist currently between the residences to the east, which currently back up to a parking lot, and the new commercial component. He commented that by design, the residential piece will provide significant protection to the existing homes to the east. Chairwoman Bernald commented that members of the community probably have a question why Measure G does not apply to this project. Director Walgren responded that Measure G does not apply to this property because it is a commercially designated property and this is a commercial -residential mixed-use development which is consistent with the General Plan designation. He explained that Measure G primarily protects residential properties from being re -designated to commercial, and that is not happening here. Chairwoman Bernald re -affirmed that the Commission tonight should first address whether this project is generally suitable to the site, then address the commercial aspect, and lastly address the residential aspect. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 8:55 P.M. Mr. Scott Ward, Classic Communities, 1068 East Meadow Circle, Palo Alto, addressed the Commission as the co -applicants for the proposal which they believe promises to redevelop and re -use an obsolete commercial property into a high quality, mixed-use development that is integrated into the fabric of the existing neighborhood and the Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road retail corridor. He urged the Commission to support the proposal to revitalize the property in a responsible way. He said the applicants have been able to find a considerable amount of common ground on this property as they have been working on it over the course of the past several months. There is, in their opinion, broad base agreement that something needs to be done to the property to avert continued decline and that this property presents an opportunity to create a high- quality, new community of homes and businesses. The proposal retains the amount of floor area on the property that is actually devoted to retail uses and locates the floor area appropriately in close proximity to Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, thereby achieving the important city-wide goal of retaining limited areas of commercially zoned tax -revenue producing properties. He commented that there are no negative fiscal Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 14 October 27, 1999 impacts from this proposal, noting it re -uses the balance of the property to create a well-designed. new home community, and effectively down -zones the property from more intense commercial uses to less intense residential uses. He said this project establishes a buffer between existing R-1 uses and commercial uses. Mr. Ward went on to describe the project, noting that the landscape plan and architecture have been designed to assure privacy between the new homes and existing homes. He said the existing tree buffer is to be retained and enhanced, in -filled with new trees where it is sparse, and second stories have few, if any, significant openings to the rear. All of the main bedroom windows are to the front or to the side so the impact of the second story is borne by the new homes, not the adjacent properties. He stated that these features have been carefully designed to address neighbors' concerns, and that the residential element is designed to reflect the traditional residential experience of Saratoga at a somewhat more modest scale. In describing the project, he said that all of the homes front on a private drive; front doors and living room windows address the street; each home has a two -car garage and a two -car driveway apron; and each home has a conventional rear yard. He said there is a continuous sidewalk network designed to create a positive pedestrian experience on site. The site plan is open to the rail corridor. He said while the proposal increases the total number of trips it actually reduces the total number of peak hour volumes. Mr. Ward described the common ground of the project. He said this week it was learned that a neighbor to the north had some concerns about retaining the existing masonry wall whereas the applicants had proposed a new masonry wall, and he conveyed that the applicants are prepared to amend the plan to assure that the masonry wall is retained to address grading conditions and to enhance privacy. He said the applicants intend to consider the Commission's recommendations very carefully and do their best to respond to them before the next hearing. Chairwoman Bernald stated she was concerned with safety and getting emergency vehicles in and out of the area and asked about the area designated as an open play area or tot lot. Mr. Ward responded that the dimensions of the right-of-way support emergency access requirements, and they still need to test the requirements to make sure they conform to the standards. He said that they are open to incorporation of some form of common gathering place or recreation area which would serve the need within the community. He respectfully requested that the Commission consider such an area in light of the "park in lieu" fees that the developer is obligated to pay and that there be an appropriate offset regarding the inclusion of an on-site common green area. Mr. Kirk Hereld, Hereld & Ayres Architects, 39560 Stevenson Place, Suite 117, Fremont, CA addressed the Commission regarding the commercial retail portion of the project. He said their concept is to take the existing structure, add additional square footage, and renovate the building with new materials, new colors, different elements to break up the exteriors, make it a little friendlier, and turn it into a true retail center, eliminating some of the office -type uses in this part of the city. He said the building has a walking mall to the side of the center which they plan to skylight and extend all the way through the building, encouraging entry into those areas by addressing an entry feature in each point. They also plan to pave the entire lot, install new gutters, and put in new landscaping. Commissioner Patrick asked if the applicants seriously contemplated using pink and lavender colors. Mr. Hereld responded they would work with staff with whatever colors and hues would be appropriate. Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 14 October 27, 1999 Commissioner Patrick asked what kind of look would be established with pink and lavender colors, and Mr. Hereld replied that the intention was that those colors would be more friendlier and more livelier, and it would get away from the building's current extremely dark look. Mr. Dennis Griffin, 12302 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga, addressed the Commission representing the commercial section of the project. He said the intent is to increase the parking size of the commercial site and increase purchasing power which would increase the sales tax base. Chairwoman Bernald asked if there were any assurances that the commercial site would remain a retail place or that it would be dedicated to 75 percent retail over a course of time. Mr. Griffin replied that it would be difficult to say whether the applicants would maintain that; however, they are committed to only leasing to retail patrons, and the building is being designed and marketed to retail space. Commissioner Jackman asked if the applicants had any idea of what type of retail they would like to have behind the lighting business, and Mr. Griffin replied that the Front Window business is moving from their location next door to the lighting business. Director Walgren read into the record letters from Zoe Alameda, Alameda Family Funeral Home, and from Carl Orr, Color Shop Interiors, businesses on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, expressing their support for the project. Mr. Leon Mendelson, 20408 Seagull Way, Saratoga, conveyed that his major concern was partially addressed by the presentation. He said the existing cement wall serves as a buffer between the properties and as a retaining wall. The Azule parking lot is approximately two feet above his land level. Removal or alteration of that wall would impact his landscaping, drainage, and possibly cause land subsidence into his property. He said he finds it difficult to believe that the existing wall can be removed without removing most of the trees currently lining the wall. He noted that the trees provide a buffer between the proposed properties and his property. Ms. Joan F. Green, 12350 Goleta Avenue, Saratoga, said that she could not understand how traffic would be lower at peak hours. She asked what the rear yards of the houses would be. She said her objection is the same as it was 25 years ago and that would be the amount of cars coming in and going out of the area. She asked to see the traffic ingress and egress on the map. Director Walgren responded, noting that the commercial project would access Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way, and the residential portion would access only at Seagull. Responding to Ms. Green's further questions regarding traffic, Chairwoman Bernald suggested that Ms. Green review the staff's traffic study. Director Walgren clarified that the traffic analysis addresses net increase and traffic trips, comparing the net increase with what currently exists. Ms. Abby Krimotat, Executive Director of the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce, 20460 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, conveyed that the Chamber Board of Directors has unanimously agreed to approve and support the project, noting it is in the best interest of Saratoga. Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 of 14 October 27, 1999 Ms. Kristin Davis, owner of the Front Window, 12378 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, stated she would be moving her store from its location to the new building, noting this was an important step for her and her business. She said Azule Crossing has been a retail spot since 1939, and she hopes this project will help everybody. Mr. John Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Drive, Saratoga, stated he is a 30 -year Saratoga resident, and expressed concern that this would be the fourth high-density development in this area since he has lived there. He urged the Commission to study this project which deserves a good intensive look. He expressed concern over the emphasis on sales tax. He sees the town as it has been developed as a town of houses, not a town of commercial development. He said if the city needs money, it should not be focused on sales tax, it should be focused on coming to the citizens through property tax or utility tax. He commented because there is very little to be developed in the town, the Commission needs to take a strong look at providing the services that the residences need in town, and it should be done with minimum traffic in mind so people do not have to go too far for services. He expressed concerned with trees, asking that more Oak trees as opposed to Monterey pines be considered. He reiterated that the Commission study this project carefully so it meets the standards expected in Saratoga. Finally, he asked for a community room because of the shortage of community rooms in the city. Chairwoman Bernald asked Mr. Mallory about the density and what he would specifically recommend. Mr. Mallory responded that he was more concerned with the mistakes that have been made (such as the old Hubbard & Johnson site), and noted that when one goes to the development it should feel like Saratoga with more freedom and landscaping. He said he is concerned about the long -run appearance and feeling. Mr. William Guthrie, 20422 Seagull Way, Saratoga, quoted from Article 1555 of the Zoning Ordinance and stated that the application was incomplete because it failed to address the language and intent of Article 1555. He asked the Commission not to accept the application, especially at the current density. He quoted from Measure G language and expressed that this proposal was placed in the Zoning Ordinance by voters of Saratoga and, therefore, deserves special attention. He said he would submit in writing several reasons why this proposal is inappropriate and inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood. He said the application should be denied based on Measure G. Mr. Jeffrey Walker, 20451 Seagull Way, Saratoga, stated he lives directly across from the subject property. He expressed that the density is too great due to traffic. He said he was not allowed to do a room addition due to the restrictions imposed because he is in an R-1-10,000 zone, yet, this project proposes 4500 square foot lots with 60 percent structure. He said this did not seem like a good fit. He stated that Seagull could not bear the traffic load of 27 more residences, and if a signal were installed, right turn traffic would backup past his residence, making it impossible for him to back out of his driveway. If the access was available for the residences off Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, some of these issues would be alleviated. Mr. Ward stated that Mr. Mendelson's comment regarding the retaining wall and landscaping would be addressed. Referring to Ms. Green's question, he said the rear yards on the perimeter are generally 25 feet minimum, which is fairly consistent, and that the rear yards of the internal lots are in the 20- foot range. He said he appreciated Mr. Mallory's comments and conveyed that the applicants share some of his concerns and critiques regarding the Hubbard & Johnson property which have been considered. He said he would defer to Director Walgren regarding Mr. Guthrie's comments. He noted that the applicants met with Mr. Walker previously and discussed concerns with singular access to the residential element from Saratoga- Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 of 14 October 27, 1999 Sunnyvale Road. He said it is important for the residential aspect to have its separate identity from Seagull and it may be necessary to coordinate with Mr. Griffin the potential for other points of connection in addition to Seagull. Mr. Hereld noted he would be working with staff to develop a palette that would be more workable. He said he would also work with staff on alternatives regarding the traffic issue. Mr. Ward reiterated that the previous application was for 35 homes on the site, and the current proposal is 75 percent of the earlier submission. Commissioner Kurasch asked the applicant for clarification as to why it was important for the applicants or the community to have separate identities for the project, and why the proposal is two parcels, two separate applications, yet it is a mixed-use project. Mr. Ward responded that they may have over -reacted in terms of establishing separate identities, and perhaps it is an over -reaction to the other site along Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road where in order to access the homes, one has to go through a retail strip. He said this has negative impacts on both the retailers and residences, and it is important for the residences to be able to identify their own community in a readable, trackable way. Commissioner Kurasch stated that for her, logically, the project does not necessarily have to be completely separated and walled off to have separate identities. She asked about vehicular or pedestrian access between commercial and residential. A discussion ensued. Mr. Ward stated that there is a continuous sidewalk from Seagull extending in front of the perimeter homes, then connecting to a point of connection at the interface between the townhomes and the single-family homes. He said there is an established pedestrian network that leads to Seagull that takes one to retail and it is accessible from every home in the development. He said a masonry wall is proposed and at the boundary between the two uses it does not, in its current configuration, penetrate that wall. Commissioner Jackman referred to security issues and said she would like to see a common open area and not necessarily play equipment. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KURASCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 9:30 P.M.). PASSED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS PAGE AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT). Commissioner Jackman stated she liked the general concept, noting the density of the condominiums and houses concerns her in that there is no open space, and this is very important. Commissioner Kurasch commented that having a connection between the uses would solve the traffic intensity problem from Seagull Way whether it were a driving or walking opening from the Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road side by the railroad tracks. She said traffic needs to be addressed in both uses and not just peak hours. She noted that her experience in commercial development is limited and she could not comment on this aspect of the proposal. She said she was still uncertain about what would be the most successful scenario. Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 of 14 October 27, 1999 Commissioner Patrick commented that the commercial development is a great idea and it does not look like the retail use is being intensified for the commercial use. She said her concerns echo some of Mr. Mallory's concerns. She referred to the on/off access Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and noted the same problem exists at Argonaut retail center. She stated she was uncomfortable with an exit or access out of the commercial onto Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road turning towards The Village. She said it is a difficult situation now and it would not be made better by the traffic configuration or ingress/egress pattern proposed. From her perspective, the applicants need to work on that aspect of the commercial portion. She conveyed that it is necessary for access between the commercial and residential in some way to eliminate the residential traffic problems which will be discussed later, and to prevent a three-step process to get into the residential itself. She commented that if the residential is going to be part of the neighborhood, there are too many steps in the process. It needs to be more gradual and more natural development into the residential from the commercial. She said she is concerned about the traffic onto Seagull but not from the commercial. She said she would like to see the roof line pursuant to staff change as it pertains to the commercial design. She noted the description of the colors is apparently visually different than the color samples she has seen. She said she had concern about the commercial, noting that the concept of a whole commercial development would work rather than having it all be on the front. She said she understood the difficulty with the existing commercial. She expressed that the parking configuration for retail should help, and that more landscaping is always better. Chairwoman Bernald conveyed that this proposal in general was an appropriate use of the property and shared the concerns heard earlier regarding the ingress/egress off Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and off Seagull. She suggested perhaps looking at left turn lanes outside of the area to access it. She agreed with Commissioner Patrick regarding the more gradual and natural development into the residential from the commercial and the tight parking situation in the residential area. She lauded Mr. Mallory for saying that the services needed in Saratoga should be heeded, however, she feels that the services already in existence at Azule have been there for quite sometime will be able to stay. She expressed concerns that assurances are kept that the project will be maintained as commercial retail. She said that contrary to Mr. Mallory's comments, Saratoga should maintain every tax base that it can. The citizens have not voted in favor of raising their taxes and it is important to maintain what is currently in the tax base. She expressed that Mr. Guthrie's concerns are very legitimate and a discussion with Director Walgren would answer his concerns. She said that most of the citizens of Saratoga would have thought when they voted for Measure G that they were voting for something that would cover such a development; however, unfortunately, she said, it was not worded as such. She stated that the project could get to where it is compatible with the neighborhood and through perhaps less density, less buildings, a single -story building here and there, and definitely some open common ground. Chairwoman Bernald noted it is difficult to separate the project, and moved the focus to address the commercial segment. Commissioner Kurasch stated her main concern was the commercial connection. She said it is important to have a little continuity physically and visually and have a face on the street. She noted the project is an improvement over what is currently in place. Commissioner Patrick conveyed that she would encourage as much of a retail component as possible. She said if the commercial is going to be retail use, she would be much more favorably inclined to support it. She expressed concern that residents in Saratoga have to drive miles to make purchases and likes the idea of having the services close to home. Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 of 14 October 27, 1999 Commissioner Jackman referred to the traffic and the need for the signal at the corner of Seagull. She commented that left -turn lanes could be installed to lighten the issue of the traffic and improve the current situation. She stated that the entrance and exit from the commercial area on the side of the railroad tracks will have to be a right -turn only. She noted that the traffic could be controlled. Chairwoman Bernald lauded that there is wood siding on the building and suggested less stucco. She said she agrees with staff in changing the slope of the roof, and she would like to see more detail on the plans. She said she was having trouble with depth, noted that the lighter colors would be an attractive draw on the commercial buildings, and she would recommend that the colors coordinate with the homes. She would also like to see retail services appropriate to the community and assurance that the retail would be built with that in mind. Chairwoman Bernald declared a recess. Upon reconvening, the same Commissioners and staff were present. Chairwoman Bernald turned the focus of discussion to the residential aspect of the proposal. Commissioner Patrick referred to the issue of compatibility with the existing neighborhood, including traffic, and said that the neighbor's questions and concerns need to be addressed. She expressed concern with the transition, specifically, the perimeter housing and the second -story versus single -story configurations, and noted that perhaps it is not as compatible to the neighborhood as it could be with the first few houses being two-story houses versus single -story which is more compatible with the neighborhood. She said she understood that the project would downsize a commercial area into a residential area, which is difficult for everyone. Her concern is that the homes, although very well designed, may not be compatible with the neighborhood. She said she was uncomfortable with the one -lane access to the residential, which seems too restrictive. She noted that rather than looking out to the neighborhood, the development looks inward, and she would prefer that this be more of an outward looking development. She would like to see a plan with every lot marked to try to vary some of the heights to make it more of a mix. The colors seem to be appropriate. She would want open space somewhere, not restricted to the 27 residential units, and available for the neighborhood to use, with walking paths or access to the other neighbors. Commissioner Kurasch stated she would look at the configuration of the streetscape in the internal loop in terms of community versus how it relates to the larger neighborhood. She commented she has seen similar projects with large density units and described how the units were structured and how they relate to each other. She noted that the architecture and quality of design is outstanding. She described other similar projects she has seen where townhomes were connected by pedestrian driveways with sidewalks in between them, with alleys connecting the back of the buildings, and areas used as common ground for recreation. She said the open space is very important to the project. She suggested that perhaps the townhomes not have large, or any, yards, and that those areas could be accumulated as a public space to be used by everyone. Commissioner Jackman stated she was very pleased to see a project with 1400-1800 square feet homes in the area. She complimented the applicants for considering building homes for people who only need or can only afford homes this size. She said many homes being built in Saratoga are 4000-6000 square feet with corresponding prices, which many people cannot afford or have no need for a big house. Director Walgren remarked that this is a multiple -family project and it is important to keep in mind when considering whether the homes should be single -story buildings, whether the lots should be larger, and whether there should be greater open space incorporated into the project. He said the more one incorporates design amenities into the project, the more removed it becomes from a multiple -family project. Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 of 14 October 27, 1999 Following discussion, consensus was to continue the public hearing to the November 10, 1999 agenda. DIRECTOR ITEMS Planning Commission holiday schedule Director Walgren reported that the Planning Commission meetings for the upcoming holidays are November 23 (instead of November 24), with land use site visits on November 22. He said the second meeting in December is traditionally canceled and will be canceled this year. Director Walgren noted that two hours should be allocated to the telecommunications meeting scheduled for November 10, 1999, and Commissioners agreed. A discussion ensued and Director Walgren responded to questions from Commissioners. COMMISSION ITEMS None. COMMUNICATIONS Written City Council minutes for special meeting of September 23 and regular meeting of October 6, 1999 - Noted. Notice for regular Planning Commission meeting of November 10, 1999 - Noted. Deer control materials provided by Commissioner Kurasch - Noted. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chairwoman Bernald adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m. to the next meeting on Wednesday, November 10, 1999, at the Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California. MINUTES PREPARED BY AND SUBMI I"1ED BY: Lynda Ramirez Jones Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 19 November 10,1999 2. AZO -99-001 (Citywide) - CITY OF SARATOGA; The Planning Commission will consider changes to the City's zoning ordinance regarding hillside fencing regulations and administrative appeals. Under consideration will be: 1) amendments to the Hillside Residential zoning district fencing regulations, and 2) amendments to the administrative appeals process. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared by the City of Saratoga and are on file in the Community Development Department. (CONTINUED TO 11/23/99 AT THE RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF). COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. SD -99-005, UP -99-018 & DR -99-037 (386-53-001 & -029) - AZULE CROSSING INC., 12312 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road; Request for Subdivision, Use Permit and Design Review approval to construct 25 new residential units of approximately 1,524 to 2,345 sq. ft. and remodel the existing commercial building located at the front of the property. The commercial building will be expanded from its current 11,931 sq. ft. to 14,233 sq. ft. The property is located in a Commercial Neighborhood zoning district. The residential component of the project would occupy 2.62 acres while the commercial component would occupy 1.28 acres. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. (CONTINUED FROM 10/27/99). Director Walgren reported that considering the complexity of the issues related to the project and considering that it was in the middle of the environmental review period, it was appropriate to schedule a pre -meeting for the Commission to give staff and the applicants an opportunity to discuss more substantive issues before tonight's' potential final meeting. He said the proposal is to demolish three office buildings, retain the retail building, and expand it by approximately 2,000 square feet. He referred to the maps mounted on the wall to describe the project. He said the discretionary approvals required by the Commission include subdivision approval to allow 25 residential lots to be created and one commercial lot; a conditional use permit approval to allow a mix use and multiple-family/commercial development within a commercial zoning district; and design review consideration for the architecture, size, and massing of the buildings. He reported that the item was presented at the October 27 meeting, at which time the report was presented and distributed, and Commissioners reviewed the environmental initial study in detail. He stated that the environmental initial study consisted of a traffic analysis and an economic analysis. He referred to the discussion held at the October 27 meeting, and reported that the Commission, in general, supported the mix of commercial/residential development, and generally was in concurrence that the initial environmental study was complete, and discussed project details. Regarding the proportional mix, he said this has been a significant issue since the first proposal was submitted in 1998 which was much more dense and did not meet minimum zoning ordinance standards. Director Walgren conveyed that the commercial zoning district allows for mixed-use developments and for multiple -family developments. He noted that Saratoga has very little land to provide such alternative housing as long as the project is appropriate, meets the City's development criteria, and meets the goals and policies of the City's General Plan and zoning ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 19 November 10,1999 Director Walgren noted at its October 27 meeting, the Commission addressed project specifics such as recommending that the applicant incorporate more open space into the project, provide a more gradual transition of housing types from single-family to commercial; better integrate the development with the commercial component to the west (both pedestrian access and vehicular access); and it was noted that the proposed homes fronting Seagull Way should be integrated into the one-story homes on Seagull. Director Walgren commended the applicant for comprehensively addressing the issues, noting the modified exhibits propose a secondary vehicular access; a pedestrian connection linked to a private open space; and two private open spaces incorporated as a result of eliminating two home sites. He said the applicants have also redesigned the homes closest to Seagull Way. He noted the perimeter units are all small lot detached single-family units with 25 feet rear setbacks, and the interior has been revised to eliminate the row houses and incorporate duplexes, thereby addressing the more subtle transition recommended by the Commission. Director Walgren stated that staff recommends approval of the plan as presented with two conditions — one is that the utilities fronting the project would be required to be underground and the park in lieu fee of $10,000 per residential unit would still apply. Another condition would be that the applicant is required to pay 50 percent of the required traffic signal at Seagull Way and Saratoga -Sunnyvale. He said the signal was not necessary because of the development as it is already a warranted signal; however, the development would contribute additional traffic to the minor road accesses to the signal. Director Walgren noted that it has been brought up before, and again through correspondence tonight, that this project may be or should be subject to Measure G. He stated that the project is not subject to the technical requirements of Measure G which would prevent a residential property from being re- designated to a more intensive property without voter approval. He added that in terms of the spirit of Measure G, this is a commercial proposal of a commercial -designated property at the front and the residential component in the back which is a less intensive use in the commercial designation. Director Walgren read into the records two letters - one an e-mail note from Joan Green expressing concern that the private open space not be credited to the public's park in lieu fees and concerns about increased traffic as a result of the proposal. Other correspondence was from William and Hung -Chin Guthrie, 20422 Seagull Way, Saratoga, with a petition attached citing their concerns. Commissioner Barry stated for the record that since she was not present at the October 27th meeting, she has reviewed previous reports and tonight's reports carefully; has reviewed the minutes; and has spoken with other Commissioners. She conveyed that she has received a thorough orientation from Director Walgren at which time she asked many questions regarding this proposal. She said that although she was not at the October 27th meeting, she intends to vote on the proposal tonight if it should come for a vote, and she has prepared herself to do so. Commissioner Roupe indicated he was interested in the overall direction from the City regarding the relative balance between commercial property, multi -family use, and single-family occupancy, and what position or policy is in place to address these issues. Director Walgren responded that the City Council has given the Planning Commission and staff clear direction and consistently their concern has been to maximize the viability of land designated commercial in Saratoga. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 7:55 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 19 November 10,1999 Mr. Scott Ward, 1068 E. Meadows Circle, Palo Alto, representing Classic Communities, recalled comments he made at the October 27 meeting, and reviewed in detail the modifications they made based on concerns expressed at that meeting. He noted that while they do not plan to contest the condition regarding the obligation to pay for 50 percent of the signal cost, it entails a disproportionate cost to them. Commissioner Page referred to lot #1, and asked what fencing and landscaping plans were proposed for the side abutting Seagull Way. Mr. Ward responded that they are considering a low wall or fence at the edge of the right-of-way along Seagull and extending to the enclosed side of the home. He said there was no plan to install a six-foot fence within the 20' setback area along Seagull. Commissioner Page referred to the commercial site and the stucco front design and said it appeared to be out of character with the rest of what is on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road. Mr. Dennis Griffin, 12303 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, stated he represented the commercial side of the project, and responded that would consider using wood siding or another material. Commissioner Jackman asked whether the windows on the commercial building would be more visible than they currently exist, and Mr. Griffin responded that they would be and that the intent would be to remove a foot and one-half of the overhang. Commissioner Barry noted that a basement section of the building is included in the retail space and asked how the basement would be used. Mr. Griffin replied that the basement was built when the structure was built in 1939, and he has completely gutted it, cleaned it, and raised the ceiling. He said it was unknown what business would go in, but every effort is being made to keep it retail. Mr. Griffin, responding to Commissioner Barry, stated that the basement does have a stairway. Commissioner Jackman expressed that this is about the last underdeveloped commercial area in Saratoga, and it needs to be carefully considered. Ms. Kristin Davis, 12378 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, representing her family, expressed her and her family's various interests in this property. Her family is the current owner of Azule Crossing, and they intend to remain the owners of the commercial building. She noted her family has lived in this area for over 75 years and that her grandfather purchased the site in 1937. She said many family members live in the surrounding homes and are impacted like other residents by this property. She said whether or not the property is zoned commercial or residential, the City must do its best to represent and make decisions on the interests of all concerned. She conveyed that the impact on the current residents would be less if the property is zoned residential and Classic Communities is allowed to continue with the project than if it remains commercially zoned. She expressed that there is a need for smaller homes with less maintenance within the City of Saratoga, especially for the elderly, some of which are in her own family. Mr. William Guthrie, 20422 Seagull Way, stated he submitted a lengthy set of comments, took his concerns to the neighborhood, and many of the neighbors agreed and signed a petition which was also submitted. He apologized for section 7 of the comments submitted, saying he tried to carefully present Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 19 November 10,1999 this section because it could be misinterpreted. He said it was not intended to sound harsh or challenging. He noted that reducing to 25 units does not alleviate his concerns. He referred to a conditional use article that says this type of application infers no rights to the applicant. He said that because this project creates problems for the community such as inadequate parking and a load on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road commute traffic, the burden needs to fall back on the owners and developer to explain why they should be allowed to create those problems. He said the number of parking spaces allocated is inadequate and will cause a problem in the retail section and on Seagull Way. He noted that if the minimal number of parking spaces is not enough to resolve the problem, then he would question why such a position is acceptable. The parking problem could be easily solved in a number of ways by providing each unit with a long enough driveway so the guests can use the driveway if required; increase the number of communal parking spaces; or put in a 36' wide road instead of a 20' wide drive so parking would be legal along the road. He said if the developer does not wish to implement a solution, he would question why, when they are asking a favor from Saratoga to be allowed to create this residential development, should they also be allowed to create problems for the community. He said these questions would also apply to the commute on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and the fact that he and his neighbors feel it would be injurious to the neighborhood. Responding to a question from Chairwoman Bernald, Mr. Guthrie said that regarding the environmental impact, it is important to note the total number of trips whether there is a reduction or increase. As far as impact on congestion, a residential section is going to contribute traffic to the standard commute. He noted that the traffic analysis clearly stared that the congestion on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, especially the Prospect light intersection, is unacceptable at the commute hours and this will further aggravate traffic. He said the impact on congestion is clearly detrimental. Chairwoman Bernald asked if Mr. Guthrie had a problem with the traffic light in general, and Mr. Guthrie stated he did not comment on the traffic light at all. Chairwoman Bernald asked Mr. Guthrie what he viewed as reasonable, and he responded that after discussing among the neighbors, they are proposing consideration centered around 6,000-8,000 square feet lot size per unit on average, which would bring the density to about 18. Commissioner Barry asked if there was anything else Mr. Guthrie or his neighbors would like to add to the project, as she noted in his written comments that Mr. Guthrie did not necessarily oppose the project. Mr. Guthrie replied that he did not oppose the project; however, as proposed, it is too much at odds with the surrounding neighborhood and inappropriate. He said that at lower density, they would not oppose it. Ms. Abby Krimotat, Executive Director, Saratoga Chamber of Commerce, reiterated her comments from the October 27 meeting, stating that the Chamber's Board of Directors and Executive Board are in unanimous support of this project, both residential and commercial. They feel this would be a great asset to the community and a much-needed improvement in the gateway business district. Mr. John Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Drive, addressed the Commission, stating he reviewed the developer's letter modifying the proposal, the staff recommendations, comments prepared by Mr. Guthrie, and spoke to local residents. Based on those observations, he would encourage a study session to allow the residents and developer to meet and ask questions to feel comfortable with the project. He expressed concern that agreement be reached to meet the high standards for Saratoga. He said that, generally, some mistakes have been made in the city, which is what led to Measure G. He conveyed that although Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 19 November 10, 1999 this project is not covered by Measure G, this is very important to the citizens, and suggested more time be spent on it. He said that the comments prepared by Mr. Guthrie should be analyzed in detail, noting that Mr. Guthrie's point regarding incompatibility with the neighborhood is real. He said the way it is designed, there are going to be parking and traffic problems and agreed that too much density could be injurious. He expressed concern that all the houses, especially those bordering the neighborhood, are two-story, thereby, creating bulk, height, and common walls. He added that he would like to see in the contained area of houses something that would bring people together, such as a pool, a community center, or a pavilion. He noted that this would be the fourth major high-density development area in this part of the city. Mr. Ward responded to allocation of retail versus residential, saying that the area to the west of the side is not a viable retail area. He said it has not, and will not, generate retail tax revenues for the city. Market forces are working against the retention of this portion of the property for retail use. Mr. Ward said that the developer prides itself in reaching out to the community. The developer wrote a series of letters to the neighbors of the property, writing three letters and placing three phone calls to Mr. Guthrie. He said they never received a response, but they did have an opportunity to meet with most of the other neighbors, and they conducted a public hearing at the offices adjacent to the property. He said they got input from the community prior to making the application, and the application was based on that input. He says they believe they have been responsive to the community. The developer has attempted to work collaboratively. He reiterated that it is not easy for the developer/owners to make changes because it costs them money; however, they have listened to the community and have made appropriate responses. He pointed out that each unit has its own full two -car apron parking place to accommodate four spaces on site - two in the garage, two in the apron. Additionally, there are 13 spaces beyond that. Mr. Ward addressed the traffic questions, noting that 60 trips are added by this project, and between 26 to 30 peak hour trips are reduced, most of them in the evening. To him this is a limited traffic impact for redevelopment of a site that delivers so many assets. Commissioner Jackman asked Mr. Ward to convert the 10.3 dwelling units per acre to the average square feet per unit. Mr. Guthrie responded that the revised proposal provided 7.5 units per acre in the single-family component; the attached component is about 11.5 units per acre. The land area for the single-family units is 4,500 square feet per unit, and the land area for attached units is approximately 3,000 square feet. Director Walgren noted this is a multiple -family project, and the maximum density permitted by the General Plan and zoning regulations would be approximately 38 units total, with approximately 14.5 units per acre. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Ward to address the comment regarding a study session with the neighbors and the developer. Mr. Ward responded that the proposal for this project has been out for over a year and explained that a series of meetings have been held with the neighbors. Commissioner Bernald asked whether an agreement could be drawn up to allow residential overflow parking on the commercial portion. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 19 November 10, 1999 Mr. Ward responded he would be open to such an agreement. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 8:40 P.M.). PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). Commissioner Roupe stated he had visited the site, reviewed the record, and recognizing limited opportunities in the city for multi -family dwellings and that the city is trying to promote existing commercial properties to the maximum extent possible, this is a reasonable compromise and he can support the project. Commissioner Page concurred with Commissioner Roupe, noting that the Commission has a responsibility to the greater community. He said that the graduation of homes from commercial to the single-family on the smaller lots is acceptable for the classification of the property, although at first he had a reservation with the lot size. He commended Ms. Davis and her family in their efforts to stay with the project. He said he is in support of the project. Commissioner Jackman commented she is in favor of the project, stating she was pleased that Mr. and Mrs. Guthrie took the time to submit their comments. She reiterated that Measure G did not apply to this project. While the homes are not the same as those on Seagull, this was designed to be a transitional zone. She said she would be supporting the project. Commissioner Patrick concurred with what has been stated. She commented that there are no technical requirements of Measure G. She said Measure G either does or does not apply. She said Measure G does not apply to this situation. She applauded the planning and response that has gone into this project. She would prefer to see wood on the frontage of the retail because it gives it more of a rural ambiance. She said the stucco does not match the residential. She said the issues raised by the speakers are real issues. The City has a responsibility to provide affordable housing in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding neighbors. She applauded the planning of the project and said she would be supporting the proposal. Commissioner Barry said she is very close to supporting this project. She agreed with her fellow Commissioners regarding the good intent and hard work. She said it would be a shame to have serious neighbor opposition. She said the spirit of Measure G is an issue. She expressed concern that while the data shows a viable retail situation may not be existent today , it does not speak to tomorrow. She said there is a fiscal impact to the city, and if the economic situation changes, there is no going back as one normally could with a conditional use permit. She stated that she would hope the numbers could be addressed and she hoped that this could be resolved. Therefore, she is not prepared to support the proposal tonight. She noted she liked the design. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with other Commissioners. She recognized Commissioner Barry's concerns. She said this development has concerned her enough for a long time that her votes for changing any type of commercial space from retail property to even office buildings have been negative. She said she has taken this project with a lot of concern and determination to help support the commercial aspects. She reviewed the General Plan and cited land use items 4.0 through 4.3. Additionally, she asked herself the questions regarding reasonableness, and cited those questions. She said the project as proposed complies with those sections she cited, and she will be voting in favor of the project. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 19 November 10, 1999 Commissioner Barry asked whether the units would meet the median cost housing, and Director Walgren responded that considering the market conditions, these units would not meet the criteria for moderate, medium, or low-income housing. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/PATRICK MOVED TO ADOPT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION. PASSED 5-1 (COMMISSIONER BARRY OPPOSED; COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE SD -99-005. PASSED 5-1 (COMMISSIONER BARRY OPPOSED; COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE UP -99-018. PASSED 5-1 (COMMISSIONER BARRY OPPOSED; COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS PAGE/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE DR -99-037 WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT THE UTILITIES IN FRONT BE PLACED UNDERGROUND; THAT PARK IN LIEU FEE OF $10,000 PER RESIDENCE BE ASSESSED; THAT THE APPLICANT PAY HALF THE COST OF THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT SEAGULL WAY AND SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD; THAT AN AGREEMENT BE MADE THAT WILL ALLOW OVERFLOW PARKING OR EVENING PARKING FOR THE RESIDENTS IN THE COMMERCIAL AREA; AND THAT THE FRONTAGE WHICH IS CURRENTLY DESIGNED AS STUCCO BE CHANGED TO WOOD AS COMPATIBLE WITH STAFF'S DIRECTION. PASSED 5-1 (COMMISSIONER BARRY OPPOSED; COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). Chairwoman Bernald declared a recess. Upon reconvening, the same Commissioners and staff were present. 4. DR -99-040 (397-24-084) — PINN BROTHERS, 18921 Hayfield Court (Lot 6); Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,063 square foot single story residence on a vacant 65,436 square foot lot. The property is located within an R-1-20,000 zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 8:59 p.m. Mr. Chuck Bommarito, 14315 Douglas Lane, stated he had nothing to add to the staff report and was present to respond to Commissioners' questions. Mr. Bommarito responded to Commissioners' questions. Commissioner Page inquired about the peak of the house which stands out and takes away from the design. He asked if removing or modifying that portion had been considered. Mr. Bommarito asked whether Commissioner Page was concerned with the columns or the grill effect above. Commissioner Page responded that if the columns were removed, and the peak came down a bit it would suit him fine. He said the columns are a little over the top for the neighborhood, especially with the elegant Julia Morgan house. A discussion ensued, and Commissioner Page conveyed that he was not happy with the columns. Minutes for City Council Regular Meeting No' ember : Vie Monia 14665 Granite Way requested staff to check out the falling street section adiacent to his driveway and added that the City should try to resolve the problems of its website. Steven Blaylock 14000 Fntitvale Avenue reported on the carpool program of Altrans and distributed written materials to Council and staff for their review. B. Communications from Boards and Commissions - None C. Written Communications - None 5. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Previously Discussed Items 1. Resolution granting the appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission. Applicant/Appellant David Wright; 15142 Sobey Road, AS 99-001. Recommendation• Adopt the resolution. Councilmember Waltonsmith recused herself because she participated in the discussions as a Commissioner when the Planning Commission heard this item. Councilmember Streit expressed concern about the property owners' continued illegal use of the batting cage. Discussion ensued regarding enforcement and penalties. There was consensus of the Council to direct staff to contact the property owners to remind them about the restrictions placed by the Council on the batting cage and its use. BAKER/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 (COUNCILMEMBER WALTONSMITH ABSTAINED). B. New Items 1. Planning Commission Actions, November 10, 1999 Recommendation• Note and file. Councilmember Waltonsmith requested to pull item 1 for discussion and requested a review of the approval of the subdivision, use permit and design review applications of Azule Crossing Inc., under agenda item 3 of the Planning Commission meeting of November 10, 1999. Discussion ensued. WALTONSMITH/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO AGENDIZE THIS MATTER FOR COUNCIL REVIEW ON DECEMBER 15, 1999. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2. Approval of Check Register Recommendation• Note and file. 3. Memo authorizing publicity for December 1 Public Hearing items: Cheng appeal; Resolution ordering abatement of a public nuisance by removal of hazardous weeds. 4. Monthly Treasurer's Report for July 1999 Recommendation• Accept the report. STREITBAKER MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 5B2, 3 AND 4. MOTION PASSED 5-0. C. Claims Against the City - None 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 7:30 p.m. - None Page 2of 6 Jeffrey J. Walker 20451 Seagull Way Saratoga, CA 95070 09 -DEC -1999 Saratoga City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Notice of Hearing regarding SD 99-005, UP 99-018, and DR 99-037 Azule Crossing Dear Council Members: I am very satisfied to see your recent request to hold a public hearing regarding the Planning Commission's decision to allow the redevelopment to take place. I have some comments and some recommendations that 1 would like to pass along to you. First, to begin with, I live exactly across the street from the proposed development and have been involved with the process for the past few months. I would like very much to see the property improved at a density much less than what was approved by the Planning Commission. The fact of the matter is that right now, if we do nothing, the corner building is getting a face-lift. That alone should improve the retail business and `dress -up' the corner. Secondly, having housing in some portion of the Eastern half is acceptable to me. My only objection to the residence section is the density. The developer has reduced the number of units to 25 and has addressed all of the easily remedied concerns. I believe that fulfilling the `Commercial District' regulations will make this project fit better with the adjacent neighborhood. Specifically, I feel that this project will be a beautiful enhancement to the neighborhood if the following conditions are met: 1. Minimum site size of 60 feet wide by 100 feet deep. 2. Required set -backs (30 feet required) 3. Increased setbacks if structures exceed fourteen feet. 4. Maximum height of twenty feet 5. Maximum coverage of 60 percent per parcel. 6. Does not constitute overbuilding of the site. 7. Structures compatible with adjacent structures (town -houses vs. existing neighborhood containing single-family dwellings) 8. Preservation of open space on the site. I believe that allowing a variance on all these items specifically prohibited by section 15-19.030 C -N district regulations is not in 'spirit' with the Saratoga community. I would propose lot sizes in the 6000 square feet or greater and an overall density of 12 to 16 units. Two story structures are also acceptable. Finally, please take some of the pressure that you might be getting from Scott Ward, Kristen Davis, the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce, the Griffin Company, et.al. for what it is worth. They are fighting to maximize their profits and revenues. Kristen's signature campaign is focused on the commercial half of the development and bears no weight on the development of the residential section of the parcel. I hope that the voices of the nearby residents carry more weight on the residential development than any other vested -interest party. Thank you for the opportunity to communicate with you regarding this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 257-2120 (home) or (800) 417-6917 (pager). Thank You Jeffrey J. Walker 01/15/1994 19:52 408-253-0411 F'AUE 01 Mayor Stan Bogoslan City of Saratoga =13777 Fruitvale Avenue "Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga City Hall Fax: 408-868-1280 Dear Mayor Bogosian and Council: I am writing to express my strong support for the mixed-use commercial/residential revitalization of Azule Crossing as proposed by the Galeb family and as recommended by the Saratoga planning staff and approved by the Saratoga Planning Commission. For many years Azule Crossing and the Saratoga Gateway commercial area has been in decline. Many Gateway business owners and property owners have been involved in several efforts to revitalize the area with limited success. Because of Azule's long, narrow property configuration and lack of frontage on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, the rear portion of the property is not viable for sales tax generating retail. The Galeb family has been working diligently with its residential and commercial neighbors, the City and Planning Commission to complete the revitalization. The revitalization plan and mixed use approach: • creates an expanded and well positioned commercial/retall building • significantly upgrades Azule Crossing and the Gateway • creates a less intensive use of the property • reduces traffic • offers a permanent buffer between the commercial and existing residential • has negligible, if any, impact on the City's finances • provides opportunities for further revitalization of the Gateway The mixed-use plan complies with all of Saratoga's plans and policies including the General Plan, Zoning Code and ordinances. The plan requires no variances. I urge the council to approve the Azule Crossing plan as proposed and approved by the Planning Commission when It comes before you. JOE PRUSS LOS ALTOS tL.g• Court) SA&ATOO^ N r 45,E F1 Casa R�,o1 f 12333 Soro$ogoSunnywl• Rood los AMo�r. G 94022'' Sarobpo. CA 45070 ,45°,949.2.505-!,:-.4„+'; '!i0 "«roe' -s r:?40H/2530412 Unice— paign • •r. i1pC2Y :'�.ifl�Jl :eAt'iiiiMuoi.-ti 's►:A.:Mski.�>..t�.i :,ec§Rt i�ri=�wsdtwn __.RSA£ 6ai. � :.. ,i3? 't..i:% ' ?. :'t' a Dear Council Member, We appreciate your review of the Azule Crossing Project. In general we support commercial and residential redevelopment of this land, but many of the most affected neighbors share several concerns. Primary Concerns Density The density is too high based on three considerations: (a) Local neighborhood density -- The neighborhood is zoned R-1 10,000 or 4.3 units per acre and this plan provides for 9.6 units per acre, which is more than double the surrounding allowable density (b) Comparisons with similar mixed use developments -- Providing density similar to earlier high-density housing projects in this local area is not appropriate based on current traffic problems and cumulative housing density. There are three prior high-density projects in this local area with a total of 142 units (Atrium 65, Saratoga Oaks 51 and Saratoga Courtyards 26). (c) Setting a precedent -- We fear at least one other commercial property will be converted to high-density residential units (east side of Saratoga Sunnyvale Road between Seagull and Kirkmont). It is important to create a good development here as an example for future projects. We recommend the number of units should be reduced from 25 to 18. Traffic The density of the housing will add to the existing traffic problems at: (a) Saratoga Sunnyvale Road including the peak congestion at Prospect (b) increased traffic along Seagull to Cox (c) and compound the grid lock on De Sanka in front of Blue Hills School. Height and Bulk The height and bulk of the project is incompatible with the neighborhood and the views from the community because: (a) All units, except one will be two story. (b) There are several duplex units and a building of 5 common wall units. We recommend the row unit be broken into duplexes and the setback of the detached houses increase to the 30' required for C -N zoning. Secondarily, as many of the units along residential homes as possible should be made single story. Our Secondary Concerns Parking There is not enough off street parking and this will cause residents or guests to park outside the project along Seagull based on: (a) Only 13 off street parking for 25 residential units (b) No parking being allowed on the narrow 20 feet streets in the project. (Standard streets are 36 feet) Open Space and Community Areas We believe there is not enough open space or community areas within this high-density housing project, unlike similar quality projects. We recommend a mini park and community room be added. Please give fair and objective consideration to our concerns. Please see the list of concerned neighbors on the back Considerations Precedence Other high-density housing developments should not set precedence for this development for three reasons: (1) Cumulative high density housing in this area since these projects were approved -- The half mile stretch of Saratoga Sunnyvale Road from Prospect to Seagull contains 3 developments comprising 142 units total (see Attachment 1) (2) Sharp increases in traffic since these earlier developments were built (3) Saratoga residents, in the last two elections, have said they want more controls in density and its impact on the neighborhoods. Conditional Use Permit for Development This permit is given when it furthers the goals of the city. We feel the current plan would be injurious to the residents in this area of Saratoga The permit's use raises several issues: (1) The projects are defined by subjective criteria (a) Article 15-55 (Conditional Use Permits) -- must not be "injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity." (b) Article 15-19 (Commercial Districts) -- residential conversion is permitted if it (i) does "not constitute overbuilding of the site" (ii) is "compatible with the structures and density of development on adjacent properties" (iii) "preserve a sufficient amount of open space on the site" (c) DR -99-037 (approving resolution) -- "compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood" (2) Open questions raised by the process: (a) Are projects that are radically different in nature from the surrounding neighborhood compatible? (b) When the criteria are more narrowly defined attributes (bulk and height), is a radically different project still compatible? (c) Should lower density be used when a project is in direct proximity to a residential neighborhood? (d) Can our codes be fairly and equitably applied when the requirements are not clearly defined? Setting a Precedent for the Future The pressures are great to take other commercial properties on deep lots, refurbish a retail section in front and do residential conversion behind (yellow area of Attachment A is just one potential site) We would like to see a good development and appropriate standards applied to Azule Crossing to establish a proper precedent. Summary We approve of the commercial redevelopment plans in that the retail section is not detrimental to the neighborhood, but not the residential plans due to the following: (1) Density of the housing (2) Placement of the two story houses (3) Insufficient parking (4) Increase in traffic We recommend: (1) Reduce density from 25 to 18 (a) The R-1 10,000 neighborhood was subdivided at 4/acre. At 20 units this project would come just below twice that neighborhood density (b) At 20 units, this project would have a density of 7.7/acre, equal to Saratoga Oaks, the least dense high-density project in the wider neighborhood. (c) At 18 units we establish a future precedent that is more appropriate given the already heavy development in this area. It also provides latitude to incorporate more of the following desirable elements. (2) Eliminate the common wall row structure, reduce the number of duplexes (3) Increase the setback for units bordering on the R-1 neighborhoods to 30' (4) Increase parking (5) Increase open space and create community area (6) Reduce to the extent possible the number of two story buildings around the perimeter of the project. There have been positions presented at the planning commission meetings: This project provides alternative affordable housing, and this would be a good way to do it. There is no evidence to support this project for this reason. These units are expected to sell for some of the highest prices in the Santa Clara Valley. Measure G does not apply. This is true, but the problems, which caused Saratoga residents to support Measure G such as traffic and high-density housing, do apply in this project. Thank you for your consideration, and we applaud you for your past support in favor of: A sense of rural community, Preservation of neighborhood integrity, Reducing traffic in our neighborhoods, Controlling future traffic growth in Saratoga, and to Control incompatible land development. lrJ Names of concerned homeowners Betty Benevonto 12270 Kirkdale Drive Bill Benevonto 12270 Kirkdale Drive Jon Bunce 12498 Sumner Drive Susan Bunce 12498 Sumner Drive Diana Claussen 12522 Sumner Drive Fred Claussen 12522 Sumner Drive Dora Dong 12486 Sumner Drive Arvin Engelson 20381 Seagull Way Dale Engelson 20381 Seagull Way Carmen Estes 12301 De Sanka Ave. William Estes 12301 De Sanka Ave. Humberto Gerola 20390 Knollwood Drive Marina Gerola 20390 Knollwood Drive Hung -Chin Guthrie 20422 Seagull Way William Guthrie 20422 Seagull Way Lisa Guo 20380 Seagull Way Xiaomin Huang 20436 Seagull Way James Kastelman 12298 Goleta Ave. Donald Johnson 19997 Seagull Way Sally Johnson 19997 Seagull Way Monira Kayani 12441 Blue Meadow Ct. John Mallory 12258 Kirkdale Drive Keh-Shiou Leu 20395 Seagull Way Kitty Leu 20395 Seagull Way Leon Mendelson 20408 Seagull Way Nilda Mendelson 20408 Seagull Way Paula Menold 12510 Sumner Drive Charles Perkins 12450 Blue Meadow Ct. Stephen Peng 20436 Seagull Way Diana Reese 12450 Blue Meadow Ct. Al Roten 19812 Veronica Drive Ethel Roten 19812 Veronica Drive Carl Sessler 12313 De Sanka Ave. Mary Sessler 12313 De Sanka Ave. Michael Steele 20376 Knollwood Drive Jeffrey Walker 20451 Seagull Way Jeff Wang 12486 Sumner Drive Hedreh Yaghmai 20376 Knollwood Drive Eric Yang 20380 Seagull Way Esther Yu 12474 Sumner Drive This comprises a list of names of some of the concerned neighbors in the homeowners areas of Azule, Northwest Saratoga and Greenbrier. Attachment A: Pattern of High -Density Development in Surrounding Area Prospect Street Saratoga Courtyard 26 units 2.1 acres 12.4/acre Mule Crossing 25 units 2.6 acres 9.6/acre Attachment B: Azule Crossing Project Plan Shown in Context on the Zoning Map. _ The zoning map appears to be slightly inconsistent in placement, but the comparison shows the differences in the neighborhoods. A row of 5 common wall units faces the R1-12,500 neighborhood to the south. All but 1 unit is 2 story. • „„ riiillb, im,wea err • ••w 12/10/1999 11:15 4OB8675213 Mayor Stan Sogoslan City of Saratoga 15777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 9%70 Saratoga City Hall Fax: 409-868-1280 Dear Mayor Bogosian and Council: SARATOGA CHAMBER PAGE 10 i am writing to express my strong support for the mixed-use commercial/residential reyitalization-of Azule Crossing as proposed by the Galeb family and as recommended by the Saratoga planning staff and approved by the Saratoga Planning Cammission. Fot:many years Azule crossing and the Saratoga Gateway commercial area has been In decline. Many Gateway business owners and property owners have been involved In several efforts tb revitalize the area with limited success. Because of Azule's long, narrow property configuration and lack of frontage on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, the rear portion of tile property is not viable for sales tax generating retail. The Galeb family has been working diligently with Its residential and commercial neighbors, the city and Planning Commission to complete the revitalization. The revitalization plan and mixed use approach: • creates an expanded and well positioned commercial/retall building • significantly upgrades Azule Crossing and the Gateway • creates a less intensive use of the property .. , reduces traffic • Offers a permanent Duffer between the commercial and existing residential • has negligible, if any, Impact on the CIty's finances • provides opportunities for further revitalization of the Gateway The mixed-use plan compiles with all of Saratoga's plans and policies including the General Plan, Zoning Code and ordinances. The plan requires no variances. 1 urge the council to approve the Azule Crossing plan as proposed and approved by the Planning Commission when it Comes before you. . -,22) ivy,/ AJo rel -t'. tfiase 4welved -m ,Low Le ideeit y Vt4ti e f{a /a 7`y it Livia &7 December 15, 1999 Mary -Lynne Bemald, As hoped for we reached a resolution last night. When I returned home I sent an e-mail update to council members (attached). This morning I delivered a letter to Dennis, Scott and the extended Galeb family (attached). Together these statements capture the substance and spirit of our exchange. Although my December 10 letter is no longer needed as a position statement against the approved form of the project, it expresses some enduring concerns about the city's approach to the Gateway neighborhood as a whole. So, I do hope it will be thoughtfully read and that over time valid points will receive consideration. Again, thank you. Arvin Engelson cc: Your colleagues on the Commission. Copy of E-mail Sent to City Council December 14, 1999 Council Members: We just completed a mutually satisfying final negotiation with the owners/developers. Tomorrow night the developers will present a redesigned 20 home project (with several identified elements) which has the full support of the neighborhood committee. The mutually supported design is at (but does not exceed) double density compared to our R-1- 10000 homes. It also matches the 7.7 per acre density of the least dense of the three existing high density Gateway projects. The developers will declare their commitment to withdraw the approved project with 25 homes. They will enumerate several features of the new plan, each of which satisfies a widely held neighborhood concern. Following their presentation 4-6 of us on the neighborhood committee will endorse their redesigned project. The guaranteed elements in the 20 unit plan which satisfy neighbor concerns are: 1. No unbroken row house design along the south perimeter. 2. No common wall (town house) units. Only fully detached single family homes. 3. The first unit off the Sea Gull Way entry will be entirely single story. 4. The second unit off the Sea Gull Way entry will be half single story, half two story. 5. Four unique (but complimentary) exterior styles along the south perimeter. 6. Dedication of the northwest parcel on the island block to landscaped open space. 7. Not less than 10 off street parking spaces (not counting driveways). 8. Signage in commercial lot to allow resident use 6 PM -9 AM (Monday through Fridays) and all day weekends. Classic Communities, Inc. worked hard and positively with us to accommodate our legitimate concerns. The officially approved plan was not acceptable to neighbors; this one is. We intend to honor their good will negotiation by publicly aligning ourselves with them on this project. This includes seeking the solidarity and support of those committee members who remain most resistive (in their preference for a R-1-10000 project zoning). We expect to succeed in this effort, which we have already undertaken tonight. Our committee representatives very much appreciated Mayor Bogosian's availability (on short notice) to hear our concerns earlier today. Such access is superb local government! At that time we thought a study session for owners and developers and neighbors, moderated by the Planning Department or Commission might be beneficial. Given the success of our independent negotiations, we no longer find this necessary or desirable. Our issues about this specific project are fully resolved. Expect, however, some appropriate request for (a) your positive attention to broader Gateway issues, (b) less ambiguous design criteria for future project reviews, and (c) wider neighborhood notification about pending projects. Thank you for your active and considerate interest. Arvin and Dale Engelson cc: James Walgren, Planning Commission, Owners/Developers FAX COVER LETTER To the Owners and Developers of Azule Crossing: On behalf of dozens of neighbors, I want to express appreciation for your willingness to negotiate directly with members of your community. We want to assure you of our public and private support here forward. To that end we will proactively and persuasively convey our satisfaction to each and every neighbor who has been resistive to the project, many of whom would have been going public with their dissatisfaction for the first time tonight. The four of us who attended last night's meeting met afterwards, divided up the concerned neighbors list, and began contacting them immediately. I, for my part, offered to call those committee members with the most articulate and passionate preference for R-1-10000 zoning on the residential project. A number of these (new voices) were planning to address the council tonight. This afternoon I will call the Griffin Company office, and hope to assure you that all concerned neighbors (known to us) are now supporting the project. After our meeting last night I sent an e-mail update to Council members (copy attached). As you can see, it announces a reversal in our position—from opposition to support. Now, the representation (of neighborhood endorsement) in Kristin's letter to Chamber of Commerce members is accurate and need not be contradicted. James and the Planning Commission will be informed of our endorsement when they open today. My family knows and enjoys several members of the extended Galeb family. So, we are particularly pleased that there is a reconciliation of neighborhood view points on your development of family property. I understand the real cost of your concessions. It may be difficult, in the immediate present, for some relatives to appreciate the validity of those neighborhood concerns which required concessions. If it is helpful, you can circulate copies of Dale and my letter to the city council (dated December 10th, also attached). It abbreviates the concerns and perceptions I've heard from many of your neighbors. Your family project encountered opposition because of the cumulative ill effect of previous (and inferior) high density projects along the Gateway, and because of the city's history of better protection for other neighborhoods. Please discern our best intentions. Thank you all for the spirit and authenticity of your dialogue with us. Arvin Engelson December 14, 1999 Mary -Lynne Bernald, Attached is a letter I submitted to the city council. As each week passes more neighbors are aware of the Azule project. Consequently, I am hearing considerable comment. Some opinions are limited to the proposed project. Others express perceptions about the city's approach to the Gateway as a whole environment. I found myself concurring with many perceptions and decided to state their essence for the awareness of city leaders. You and your colleagues render generous and conscientious service. I don't want you blind -sided by issues which may require a public response from your commission. At the same time I want to be a constructive advocate for the Gateway community. So, consider the letter a preview of maturing perceptions. This evening I will again participate in a meeting with the owners, developers and representatives from the neighborhood committee. These off-line discussions have been productive and amiable. Hopefully, some further revisions to the Azule project (as approved) will be presented tomorrow night, allowing a united public endorsement by all three groups. Arvin Engelson Cc: Your colleagues on the Commission. A PERSPECTIVE ON THE GATEWAY Mayor Bogosian and Members of the Council: We are Saratoga home owners who live north of the train tracks, west of Highway 85, and east of Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road. There are 641 households in our extended neighborhood. This is a statement of broadly shared views which are relevant to your Wednesday night agenda. We value your role in resolving conflictual interests and hope this perspective is a positive contribution. Design standards have gone up in Saratoga with one conspicuous exception. We are referring to the Gateway (Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road from Prospect Road to the railroad tracks). This "first impression of our city" when entering from the north appears to receive secondary attention. No doubt, there are some valid explanations, yet appearances can become realities. So, given your decision to review a Gateway project, it is timely to share some relevant perceptions. First, Gateway residential projects suggest a lower sensitivity to neighborhood needs. Three high density projects have been built in the Gateway (along our most congested corridor). This means the cumulative impact of 142 high density residences along .3 miles (528 yards) of road. At a conservative 2 -car per household ratio, this has added 284 cars entering and exiting a primary and collated artery. Second, Gateway roadwork and landscaping suggest a lower standard of civic pride. It is the only section of Saratoga's two major roadways without finished roadwork and median landscaping. While the city master plan acknowleges this need as unfinished business, the continuing delay (coupled with the approval of high density projects) allows the impression of Gateway neglect. A public reminder of your plans to complete the road work and landscaping would be encouraging to several of our neighbors. PATTERNS IN NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION: We want to call your attention to eight parcels along Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road which have experienced residential development. Four on the west side: Four on the east side: • Manor Drive (new homes at R-1-12500) • Carniel Avenue (new homes at R-1-12500) • Spring Blossom Court (new homes at R-1-12500) • Glasgow Court (new homes at R-1-12500) • Rodeo Creek Hollow (new homes at R-1-12500) • Franklin Avenue (new homes at R-1-12500) • Mina Way (new homes at R-1-12500) • Leuter Court (new homes at R-1-10000) Now, please consider these observations. 1. In every case their approved density conformed to the zoning of existing homes surrounding the parcel. This is what we think "compatible with existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood" actually means. 2. Seven of the projects are south of the tracks and north of Reed. When these "south of the tracks" projects are compared with three "north of the tracks" projects (described below), we see a pattern of better protection for neighborhoods south of the tracks. 3. The eighth project, Leuter Court (9 new homes), is just north of the tracks and literally shares a property line with the Azule Crossing project which is up for review. We find Leuter Court the most relevant and contiguous precedent for the residential portion of the Azule Crossing project. PATTERNS IN GATEWAY PROJECT'S: A historical trend is fueling neighbors' concerns. Three high density projects have already been built in our Gateway neighborhood. Each successive project has seen an increase in density and a decrease in street width, open space and parking. An illustration of this trend toward progressive density follows in historical sequence. • Oak Creek (7.7 per acre) • Park Saratoga (9.8 per acre) • Saratoga Courtyard (12.4 per acre) Page 1 of 2 — See Reverse Side SIERRA CLUB •LoMA PRIETA CHAPTER , •t'. r r ".i ,.a GUADALUPE REGIONAL GROUP 15 December 1999 Mayor Pro -Tem Stan Bogosian and Members of Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Classics at Azule Crossing proposed development Dear Mayor Pro -Tem and Council: We have reviewed the proposed mixed-use redevelopment of the commercial property at Saratoga/ Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way, and we believe that --as infill --it is an appropriate way to address several problems. This valley is suffering from a severe lack of "affordable" housing, and in these days of ballooning real estate prices, the proposed $500,000 price range for the townhomes can be considered reasonable. Infill of this type helps alleviate the pressure to build houses on hillsides of questionable stability and / or on prime agricultural land. Furthermore, commercial enterprises fare best when they front on a street --hidden stores may have difficulty finding sufficient customers, so residential development seems quite appropriate behind the commercial frontage (as can be seen directly across Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road from the proposed Azule Crossing redevelopment). The site plan for this development puts the dustered townhomes along the railroad right-of-way, behind the commercial strip, with single-family homes, similar in size and character to the current Seagull Way homes, on the perimeter, thereby buffering the Seagull subdivision homes from the higher -density townhomes. This is certainly superior to the now -widespread practice of tearing down small homes to build "monster houses" which destroy the character of older neighborhoods. In recognition of the advantages this proposed development provides --infill, viable commercial units, affordable residential units, and protection of the values of existing homes along Seagull Way, we urge the approval of the Classics at Azule Crossing development. a z Group Office: 1922 The Alameda, Room 213 San Jose, CA 95126 ° 4 408 554-0442 Sincerely, ;01 0 Marjorie Ottenberg, Vice -Chair Guadalupe Regional Group Loma Prieta Chapter, Sierra Club Recycled Paper Dec -15-99 03:17P SVMG rSlttcon Valloy Manutacturina Group. \ 226 Airport Parkway, Suite 190 San Jose, Cakfornia 95110 (408)501-SVMG (7864) Fax (408)501-7861 ht1p;/hww.svmg.ory CARL GUARDINO President & CEO BOARD OF DIRECTORS DAVID WRIGHT Chairman Amdahl Corporation JAMES N. WOODY. M.D.. Ph.D Vice Chair ROChe Bioscience JOHN A. CONOVER Secrotaryfrreasurer Bank of America CRAIG R. BARRETT inlet Corporation SHANKAR BHATTACHARYA PG&E ROBERT CARET Son Jose State University JOHN DEAN Silicon Volley Bank HART DE GEUS Synopsys T J, FITZPATRICK Nortel Networks. Inc BRIAN HALLA National Semiconductor JAY T. HARRIS San Jose Mercury News RICHARD KASHNOW Tyco Raychem, W. KEITH KENNEDY, JR, Watkins -Johnson Company RICK KNISS Agilent Technntogles. Inc GLENN LARNERD IBM Corporation DEBORAH NEFF Becton Dickinson KO NISHIMURA Solectron Corporation LEONARD PERHAM integrated Device Technology, inc. ARTHUR L. ROBERTS United Defense LP RICK ROWE Noneyweil•Muasurex Corporation ROBERT SHOFFNER CITIBANK JOHN STEWART General Dynamics !: iochonks Systems JOYCE M, TAYLOR .• Pacific Belt t HELEN M. WILMOT Kaiser Permanente JOHN WOODS TRW Working Council Chair MARY ELLEN ITTNER PG&E Founded In 1977 by DAVID PACKARD j-kA44 /07/5115 December 15, 1999 The Honorable Stan Bogosian, Mayor City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Classics at Azule Crossing Dear Mayor Bogosian: On behalf of the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, I am writing in support of the Classics at Azule Crossing development being proposed by Classic Communities. 13y way of reference, the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group is a public policy trade organization, formed 21 years ago by favid Packard of Hewlett Packard. Today, the Manufacturing Group represents 150 of the most respected employers in Silicon Valley, who collectively provide jobs fbr a quarter of a million residents, or one of every three private sector workers in the area. The Manufacturing Group is very active in efforts to improve the quality of life in Silicon Valley. Among our most important initiatives is our work to advocate for more home development to meet the needs of Silicon Valley residents and workers. We applaud the city of Saratoga for considering the Aiule Crossing development as it will help expand the region's housing supply. It is our understanding that the Council is considering two options for the Azole Crossing development. We encourage your approval of the option that would create 22 homes, with two homes at below market rates affordable to moderate - income families. The proposed development is an excellent example of a high quality, single-family infill project that can serve as a model for other communities to emulate. Further, the developer, Classic Communities, is one of the hest in Silicon Valley, with an excellent track record in the creation of high quality developments. Again, we urge your approval of the 22 -home proposal. Thank you for consideration of our views. Sinc1rely, 1 2f4 c//E(z r-<__.. inda M. Mandoline Director, Transportation and Land Use P_02 FROM : N Mayor Stan Bogosian ._,City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 PHONE NO. : 4087418148++++++ 8 Dec. 15 1999 02:40PM P1 Saratoga City Hall Fax: 408-868-1280 Dear Mayor Bogosian and Council: 1 am writing to express my strong support for the mixed-use commercial/residential revitalization of Azule Crossing as proposed by the Galeb family and as recommended by the Saratoga planning staff and approved by the Saratoga Planning Commission. For many years Azule Crossing and the Saratoga Gateway commercial area has been in decline. Many Gateway business owners and property owners have been involved in several efforts to revitalize the area with limited success. Because of Azule's long, narrow property configuration and lack of frontage on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, the rear portion of the property is not viable for sales tax generating retail. The Galeb family has been working diligently with its residential and commercial neighbors, the City and Planning Commission to complete the revitalization. The revitalization plan and mixed use approach: • creates an expanded and well positioned commercial/retail building • significantly upgrades Azule Crossing and the Gateway • creates a less intensive use of the property • reduces traffic • offers a permanent buffer between the commercial and existing residential • has negligible, if any, impact on the City's finances • provides opportunities for further revitalization of the Gateway The mixed-use plan complies with all of Saratoga's plans and policies including the General Plan, Zoning Code and ordinances. The plan requires no variances. I urge the council to approve the Azule Crossing plan as proposed and approved by the Planning Commission when it comes before you. Sincerely 1L! 1TI 1 JJ J 1J. TV TV VLJJV LTJ Mayor Stan Bogoslan City of Saratoga 13777 Frultvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga City Nall Fax: 408-868-1280 Dear Mayor Bogoslan and Council: HLVGG I\LlLGRl...+R k'frW :1 I am writing to express my strong support for the mixed-use commercial/residential revitalization of Azule Crossing as proposed by the Galeb family and as recommended by the Saratoga planning staff and approved by the Saratoga Planning Commission. For many years Azule Crossing and the Saratoga Gateway commercial area has been In decline. Many Gateway business owners and property owners have been Involved In several efforts to revitalize the area with limited success. Because of AZule's long, narrow property configuration and lack of frontage on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, the rear portion of the property Is not viable for sales tax generating retail. The Galeb family has been working diligently with Its residential and commercial neighbors, the City and Planning Commisslon to complete the revitalization. The revitalization plan and mixed use approach: • creates an expanded and well positioned commercial/retail building • significantly upgrades Azule Crossing and the Gateway • creates a less Intensive use of the property • reduces traffic • offers a permanent buffer between the commercial and existing residential • has negligible, if any, Impact on the City's finances • provides opportunities for further revitalization of the Gateway The mixed-use plan complies with all of Saratoga's plans and policies including the General Plan, Zoning Code and ordinances. The plan requires no variances. 1 urge the council to approve the Azuie Crossing plan as proposed and approved by the Planning Commission when it comes before you. Sincerely, /y7s-_,(z1hda U l Mayor Stan Bogosian CIty of Saratoga 13777 Frultvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga City Hall Fax: 408-868-1280 Dear Mayor Bogosian and Council: I am writing to express my strong support for the mixed-use commerclal/residential revitalization of Azule Crossing as proposed by the Caleb family and as recommended by the Saratoga planning staff and approved by the Saratoga Planning Commission. For many years Azule Crossing and the Saratoga Gateway commercial area has been In decline. Many Gateway business owners and property owners have been Involved In several efforts to revitalize the area with limited success. Because of Azule's long, narrow property configuration and lack of frontage on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, the rear portion of the property Is not viable for sales tax generating retail. The Caleb family has been working diligently with Its residential and commercial neighbors, the City and Planning Commission to complete the revitalization. The revitalization plan and mixed use approach: • creates an expanded and well positioned commerclal/retall building • significantly upgrades Azule Crossing and the Gateway • creates a less intensive use of the property • reduces traffic • offers a permanent buffer between the commercial and existing residential • has negligible, If any, Impact on the City's finances • provides opportunities for further revitalization of the Gateway The mixed-use plan complies with all of Saratoga's plans and policies Including the General Plan, Zoning Code and ordinances. The plan requires no variances. 1 urge the council to approve the Azule Crossing plan as proposed and approved by the Planning Commission when It comes before you. Copy of E-mail Sent to City Council December 14, 1999 Council Members: We just completed a mutually satisfying final negotiation with the owners/developers. Tomorrow night the developers will present a redesigned 20 home project (with several identified elements) which has the full support of the neighborhood committee. The mutually supported design is at (but does not exceed) double density compared to our R-1- 10000 homes. It also matches the 7.7 per acre density of the least dense of the three existing high density Gateway projects. The developers will declare their commitment to withdraw the approved project with 25 homes. They will enumerate several features of the new plan, each of which satisfies a widely held neighborhood concern. Following their presentation 4-6 of us on the neighborhood committee will endorse their redesigned project. The guaranteed elements in the 20 unit plan which satisfy neighbor concerns are: 1. No unbroken row house design along the south perimeter. 2. No common wall (town house) units. Only fully detached single family homes. 3. The first unit off the Sea Gull Way entry will be entirely single story. 4. The second unit off the Sea Gull Way entry will be half single story, half two story. 5. Four unique (but complimentary) exterior styles along the south perimeter. 6. Dedication of the northwest parcel on the island block to landscaped open space. 7. Not less than 10 off street parking spaces (not counting driveways). 8. Signage in commercial lot to allow resident use 6 PM -9 AM (Monday through Fridays) and all day weekends. Classic Communities, Inc. worked hard and positively with us to accommodate our legitimate concerns. The officially approved plan was not acceptable to neighbors; this one is. We intend to honor their good will negotiation by publicly aligning ourselves with them on this project. This includes seeking the solidarity and support of those committee members who remain most resistive (in their preference for a R-1-10000 project zoning). We expect to succeed in this effort, which we have already undertaken tonight. Our committee representatives very much appreciated Mayor Bogosian's availability (on short notice) to hear our concerns earlier today. Such access is superb local government! At that time we thought a study session for owners and developers and neighbors, moderated by the Planning Department or Commission might be beneficial. Given the success of our independent negotiations, we no longer find this necessary or desirable. Our issues about this specific project are fully resolved. Expect, however, some appropriate request for (a) your positive attention to broader Gateway issues, (b) less ambiguous design criteria for future project reviews, and (c) wider neighborhood notification about pending projects. Thank you for your active and considerate interest. Arvin and Dale Engelson cc: James Walgren, Planning Commission, Owners/Developers Mayor Stan Bogosian City of Saratoga -x.13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga City Hall Fax: 408-868-1280 Dear Mayor Bogosian and Council: am writing to express my strong support for the mixed-use commercial/residential revitalization of Azule Crossing as proposed by the Galeb family and as recommended by the Saratoga planning staff and approved by the Saratoga Planning Commission. For many years Azule Crossing and the Saratoga Gateway commercial area has been in decline. Many Gateway business owners and property owners have been involved in several efforts to revitalize the area with limited success. Because of Azule's long, narrow property configuration and lack of frontage on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, the rear portion of the property Is not viable for sales tax generating retail. The Galeb family has been working diligently with its residential and commercial neighbors, the City and Planning Commission to complete the revitalization. The revitalization plan and mixed use approach: • creates an expanded and well positioned commercial/retail building • significantly upgrades Azule Crossing and the Gateway • creates a less intensive use of the property • reduces traffic • offers a permanent buffer between the commercial and existing residential • has negligible, if any, impact on the City's finances • provides opportunities for further revitalization of the Gateway The mixed-use plan complies with all of Saratoga's plans and policies including the General Plan, Zoning Code and ordinances. The plan requires no variances. urge the council to approve the Azule Crossing plan as proposed and approved by the Planning Commission when it comes before you. Mayor Stan Bogosian City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga City Hall Fax: 408-868-1280 Dear Mayor Bogosian and Council: 1 am writing to express my strong support for the mixed-use commercial/residential revitalization of Azule Crossing as proposed by the Galeb family and as recommended by the Saratoga planning staff and approved by the Saratoga Planning Commission. For many years Azule Crossing and the Saratoga Gateway commercial area has been in decline. Many Gateway business owners and property owners have been involved in several efforts to revitalize the area with limited success. Because of Azule's long, narrow property configuration and lack of frontage on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, the rear portion of the property is not viable for sales tax generating retail. The Galeb family has been working diligently with its residential and commercial neighbors, the City and Planning Commission to complete the revitalization. The revitalization plan and mixed use approach: • creates an expanded and well positioned commercial/retail building • significantly upgrades Azule Crossing and the Gateway • creates a less intensive use of the property • reduces traffic • offers a permanent buffer between the commercial and existing residential • has negligible, if any, impact on the City's finances • provides opportunities for further revitalization of the Gateway The mixed-use plan complies with all of Saratoga's plans and policies including the General Plan, Zoning Code and ordinances. The plan requires no variances. urge the council to approve the Azule Crossing plan as proposed and approved by the Planning Commission when It comes before you. Sincerely, 2.'(e2 '(J`e,Cl, Mayor Stan Bogosian City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga City Hall Fax: 408-868-1280 Dear Mayor Bogosian and Council: 1 am writing to express my strong support for the mixed-use commercial/residential revitalization of Azule Crossing as proposed by the Galeb family and as recommended by the Saratoga planning staff and approved by the Saratoga Planning Commission. For many years Azule Crossing and the Saratoga Gateway commercial area has been in decline. Many Gateway business owners and property owners have been involved in several efforts to revitalize the area with limited success. Because of Azule's long, narrow property configuration and lack of frontage on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, the rear portion of the property is not viable for sales tax generating retail. The Galeb family has been working diligently with its residential and commercial neighbors, the City and Planning Commission to complete the revitalization. The revitalization plan and mixed use approach: • creates an expanded and well positioned commercial/retail building • significantly upgrades Azule Crossing and the Gateway • creates a less intensive use of the property • reduces traffic • offers a permanent buffer between the commercial and existing residential • has negligible, If any, impact on the City's finances • provides opportunities for further revitalization of the Gateway The mixed-use plan complies with all of Saratoga's plans and policies including the General Plan, Zoning Code and ordinances. The plan requires no variances. I urge the council to approve the Azule Crossing plan as proposed and approved by the Planning Commission when it comes before you. Sincerely, Mayor Stan Bogosian City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga City Hall Fax: 408-868-1280 Dear Mayor Bogosian and Council: I am writing to express my strong support for the mixed-use commercial/residential revitalization of Azule Crossing as proposed by the Galeb family and as recommended by the Saratoga planning staff and approved by the Saratoga Planning Commission. For many years Azule Crossing and the Saratoga Gateway commercial area has been in decline. Many Gateway business owners and property owners have been involved in several efforts to revitalize the area with limited success. Because of Azule's long, narrow property configuration and lack of frontage on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, the rear portion of the property is not viable for sales tax generating retail. The Galeb family has been working diligently with its residential and commercial neighbors, the City and Planning Commission to complete the revitalization. The revitalization plan and mixed use approach: • creates an expanded and well positioned commercial/retail building • significantly upgrades Azule Crossing and the Gateway • creates a less intensive use of the property • reduces traffic • offers a permanent buffer between the commercial and existing residential • has negligible, if any, impact on the City's finances • provides opportunities for further revitalization of the Gateway The mixed-use plan complies with all of Saratoga's plans and policies including the General Plan, Zoning Code and ordinances. The plan requires no variances. urge the council to approve the Azule Crossing plan as proposed and approved by the Planning Commission when it comes before you. Sincerely, Mayor Stan Bogosian City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga City Hall Fax: 408-868-1280 Dear Mayor Bogosian and Council: I am writing to express my strong support for the mixed-use commercial/residential revitalization of Azule Crossing as proposed by the Galeb family and as recommended by the Saratoga planning staff and approved by the Saratoga Planning Commission. For many years Azule Crossing and the Saratoga Gateway commercial area has been in decline. Many Gateway business owners and property owners have been involved in several efforts to revitalize the area with limited success. Because of Azule's long, narrow property configuration and lack of frontage on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, the rear portion of the property is not viable for sales tax generating retail. The Galeb family has been working diligently with its residential and commercial neighbors, the City and Planning Commission to complete the revitalization. The revitalization plan and mixed use approach: • creates an expanded and well positioned commercial/retail building • significantly upgrades Azule Crossing and the Gateway • creates a less intensive use of the property • reduces traffic • offers a permanent buffer between the commercial and existing residential • has negligible, if any, impact on the City's finances • provides opportunities for further revitalization of the Gateway The mixed-use plan complies with all of Saratoga's plans and policies including the General Plan, Zoning Code and ordinances. The plan requires no variances. I urge the council to approve the Azule Crossing plan as proposed and approved by the Planning Commission when it comes before you. Sincerely, �� '7 2 Co ?a ()L V . g/.1 / �. } qc2T20 Cc Mayor Stan Bogosian City of Saratoga d"'j 13777 Frultvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 /& G-ket,'`- / . Saratoga City Hall Fax: 408-868-1280 Dear Mayor Bogosian and Council: 1 am writing to express my strong support for the mixed-use commerclal/residential revitalization of Azule Crossing as proposed by the Galeb family and as recommended by the Saratoga planning staff and approved by the Saratoga Planning Commission. For many years Azule Crossing and the Saratoga Gateway commercial area has been In decline. Many Gateway business owners and property owners have been Involved in several efforts to revitalize the area with limited success. Because of Mule's long, narrow property configuration and lack of frontage on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, the rear portion of the property is not viable for sales tax generating retail. The Galeb family has been working diligently with its residential and commercial neighbors, the City and Planning Commission to complete the revitalization. The revitalization plan and mixed use approach: • creates an expanded and well positioned commercial/retail building • significantly upgrades Azule Crossing and the Gateway • creates a less intensive use of the property • reduces traffic • offers a permanent buffer between the commercial and existing residential • has negligible, If any, impact on the City's finances • provides opportunities for further revitalization of the Gateway The mixed-use plan complies with all of Saratoga's plans and policies including the General Plan, Zoning Code and ordinances. The pian requires no variances. I urge the council to approve the Azule Crossing plan as proposed and approved by the Planning Commission when It comes before you. Sincerely, plp,„„ el V 1 1\VI 1 • LVI\l...1 •.,VVI LI\ Via Fax: (408)-868-1280 Mayor Stan Bogosian City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 I I IVI IL I lV. • `fCJV VV 1 -YYGV William R Cooper 22737 Mt. Eden Road Saratoga, CA 95070 tel: (408) 867-7116 fax: (408) 8674426 Dear Mayor Bogosian and Council: Action Requested: Council support for speedy approval of the Galeb proposal for Azule Crossing. I am writing to express my strong support for the Planning Commission -approved mixed-use commerciaVresidential revitalization of Azule Crossing. As a member of the Saratoga Business Development Council, and its TEAM Saratoga subcommittee, I am well aware of the commercial decline in the Gateway area. At the same time, 1 equally aware of the dedication and effort of Saratoga businesses, both in the Gateway and throughout the city, to work with the city to attract and hold businesses which contribute an essential element of Saratoga's tax base. In this context, I believe the Galeb proposal for mixed use in the Gateway area is a well -thought out revitalization plan that meets its numerous objectives. As a result, I believe the City Council should confirm the Planning Commission's decision and give the project both a voice of strong support and speedy approval. Visible Council support for well -thought out and presented projects such as this one, will send the right message to the business community and the residents of Saratoga. In sum, I urge the council to approve the Azule Crossing plan, when it comes before you, as proposed and approved by the Planning Commission. Since William R Cooper Member, Saratoga Business Development Council Colour Shoppe Draperies & Interiors Since 1958 Calif. Contractors License #532025 4EciaLti &n eoto,, cJI aymony • WALLPAPER • CARPET • UPHOLSTERY • DRAPERIES • SHUTTERS • SHADES 12361 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA • PHONE 408-996-1223 Correspondence to: P.O. Box 252 • Saratoga, California 95071-0252 • FAX 408-9961-224 December 13, 1999 Mayor Stan Bogosian City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga CA 95070 Dear Mayor Bogosian and Council: As a longtime business owner, I am writing again in support of the redevelopment of the Azule Crossing Center. My business, Colour Shoppe Interiors, a neighbor for 22 years is located across the street from the proposed project. For many years the businesses located in the Gateway corridor have been promised street improvements, better lighting, a landscaped median, cross walks and a signal at Seagull Way. If the city wants to enhance sales tax revenue it should think about beautifying the shopping environment of the Gateway shopping area. This plan with the included signal could hopefully be the catalyst for more street improvements and the revitalization of the Gateway. The signal itself will have the benefit of allowing pedestrians and cars to safely cross the street from one business to another while slowing down traffic on the Gateway speedway. I have enclosed a copy of my letter to the Planning Department that will give you additional information of my thoughts regarding this project. I do urge the council to approve this plan and let the improvements begin. Yours Carl Orr Colour Shoppe Interiors enc. P. S_ The name "Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road" is cumbersome and archaic, confuses residents with Saratoga Ave. Mayor Stan Bogosian ,City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga City Hall Fax: 408.868-1280 Dear Mayor Bogosian and Council: I am writing to express my strong support for the mixed-use commercial/residential revitalization of Azule Crossing as proposed by the Galeb family and as recommended by the Saratoga planning staff and approved by the Saratoga Planning Commission. For many years Azule Crossing and the Saratoga Gateway commercial area has been in decline. Many Gateway business owners and property owners have been involved in several efforts to revitalize the area with limited success. Because of Azule's long, narrow property configuration and lack of frontage on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, the rear portion of the property is not viable for sales tax generating retail. The Galeb family has been working diligently with its residential and commercial neighbors, the City and Planning Commission to complete the revitalization. The revitalization plan and mixed use approach: • creates an expanded and well positioned commercial/retail building • significantly upgrades Azule Crossing and the Gateway • creates a less Intensive use of the property • reduces traffic • offers a permanent buffer between the commercial and existing residential • has negligible, if any, impact on .the City's finances • provides opportunities for further revitalization of the Gateway The mixed-use plan complies with all of Saratoga's plans and policies including the General Plan, Zoning Code and: ordinances. The plan requires no variances. i urge the council to approve the Azule Crossing plan as proposed and approved by the Planning Commission when it comes before you. Sincerely, ' /7 e&:70/135 G , Mayor Stan Bogosian ^City of Saratoga 7:13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga City Hall Fax: 408-868-1280 Dear Mayor Bogosian and Council: 1 am writing to express my strong support for the mixed-use commercial/residential revitalization of Azule Crossing as proposed by the Galeb family and as recommended by the Saratoga planning staff and approved by the Saratoga Planning Commission. For many years Azule Crossing and the Saratoga Gateway commercial area has been in decline. Many Gateway business owners and property owners have been involved in several efforts to revitalize the area with limited success. Because of Azule's long, narrow property configuration and lack of frontage on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, the rear portion of the property is not viable for sales tax generating retail. The Galeb family has been working diligently with its residential and commercial neighbors, the City and Planning Commission to complete the revitalization. The revitalization plan and mixed use approach: • creates an expanded and well positioned commercial/retall building • significantly upgrades Azule Crossing and the Gateway • creates a less intensive use of the property • reduces traffic • offers a permanent buffer between the commercial and existing residential • has negligible, if any, impact on the City's finances • provides opportunities for further revitalization of the Gateway The mixed-use plan complies with all of Saratoga's plans and policies including the General Plan, Zoning Code and ordinances. The plan requires no variances. 1 urge the council to approve the Azule Crossing plan as proposed and approved by the Planning Commission when it comes before you. Sincerely, 7 TAU V. P. /. se -Le -A' ds ,8a./54s-/A1 6,4 , C'A 9 so70 Mayor Stan Bogosian City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga City Hall Fax: 408-868-1280 Dear Mayor Bogosian and Council: I am writing to express my strong support for the mixed-use commercial/residential revitalization of Azule Crossing as proposed by the Galeb family and as recommended by the Saratoga planning staff and approved by the Saratoga Planning Commission. For many years Azule Crossing and the Saratoga Gateway commercial area has been in decline. Many Gateway business owners and property owners have been involved in several efforts to revitalize the area with limited success. Because of Azule's long, narrow property configuration and lack of frontage on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, the rear portion of the property is not viable for sales tax generating retail. The Galeb family has been working diligently with its residential and commercial neighbors, the City and Planning Commission to complete the revitalization. The revitalization plan and mixed use approach: • creates an expanded and well positioned commercial/retail building • significantly upgrades Azule Crossing and the Gateway • creates a less intensive use of the property • reduces traffic • offers a permanent buffer between the commercial and existing residential • has negligible, if any, impact on the City's finances • provides opportunities for further revitalization of the Gateway The mixed-use plan complies with all of Saratoga's plans and policies including the General Plan, Zoning Code and ordinances. The plan requires no variances. 1 urge the council to approve the Azule Crossing plan as proposed and approved by the Planning Commission when it comes before you. Sincerely, 27/M' 447/42 Colour Shoppe Draperies & Interiors Since 1958 Calif. Contractors License #532025 eSI2£eiariibi in e0f01, CAazrnony • WALLPAPER • DRAPERIES • CARPET • SHUTTERS • UPHOLSTERY • SHADES 12361 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA • PHONE 408-996-1223 Correspondence to: P.O. Box 252 • Saratoga, California 95071-0252 • FAX 408-9961-224 October 26, 1999 James Walgren, Community Develop Director Planning Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga CA 95070 Dear James: As a longtime Saratoga business owner, I am writing to express my support for the redevelopment of the Azule Crossing Center for mixed use development on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. My business, Colour Shoppe Interiors, is located across the street from the proposed project. The Azule Crossing proposal seems like the perfect fit for development in the Gateway corridor and will mean tremendous improvement for the site. I reviewed the plans and architecture, I walked the area and feel this development would be an asset to the neighborhood, the Gateway area and the City of Saratoga. As you may know, I have been involved with Gateway revitalization efforts for many years. My hope is that this will be a catalyst for other revitalization in the area. I urge the City of Saratoga to approve the plan as presented as it represents a vast improvement over the most recent development in the Gateway corridor, namely the development of the Hubbard & Johnson property. (A real blight in urban planning!) I cannot attend the October 27, Planning Commission meeting to speak in favor of the proposaL Please forward my letter to the Planning Commission and the City Council. Yours truly, Carl Orr Colour Shoppe Interiors Mayor Stan Bogosian City of Saratoga n w.rr 3777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga City Hall Fax: 408-868-1280 Dear Mayor Bogosian and Council: I am writing to express my strong support -for: the mixed-use commercial/residential revitalization of Azule Crossing as proposed by the Galeb family and as; recommended by the Saratoga planning staff and approved by the Saratoga Planning Commission. For many years Azule Crossing and the Saratoga Gateway commercial area has been in decline. Many Gateway business owners and property owners have been involved in several efforts to revitalize the area with limited success. Because of Azule's long, narrow property configuration and lack of frontage on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, the rear portion of the property is not viable for sales tax generating retail. The Galeb family has been working diligently with its residential and commercial neighbors, the City and Planning Commission to complete the revitalization. The revitalization plan and mixed use approach: • creates an expanded and well positioned commercial/retail building • significantly upgrades Azule Crossing and the Gateway • creates a Tess intensive use of the property • reduces traffic • offers a permanent buffer between the commercial and existing residential • has negligible, if any, impact on the City's finances • provides opportunities for further revitalization of the Gateway The mixed-use plan complies with all of Saratoga's plans and policies including the General Plan, Zoning Code and ordinances. The plan requires no variances. 1 urge the council to approve the Azule Crossing plan as proposed and approved by the Planning Commission when it comes before you. Sincerely, UTHA 20356 W 4-41-11\n 1 4.-4411-1 1I v-n'�uLi� Mayor Stan iBogosian City of Saratoga 13777 Frultvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga City Hall Fax: 408-888.1780 Dear Mayor Bogosian and Council: I am writing' to express my strong support for the mixed-use commercial/residential' ,revitalfzatlon of Azule Crossing as proposed by the Galeb family and as recommended by the Saratoga planning staff and approved by the Saratoga Planning Commission. For Many years Azule Crossing and the Saratoga Gateway commercial area has been In decline, Many Gateway business owners and property owners have been involved In Several efforts to revitalize the area with limited success. Because of Azule's long, narrow property configuration and lack of frontage on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, the rear portion of the property Is not viable for sales tax generating retail. The Galeb family has been working diligently with Its residential and commercial neighbors, the City and. Planning Commission to cornplete the revitalization. The revitalization plan and mixed use approach: creates an expanded and well positioned commercial/retail building significantly upgrades Azule Crossing and the Gateway creates a less Intensive use of the property reduces traffic offers a permanent buffer between the commercial and existing residential has, negligible, if any, Impact on the City's finances ; proVides opportunitles for further revitalization of the Gateway • • • ,The mixed-use plan complies with all of Saratoga's plans and policies including the General' Plan, Zoning Code and ordinances. The plan requires no variances. I urge the counCll to approve the Azule Crossing plan as proposed and approved by the Planning Gommissfon when it comes before you. Sincerely, J. L/ 1 V/ 1 J J J .L 1..L J agoSian • 7 Ffit60aI �teAvenue iato,ga; t.50'70 •. tV Hail Fax: 4084044000 JHICH 1 Vl7H J ayoI* ogo$fan and Council t v lklh o ex cess my- strolig'suppart.fOr;the it .ed•use commerclal/resldential r tl t n Azule;Crass1ng as plraposed.t •the GGateb family and as '::::lregotiltrieripiettbythe Saratoga plainnln`g:staff.anq'ar,roved by the Saratoga ntt�g Ir mis ion: • 'rar}y;y rs Axute Crossit1g _afc . heSaratoga gateW,ay•commercial area has been 1)ria:'Mal y Gateway bpstness owners atd'pl` pei-ty owners have been Involved r�(iai1eff Arts to revitalize thearea wlthtfrnitpdSuccess: Because of Azule's roperty config (ratio and tacit of frontage on Saratoga-sunny/ale •lr'poi tion of the,pribtiefty'fis'AiotvlabittfOr sales tax generating retail. family has been iN:orkitl iI11geJ)tir#tf, Its`:resldentiai and commercial e City and Pldrihtlig,,cbtilihiSSIOrr,t0 t replete the revitalization. file litanatrortpIan and .rrrixed' t 213131'01101" • rs,,!Etier eXpanded and welt#0,sitioned comme(cialfretail building rlff)Ortly-upgrades Axute CrtS.si fig and the gateway. 'a'1ess intensive use 0; he-prc pero fi, 'affic rs3 ma nent buffer betikkier1- kammerCtal and existing residential egligtble,: if any, impact o -thiitrityi'ss#J pies �#dOilibpdrturtitles for •fu henrevitalzattonof,the Gateway • s'nu ed t se piah compiles wrl;l� alr• of Saratoga's pial and policies including the :. a.w iiia iZpnthg CQ.de and ordl:nances • The p114.re_qurres no variances. u,t)cll o approve the stIlle; tossing:p($t as proposed and approved by : r nirnission wherettt:4 nesbefo s. iL/ 1VI 1.1.1.1 11. 1.0 9VVVV ...)L J. JHRH 1 VI,:IH VI II-11'ILJLI\ slap Q1 Fa* +4011:08 Asian and douri 1 } � ci fess; my Q 'AzulecressIn y the Saratbg: nV ,� 1: :eC Use commercial/residential iab, family and as toned by the Saratoga eWay U l :.. :Gat 'e s tv revitalize t {r perty cortf Igor t ;portion'of '61`0;0, t+y, his ben vitf'st;l,. Opt* arY'c-Pian in i pian :ai• d.. andel an f•upgrates A7ui S intensive, use: f fic 'Etr"mareen bu f fe tb$1 e,.Itanth:impac pprtunities, p1a!'co i1 p.pirtritot1e'an 1, agprdve t : ni nlsston wh ' I "K stay Commercial area has been h.owners have been Involved is Ce$s Because of Azule's 4 'f r t g on saratoga,Sunnyvale t sales tax generating retail. testdential and commercial the revitalization. 1 1-111L V`1 S{1 jai/retail building ell+ jai:end existing residential :`4e Gateway l i :anal policies including the . �1 t`**r4ilres no varianles. proposed and approved by N . I `.r Mayor Stan Bogosian City of Saratoga -21 3777 Fruitvale Avenue 'Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga City Hall Fax: 408-868-1280 Dear Mayor Bogosian and Council: I am writing to express my strong support for the mixed-use commercial/residential revitalization of Azule Crossing as proposed by the Galeb family and as recommended by the Saratoga planning staff and approved by the Saratoga Planning Commission. For many years Azule Crossing and the Saratoga Gateway commercial area has been in decline. Many Gateway business owners and property owners have been involved in several efforts to revitalize the area with limited success. Because of Azule's long, narrow property configuration and lack of frontage on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, the rear portion of the property is not viable for sales tax generating retail. The Galeb family has been working diligently with its residential and commercial neighbors, the City and Planning Commission to complete the revitalization. The revitalization plan and mixed use approach: • creates an expanded and well positioned commercial/retail building • significantly upgrades Azule Crossing and the Gateway • creates a less intensive use of the property • reduces traffic • offers a permanent buffer between the commercial and existing residential • has negligible, if any, impact on the City's finances • provides opportunities for further revitalization of the Gateway The mixed-use plan complies with all of Saratoga's plans and policies including the General Plan, Zoning Code and ordinances. The plan requires no variances. 1 urge the council to approve the Azule Crossing plan as proposed and approved by the Planning Commission when it comes before you. Sincerely, 1 �d Aar - 7758 _- ct, l T re2-1-4- • ZS8LL_988OV O I n2iaS 1OOd VOO1b'2iVS 1/4O2jd WdES : 8 5661 -OZ -E IL/ ICU 1777 11;10 4C1001D(DZI.3 r " , • , V#tit..1.01,„ rax t.402,0 2 0,, 1,3#10.4,0*,00•00514p.aid toujieii • • • ,• • . ,,,•••,-(•• 1,- • . • • I,. ••,• ; i • (1''.1”•:r T.. 5PN/A I UlnA gtc rciSsAllY .trtP11ti Of'Aie crosIna 4'C W.: neItati.t900.000111:0 • • le '01&$Iritt,,a_ ti$revftallzetL .ortton.L?f the fhS Pe,Orvwefit111010 .11,:*iatt,t1:PlanrOtit**0 -" ' ' •.' , xeuse commerciat/residentiat eb family and as ),•aproved by the saratoga Acii(*ay cominercial area has been - ..144170:- .eitY:owners have been Involved gOce5p'. Because of Azuie's Afitageon saratoga-Sunnyvaie I* sales tax generating retail. 'OSIgentlal and commercial !etfithe revitailzatIon. tgavryetait building ilOW011 , • -11',.040e.gincYMD „ , ftiXpendetl and1.404, utigrades Ano-kt. loterrive use Of iC• , b:riSkr,irritAtf.'01i e• • .• • , • • • • •,., xiottunitica'sloy:4,-tOti •cc'pOPHOi*lits: Ai0.19- Coat tOgis 40, Oi*•rm'f.Ei;.'s . , , /.40*.litt orttqlfsskiril;v.hetNi'05**17-10e • • - ! • • pial*id existing residential • izottdppfthe Gateway • .ns,and •policies Including the. aThrOggres no variances. V! 141W , • • trio Oroposed and approved by' • NA' AstM. 1L/IU/1777 11:17 4Clt50b/JLlj SAKA I UUA U-IF-1Mbtr -Use commerciaMresidentlal ' perrtliy and as c eci by the Saratoga drnmercial area has been #0100,4Wners have been Involved BO,- Because of Azule's i an Saratoga•sunnyvale ;$Ips tax generating retali. 'Sientiai'and comnerclal 4$0,' •the revitalization. retail building 1 Id existing residential e Gateway Nam! policies Including the, Litres no variances. `posed and approved by Mtn%Rjti'4..\} .kk .o-,�Pri .41�y<;y,�,�i� 1L/ 1G/ 1777 11:17 4GtUOb (7LIi SHK - I UUH lel IHI IIStK I HUt G.3 •S16.,arld COun • • iress:rnu Ater P Aziile rosin's. v the *atoga:M101 1 f{ "A4 a Cros�FF * Yic l ay.p -0> r iltalize• t t.P rtet;onfl• 00100 10 trre,c • • jT '; C ertiltorlda .tai an. d plaril'r'a an'° 11aih' ind °�lX itfed't,tse commercial/residential ',family and as over! by the Saratoga 4114:4iii• area has been 'Qrt'vbwners have been Involved .:x.itterA. Because of Azule�s tiage on Saratoga:Sunnyvale Farr les tax generating retail, rfSIdenttal and commercial lett'the revitalization. paraded ar,1 _*00 s,t dgrzs Az'tt 1rntefsive. yse Q `: en butfer:1t# any, •tr> apt, v..l; pvrtuflltles far_ fi alfretali building )ia oornpl(es w * + ning 00,0e10.14#: ri 11`to approvet . ommIsslbrt land existing residential 4 e'Gateway *#5 aid policies including the rectcttres no variance. $ proposed and approved by 1G/14/1777 U7.1.3 4UOGU30L'4 J -LUL- ICULCMIUM UHV1J rHl7C CJl Mayor Stan Bogoslan City of Saratoga 13777 Frultvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga City Hall Fax: 408-868-1280 Dear Mayor Bogosian and Council: I am writing to express my strong support for the mixed-use commercial/residential revitalization of Azule Crossing as proposed by the Galeb family and as recommended by the Saratoga planning staff and approved by the Saratoga Planning Commission. For many years Azule Crossing and the Saratoga Gateway commercial area has been In decline. Many Gateway business owners and property owners have been involved in several efforts to revitalize the area with limited success. Because of Azule's long, narrow property configuration and lack of frontage on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, the rear portion of the property Is not viable for sales tax generating retail. The Galeb family has been working diligently with Its residential and commercial neighbors, the City and Planning Commission to complete the revitalization. The revitalization plan and mixed use approach: • creates an expanded and welt positioned commercial/retall building • significantly upgrades Azule Crossing and the Gateway • creates a less Intensive use of the property • reduces traffic • offers a permanent buffer between the commercial and existing residential • has negligible, If any, impact on the City's finances • provides opportunities for further revitalization of the Gateway The mixed-use plan complies with all of Saratoga's plass and policies Including the General Plan, Zoning Code and ordinances. The plan requires no variances. I urge the council to approve the Azule Crossing pian as proposed and approved by the Planning Commission when it comes before you. Sincerely, 'NA1-d) 1G/14/1777 U7.1.3 4UOGU30L'4 J -LUL- ICULCMIUM UHV1J rHl7C CJl Mayor Stan Bogoslan City of Saratoga 13777 Frultvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga City Hall Fax: 408-868-1280 Dear Mayor Bogosian and Council: I am writing to express my strong support for the mixed-use commercial/residential revitalization of Azule Crossing as proposed by the Galeb family and as recommended by the Saratoga planning staff and approved by the Saratoga Planning Commission. For many years Azule Crossing and the Saratoga Gateway commercial area has been In decline. Many Gateway business owners and property owners have been involved in several efforts to revitalize the area with limited success. Because of Azule's long, narrow property configuration and lack of frontage on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, the rear portion of the property Is not viable for sales tax generating retail. The Galeb family has been working diligently with Its residential and commercial neighbors, the City and Planning Commission to complete the revitalization. The revitalization plan and mixed use approach: • creates an expanded and welt positioned commercial/retall building • significantly upgrades Azule Crossing and the Gateway • creates a less Intensive use of the property • reduces traffic • offers a permanent buffer between the commercial and existing residential • has negligible, If any, impact on the City's finances • provides opportunities for further revitalization of the Gateway The mixed-use plan complies with all of Saratoga's plass and policies Including the General Plan, Zoning Code and ordinances. The plan requires no variances. I urge the council to approve the Azule Crossing pian as proposed and approved by the Planning Commission when it comes before you. Sincerely, 'NA1-d) J. L. 1`fI 1JJJ VJ.1v Mayor Stan Bogosian City of Saratoga 13777 Frultvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga City Hall Fax: 408.868-1280 Dear Mayor Bogosian and Council: I am writing to express my strong support for the mixed-use commercial/residential revitalization of Azule CroSSing as proposed by the Caleb family and as recommended by the Saratoga planning staff and approved by the Saratoga Planning Commission. For many years Azule Crossing and the Saratoga Gateway commercial area has been In decline. Many Gateway business owners and property owners have been Involved In several efforts to revitalize the area with limited success. Because of Azule's long, narrow property configuration and lack of frontage on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, the rear portion of the property is not viable for sales tax generating retail. The Caleb family has been working diligently with Its residential and Commercial neighbors, the City and Planning Commission to complete the revitalization. The revitalization plan and mixed use approach: • creates an expanded and welt positioned commercial/retail building • significantly upgrades Azule Crossing and the Gateway • creates a less intensive use of the property • reduces traffic • offers a permanent buffer between the commercial and existing residential • has negligible, If any, Impact on the CIty's finances • provides opportunities for further revitalization of the Gateway The mixed-use plan compiles with all of Saratoga's plans and policies including the General Plan, zoning code and ordinances. The plan requires no varlances. I urge the council to approve the Azule Crossing plan as proposed and approved by the Planning Commission when It comes before you. Sincerely, The Front Window 12378 S. Saratoga -Sunnyvale Rd. #5 Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 253-2980 FAX # (408) 253-8245 To: G -Y\J CSU ram: Kristin Davis Remarks: ,l A FAX f 17,eCeAJ,-e9 tk \XV Lt, (tr) C11 rA4: (f44' ifyojec-f- (AL cv\(,e ca.ra0-oda-� �n 'ao-r45 carLe-✓s l,We aA 54oue/5 6N/ Kov le, ua/Lb l.u.N )C- cel' A'2 -tit. L.e_ a --#1J a -e uka4- lf,tid36r1) ka/ . � vow,. 6 ,rw%A,+-<- Cali MZi(15-1-j7)-_>,0)5, 1L! 14/ 1777 U7. VO YUOGd.7OL4.! HLULG MULCT'S11A\ VHV 1J rHl7C UL We support the Saratoga City staff recommendation and the Saratoga Planning Commission vote to APPROVE (5-1) the mixed-use commercial/residential redevelopment of Azule Crossing. We urge the Saratoga City Council to UPHOLD the staff recommendation and Planning Commission approval of Azule Crossing. Name C-7.;140- Address City/ZUP Plat Ell x-07 0 7 -- yyr� -€4 ft ei4 -,moo ' -' 7 7 e 37/3s5/ e _i JAW 6.a,• •Y‘—u . «- L� 9i - 06 y/ri-- /os7Co e r sp t^,4 -psis .?7�-Gz�� /6s .�. �. ,.. „.9 /'t? 9j j (t1:25-5)4 s.. �,4-/.2 A117 1 Q re.H G0[ 1h / .J .' - .1 /24 19L-,9 --V C_ 6R�arez6-n 4 74 pb?-Q 44.20( . _ i . f5e ,Ws -7- 9 912, L4 _41 Jr 1 / - �/nP? a,1-1", AL1 E CCS TC S `t' t�t;A't eJ2 3 g "c'-333 439 1 n Fax to Saratoga City Council; 405-868-1280 Q%D We support the Saratoga City staff recommendation and the Saratoga Planning Commission vote to APPROVE (5-1) the mixed-use conunercial/residential redevelopment of Azule Crossing. We urge the Saratoga City Council to UPHOLD the staff recommendation and Planning Commission approval of Azule Crossing. Nnnnc .... 41.•14. - /.._ ea"' ,.... Address /- / , .,J� // is r as ! 1 4 • • i // Cih'/ZIr 4' ia371 .fir is 1_�35'S 1. �Dg 2,cS:BCo9 ?how .(� tomYr,/ .iJ i/ �• ..i. v. --ao a 4 q r4 46, lL R37� r, 4 r .; .... 1'• 4 /. • 111 . •. 3/2o 0_ 91 • .A� 'W -Rei -MIA.- - 9753. C� 6'-4- 0O Y It3A 4it 253 8aAV yo�r973-7 72 3 lf19 3 - cg -3/43 • 4,4444n“--) !9A -V / +.,�lv� ... �.s'a a L4Sy_ 4/4/,‘. /.1-ya9 YET' ,ts'a I , '_/.� I 4017197•Millin IPWRINIECTM I/ :��e*. ••,04/ 2 e2: 2 )- c/y • • cfr. A5,0 ra r'+ /_ 1 4/cr ? 41 tW 7 btu .14.4L.C^ • 4 70 $6 ../o 1pi/ t.r'i., A 1 4 i'. / 056 r Gt,' RCf 91 f7 U a- y, -Y ?'c, 9"gar...6? /1 Cf .f/a 4-- ?S'2 c,. / G-04 4'-, 9So 3,z� Fax to Saratoga City Council: J08.868.1280 1L! 14/ 1777 U7. VO YUOGd.7OL4.! HLULG MULCT'S11A\ VHV 1J rHl7C UL We support the Saratoga City staff recommendation and the Saratoga Planning Commission vote to APPROVE (5-1) the mixed-use commercial/residential redevelopment of Azule Crossing. We urge the Saratoga City Council to UPHOLD the staff recommendation and Planning Commission approval of Azule Crossing. Name C-7.;140- Address City/ZUP Plat Ell x-07 0 7 -- yyr� -€4 ft ei4 -,moo ' -' 7 7 e 37/3s5/ e _i JAW 6.a,• •Y‘—u . «- L� 9i - 06 y/ri-- /os7Co e r sp t^,4 -psis .?7�-Gz�� /6s .�. �. ,.. „.9 /'t? 9j j (t1:25-5)4 s.. �,4-/.2 A117 1 Q re.H G0[ 1h / .J .' - .1 /24 19L-,9 --V C_ 6R�arez6-n 4 74 pb?-Q 44.20( . _ i . f5e ,Ws -7- 9 912, L4 _41 Jr 1 / - �/nP? a,1-1", AL1 E CCS TC S `t' t�t;A't eJ2 3 g "c'-333 439 1 n Fax to Saratoga City Council; 405-868-1280 Q%D We support the Saratoga City staff recommendation and the Saratoga Planning Commission vote to APPROVE (5-1) the mixed-use conunercial/residential redevelopment of Azule Crossing. We urge the Saratoga City Council to UPHOLD the staff recommendation and Planning Commission approval of Azule Crossing. Nnnnc .... 41.•14. - /.._ ea"' ,.... Address /- / , .,J� // is r as ! 1 4 • • i // Cih'/ZIr 4' ia371 .fir is 1_�35'S 1. �Dg 2,cS:BCo9 ?how .(� tomYr,/ .iJ i/ �• ..i. v. --ao a 4 q r4 46, lL R37� r, 4 r .; .... 1'• 4 /. • 111 . •. 3/2o 0_ 91 • .A� 'W -Rei -MIA.- - 9753. C� 6'-4- 0O Y It3A 4it 253 8aAV yo�r973-7 72 3 lf19 3 - cg -3/43 • 4,4444n“--) !9A -V / +.,�lv� ... �.s'a a L4Sy_ 4/4/,‘. /.1-ya9 YET' ,ts'a I , '_/.� I 4017197•Millin IPWRINIECTM I/ :��e*. ••,04/ 2 e2: 2 )- c/y • • cfr. A5,0 ra r'+ /_ 1 4/cr ? 41 tW 7 btu .14.4L.C^ • 4 70 $6 ../o 1pi/ t.r'i., A 1 4 i'. / 056 r Gt,' RCf 91 f7 U a- y, -Y ?'c, 9"gar...6? /1 Cf .f/a 4-- ?S'2 c,. / G-04 4'-, 9So 3,z� Fax to Saratoga City Council: J08.868.1280 We support the S,iratoga City staff recommendation and the Saratoga Planning Commission vote to APPROVE (5-1) the mixed-use commercial/residential redevelopment of Azule Crossing. We urge the Saratoga City Council to UPHOLD the staff recommendation and Planning Commission approval ofAzule Crossing. Nnwe • Address r . � ri .Ap!A •.tom QitvIW' Eh= Email p -o 3 ! `- G u+' (/4- try -el c t{—_&) 2 7- � J J 12 ,,=w� 3) zo 7� i 'i ' dr • i 0. IMP • f w oar dtqf 1. i ' . TA 4 G .. - iA 76 76 7-06 Fr AAS' qS-g L 9.S/s 9 90, 996-15-21 CA 9 t,/ -S -5410.5. - arh 144 'i 32_04 Verralr{- We 4 / /,. i ., • . • .1111.0.4. 1 Li /.i.,a.»... AA 955V i L fir • �j (• ;�' li - ' r': Z/ zr ?fi-8083 v i e . / / •r 4//9-c' r i • car ctill • yGP 26 -72,-7.5----- 31 7Z��-- 31 Ci(v^^v,01cnF4_e O It' ) I 36 s514 -?-VC z 7111e.A. 5 c(-11-°-54(-__.- c -5E7)% 756-7)Ce))G24 uEn S .i `=LS .1- rQ-7 - 3 -J finis• Z!}- Qv- S ' k `951.1 ox " 6 2_0 5"(IA IMO I s t j() 5 -firer Fax to Saratoga City Council: 408-868-1280 GO.> r We support the S,iratoga City staff recommendation and the Saratoga Planning Commission vote to APPROVE (5-1) the mixed-use commercial/residential redevelopment of Azule Crossing. We urge the Saratoga City Council to UPHOLD the staff recommendation and Planning Commission approval ofAzule Crossing. Nnwe • Address r . � ri .Ap!A •.tom QitvIW' Eh= Email p -o 3 ! `- G u+' (/4- try -el c t{—_&) 2 7- � J J 12 ,,=w� 3) zo 7� i 'i ' dr • i 0. IMP • f w oar dtqf 1. i ' . TA 4 G .. - iA 76 76 7-06 Fr AAS' qS-g L 9.S/s 9 90, 996-15-21 CA 9 t,/ -S -5410.5. - arh 144 'i 32_04 Verralr{- We 4 / /,. i ., • . • .1111.0.4. 1 Li /.i.,a.»... AA 955V i L fir • �j (• ;�' li - ' r': Z/ zr ?fi-8083 v i e . / / •r 4//9-c' r i • car ctill • yGP 26 -72,-7.5----- 31 7Z��-- 31 Ci(v^^v,01cnF4_e O It' ) I 36 s514 -?-VC z 7111e.A. 5 c(-11-°-54(-__.- c -5E7)% 756-7)Ce))G24 uEn S .i `=LS .1- rQ-7 - 3 -J finis• Z!}- Qv- S ' k `951.1 ox " 6 2_0 5"(IA IMO I s t j() 5 -firer Fax to Saratoga City Council: 408-868-1280 GO.> r We support the Saratoga City staff recommendation and the Saratoga Planning Commission vote to APPROVE (5-1) the nixed -use conunercial/residential redevelopment of Azule Crossing. We urge the Saratoga City Council to UPHOLD the staff recommendation and Planning Commission approval of Azule Crossing. Name 1eA-. • .„ii Air City/ZJP Address loon@3Ai1 ivii, _117 - _ . 05 4�� �, 115 2 ec, 4.9: ry.5'i�.� / �y�-R5'/8' n I Sa�r#J7;:..41 91)7&1 GyP'-9r�7 o p u as��- r� t_2... / x $ , 27 /M I '5/3d $ • , ii . Lr/ 2,7.20 Of 917-roi YOP.ZS~.2.34,/ft o -e Jioti /11a4 =we ., i a33�c Aye; •...... •^ 2r •.. 0I,TiC1di oft - Y • 1, 6Y3L 473/ 70 RJt S j Po 0 55 S e050 (t ift a,j5q' rYY1t s gal .A -34 0? 311 zsz �.11111 95070 • 1 SO/ liotiN y5�1 `44 L c C' C.?* 4Sd1 aS1 .-4ttou t 0 t 6 • ,►,M7i11 I • ITG IP�Af• an PterrX_ f eteLL. 342112112_54-g.5 7D (4-1ocd 3-46 -03-41. a)•&1- �cvc c14O22 • NAVAel 1� JIWO AUL/2, 44��. _ /,.. er apto 3 4 V4& �ysoJo ../s7 -42&-z, 1 971-7,247 l Fax to Saratoga City Council: 408-868.1280 We support the Saratoga City staff recommendation and the Saratoga Planning Commission vote to APPROVE (5-1) the mixed-use commercial/residential redevelopment of Azule Crossing. We urge the Saratoga City Council to UPHOLD the staff recommendation and Planning Commission approval of Azule Crossing. nage 1 Xeavt 1 . Address AAATAA-4. I�SNI CitviZl 5D noon THIMINV I� 1 1, ,,. 04 i 14 Js -7 is C;. o a 69-s3 A-331 heig„f4 15-5- /1_5? �Sa�y (” o77. r,4 -Is- 5-- .50 ars-- 7g./ .1111 0.4 Ora of Q7 Ko 20 ,4 -ye S 6 754A0 x qse e-d-zt,4 PA. AditetAA w A,.,1 !os Geos , /' i • • 'rsd• 70 g� 95D3a a03 gO 4- hie I"43 y t; G.«,,,,a,,,� 1 C a/ Y 3z/ M t Pit Rnaiedir.Nic O •CM - CA 9S—O7O old $otoP DA q 4 .. f?177D :-6 Da zo r Gut Srnr c�#a1�� ca 9 1� 2 55 - S I i I -6`1 11 mS tudsS- 14 u s`f itb ,. Wna 7b . -4 civ'18 / 11'57R G 92.cx4 rj' c T. ¢rah a, 9,1b70 %% 7-7 b'7 Z - 'c q-57)10 446 -'Ig` t «k->rJ - SA eaTgfeA `t 6-o 1-0Vo -fizi' s.s Sir -lir f ry asd-� � 5 , a , _a y a //o6 / / 952a4 Fax to Saratoga City Council; 408-868-1280 We support the Saratoga City staff recommendation and the Saratoga Planning Commission vote to APPROVE (5-1) the mixed-use commercial/residential redevelopment of Azule Crossing. We urge the Saratoga City Council to UPHOLD the staff recommendation and Planning Commission approval of Azule Crossing. nage 1 Xeavt 1 . Address AAATAA-4. I�SNI CitviZl 5D noon THIMINV I� 1 1, ,,. 04 i 14 Js -7 is C;. o a 69-s3 A-331 heig„f4 15-5- /1_5? �Sa�y (” o77. r,4 -Is- 5-- .50 ars-- 7g./ .1111 0.4 Ora of Q7 Ko 20 ,4 -ye S 6 754A0 x qse e-d-zt,4 PA. AditetAA w A,.,1 !os Geos , /' i • • 'rsd• 70 g� 95D3a a03 gO 4- hie I"43 y t; G.«,,,,a,,,� 1 C a/ Y 3z/ M t Pit Rnaiedir.Nic O •CM - CA 9S—O7O old $otoP DA q 4 .. f?177D :-6 Da zo r Gut Srnr c�#a1�� ca 9 1� 2 55 - S I i I -6`1 11 mS tudsS- 14 u s`f itb ,. Wna 7b . -4 civ'18 / 11'57R G 92.cx4 rj' c T. ¢rah a, 9,1b70 %% 7-7 b'7 Z - 'c q-57)10 446 -'Ig` t «k->rJ - SA eaTgfeA `t 6-o 1-0Vo -fizi' s.s Sir -lir f ry asd-� � 5 , a , _a y a //o6 / / 952a4 Fax to Saratoga City Council; 408-868-1280 We support the Saratoga City staff recommendation and the Saratoga Planning Commission vote to APPROVE (5-1) the mixed-use commercial/residential redevelopment of A, ule Crossing. We urge the Saratoga City Council to UPHOLD the staff recommendation and Planning Commission approval of Azule Crossing. Name J 5,.'>),no Address kim ja/a/, ' �-� CU /ZJF Dion E-mail • •- . ./7- 141i REM 10 gi• I .10 1tfre-e-0414, S ldi}L l& ( .Sara a i' •4/ _ I �rI r r• ...� .7 / .I2�r. A 0. S2v X41-L�0f ci5MQ�41-fiST5 r 0 w� w.c 24 9�"0/� Fax to Saratoga City Council; 408-868-1280 We support the Saratoga City staff recommendation and the Saratoga Planning Commission vote to APPROVE (5-1) the mixed-use commercial/residential redevelopment of Azule Crossing. We urge the Saratoga City Council to UPHOLD the staff recommendation and Planning Commission approval of Azule Crossing. Name Address City/ZIP Phone E-mail isolyzn- 2.( -a _ C� - amu *S1? 1 3 � 'fob ' 43 t r hics- (406) 44t.- 31 (.47 —9— Fax to Saratoga City Council: 408-868-1280 We support the Saratoga City staff recommendation and the Saratoga Planning Commission vote to APPROVE (5-1) the nixed -use conunercial/residential redevelopment of Azule Crossing. We urge the Saratoga City Council to UPHOLD the staff recommendation and Planning Commission approval of Azule Crossing. Name 1eA-. • .„ii Air City/ZJP Address loon@3Ai1 ivii, _117 - _ . 05 4�� �, 115 2 ec, 4.9: ry.5'i�.� / �y�-R5'/8' n I Sa�r#J7;:..41 91)7&1 GyP'-9r�7 o p u as��- r� t_2... / x $ , 27 /M I '5/3d $ • , ii . Lr/ 2,7.20 Of 917-roi YOP.ZS~.2.34,/ft o -e Jioti /11a4 =we ., i a33�c Aye; •...... •^ 2r •.. 0I,TiC1di oft - Y • 1, 6Y3L 473/ 70 RJt S j Po 0 55 S e050 (t ift a,j5q' rYY1t s gal .A -34 0? 311 zsz �.11111 95070 • 1 SO/ liotiN y5�1 `44 L c C' C.?* 4Sd1 aS1 .-4ttou t 0 t 6 • ,►,M7i11 I • ITG IP�Af• an PterrX_ f eteLL. 342112112_54-g.5 7D (4-1ocd 3-46 -03-41. a)•&1- �cvc c14O22 • NAVAel 1� JIWO AUL/2, 44��. _ /,.. er apto 3 4 V4& �ysoJo ../s7 -42&-z, 1 971-7,247 l Fax to Saratoga City Council: 408-868.1280 We support the Saratoga City staff recommendation and the Saratoga Planning Commission vote to APPROVE (5-1) the mixed-use commercial/residential redevelopment of Azule Crossing. We urge the Saratoga City Council to UPHOLD the staff recommendation and Planning Commission approval of Azule Crossing. Name Address City/ZR ST, (4-013 07g Ai4V2 9S' L 2-6— k.ciff M, ;14;1 ; ' -z S 7 L -e"I"1`l /.6k.tvjf.tAde:,,. Jj" 1735- - ‘ zAfil/}4 €1.6.1Witt/272,e) :--7:9c? Phone E-mail f -/2( / -Arm 3 73 J[j?1-01rSI � 421rei 1.96-772rZS&7- Lf Cibs / �LSD De/ 372.. Sf36 g Syr -/ 5 LI 1 l20101 1)t) ) dinI4 �j rare L?, /; ich 1'e_a ,o 3© 3$/ (07—DA /0 2 ,2) Fax to Saratoga City Council: 408-868-1280 We support the Saratoga City staff recommendation and the Saratoga Planning Commission vote to APPROVE (5-1) the mixed-use commercial/residential redevelopment of Azole Crossing. We urge the Saratoga City Council to UPHOLD the staff recommendation and Planning Commission approval of Azule Crossing. Name Address City/ZIP Phon De6orallThLc /319) &,44104ef. .Sa/tiA ?Vf 9996 'dC( itf•9G1917/ o ,'b s) .i._.5.4 ID • 0 3 i / :at. v -a .. Lam �-+. / s�6 L. - o9 0 /3soa IV .4 ra ��� - 07o1 % S -:A 5 PP v� to • • SARAro4 _ - 7eA PrAir FAM rfa 71 I Fri 011P..LAI i6 7- le 3-11- 4-1 70 - $(7-9679 Vi• - % . i, _ A .► L r.I•//P 'iv r. ,,•I:• ee. A /AN= OfAr-Ar Mr/. 11rZ 1 4111 6 / 73 Iv r L A. . , ....±� ...i• d.� c OG ass -..3 n � � I (i. g-�09aS 5W7v - 25-3- 14/07 (-/7y� 411. 70 - 7 CNRrS ex,c QRQcN�R • ha-vje,,rif / s-C�Z.4 44. +..4) c!% .r oa $67 a rc em �f err . f r/4'L0 aGi,,teU, �, �� 887 -(2576 A/&-i4/4/0aLL sr, a ► i c1.6Y2" Sso 1 c'f s- caA,o.vuAy CT sAaRA7. oat A "ip„,7.. y.yi-/r98. Fax to Saratoga City Council: 408-868-1280 We support the Saratoga City staff recommendation and the Saratoga Planning Commission vote to APPROVE (5-1) the mixed-use commercial/residential redevelopment of Azule Crossing. We urge the Saratoga City Council to UPHOLD the staff recommendation and Planning Commission approval of Azule Crossing. Name Address City/ZIP 41Yi• lieP-rgee iliW0666/40\41, q Lr l�Y,��C�ti Mi,: 014 t F A r c.`, Dr • S " Ai* 6 01 t tsa.: 6norc..4/ c►M li//u/A/1 5 v J /3356 G r 4 c7t` x-47 0fr Ci/393 7 &e_11 (id< '‘‘.---/(0; 9F-07 0 /4/ Phone E-mail (2 (e--1 j1L0' 4'6 Rob tn7 £ 64N Ile 7u iJ U Q c1 . & r0Airt 1,1 r1 EI, k4odel r.'c6-i LYS 4v; pNOc )c- 33b@a� Fax to Saratoga City Council: 408-868-1280 TOTAL P.01