Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-15-2000 Agenda Item 3SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 15, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: 3 DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: 7�_ PREPARED BY: DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission approval of a Tentative Map for the subdivision of a 3.7 acre parcel, located at 20251 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, into five separate parcels ranging in size from 21,100 square feet to 46,530 square feet. An Environmental Initial Study was prepared for the project and a Negative Declaration was adopted. FILE: SD-00-002; HOWELL & McNEIL, LLC, 20251 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road RECOMMENDED ACTION: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision. REPORT SUMMARY: Project neighbors Lester and Helen Lee are appealing the Planning Commissios approval of a n'five separate parcels ranging in size from Tentative Map to subdivide a 3.7 acre parcel into 21,100 square feet to 46,530 square feet. The subject property is located on the southeast side of Carnelian Glen Court at the corner of Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. There is currently a main residence and a sizeable guest house on the property. The main residence is proposed to remain on the newly -created Lot 3. The guest house is proposed to be demolished. The proposal includes improving the pedestrian pathway along the portion of the property abutting Saratoga - Los Gatos Road. The applicants have worked closely with staff on the design of the subdivision. The application has been reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Heritage Preservation Commission, the Public Works Department, the Saratoga Fire District, San Jose Water Company, PG&E and the City Arborist. All recommendations have either been incorporated into the plans or are included as conditions of approval. Public hearings were held before the Planning Commission on August 9 and September 27, 2000 to evaluate the proposal and receive public comment. The Planning Commissioners also visited the site on at least two occasions to better understand the project and neighbor concerns. The Tentative Map was then conditionally approved on September 27. The Lees are appealing the approval based on their attached statement that the location of the flag lot driveway serving Lot 4 across from their home will reduce the value of their property. A site visit has been scheduled for Tuesday, November 14 at 3:00 p.m. for interested Council members. Please meet at the Community Development Department offices. FISCAL IMPACTS: Not applicable. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: The Tentative Map would be denied. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: The City Council could direct the applicants to revise the Tentative Map to reduce the number of lots if reasonable land use findings could be made to support this decision. FOLLOW UP ACTION: A Resolution will be prepared for the next available City Council meeting memorializing the Council's decision. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: A hearing notice has been published in the Saratoga News and mailed to all surrounding property owners within a 500 foot radius of the project site. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Appeal Application 2. Planning Commission meeting minutes and Staff Report of August 9, 2000 3. Planning Commission meeting minutes and Staff Memorandum of September 27, 2000 4. Tentative Map, Exhibit A 2of2 City of Saratoga APPEAL APPLICATION (THIS TWO-PART APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE, SARATOGA CA 95070, BY 5:00 P.M. WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION) Appellant Name �� c � f-� d- his%r r: A - Address Name of Applicant (if different from Appellant) Project File Number and Address gj Illc 0 a. c Grounds for Appeal (letter may be attached): w( -I � . L !n n � i (Y ✓1 Vr t_rri.v A?19vrs-0osecl 0V/n / c r t-rc 11 0 C. *Appel) Signatur (Please do not sign this application and the attched authorization until it is presented at City offices.) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 7 AUGUST 9, 2000 Commissioner Barry thanked the applicants and Mr. Pearson for their excellent efforts in all respects There was no one from the audience who wished to address this issue. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/JACKMAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 8:28 P.M.) PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER ROUPE WAS ABSENT.) Commissioner Patrick expressed that her only concern is that this is a nearly 5,100 square foot house going in an 11,000 square foot lot. She noted that the basement is slightly bigger than the first floor according to the square footage charts. Commissioner Barry commented that the design saves the size of the basement. She said the design is a modest second -story, set back, not viewable, and the total height of the structure is only 22' as opposed to 26 feet. Everything that could be done to make this a reasonable second -story addition has been done. She feels that with nine neighbors supporting it, this is a very reasonable request. Commissioner Bernald concurred with comments made, including the larger basement than the house; however, she felt this is a design that fits well in the neighborhood, and comes in smaller than many homes that are single -story. Commissioner Kurasch said that a larger impact is when neighborhoods change from their character and impact others, and that is of concern to her. She said that in this case the two-story is very architecturally sensitive. She commented that until there is a clear methodology to look at the two-story versus one-story issue, it is a case -by -case basis. For this plan, she does not feel it will set a precedent of changing the neighborhood just because it is a two-story. She said she would like to see a precedent of good taste and scale, and this proposal certainly has it. Commissioner Jackman said she would like to see this plan set a precedent of how well a second -story can be worked into a neighborhood without disrupting the whole ambiance of the neighborhood. She said it is a very nice design, and she will support it. Chairman Page agreed that the design is absolutely appropriate for the neighborhood and does not have any massive bulk. Mr. Pearson clarified that on the table on page 3 of the staff report, the first floor square footage (plus the garage square footage) comes out to 2180, and that is the entire first level of the structure, which is larger than the basement. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/BARRY MOVED TO APPROVE DR-99-021. PASSED 6-0. (COMMISSIONER ROUPE WAS ABSENT.) 4. SD-00-002 (397-21-022) — HOWELL & MCNEIL DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 20251 Saratoga - Los Gatos Road; Application for Subdivision approval and adoption of a Negative Declaration to split an existing 3.7 acre lot into five lots. The parcel is located within an R-1-20,000 zoning district. Ms. Ratcliffe presented the staff report, noting that the applicants are requesting a tentative map approval for the subdivision of a 3.7-acre lot into five separate lots. The zoning is R-1-20,000, and lots range in size from 21,000+ to 46,000+ square feet. She said the existing main residence is proposed to remain, and the existing guest house and tea house/meditation house are to be removed. An Environmental Initial PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 8 AUGUST 9, 2000 Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for the project. She said the proposal was reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) who looked at both the main residence and guest house, and they are recommending that the main residence be placed on the Historic Residences Inventory, which has been included as a condition of approval. The HPC is not recommending that the guest house or tea house be retained. The proposal was also reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC.) Ms. Ratcliffe referred to the exhibit on the wall, noting the five lots and an adjacent public right of way along Saratoga -Los Gatos Road that borders proposed lot #1. The improvement plan includes an existing pathway that the City is requiring be improved. She said it is not contiguous at this time, but it would connect with another section that is improved on the other side of Horseshoe Drive along Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. She noted there are over 200 trees on the site, of which over 70 are ordinance -protected. Of the 70, the proposal calls for the removal of five — two are rated hazardous and the Arborist is recommending their removal. The other three are tree #2 on lot #2, tree #3 on lot #3, and tree #4 on lot #5 and are proposed to be removed for driveway access. She said tree #2 on lot #3 is the very large Oak that is next to the existing residence and is proposed to remain, and the existing driveway around that is proposed to remain untouched. The driveway surrounding it within 50' will be removed by hand so as not to disturb the roots and to protect the tree. Ms. Ratcliffe clarified the configuration on the flag lot (lot #4.) She said normally staff would view the line most parallel to Carnelian Glen (the access road) as the front property line; however, the code allows some discretion. With lot #4, the depth and width, and the position of the adjacent lots, it would seem more appropriate to consider the line that is parallel to Carnelian Glen as the left side property line, and the front line would be adjacent to lot #3. She explained the advantages are that this makes the rear yard setback abut the rear yard of another flag lot off of Carnelian Glen and the right side property line would abut the rear property lines of two homes on Horseshoe Drive. Additionally, there are many trees and a gully towards the right hand side of that lot. She said switching the configuration around would necessitate grading. Ms. Ratcliffe acknowledged a letter from William and Sylvia Bangerter, 14631 Horseshow Drive, whose property backs up to lot #4, and they would like to be informed of any future design review applications. They are interested in preserving the landscaping near their property line as a screen. She said one of the normal conditions of approval is that each proposed home on the lots come back to the Planning Commission for design review. At that time appropriate design and landscaping could be considered, and the neighbors would be notified. Furthermore, Ms. Ratcliffe conveyed that a letter from Mark Vandenberg and Kathleen M. Kennedy, 14631 Carnelian Glen Court, had been received too late for inclusion in the agenda packet. They stated they are unable to attend tonight's meeting. Their concerns included that they want the frontage strip along the Saratoga -Los Gatos Road path improved, which is a condition of approval and part of the submitted plan. They also want a crosswalk connecting the path entrance to Montalvo to Carnelian Glen, and staff feels this would not be appropriate across Highway 9 at this juncture. Ms. Ratcliffe said that a pathway along Saratoga -Los Gatos Road to the Village has a light where people can cross safely. She reported that this issue would also involve CalTrans who has a right-of-way along that area. A third concern was that the City enforce the setback restrictions as they are concerned about the guest house which is on lot #5. (The guest house is proposed to be demolished.) They also felt that the neighborhood would benefit from a formalized entrance to Carnelian Glen Court, and as part of that entrance, they are suggesting more sufficient lighting to address safety concerns at the front of the street. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 9 AUGUST 9, 2000 Ms. Ratcliffe reported that Commissioner Kurasch requested information relating to the Hayfield subdivision - a private agreement between Pinn Brothers, the developers, and neighbors to preserve trees on that property. Ms. Ratcliffe conveyed that this was an agreement reached prior to the Planning Commission approving the particular subdivision. She asked Commissioner Kurasch to address this issue later on. Ms. Ratcliffe stated that staff is recommending that the subdivision application be approved and that the Commission adopt the Negative Declaration. Commissioner Bernald asked whether the applicant had an opportunity to see the memo from staff responding to Commissioner Kurasch's request, and Ms. Ratcliffe responded they had not. Commissioner Bemald asked staff to provide the applicant with a copy of the response. Commissioner Kurasch indicated she did not receive a copy of the letter from Vandenberg and Kennedy. She said she had asked Ms. Ratcliffe about two issues — one was patterning some kind of easement or protection for the trees in the map split. The other was the driveways, and her concern was what information would be appropriate to understand having one flag lot entrance from #4, rather than #3 and #4, such as the width of the drive and what the requirements would be. Ms. Ratcliffe clarified that the question referred to lot #3 and lot #5 and using a portion of the flag lot as entrance rather than having three separate driveways that access Carnelian Glen. She said that could be possible with the flag lot. The minimum access drive size for three lots would be 20' width, rather than the 12' width. To achieve that it would be necessary to utilize a portion of lot #5 and lot #3. It would have to be an access easement for all three, and those two lots would lose available land if that was done. The driveway would not have to be 20' all the way back; however, it would have to be 20' wide only to the point where the access for lot #5 and lot #3 would take off. She said that would affect the trees involved. She said she had put in a call to the Fire Chief and did not get a response. It might be possible to maintain the 12' width if the houses on lot #3 and lot #5 are close enough to Carnelian Glen to allow the Fire Department proper access, and that is a question that can be answered by the Fire Department. Commissioner Kurasch stated she was primarily concerned with lots #3 and #4, not #5, so that may make it a little easier to combine the access of #3 and #4. She referred to page 238 of the Subdivision Required Street Pavement Right -of -Ways and Widths, the minimum service street is 20' right-of-way, 18' width, and that could apply, also. Ms. Ratcliff responded that the minimum access would be 18' paved with one -foot pavers on either side. Commissioner Patrick conveyed that this is promoted as a lot -split, splitting one parcel into five lots, but it also sets driveways for all the lots, and sets house sizes and sites for all the lots. The Commission has not been given any information as to pervious/impervious coverage. She asked if tonight's intent was to approve the driveway placement, the house site, and house size by voting on this tonight. Ms. Ratcliffe responded that this was not a vesting tentative map, but a tentative parcel map. Originally, the applicant did not submit the driveways or the tentative house locations. After the initial Arborist report with the substantial amount of trees, and the placement of the lots, staff knew the driveways were intended to go to Carnelian Glen, and staff asked for driveway placement. With that the applicant provided proposed footprints, but this is not an approval of those footprints, and it is not an approval of the driveways. It is to give the Commission an idea of where those would be. These placements could be used in future design of the lots. The driveways were designed to impact as few trees as possible, and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 10 AUGUST 9, 2000 staff feels that they did a good job of doing that. However, there is no approval of the outline footprints or the driveways. Commissioner Patrick clarified that the Commission was not approving the five lots and that the rest of the project was still subject to further review, reconsideration, and this gives them no rights in any future discussions to say that a previous Commission has already approved these. Ms. Ratcliffe noted that the only change would be lot #3 which has an existing house, and information on the square footage, impervious coverage, etc. has been made available to the Commissioners. Commissioner Bemald asked if the discussion went further than the size of the driveways. Ms. Ratcliffe replied that it would depend on the Fire Department requirements and what kind of access they would need. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the Commission was precluded from considering any improvements that would go along with this approval. Ms. Ratcliffe replied that the Commission could condition the approval of the driveway placement being in conformance with what is being considered now or specify an alternative so that .future design reviews would refer back to the conditions of subdivision approval. Chairman Page opened the Public Hearing at 8:52 p.m. Greg Howell, Los Gatos resident, noted his partner is Tim McNeil, 18450 Sobey Road, Saratoga, and addressed the Commission. Mr. Howell stated some of the questions raised by the Commissioners and those read in the letter were their concerns as well, and they looked at this very closely. He said they considered the cul-de-sac option, but also considered the impacts to the neighbors and would involve taking out too many trees. They felt the proposed plan was a better alternative with smaller driveways and less pervious coverage. Of the 200 trees on the site, they are only taking out three, the other two are recommended to be taken out by the Arborist, and they feel they have done a very good job with the driveways. They have spoken with some of the neighbors regarding their concerns. Commissioner Kurasch referred to the Arborist report. Notwithstanding the three trees that will be impacted directly, there are indirect and significant impacts to other trees, and the Arborist did go over the approximately 70 that may be at risk with different development schemes. She said that is where she got the idea of actually linking the impact or future impact on trees with a protection blanket to limit that or establish permanent measures where the trees could be protected. She expressed concern about the long- term safeguarding of the trees. Mr. Howell explained that the trees are in the exterior property and are in a position where they are most likely not to be impacted by the development. He said most of the trees are situated around the back portion of the property, and noted that the trees are good for the neighborhood. Commissioner Kurasch suggested that Mr. Howell review the report submitted by Ms. Ratcliffe. Commissioner Barry shared Commissioner Kurasch's concern, and she requested a condition that addresses future landscaping with respect to screening. Mr. Howell agreed that that would be a reasonable request PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 11 AUGUST 9, 2000 Tom Arnold, 14697 Carnelian Glen Drive, commented that access would have impacts on traffic, parking, and entrances to the houses. The subdivision map shows five lots and there is potential to making it only four. He said landscape, drainage, and removal of trees are of concern to him. He asked the Commission to consider enforcing CC&R's to the parcels. As far as the construction of the site itself, he and his wife were severely impacted when the crew tore the fence down and debris was left in the open. He proposed that the project be a clean project with the least impacts to the neighborhood, including suitable screening from dust, and that the construction site remain clean. He asked that the Commission enforce litter control. Commissioner Bernald asked Mr. Arnold for his ideas regarding the parking Mr. Arnold responded that the neighbors are impacted by Montalvo's popular events, and the street has abundant parking from people attending those events. He asked whether, given the driveways and their positions, people would be encouraged to park on Carnelian Glen Court or would they first park in the driveway and what might that look like with the number of lots that are here, should someone actually be entertaining, and where would the overflow of parking go, although across the street there is not much of a frontage. He said his is the only home on the street that has a sidewalk and a curbside. Commissioner Bernald asked where his guests parked, and he responded that they parked in front of his home or in his driveway. Mr. Arnold, responding to Commissioner Bernald's inquiry, said that with five driveways for five homes, it would be best to take from the flag lot and have three driveways for five homes. Jeffrey Kalb, 14617 Carnelian Glen Circle, said that from looking at the lots and drawings, it appears that the main house is situated on a one -acre lot, but the side setbacks are associated with a half -acre lot. Given the size of that house and its dominance, he believes the lot lines should provide appropriate setbacks consistent with the size of the house as opposed to treating it as though it were half -acre zoning. He said the staff report indicates there are about five trees to be removed, and asked whether that included all the trees necessary to build both the houses and the driveways and everything else, or was it only for the driveways and lot lines. Ms. Ratcliffe responded that the Commission was not reviewing any buildings or building setbacks, and additional trees might be removed; thus, staff put in a condition that each of the lots come back to the Commission for design review so they can be looked at individually. Mr. Kalb recommended that more consideration be given the crosswalk. Mr. Kalb addressed the issue of the flag lot, which he sees as exacerbating the parking problem with additional parking and in reducing the amount of street footage available for parking. He said minimizing the impact on parking spaces ought to be a priority for the Commission and staff. He expressed he would prefer a four -lot subdivision to eliminate that problem, if possible. Responding to a question from Commissioner Jackman, Mr. Kalb said he was not opposed to the subdivision, but with five driveways, there would not be enough parking. Commissioner Bernald asked whether it would be more appropriate for the Public Safety Commission (PSC) to review the crosswalk issue rather than the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 12 AUGUST 9, 2000 Ms. Ratcliffe responded that the PSC would need to review it; however, it is a state highway, and CalTrans has jurisdiction. Chairman Page commented that the issue would be referred to the PSC, and noted that during the Circulation Element Plan review, it was learned that such a crosswalk and road gives pedestrians a sense of comfort and safety much more than it does drivers, and more people get hurt. Commissioner Barry questioned whether this is more appropriately a one -acre zoning area, and asked what the rationale was for considering five lots as opposed to four lots. Ms. Ratcliffe replied that the property is very large, and both the General Plan designation and zoning map define it as being within the R-1-20,000 zoning district, meaning 20,000 square feet minimum lot size, and a little more for a corner lot. Commissioner Barry asked whether five lots was the maximum that could go in this property, and Ms. Ratcliffe responded that there could be six or seven depending on how it is configured, explaining how more lots could go in. Responding to Commissioner Barry's inquiry regarding Mr. Kalb's concern with the setbacks, Ms. Ratcliffe said that the house is an existing house, over 6,000 square feet, which is the maximum allowed for this particular zoning district. However, noting it is an existing house, she said the code does not require that it be removed for the purpose of a subdivision, and it does not require that setbacks conform when there is an existing house that is not moved and not altered. She further explained the requirements. Mr. Kalb commented that his concern with the setbacks is an aesthetics issue, noting that the existing house's proportions, in his opinion, are not appropriate. Lester Lee, 14653 Carnelian Glen, said he was not complaining about the construction, but no advance notice was given to the neighbors and is probably one of the reasons they are concerned. He stated that the proposed width for each driveway may require taking out more trees to accommodate the property. He described Carnelian Glen as a cul-de-sac with 16 houses on the street, and additional houses and driveways would reduce the number of parking spaces and create more traffic situations, including crossing Highway 9. He proposed that the Commission look at how to preserve the trees along Carnelian Glen and not having too many driveways. He described the trees as majestic. Helen Lee, 14653 Carnelian Glen Court, suggested that the entrance to all the lots be through Highway 9 as the street is getting very crowded. Responding to Commissioner Bernald's question, Mr. Lee said that the size of his lot is closer to a one- third acre. Commissioner Barry requested that staff respond to Ms. Lee's suggestion. Ms. Ratcliffe responded that coming in through Highway 9 would change the configuration and explained that it would become a cul-de-sac off Highway 9. She also addressed possible ramifications on the trail because of the pedestrian pathway. She said she could not see how the plan would be reconfigured and still maintain the main residence, which the HPC is recommending be retained. Commissioner Bernald stated that it appeared that with a reconfiguration more trees would be lost and noted that the trees are very valuable to the neighborhood. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 13 AUGUST 9, 2000 Ms. Ratcliffe responded to Commissioner Kurasch's question regarding driveway and road widths with access from Highway 9 on lots #1 and #2. Robert Amaral, 14551 Carnelian Glen, a neighbor and also a developer, stated that the neighbors never heard from the developer. He expressed concerns with traffic. He conveyed he does not want any form of entry from Carnelian Glen as it is a very narrow street; would add more traffic; and create risks for children on the street. He requested that no variances to the code be made on this development, and if any variances are given that the developer give back in terms of the number of lots they develop. He commented that valuation of the properties in the neighborhood would be impacted. He requested that the Commission impose conditions regarding building times associated with the constriction, clean-up, workers' parking, etc. He asked the Commission to request improvements from the developer to add value to the neighborhood such as landscaping, a formal entrance to Carnelian Glen, etc. He asked that no trees be removed; that no variances be provided to setback restrictions; and that no flag lot property be allowed. He noted that adding five more houses is too many. He said he is not against the property, but it should have no more than four houses and the entry should be through Highway 9. Ms. Lee addressed the Commission again, noting she did not want the driveway facing her front door and cars parked close to her house. There was no one else from the audience who wished to address this issue Mr. Howell responded that he and his partner had thought of basically all the concerns raised by the neighbors. He has plans that show six- or seven -lot plans without any variances. However, he and his partner felt had they brought a six -seven lot subdivision to the Commission tonight they would not be good for the neighbors nor for the developers to get it passed, and would be wasting time. He said they were the only developers who came in with a five -lot subdivision for this property, and every other developer had a six- or seven -lot subdivision on this property with no variances. Mr. Howell conveyed that he did not believe the neighbors understood how sensitive this project is to this site. He noted that he is ahead of the current ordinances and zoning for this area, and he was not asking for any variances and does not intend to ask for any variances. Regarding the trees on the frontage of the property that are already there, he agreed they are a big asset to the property and wants to keep as many as possible. The two trees that are being removed are on the smaller site. Regarding the size of the current house to be maintained, he said one cannot have both ways to tear it down, or keep it. Ile said he heard that the neighbors want it torn down, and that can be discussed, but he would like direction. He heard the neighbors say that the size of the house - a little over 6,000 square feet which includes the garage - is going to be bigger than the other homes. He noted the home right next door will be 5700 square feet without any variances, and they would be very comparable houses. These are issues that he and his partner have studied, including the impacts to the neighbors. Mr. Howell asked the Commission not to approve access through Highway 9, as this is an ingress/egress concern with a highway like that. Two roads so close together going on to a highway and with people turning onto or from it creates a safety issue and a major problem for not only the people that are going to live in the future houses, but for the people who are currently there. He said it is not wise to have access on a major highway and should have as few access onto a highway as possible. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/BARRY MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 9:45 P.M.) PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER ROUPE WAS ABSENT.) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 14 AUGUST 9, 2000 Commissioner Barry commented that, after listening to the public hearing input, this issue needs to be continued so that the neighbors have a chance to further study the proposal and maybe have some input that they feel that they haven't had so far. She respects what the developer said at the site visit - that they have attempted to have open houses and to make themselves available. Neighborhood input is really important, and she did not feel that the neighbors are anywhere ready tonight to have the Commission make a decision on this. She said there was a good effort on the developers' part to consider trees and driveway locations; however, the neighbors have brought up some issues that have not been considered yet and were not in the staff report, and she feels the Commission needs to address those. Commissioner Bernald concurred with Commissioner Barry. She was she disappointed because Commissioners specifically asked at the site visit yesterday if all the neighbors had been contacted and were given assurances that attempts had been made. She said she could not support the entrance from Highway 9, and would not want to disturb the improvements that the applicants are making with the walkway, the trees, and the buffer zone. She would want the neighbors to be able to see the plans and get an understanding of what is going on because the developers have made a tremendous effort to try and save the trees and keep the nature of the property. She noted that with the Commission's concerns more language will probably go into the maintenance and protection of the tress. She thanked Mr. Arnold and Mr. Amaral. She shared having just gone through a total rebuilt of her house in another city and having a contractor who did a clean project. She noted it was very important to her neighbors and how much easier it was for them to accept inconveniences in other ways when the trucks came in and when sand was dumped on their driveways occasionally. She stated that the CC&R's may be something to look into, and she suggested that perhaps the Commission may need further discussion. Ms. Ratcliffe stated that CC&R's are agreements between property owners in general and in most cases, the City is not involved in them nor does it have the authority to enforce them. Commissioner Bernald stated she would like more information before the site development is done on the setbacks for lot #3 with the existing house, and she would entertain comments from the rest of the Commissioners regarding the flag lot. She said she had a conflict here. She expressed concern that this is an R-1-20,000 zoning, and she would like to have feedback whether the General Plan is followed or if there is any support for four lots at this point. She said she is not placing a value on that statement; she was merely asking for input from other Commissioners and staff. She asked what the potential problems might be if lot #4 and #5 were made one lot or lot #3 were given some of that area. Commissioner Kurasch agreed that that there was a need for another meeting. She heard a lot of concerns from the neighbors on the character of the area, preserving the views, the setting, the integral part of their neighborhood, access, parking, and traffic. She sees a sensitivity of preserving trees and champions that. If this means impacting a neighborhood very adversely, then maybe the Commission needs to look at it again and mitigate that impact. She asked how many access roads or drives would be appropriate from Carnelian Glen. For her, a compromise might be an internal cul-de-sac, and perhaps that means three lots can have one access, and one driveway for two lots, or something that would preserve the idea of living in a neighborhood. She conveyed that five driveways bother her a lot, and four may be okay. She said maybe even three would be good. However, she thinks the assumption is that the five in the half -acre lots works because of all these access roads, but if that is the impact, it is too great. She is not opposed to trying to have five lots. It may be that with less impact on Carnelian Glen it may turn into four if an access road has to be put in. She said this is a very small street, which means that the impact is going to be greater. Commissioner Jackman stated that the developers have tried to come up with a good plan, but she had problems with lots #3, #4, and #5. She said lot #3 is limited because of the existing house, but perhaps a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 15 AUGUST 9, 2000 different configuration with one driveway leading to two houses would be appropriate. She said she would like to know the distance between the existing driveways — how many cars can park between each driveway — and whether the actual width of Carnelian Glen is wide enough for parking on both sides and allowing a fire truck to get through. She noticed when Mr. Howell was commenting about the original house, she saw several eyebrows go up among the neighbors, and it is time to go back to the neighbors for another meeting for a better understanding. She would like some method of keeping the street clean, not just from nails, but dirt also. Commissioner Patrick commented she had heard a lot, most of which does not have anything to do with the proposal tonight. She noted there are no variances requested, and the Commission is not dealing with variances. Neighbors are talking about where the driveways are going to be placed, and the Commission is not placing driveways tonight. She said the discussion is only about where the driveways might be on these lots, not placing them. She conveyed that the Commission is not deciding how many driveways there are going to be, nor is it deciding where the entry is going to be, and frankly, the Commission cannot make the entrance from Highway 9 so that is out of the Commission's hands. A few things she heard, such as having a formal entry onto Carnelian Glen is sort of outside the boundaries of what. the Commission does. She said this is not Montalvo — this is a neighborhood, and efforts should be made to try to keep it to a neighborhood. She stated that the Commission is not approving house sites or sizes. There are City ordinances regarding hours of construction work and how to handle construction debris, and she recommends that the neighbors call the City if they have a problem with the current construction in their neighborhood. Every application the Commission has ever approved for building has hours of operation on it. It also imposes what people are supposed to clean up and what they're supposed to do. The City does not go out and check on those unless they happen to be checking on a permit or similar issue. Speaking to the application itself, she said she had no problem with it. Additionally, Commissioner Patrick stated that the application is to divide up a parcel of land, and that will change. She said this parcel of land has been sitting there as a benefit to the neighborhood for years. She did not think it was fair- for the neighborhood to expect that whoever subsequently buys the parcel has to maintain it for the benefit of the neighbors. The City will require the trees to remain as the City goes to extraordinary lengths to keep those trees. She said discussion has been on the potential of removing trees should the various elements ever get in place. A flag lot, in her opinion, is essential on this parcel. She does not like them, but feels it is essential to maintain the character of the neighborhood. She expressed that the Commission wants the existing house on lot #3 to stay there, whatever the setbacks are. She said the house has been there for many more years than the rest of the neighborhood has apparently been there, and it has enough trees to screen; therefore, that would not be a problem. She said she is prepared to vote on the application tonight, and the rest of it can be discussed when design applications come up. Chairman Page concurred with Commissioners Bernald and Patrick. He said the developers have done an admirable job of spec-ing out where things might be, but that is not what the Commission is voting on tonight. He said he would hold his comments until the vote, but he would be prepared to vote on this tonight. COM.MISS.IONERS BARRY/KURASCH MOVED TO CONTINUE SD-00-002. A discussion ensued. Commissioner Barry stated that the neighbors need to have understanding and input into this project, and whether the developers tried to make that possible or not, it clearly has not happened. There are many issues that have been raised that should be answered and some questions about which the Commission should direct staff to provide answers or information, specifically how the Commission could request four PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 16 AUGUST 9, 2000 lots on this property rather than five or six or seven. She asked whether that would involve changing the zoning and whether a legal opinion would be necessary. She said the Commission definitely needs to hear from the Fire Chief, and definitely needs more information about driveways. She proposed continuing this item so that the neighbors have more input and so that the Commission can receive more specific information from staff. Commissioner Patrick commented that it is nice to talk to the neighbors, but she did not think the Commission could require anybody to talk. She said the issue is what the Commission thinks about it and what it needs to know at this point. She noted that the issues raised needing answers, such as requiring four lots, is the Commission's discretion. That is the reason the Commission is voting on dividing the property, and does not need a legal opinion on that. She said the Commission is not voting on driveways, and kept emphasizing she did not like some of these driveways, but would deal with that later. She stated that any questions she had, she has asked of staff and received answers, and she is ready to proceed. Commissioner Jackman conveyed that basically this is a good division into the five lots, but she stated she was a little distressed. She knows that legally, the Commission does not have to make sure the neighbors are happy, but she knows Mr. Howell and Mr. McNeil have tried to make the neighbors happy before. She feels that possibly with another meeting, concerns could be worked out, and she would like to see the neighbors well pleased. She said she would like to have this item come back for another hearing. Commissioner Kurasch concurred with Commissioner Jackman. She said every lot has to have a drive, an access, and if they are not considered and are addressed later, for her, it is a more complete picture to be able to look at the impacts of whatever the configuration is. She said the sites are footprints, and they are related, not necessarily to how large the building is going to be, but they show the pad and a potential size of the particular house or structure that can go in. She would want to consider with this approval conditions for the property. She said it is appropriate to look at neighborhood views. Aesthetics is a legitimate objective, and legally her perception is discretionary, so there are views here to consider. She would like a little more information about the existing road and what the capacity is for traffic and parking and those kinds of quantitative impacts. She stated that that information could be obtained from staff and would be helpful to her. She would support a continuance. Commissioner Berlald stated she needed some clarification on what the layers of the process are. Tonight the vote is not on driveways, but on a subdivision. The Commission is not definitely looking at where the houses will be with the exception of lot #3. She asked what process would be followed from here on so that the concerns that have been raised tonight will be addressed and will come in an order which is timely and appropriate to this division. Ms. Ratcliffe responded that at this point the driveways could be addressed. The Commission could say yes to this development provided that the driveways are where they are or provided that they share access for lots #3 and #4, or whatever the Commission chooses. She noted that the Commission could in fact make that decision tonight, or it could also approve the tentative map with the driveways tentative and request to review each lot independently of that. Referring to the shared driveway, she said an access easement has to be recorded with the land, and that would have to necessarily be handled at a subdivision level, rather than later, unless it is the same owner. She explained that once the subdivision is complete and the final map is recorded, it is possible to have two separate owners, and one cannot at that point say that an easement has to be given to somebody else. She said if this was a concern, the Commission might want to look at that at this level, and make the driveways as part of the approval. Chairnian Page voiced that getting input from the neighbors as was done tonight and further attempts could possibly help to come to consensus. He said he is not a big fan of shared driveways, and if the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 17 AUGUST 9, 2000 decision is made to create an easement, it is evident that could cause more problems. It could also add to the parking necessary on the street because people will not be able to park in their own driveway. They have to leave parts open, which may cause more parking on the street, and the neighbors do not want this. He is in favor of having the neighbors meet with the developer and if there is some discussion regarding CC&R's to meet the needs of the present homeowners and needs of the future homeowners which are going to be a part of the neighborhood, he would like to see it done now. He noted that if a continuance helps, the Commission could go ahead and vote on this tonight. Commissioner Bang asked for clarification that the one thing that would be absolutely done tonight if the Commission approves this is the number of lots, and Ms. Ratcliffe responded she was correct. Commissioner Barry then stated she was not prepared to do that, and deferred to the Chairman to call the question. Ms. Ratcliffe clarified that what she heard from the Commission is that they want from staff more information about easements, driveway placements, the width of Carnelian Glen, which is actually 40' - cars could park on both sides and still allow room for a fire truck to get through there. She asked if there was anything else for staff to work on. Commissioner Barry requested that staff provide a game plan on how to change this to four lots, whether it would require a zoning change, and whether there would be any issue with the developers losing more than the Commission can appropriately ask the developer to dedicate. Ms. Ratcliffe responded that the Commission could approve two lots or it could deny the subdivision application. It could also say it wants to see four or three, or whatever number of lots. As far as getting involved in whether that is asking too much, she would have to defer to the City Attorney. Commissioner Barry said she would appreciate staff obtaining that information for the Commission to make a decision. Commissioner Kurasch said she was concerned with the possibility of some type of easement as far as viewshed — the landscape easement discussed earlier, specifically for the trees that would front Carnelian Glen, and also that were important for the perimeters, southeast side of lots #1, #2, #3, the rear of the lots discussed earlier, specifically something to develop conditions for overall protection of those trees. Commissioner Bernald stated she would like to know the size of the existing homes across the street on Carnelian Glen, the square footage of lots and house sizes. THE MOTION TO CONTINUE SD-00-002 PASSED 5-1-0 (COMMISSIONER PATRICK OPPOSED; COMMISSIONER ROUPE WAS ABSENT.) Chairman Page declared a recess. Upon reconvening, the same Commissioners and staff were present. 5. V-00-011 (386-06-033) - KARREN, 12515 Woodside Court; Application for Variance approval for a proposed 649 square foot addition. Twenty square feet of the addition and a portion of a porch would intrude into the rear yard setback. The parcel is located within an R-1- 10, 000 zoning district. Ms. Ratcliffe presented the staff report, noting the existing configuration of the house is a pie -shaped lot and is an existing legal non -conforming location. It was built approximately in 1953 and intrudes into the ITEM 4 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION I Application No./Location: SD-00-002; 20251 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: Howell & McNeil Development, LLC Christina Ratcliffe, AICP, Assistant Planner August 9, 2000 397-21-022 Department Head: 20251 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road 000001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 4/7/00 Application complete: 7/11/00 Notice published: 7/26/00 Mailing completed: 7/27/00 Posting completed: 7/20/00 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant has requested Tentative Map approval for the subdivision of the 3.7 acre lot into 5 separate lots ranging in size from 21,100 square feet to 46,530 square feet. The existing main residence is proposed to remain, the guest house and teahouse are to be removed. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for the project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Subdivision application by adopting the Negative Declaration and Resolution SD-00-002. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff An alysis 000004 File No. SD-00-002; 20251 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-20,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential - Medium Density MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 3.7 acres AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Less than 10% GRADING REQUIRED: None proposed at this time. Code Lot 1 2 3 4 5 Requirement/ Number (Corner Allowance Lot) Area gross 24,190 sf 36,630 sf 46,530 sf. 32,450 sf 21,100 sf Area net 20,000 sf 24,190 sf 36,630 sf 46,530 sf 29,050 sf 21,100 sf (24,000 for lot 1) Lot width 123 ft. 148 ft. 169 ft. 126 ft. 122 ft. 110 ft. Lot depth 197 ft. 238 ft. 315 ft. 226 ft. 208 ft. 140 ft. Frontage 126 ft. 150 ft. 80 ft. 20 ft. 112 ft. 80 ft. Slope 3% 3% 5% 7.5% 3.7% 000003 CAN71ND01V SDESKTORHowellfss McNeil SD 2.doc File No. SD-00-002; 20251 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road Lot 3 Proposal Code Requirement/ Allowance Lot Coverage: 29% 45% (13,300 sf existing) Floor Area: TOTAL 6,370 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft.' Setbacks: Front 80 ft. 63 ft. Rear 110 ft. 80 ft. Left Side 17 ft. 17 ft.z Right Side 17 ft. 17 ft. Height: Residence 26 ft. 27 ft.' PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant has requested Tentative Map approval for the subdivision of the 3.7 acre lot into 5 separate lots ranging in size from 21,100 square feet to 46,530 square feet. The project has been reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Heritage Preservation Commission, the Public Works Department, the Saratoge Fire District, San Jose Water District, P,G & E, and the City Arborist. All recommendations have either been incorporated into the plans or are included as conditions of approval. The subject property is located on the southeast side of Carnelian Glen Court. There is currently a main residence and a sizeable guest house and tea house on the property. The main residence is proposed to remain on the newly -created lot #3. The guest house and tea house are proposed to be demolished. The proposal includes improving the pedestrian pathway along the portion of the property abutting Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. The applicants have worked closely with staff on the design of the subdivision. Subdivision The applicant has proposed to subdivide this 3.7 acre lot into 5 lots. The lots range in size from 21,100 square feet to 46,530 square feet. Lot #3 is the largest lot, as well as the location of the existing main residence that is proposed to remain. The existing guest house on lot #5 is proposed to be demolished, as is the small tea house on lot #4. ' The maximum allowable floor area in this zone is 6,000 square feet. The residence is an existing, non- conforming structure, and per Section 15-65.030(a), no Variance is required. z Per Section 15-65.020(b)(2), no Variance is required. ' Per Section 15-65-030(a), no Variance is required. 000004 CAININDOW SMESKIORHoweII & McNeil SD 2.doc File No. SD-00-002; 20251 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road There are over two hundred trees on site. Of these, over seventy are Ordinance -protected trees that may be impacted by the subdivision. Because of the number and location of trees, staff requested that the applicant show tentative driveway locations. In doing this, the applicant also included proposed footprints of the proposed residences. Although these are still tentative, it gives a better idea of possible impacts to Ordinance -protected trees. As detailed in the Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated 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. Grading No grading is proposed at this time. At the time that Design Review applications are submitted, detailed grading plans for all lots will be required. Geotechnical Review No geotechnical review was necessary due to the stability of the site. Historic Preservation Commission The Historic Preservation Conunission reviewed the proposal and is recommending that the main residence be placed on the Historic Resources Inventory. This has been included as a condition of approval. Parks and Recreation Commission The Parks and Recreation Commission has reviewed the proposed pathway improvement. This pathway will continue an existing (although not contiguous) pathway system that extends along Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. Trees As stated previously, there are over seventy Ordinance -protected trees on site that may be impacted by the proposal. Three Arborist's reports have been prepared for this project. The first addresses the basic subdivision, the second discusses the pedestrian trail improvement abutting Saratoga -Los Gatos, the third discusses the proposed driveway locations. Staff would like to point out that the first report did not indicate proposed driveway locations, and as such, many recommendations are superseded by the latest report. In addition, the Arborist numbered the trees on each lot separately. For the sake of clarity, staff will address each lot separately. 000005 C:\),VIND0WSDESKT0AHowe11& McNeiISD 2.doc File No. SD-00-002; 20251 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road Lot #1 Tree #8 would suffer severe root damage due to the placement of the driveway for lot #2, however, it is a Tawhiwhi Pittosporum, rated fair by the Arborist, and can be easily replaced. Lot #2 The proposed driveway location would result in moderate to significant damage to trees # 2 and #3, two Coast Live Oaks considered fine specimens by the Arborist. However, the location of the driveway would result in the least damage overall to trees on the west side of this lot. Trees #9 and #11 on this lot are rated as hazardous and their removal is recommended. This has been included as a condition of approval. Lot #3 The driveway on this lot is the most sensitive of the proposed subdivision. Tree #3, an excellent, though small Coast Live Oak would be removed by the proposed driveway. Tree #1, an excellent Blue Atlas Cedar that would suffer damage, but could survive in good condition with significant cultural support. Tree #2 is a huge Coast Live Oak, rated as fine by the Arborist. The applicant proposes removing a portion of the driveway near Tree #2. Any removal of the existing driveway within 50 feet of Tree #2 must be done by hand. Staff has included this as a condition of approval. Tree #6 on this lot will also be impacted by the proposed driveway for lot #4. The Arborist recommends the use of pervious pavers for the first 40 feet of the Lot #4 driveway, thus reducing the impact to Tree #6 to an acceptable level. Staff has included this alteration as a condition of approval. Lot #4 Trees # 1 and #2 may be impacted by the placement of the driveway on this lot. The Arborist gives two options on dealing with this. Staff recommends tableing this decision until a Design Review application is before the Planning Commission, and recommending to the applicant that they incorporate the Arborists recommendations in any future Design Review submittals. Lot #5 Tree #4, a relatively small Coast Live Oak with a value of $ 901, would be removed by design with the current driveway configuration. Both tree #3 and #5 could be retained using pervious pavers for any portion of the driveway within 40 feet of Carnelian Glen. Staff has included this as a condition of approval. The Arborist suggests a third option; that would be to utilize the driveway off Lot #4 for entry. Although this option would require Lot #4 to grant an easement to Lot #5, it would eliminate the removal of tree #5 on Lot 5. The tree is a Coast Live Oak rated fine, but is rather small with a value of $1,616. The applicants have stated that they do not wish to relocate the driveway. Staff feels that due to the number of trees on site, the removal of trees #4 and #5 on lot #5 would be acceptable if replacement trees were required. This has been 0®0006 C:\W IND0WSDFSKT0AHoweII &c McNeil SD 2.doc File No. SD-00-002; 20251 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road included as conditions of approval. Pedestrian Pathway None of the trees located in or near the area of the pathway are to be removed, and if the Arborists recommendations are followed, all Ordinance protected trees in this area will remain healthy. Staff has included these recommendations as a condition of approval. Staff notes that there are a large number of fine Japanese trees and plants throughout the garden. The applicant has contacted Hakone Gardens and offered these specimens to the Gardens. Hakone has accepted several of the specimens and they will be will be transplanted to Hakone prior to any improvement work occurring. Of the seventy -plus Ordinance -protected trees on site that could be impacted by the subdivision improvements, only five are to be removed. Two of these are rated as hazardous and the Arborist has recommended that they be removed. The remaining three have a combined value of $2,794. Native replacement trees have been included as a condition of approval. In view of the large number of Ordinance -protected trees on site and the extensive protection measures recommended by the Arborist, staff has included as a condition of approval that the applicant retain the services of a licensed Arborist to be present at key points of the project and provide staff with regular status reports. Correspondence A letter was received from William and Sylvia Bangerter of 14631 Horseshoe Drive. The Bangerters property backs up to Lot #4 of the proposed subdivision. They state that they would like to be informed of any future Design Review applications on the property, and that they are interested in preserving the landscaping near their property line. As a normal part of the subdivision conditions of approval, staff has included that all future residences be subject to Design Review. Conclusion Staff feels that the project has been designed to satisfy all standards and guidelines of the City's Subdivision Ordinance, Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. All requirements and conditions of commenting agencies have been incorporated in the attached Resolutions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the subdivision application with conditions by adopting the Negative Declaration and Resolution SD-00-002. 000007 C \WINDOWSDESKTORHowell& McNeil SD 2.doc PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE S SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 Commissioner Barry, addressing the roof material, asked about a possible fire situation regarding shake roof, and Director Walgren responded that it is a composition simulated shake, which would be a Class A fire -retardant roof; however, wood shake could also be made Class A fire -retardant through some type of treatment that he described. Commissioner Jackman referred to the driveway on diagram A-2 showing the pad going quite a bit to the side yard of the garage, and asked if all of that would remain, and Director Walgren replied that it would. Responding to a question from Commissioner Jackman, Director Walgren stated that the new driveway would go across the front of the house. He said some of the existing driveway in the far northeast corner would be removed and the new driveway would be a horseshoe driveway connecting back to Sobey Road. Chairman Page opened the Public Hearing at 8:02 p.m. There was no one in the audience who wished to address this issue. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/BARRY MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 8:03 P.M.) PASSED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS KURASCH, PATRICK, AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT.) Commissioner Barry commented she was very pleased with the changes, noting that the applicants had complied with essentially everything the Commission had requested. Commissioner Bernald disagreed. She agreed that the roofline is lower, and she liked the new design more than the heavier design with the quoins and columns. She expressed that this was still a large house on a short frontage and that it would end up with the appearance of towering over Sobey Road. She would still like to see it pushed back further, and any design changes to be made need to be done with that in mind. Commissioner Jackman stated that the hill behind the proposed house is fairly steep and because of the retaining walls, the applicants designed it as it is. She asked what the relationship was of the new footprint compared to the old footprint. Director Walgren responded that it is pretty much lost with all of the line work but it is virtually going in the same spot, extending a little bit off to the north, but a very small degree, and virtually lines up to the south, and it is within the same footprint of the existing home. Commissioner Jackman conveyed that it would be difficult to ask the applicants to step the design down the hill because of the steepness of the hill in back; however, she expressed concern that there is a great deal of driveway to the north side of the garage and up to the front of the property plus the horseshoe drive across the front with two entrances to Sobey Road. She did not see why one three -car garage needs this much driveway space. Commissioner Bernald expressed that this is a very dangerous point of Sobey Road. She said she could support the horseshoe driveway because it would be safer to do a turn -around than back out at any point, and it would have parking spaces. Commissioner Jackman remarked that there was plenty of parking space and turn -around space by the garages and she would not want them to back out to the street. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 6 SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 Commissioner Bernald said that from the first report, the proposal came in at 5,375 square feet, and the code requirement allowance was 5,376 square feet. She did not see anything new in the latest report, and assumed that the proposal was still under one -foot maximum. She said this was still a massive house for this site. Director Walgren stated that the house was as big as it could be and this would preclude future owners from building pool houses, guest houses, any other accessory uses, or ever adding on to it because it would be built to the maximum permitted. Chairman Page stated that the applicants did wliat was asked of them; however, he was concerned with the driveway in front, feeling it would add to the expansiveness and bulk one would see from Sobey Road. He agreed with Commissioner Bernald regarding the safety issue. He said it seemed like a very large house and it presents itself as a large house; however, the applicants have met the direction given by the Commission, and he would be willing to vote in favor of the proposal. COMMISSIONERS JACKMAN/BARRY MOVED TO APPROVE DR-00-025 AND THAT CONDITION #7 REGARDING THE LANDSCAPE PLAN BE EXPANDED TO INCLUDE THE FRONT AND SOUTHSIDE OF THE PROPERTY. PASSED 3-1 (COMMISSIONER BERNALD OPPOSED; COMMISSIONERS KURASCH, PATRICK, AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT.) 8. SD-00-002 (397-21-022) — HOWELL & MCNEIL DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 20251 Saratoga - Los Gatos Road; Application for Subdivision approval and adoption of a Negative Declaration to split an existing 3.7 acre lot into five lots. The parcel is located within an R-1-20.000 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 8/9/00) Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting that the five separate lots range in size from 21,100 square feet to 46,530 square feet. The application was previously heard by the Commissioners who had visited the site. He said public testimony was heard and neighbors expressed concern regarding the number of driveways being proposed to go on Carnelian Glen Court, a public roadway. Currently, the existing older residence with its guesthouse adjacent to it accesses off a long private driveway directly onto Highway 9. As a result of comments heard from the neighbors, the Commission continued the item for staff to have the Fire Marshall and City Traffic Engineer take a second look at the proposal with the specific question of whether there could be a joint shared driveway that runs along the existing private drive, and their answer was no. The Fire District was less adamant; however, the City Traffic Engineer was very clearly opposed to it and further stated that CalTrans would not permit another parallel road that close to Carnelian Glen Court as it would violate basic engineering principles. It was noted that Vickery and Montalvo Road across Highway 9 have a similar configuration, which is a historic configuration with problems of its own, and they would not want to duplicate that if it could be avoided. Additionally, the fact that it is directly across from those two roads would make the situation much worse. Director Walg,ren further reported that the driveways were marked and Commissioners revisited the site. Attempts were made to demark how few of the frontage trees would have to be removed as a result of the proposal, and it was determined that two or three trees would have to be removed. He said the proposal meets all minimum General Plan density and land use standards and exceeds all zoning ordinance standards for this zoning district. The City Arborist as well as other applicable advisory agencies has reviewed the proposal, and because it is accessing onto a relatively low traffic volume street, staff did not find anything about it that would be inherently negative and nothing that would result in a significant impact according to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act. PIANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 7 SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 Additionally, Director Walgren stated that staff discussed with the applicant early in the process that the only lot that is slightly irregular from a traditional subdivision is the flag parcel. He said zoning ordinances permit flag parcels, but they have the potential to result in increased privacy impact just because the lot is bound by homes on so many more property lines. He reported that at the site visit, as one is in the back property where the pond and improvements are, one does not see any adjacent homes or immediate impacts that could be anticipated, and staff is recommending approval of the map as presented with the conditions in the resolution. Commissioner Bemald reviewed past issues, including whether a precedent would be created for the house on parcel #3 with no proper setbacks, since it is already situated on its own lot. She wanted to make sure that a precedent would not be set, such as creating a situation that would in any other situation be asking for a variance. She also inquired whether the Commission should be voting on the driveways tonight. Director Walglren responded to the driveways issue, noting that a site development plan is required to be submitted with any tentative subdivision map, which identifies the building envelope and a proposed driveway to ascertain the average slope and any impacts to significant trees. Commissioner Bernald noted that one drawing appears to have three houses being accessed by one driveway and further on, it looks like five driveways. Director Walgren responded that the most recent exhibit (B) may look like a single driveway, but it only shows the landscaping along the corridor. He said the second and third pages of Exhibit B indicate the additional improvements that have been incorporated into the project, continues the asphalt pathway, and provides frontage improvements along Highway 9. He said the original tentative map represents the driveways as indicated. Director Walgren responded to Commissioner Bemald's inquiry regarding lot #3, noting that the home proposed on that site meets all minimum setback requirements. Commissioner Barry asked whether it was accurate that the existing house is on the historic registry, and Director Walgren responded it was not currently in the inventory, but the Historic Preservation Committee has requested it be added to the inventory if the project is approved, and it would be a condition of the resolution. Responding to a question from Commissioner Barry regarding flexibility of the general location of the driveways, Director Walgren said that the flexibility is that the applicants, when developing the site, can either do the driveways as proposed or they can show the Commission a better way to do the driveways that also conform to the City's minimum standards. Commissioner Jackman commented that when this issue was discussed originally, the Commission requested the driveways because they wanted the minimal number of trees cut down, and it looked like changing the driveway spots would result in more trees being removed than the current plan approved by the arborist. Chairman Page referred to the driveway on lot #4 (flag lot), and asked whether the driveway goes along the property line. Director Walgren responded that the corridor is 20' wide, which is the minimum requirement for a flag lot, and the driveway needs to be 14'. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 8 SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 Commissioner Jackman, noting the corridor is 20', asked whether that meant that a 14' driveway would have to go in with plantings along the edge. Director Walgren responded that the landscape plan shows that planting would become a requirement. He said it is typically not the level of detail one would get into at this point, but it had to be part of the subdivision application. Commissioner Barry proposed reading her list of conditions that. were being discussed at the last meeting, and Chairman Page suggested waiting until after the applicant has addressed the Commission. Chairman Page opened the Public Hearing at 8:22 p.m. Greg. Howell, 125 Glenridge Avenue, Los Gatos, and Tim McNeil, 18450 Sobey Road, Saratoga, of Howell & McNeil Development, addressed the Commission. Mr. Howell said that since the last public hearing, they were given direction to meet with the neighbors and discuss the overall development, and get input from them. They sent a letter to all neighbors on Carnelian Glen and met with quite a few neighbors. They did not always agree on everything, but they had good dialogue. He noted that the staff report covered all the points. He said that some concessions had been made, and that one of the points was that the neighbors had asked for a walking path across Highway 9. It was determined that that was not feasible, and they have put the pathway all the way to Horseshoe so it now ties in with the crosswalk. Chairperson Page referred to the driveway across from Mr. and Mrs. Lester Lee, and asked if it was possible to angle that driveway more towards Highway 9 so that it comes out more at an angle and less likelihood of lights. Mr. Howell responded that the minimum width is 20' but the actual road only needs to be 14' so it can be moved over as far- as possible, but the property line cannot be moved because the lot is already at the minimum width of 80'. He said they considered this with the Lees and tried to come up with a solution that would work; however, they did not come up with a solution that was satisfactory to the Lees' concern. Commissioner Bemald asked whether Commissioner Barry still had some concerns from her list, and Commissioner Barry responded she had some concerns with the driveways, but is unsure of a solution, and thought that might be a reason to have flexibility in the redesign as a condition. Mr. Howell stated that the roads were put in specifically looking at the arborist report to take out as few trees as possible, and two trees are being removed. He said later on when they come back for the design review of the houses, if it determined that the Commission would like the driveway placed elsewhere, he would have no problem with that. Commissioner Barry said it is reasonable to address the concern of the neighbors directly across the street and that they are close to three driveways looking at them. Her first thought was to have one driveway as a common driveway for part of the way, but she said it is reasonable to ask that something be done. She said she understood Chairman Page's suggestion that by angling it a little at least it would not be a straight line directly to the neighbor's front door. Mr. Howell conveyed that he offered to put some screening on the Lees' property that would help; however, the Lees' concern is just the fact that the driveway is there. He said the driveway was not hitting their front door; it was to the left of their front door, and he offered to angle it as much as possible and is PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 9 SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 willing to do so, but he has limitations of zoning requirements. He said that if the driveway were moved over, it would also impact some trees. He reiterated he was open to working toward resolving the issue. Chainnan Page inquired about the standard configuration for driveways, and Director Walgren said there was none for residential driveways. Property is limited to one driveway opening for every 40' frontage. For residences that are closer than 35' from the public street, there are no requirements for how wide the driveway needs to be, but if they are 35' or greater - these envelopes as a result of the required setbacks are all 40-60' - the driveway needs to be a minimum of 14' to allow emergency vehicles to get from the street onto the property. Helen Lee, 14653 Carnelian Glen, conveyed that she and Mr. Lee spoke to the developer once about the driveway facing directly in her front door. She said later on, if they decide to put a fence on the driveway it would look like her front door was facing an alley. She noted that Carnelian Glen has a very long driveway for the flag lot in the back, and it is not facing anybody's front door. She said the driveway could face any place else, but not people's front door. She strongly objects to this as this is against her Feng Shui and her whole family's welfare depends on it. She said people have a right to use a part of the road, but to put a long driveway facing her front door is against Oriental culture. She also objected to the removal of the trees. Mr. Howell commented that on most streets in Saratoga, driveways face doors or property, which is a common feature of the street. He reiterated he is open to trying to work the driveways as best possible to accommodate others, but he has limitations. Commissioner Bernald agreed that this is a difficult situation and under most circumstances, this is not an issue that comes up. However, she asked what prevented putting in a driveway down the northside of the lot directly off Carnelian Glen and bringing it down the flag lot. Mr. McNeil explained that if that were done, lots #4 and #5 (where the guest house is currently situated) would have to be moved over and face a home. The original home would have that driveway so it would not change things much. Chainnan Page asked whether the driveway could stay where it is and the house moved, and Mr. McNeil responded that huge trees exist along that property line. Katie Kennedy, 14631 Carnelian Glen, conveyed that the developers had done a great job in trying to work with the neighbors. She lives directly across from the guesthouse, where the bulk of the proposed driveways are planned, and she is interested in minimizing traffic. She asked why the driveways have to come in off Carnelian Glen and why they do not use the current driveway as the access. She said this would alleviate all of the neighbors' concerns. Chairman Page responded that in between the last hearing and today's hearing, the City Traffic Engineer talked to CalTrans who would not approve it because the roads would be too close together, and it would be a safety issue. Lester Lee, 16453 Carnelian Glen, asked whether any consideration had been given to restricting the entrance to one driveway from Carnelian Glen and then loop into the existing driveway that will consume a certain amount of the lot space. He said that at the previous meeting, it was mentioned that the street was 40' wide and the neighbors have measured it at 30'. He asked if it was possible as part of the development plan to widen the street at least in the first three houses to alleviate the traffic problem in the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 10 SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 front. He added that during exercise hours when people, including children, are jogging on the street, any cars parked on the front section of Carnelian Glen pose a severe traffic problem. Commissioner Jackman commented that she understood that in Feng Shui, part of the impact can be broken by putting a screening on the Lees' property near the front door to keep the spirits from exiting. She asked why this could not be done. Mr. Lee said it could be done, and there is an opportunity to discuss it. He said based on previous conversations, nothing had been presented to him after the first conversation. Commissioner Jackman indicated that would be Mr. and Mrs. Lee's responsibility — not the developer's — to put a screening fence on their property near their front entrance. Mr. Lee said he was fully aware of this, but it did not reduce the impact of whatever the developer wanted to do. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/JACKMAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 8:41 P.M.) PASSED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS KURASCH, PATRICK, AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT.) Commissioner Bemald reported she had spoken to Mrs. Lee in a telephone conversation several weeks ago, and she completely understands Mrs. Lee's concerns. She said developers are expected to do a certain amount and then they come across the City's ordinances. She said she would like to consider what the developer can do to swing the entrance to lot #4 around in some way and see if that will be of some help. She recognized the restrictions in this area, and after she asked about moving the driveway over to the north end of the development, she realized that even in the back end it might not be possible to put a driveway there because of the slope down to the ravines. She expressed that a few weeks ago she had concern that the developer was creating a flag lot; however acknowledging a flag lot in the area already exists, she feels the precedent has been set. Another issue she had raised was the rather large homes; however, her concerns were addressed with the fact that the Commission will not be creating a situation of asking for any variance on this lot. When she reviewed the second report that gave the size of the lots in the very near neighborhood, which to her is the best definition for using comparisons for compatibility, she found that all of those lots are exactly the same size as what is proposed here. She said as much as she was ready to go with four lots and a generous landscaping, she has nothing that she can fall back on. At this point she is willing and ready to vote for this project with the idea that she still has a concern with how the entrance way to lot #4 is worked in this plan. Otherwise, she is very happy, and complimented the applicant on the landscaping along Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, and in connecting with the trail Commissioner Jackman stated this is the best plan, given the existing trees and existing layout of the land. If the original house was not there, it could have been a totally different layout, but the existing house in the middle, which is worth saving historically, has really changed the shape and restricted how the applicant can divide the lot. Commissioner Barry asked Director Walgren to address two issues raised by Mr. Lee — the possibility of an internal loop road, which would access all of the houses from one driveway, and the other issue is whether it would be helpful to ask the developer to widen the street at the beginning to make more parking space. Director Walgren responded that a loop road would have to meet minimum access road standards and this basically means providing a cul-de-sac, which would have to be at a right angle off Carnelian Glen. He said this would be going back to the alternative proposal that the applicants have stated they looked at and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 11 SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 could pursue, but results in a second roadway instead of just driveways. He said he did not think the idea of four -five residential driveways in a cul-de-sac is necessarily such a large negative that a cul-de-sac would be necessary. He said it could be done and it would result in an entirely different layout to have lots radiating from the cul-de-sac. Typically, this would be pursued if they were lots accessing off high - volume traffic street where one did not want to have individual access points. Regarding widening Carnelian Glen, Director Walgren said it is currently 30' wide, fairly uniform, basically two travel lanes and a parking lane. The developers could be asked to widen the road, and the general desire is to keep residential roads, particularly cul-de-sacs, as narrow as possible to minimize black top, tree removal, etc. A wider road encourages people to drive faster. He said the developer could be asked to widen the road; however, it is not something that staff would recommend as being necessary. A requirement could be placed on each individual lot that they have only a single driveway access point to minimize several horseshoe driveways and that adequate guest parking be provided on each lot. Commissioner Barry stated this was very difficult. She conveyed to the Lees that she has taken their concern about the driveway facing their house very seriously and has looked at as many possibilities as she can. It seemed to her that at this point there was nothing reasonable that could be done about the driveways. She wanted to look at consolidating the flag lot and the big house and that idea did not work either. She agreed that the width of the driveway be restricted to one -car length as they are now as opposed to circular drives and that future design plans have a provision for on -site parking so that the street in front of the houses does not get parked and that the developers be asked to assist in landscaping, whether it is on the leased property or the development property. She said a condition to put the big house on the historic registry is also necessary, and that there be hand -digging around some of the tree roots that has to be carefully monitored — that there be an onsite monitor when that digging occurs. Finally, she stated that although Commissioner Kurasch is not here tonight, she has a note from a previous meeting that Commissioner Kurasch wanted some kind of condition that would not allow future landscaping to take out any of the large trees. Commissioner Jackman stated that widening of Carnelian Glen itself came up on the Circulation Element. and sometimes there is a great advantage to not having a big road in a residential area. She proposed keeping it narrow, and keeping drivers slow. Commissioner Bernald conveyed that it would have been appropriate, since new issues have been raised, to discuss this with the applicants while the public hearing was open. She said there was no discussion of restricting driveway widths and restricting on -site parking during the public hearing so that the applicants would have an opportunity to respond to what the Commission is asking of them. She said she was concerned with bringing up more conditions when the applicants could not respond to them. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/BARRY MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:55 P.M. PASED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS KURASCH, PATRICK, AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT.) Mr. Howell proposed that restricting driveway widths and on -site parking be addressed at the Design Review of the houses so everything can be taken into consideration rather than limiting the developer now. He asked whether his assumption is correct. Chairman Page and Commissioner Jackman responded that he was correct. Commissioner Barry stated that her concerns are the suggestions of the neighbors dealing with the issue of not having the parking space on the street increase unnecessarily and the neighbors for the most part are happy with the design, particularly in that it shows a one -width driveway rather than a circular PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 12 SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 driveway of which there are several on Carnelian Glen. The design makes for more space on Carnelian Glen for cars to park and a circular driveway would not, and these conditions seem reasonable to her. Mr. Howell said that he would not come back to the Commission with circular driveways or something significantly different than what has been presented tonight. He said that would be completely inappropriate, and it is his intention for the driveways to be exactly as shown on the plan, but when the houses are put in, the Commission may have different suggestions. He said he did not want to be limited and later on find that he is bound by the decision tonight. He said the plan will remain as submitted unless the neighbors and Commission feel it should change. Commissioner Bernald noted that no discussion had been held regarding doing some landscaping on the Lee property. Mr. Howell responded that he had offered the Lees to help with the screening (landscaping) on their property, and it was rejected. Commissioner Barry commented that she heard Mr. Lee say that he would be willing to discuss it at this point, and she heard Mr. Howell make the offer earlier. COMMISSIONERS BERNALDBARRY MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 9:00 P.M.) PASSED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS KURASCH, PATRICK, AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT.) Commissioner Bernald had no further comments. Commissioner Jackman stated she liked the proposal as presented, and that the Commission needs to go ahead and vote on the proposed driveways, given the house in the center and the trees. Director Walgren commented that all the driveways are locked into single driveways because it is part of the site development plan. To do a horseshoe driveway, the site development plan would need to be amended. Commissioner Barry noted she is prepared to vote for this project with the conditions of the historic registry, future protection of the trees for additional landscaping, and expansion of the tree root protection section that highlights there would be somebody on site to monitor that it is done by hand. Chairman Page conveyed that the lot split has been done appropriately, is not over encompassing, and is not too many lots. He said it is difficult with the driveways and can empathize with the Lees; and hoped that the developer and the Lees could work together. He stated he was curious about the future condition of the trees, and asked how that could be monitored. Director Walgren responded that the subdivision improvements are being regulated already by the City arborist's comments and will be overseen by a licensed arborist as a condition of approval. Beyond that, the conditions need to emphasize that the site development plan has been designed to save all significant trees and that future home applications need to be consistent with the site development plan in terms of building pad location, retention of the existing heritage building, driveway locations, and tree preservation. Commissioner Bernald asked about the section on the historic preservation, and Director Walgren responded that condition #4 stipulates that they need to survey the building and supply that background PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 13 SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 information to the Historic Preservation Commission and the documentation will be included in the City's heritage preservation inventory. COMMISSIONERS JACKMAN/BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE SD-00-002 WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT PUT FUTURE APPLICANTS ON NOTICE THAT THE SITE DEDVELOPMENT PLAN IS LOCKED IN REGARDING BUILDING " PAD LOCATIONS. DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS, AND TREE PRESERVATION EFFORTS. PASSED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS KURASCH, PATRICK, AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT.) 9. UP-99-021 & DR-99-052 (517-10-015 AND 009) — OUR LADY OF FATIMA, 20400 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road; Request for Use Permit and Design Review approval to replace an existing Convent, Priest Quarters, Chapel and Visitor's Apartments with an Assisted Living Facility for the elderly, and the interior conversion of an existing Skilled Nursing Facility into Assisted Living units. Total number of existing units 42; total number of Assisted Living Units proposed is 41. Existing floor area is 50,371 square feet; proposed floor area is 68,955 square feet. An Environmental Initial Study has been prepared, an adoption of a Negative Declaration is also requested. This project is being noticed a second time to add the following information: An existing house facing Oak Street will be demolished to accommodate an additional 10 parking spaces. (CONTINUED FROM 9/13/00) Commissioner Jackman recused herself from this issue because she resides in close proximity to the property, which left the Commission without a quorum. Director Walgren commented that because of a lack of a quorum, there is nothing that can be acted on regarding this issue tonight. However, he said the applicant could either be allowed to make a presentation, not respond to it, and allow the neighbors to speak or the entire item can be postponed to the first meeting in October. Commissioner Barry noted that if the Commission proceeded with the first alternative, those would be reflected in the minutes, and she would prefer to do that. Chairman Page stated he agreed with Commissioner Barry as did Commissioner Bemald. Director Walgren stated that a public hearing was not being opened, but merely allowing people who have come tonight to speak to the project be heard. He said it would be useful to hear a presentation of the project from the applicants. Chairman Page asked for a staff report, and Director Walgren responded that the staff report would be deferred to the next meeting. Preston Wisner, 20400 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, President and Chief Executive Officer of Our Lady of Fatima Villa, said he would make preliminary comments and turn the presentation over to the architect. He said he had no objection with Commissioner Jackman voting on this project, and Chairman Page responded that her absence from participating in this issue is the law. Mr. Wisner conveyed that the villa has been in existence since 1948 as a not for profit nursing home begun by the Dominican Sisters of Kenosha, Wisconsin. The villa runs an 85-bed facility that started out as a 22-bed facility, and has expanded over the years. He said in that period of time, the market has changed and they have had greater and greater demand for assisted living accommodations. He said three PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 14 SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 to four people from Saratoga are referred each month to other facilities that can better accommodate their needs. He noted they also have referral patterns with the Saratoga Retirement Community. He said their demand studies indicate a need for 260 assisted -living units by the year 2003 in the primary market area, which is considered a radius of 25 miles of Saratoga. Their goal is to replace part of their facilities that are no longer being used, including an empty convent, priest quarters, visiting quarters, chapel, and administrative wing. They are proposing to demolish these facilities and replace it with a facility containing 34 assisted living units. They also plan to convert one of the wings, consisting of' 23 beds, into another 7 units, for a total of 41 units. He pointed out that the project together with the project being done by the Saratoga Retirement Community will only supply approximately 42 percent of the needed units by 2003. Currently they place people as far away as places up to 40 miles away when they cannot take care of them. Mr. Wisner introduced Mr. Sandy Barker, Barker Associates Architects, 114 Santa Margarita Avenue, Menlo Park, who with his assistant, Ms. Cancilla, presented a brief overview of the project, displaying drawings of the existing facilities and proposed facilities. He said that the new proposed buildings are a smaller footprint than what is currently on the site. He noted that another advantage they have achieved is a much more residential, less institutional look from the street. Mr. Barker reported that several community meetings have been held with the intention to get input on other concerns. He said the peripheral concerns included operations and screening for views, which have been addressed. Mr. Barker conveyed that the convent, chapel, and priest quarters would be removed, and the existing redwood grove would remain as a park -like setting and provide a much larger side setback than what is currently there. The administration wing, which is at level with the plaza, and the convent are going to be replaced with a slightly different footprint than the existing one, and all of the existing oak trees in the front and the side, the palms and redwoods will be maintained. Only three trees will need to be removed — one is a black acacia and a few smaller pine and scrub trees. He said the City arborist has agreed that the applicants have met all of the concerns. Additionally, Mr. Barker said that they did not want to become a massive building and demonstrated what the existing property looks like, including the sign which is to be replaced (one of the neighborhood complaints), and also displayed the artist's rendering of the proposed facility. He said the existing driveway would be enhanced with pavers and provide entry for guests and visitors. The color palettes submitted are a dark brown color with a shingle roof. Because the side slopes 10 percent, they were able to carve out more of the side to create a small administration wing. Efforts have been made so all the facades will be viewed as two-story residential units, and the majority of the view along Saratoga is just two-story residential complex, however, from another area one can see all three -stories. He described a substantial berm that would screen most of the bottom floor of the administration wing. Mr. Barker stated that one of the concerns from a neighbor was to utilize the site the best possible and still provide some additional parking. He said an existing adjoining residential house would be demolished and made into a park -like setting with more than 50 percent landscape; existing live and blue oaks would remain on site; and they are proposing an overflow parking of nine cars. Mr. Barker reported there are 103 current units including a combination of residential units in the convent, priest quarters, and visiting guest quarters as well as an 85-bed skilled nursing facility and at the end of phase two will have 103 units, but the mix will be 41 residential units and 63 skilled nursing beds. He displayed the drawings of phase one and phase two. o� °� ITEM EM 6 Qq � 0 �1 o 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200 o �s4� Incorporated October 22, 1956 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Christina E. Ratcliffe, AICP, Assistant Planner DATE: September 13, 2000 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Evan Baker Stan Bogosian John Mahaffey Nick Streit Ann Waltonsmith SUBJECT: SD-00-002; HOWELL & McNEIL Development, LLC, 20251 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting Tentative Map approval for the subdivision of a 3.7 acre lot into 5 separate lots ranging in size from 21,100 square feet to 46,530 square feet. The existing main residence is proposed to remain, the guest house and teahouse are to be removed. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for the project. BACKGROUND The application was originally heard at the August 9 Planning Colniriission hearing. At that time neighbors and the Commission expressed questions and concerns regarding the project. Neighbors expressed concerns regarding the view of the project from Carnelian Glen and the possible driveway configuration. The Commission requested input from the Fire Chief and City Traffic Consultant regarding the possible sharing of driveways and placement of an access to the properties from Saratoga -Los Gatos. Concerns were also raised that because the lots were larger than most of the existing lots on Carnellian Glen Court, this would allow homes that would be out -of -scale for the neighborhood. The Commission therefore requested information regarding the size of existing parcels and homes on Carnelian Glen Court. Since the hearing, staff has heard from neighbors expressing a desire to connect the proposed pedestrian path to the existing path adjacent to Horseshoe Drive. This would provide a safe pedestrian route to the crosswalk across Highway 9 at Horseshoe Drive. 'inted on recycled paper. File No. SD-00-002, HOWELL &z MCNEIL, 20251 Saratoga -Los Gatos DISCUSSION Possible Driveway Locations Staff has contacted Saratoga Fire Chief Ernie Kraule with regards to the possible sharing of driveways for some of these lots. The Chief has responded that the Fire Department always prefers separate driveways for residences, as it allows a faster response time, and reduces the risk of cars from more than one residence blocking access. Staff also spoke to Jim Jeffery, the City Traffic Consultant regarding reconfiguring the parcel, or requiring shared driveways to take access from Saratoga Los Gatos, rather than Carnelian Glen Court. Mr. Jeffery responded that for safety reasons, access from Carnelian Glen is preferred. He said that neither he nor CalTrans would approve of access from Saratoga -Los Gatos Road at the existing driveway location. Mr. Jeffery notes that an access from Saratoga -Los Gatos Road so near to Carnelian Glen, combined with the existing streets Vickery and Montalvo, directly opposite the subdivision location on Saratoga -Los Gatos Road would create an unsafe traffic flow. Aesthetic Concerns The applicant has submitted a perspective of the possible driveway configuration as seen from Carnellian Glen Court with existing vegetation; together with a preliminary landscape plan for the driveway for the flag lot (Exhibit `B"). Staff feels that although the view of the property from Carnelian Glen would change, the change would not create a significant negative visual impact. In addition, given the comments from the Fire Chief and Traffic Consultant, staff feels that shared driveways are not the preferred configuration and that access from Saratoga -Los Gatos Road is not an acceptable alternative, and supports separate driveways taking access from Carnelian Glen Court. Size of existing lots and homes on Carnelian Glen Court As requested by the Commission, staff has researched the sizes of existing lots and homes on Carnelian Glen Court. A map with these figures is attached. Also included on this map are the proposed subdivision lot sizes and the maximum allowable floor area permitted for single story homes at 18 feet in height or less. Staff notes that this information is for discussion only and that the application before the Commission is not a Vesting Tentative Map, and no floor areas are requested to be approved at this time. Design Review approval would be required for each lot after approval of the Final Map. �I+� 0; File No. SD-00-002; HOWELL Est McNEIL, 20251 Saratoga -Los Gatos The proposed lots range in size from 21,000 to 46,000. Excluding the existing residence, which is proposed to remain, maximum possible floor areas for the remaining lots would range from 4,596 to 5,766 square feet. The existing lots range in size from 20,908 to 43,560 square feet. Existing residences range in size from 3,148 to 7,130 square feet, with the majority of homes in the 4,000 to 5,000 square foot range. Staff feels that the size of existing lots and the proposed lots, as well as floor areas are comparable. In addition, possible incompatibility concerns will be addressed through the Design Review process. Pedestrian Pathway After speaking with staff and neighbors regarding the possible extension of the pedestrian pathway to connect with the existing path at Horseshoe, the applicant offered to continue the path. This is reflected on the revised pedestrian pathway plan. CORRESPONDENCE After the hearing in August, the applicant met with neighbors in an effort to resolve differences and address concerns raised at the meeting. Several letters have been received from neighbors along Carnelian Glen Court, most of which are in support of the subdivision as proposed. The Lees, of 14653 Carnelian Glen Court express concerns regarding the number of driveways facing Carnelian Glen Court, increased traffic and possible future parking problems. Staff notes that the width of Carnelian Glen is designed in conformance with City Code and can accommodate the number of homes proposed as well as the existing homes, and as discussed above, individual driveways facing Carnelian Glen is the preferred access. As far as the location of the driveways, staff notes that the driveway locations are tentative and provided for information purposes only. Specific design, location and size of homes and driveways will be addressed at the time of Design Review application. RECOMMENDATION Staff feels that the applicant has addressed both the Planning Commission's and the neighbors' concerns and recommends that the application be approved by adopting Resolution SD-00-002. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution SD-00-002 2. Lot size and floor area map for Carnelian Glen Court 3. Correspondence i ()G00()3 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 000CD0 14, APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. SD-00-002 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Howell & McNeil, LLC; 20251 Saratoga -Los Gatos 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 Parcel Map approval of 11 lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD-99- 003 of this City; and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto; and the proposed subdivision and land use are compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the staff report dated August 9, 2000 being hereby made for further particulars; 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; and Now, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Tentative Parcel Map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated September 22,1999 and is marked Exhibit "A" in the herein above referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as follows: PLANNING 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibits "A" and "B", incorporated by reference, with the exception that Pervious Pavers shall be utilized in the driveways of Lot #4 and Lot #5, per the Arborist's report. 2. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the City Engineer, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: i. Five (5) sets of complete improvement plans or Final Map incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: ii. All applicable recommendations of the City Arborist shall be shown on the improvement plans. File No. SD-00-002; 20251 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road ii. The Final Map shall contain a note with the following language: In the event that buried archaeological resources are discovered, all work in the area shall stop immediately and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to inspect the discovery. In the event that it is demonstrated that the discovery comprises an archaeological deposit which. has not been historically disturbed, it will be the responsibility of the project manager to conduct necessary evaluative archaeological testing to demonstrate the potential scientific significance of any such discovery before any plans for mitigation of impacts are adopted by the City of Saratoga. iii. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water v'ill be retained on -site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction - Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on -site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. The Arborist shall review and approve Improvement Plans prior to issuance of permits. 4. Prior to approval of the Final Map, applicant shall submit an application to place the main residence on the Heritage Resources Inventory and supply historical background for same. 5. The pedestrian pathway shall be installed per Exhibit "A". 6. A Landscape Maintenance Agreement and for the pedestrian pathway shall be recorded with the Final Map. 7. No ordinance size tree shall be removed (with the exception of Tree #S on Lot #1, Trees #9 &z 11 on Lot # 2, Tree #3 on Lot #3 and Tree #4 on Lot #5) without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. S. FENCING REGULATIONS - 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. 9. No structure shall be permitted in any easement, with the exception of the pedestrian pathway, per Exhibit "A". 10. Future development of Lots #1 through #5 shall require Design Review approval. Building sites and driveway locations shall be consistent with the approved site development plan and based on current Zoning Ordinance regulations and City policy. The location of any structures and their driveways on Lots 1-5 shall maximize tree preservation. PAPlanning\Christina\PC Staff Reports\Howell & McNeil SD 2.doc File No. SD-00-002; HOWELL & McNEIL, 20251 Saratoga -Los Gatos 12. Applicant shall connect to San Jose Water Company. 13. Applicant shall coordinate with P,G & E in the development of the project plans. CITY ARBORIST 14. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Reports dated April 28, 2000, June 22, 2000 and June 13, 2000 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: The Arborist Report shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the Improvement Plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. ii. Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the Improvement Plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. iii. 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. 15. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $29,697pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. 16. Prior to Final Map approval, two 36-inch box native trees shall be planted as replacements. All 36-inch box trees shall have a trunk diameter of no less than 3-inches. Diameters are measured 1 foot above grade. 17. Prior to Final Map approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and, any replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released. 18. Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Arborist's recommendations. File No. SD-00-002; HOWELL &r McNEIL, 20251 Saratoga -Los Gatos 19. A project arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture shall be retained to (1) provide on site supervision during key aspects of construction of the improvements for the purpose of preventing or minimizing damage to Ordinance -protected trees and (2) provide regular written progress reports to the City of these supervision functions as they occur. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 20. Future roof coverings shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class "A" prepared or built-up roofing. 21. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the City of Saratoga Code -Article 16-60 in all newly constructed homes. 22. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. 23. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the newly constructed garages (2 heads per stall). The designer/architect shall contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. 24. Automatic sprinklers are required for the new residences. A 4-head calculated sprinkler system is required. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. The sprinkler system shall be installed by a licensed contractor. 25. The Developer shall install fire hydrants as determined by the Fire District. These hydrants shall meet Fire District specifications and shall be accepted prior to the construction of any building. 26. All Fire Hydrants shall be located within a 500 ft. radius from the residence and deliver no less than 100 gallons/minute of water for a sustained period of two hours. 27. All driveways shall have a minimum inside curve radius of 21 feet. PUBLIC WORKS 28. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the Public Works Department 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 File No. SD-00-002; HOWELL & McNEIL, 20251 Saratoga -Los Gatos shove monuments set at each new corner location, angle point, or as directed by the Public Works Department, all in conformity with the Subdivision Map Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act. 29. 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 Public Works Department 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: i. One copy of map checking calculations. ii. Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within ninety (90) days of the date of submittal for the Final Map. iii. One copy of each map referenced on the Final Map. iv. One copy of each document/deed referenced on the Final Map. v. One copy of any other map, document, deed, easement or other resource that will facilitate the examination process as requested by the City Engineer. 30. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, as determined by the Public Works Director, at the time of submittal of the Final Map for examination. 31. 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. 32. The owner (applicant) shall submit engineered improvement plans to the Public Works Department 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 Public Works Department 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: i. Carnelian Glen Court within the limits of subdivision shall be overlaid with 2" of asphalt concrete. ii. Driveway approach from Saratoga -Los Gatos Road shall be removed. 33. The owner (applicant) shall underground all existing overhead utilities along easterly side of Saratoga -Los Gatos Road from Carnelian Glen Court to the closest joint pole towards Horseshoe Drive. 34. 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. File No. SD-00-002; HOWELL & McNEIL, 20251 Saratoga -Los Gatos 35. 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. 36. 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. 37. 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. 38. 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. 39. 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 subdivision improvement construction. Copies of permits other than those issued by the City shall be provided to City Engineer. 40. The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park and Recreation fee prior to Final Map approval. 41. 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. CITY ATTORNEY 42. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 43. 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. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. File No. SD-00-002; HOWELL &r McNEIL, 20251 Saratoga -Los Gatos Section 4. 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 27`h day of September 2000 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: �L Chair, Planning Co ssi n ATTEST: A,A&yw Cecr ary, P n ing Commission THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Ilk ~ / 777 a i C/ 0 ee / lee •-• � N ' .. / I` ,.° it . ' b~ ^ o. ''e3j 30.30 /40-t4 a 49 �� , �•600 6 6p .L'�v y�� N ____ m Ob V 6 Vi k OQ t,,�2e J � ,� .6 14530 7�a 1ypn�' O ae w �• ,v G ••' 0 ��i� 60 O \ i do � • ;� � �ti �. .o LA THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Mr. James Walgren, Director Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Re: Carnelian Glen Court Dear Mr. Walgren: ff,Etcl 11 V E AUG 30 2000 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT With respect to the proposal to open up Carnelian Glen to serve five new houses, we finally had a chance to discuss this matter with the developer. The developer was nice enough to listen to our personal concerns of how his proposed development would affect the "feng-sui" of our house, in addition to our strong objection to the removal of several signigicant trees to gain access to the proposed houses. Subsequent to this discussion, we spoke to several of our neighbors and would like to convey to you additional important issues that must be brought to your immediate attention. 1. Adding five new driveways near the entrance of Carnelian Glen would significantly increase the amount of traffic already borne by this dead-end street which currently serves 16 houses. 2. Adding driveways at the front part of Carnelian Glen to serve five additional houses drastically reduces street -side parking to homes already existing on this block. 3. Carnelian Glen is only 30 feet wide. Traffic turning onto this street has a very narrow entrance to merge. In addition, with cars parked on both sides of Carnlian Glen there will not be enough width for safe bi-directional traffic. 4. The first driveway of the proposed subdivision is located very close to Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. Traffic turning into Carnelian Glen could potentially broadside a vehicle pulling out from the proposed driveway. 5. Carnelian Glen is not designed to handle any additional traffic without having one side of the street at the entrance to be free of driveways. This traffic problem is a very serious concern for all residents of this street and must be addressed before the developer is allowed to add five more driveways. We follow the developer's reasoning for using Carnelian Glen to gain additional real estate for each of the planned houses; this will maximize the value of their subdivison project. However, we do not see any reason why the current residents must sacrafrce safety and the ambiance of our street. The best solution from our perspective is to use the already existing entrance way parallel to Carnelian Glen as a private road to access the proposed project. This would have the additional benefit of leaving all the significant trees alone, and is similar to the entrance to Montalvo Road and Vickery Drive. �t Ister-and Helen Lee Saratoga, CA 95070 ()00nQ1 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 00,0101-61. Marc van den Ber & Kathleen M. Kennedy Saratoga, CA. 95070 September 7, 2000 City of Saratoga Community Development Dept 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA. 95070 Dear Sir or Madam: As resident owners of 14631 Carnelian Glen Court, we have an interest in the city's review of SD-00- 002 (397-21-022) Howell and McNeil development of the adjacent 3.7+ acre parcel to Carnelian Glen. Our interest is to maintain the neighborhood feel and use the opportunity the developers have to improve the safety of the street and its access from Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. 1) We are pleased that the builders will be improving the frontage strip along Saratoga -Los Gatos Road to allow a bike/walking path to connect to the path that begins in front of Horseshoe. 2) We are pleased that the builders are maintaining the city setback restrictions in the proposed development of the five properties. 3) After review of the builder's plans we support the 5 lot subdivision but would prefer that the entrance to the subdivision be off of Saratoga -Los Gatos road using the existing entrance as a feeder to the subdivision. If the access must take place off of Carnelian Glen then the 5 driveways is more attractive than 4 as it would support our concern of off street parking. In the case of the feeder drive from Saratoga Los Gatos road we would request that the equestrian trial be preserved and landscaped and in the process allow for no fencing between the properties frontage road and Carnelian Glen. 4) We feel the developer has done a credible job with the house locations and tree preservation in order to maintain the rural feel of Carnelian Glen. Sincerely, Marc van den Berg Kathleen M. Kennedy Joseph van den Berg (age 5) Matthew van den Berg (age 3) TOC! �e� THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 0001018 SEP 0 5 2000 CITY OF, SARATOGA COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT August 30, 2000 City of Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: 20251 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road Sub -Division Proposal pear Planners: We recently met with the applicants regarding the proposed five -lot subdivision at the corner of Highway 9 and Camelien Glen Court. We are in support of the five -lot subdivision as submitted. We strongly support each lot with its own separate driveway. All of the houses on Carnelian Glen currently have their own driveways, in fact 40% have circular driveways, and we do not want to change the character with a shared driveway. Further, shared driveways encourage more parking on Camelien Glen, which we want to avoid. The subdivision as submitted fits in with the character and current lot sizes on our street. We encourage the planning commission to vote in support for the 5-lot subdivision as submitted. Mr CA 95070 r 000014.:j' THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK SEP-07-00 10 :44 HI'1 i . 7 Sept 7, 2000 City of Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re 20251 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road Sub -Division Proposal Dear Planners. We recently met with the applicants regarding the proposed five -lot subdivision at the corner of Highway 9 and Carnelian Glen Court. We are in support of the five -lot subdivision as submitted. We also support each lot with its own separate driveway, consistent with the existing driveways on the street. We do not want to change the character of the street. Further, shared driveways encourage more parking on Carnelian Glen, which we want to avoid. Our property is on a flag lot that backs up to the proposed flag lot of the subdivision. The subdivision as submitted fits the character and current lot sizes on our street. We encourage the planning commission to vote in support for the 5-lot subdivision as submitted. Further we recommend that the proposed walk/bike path along Carnelian Glen (parallel to Highway 9) connect the existing walkway along Horseshoe to provide safe access to the Iiighway 9 crosswalk. Sincerely, Sharmila and Anil Kumar Saratoga, CA 95070 0000201 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 000z Tom and Jennifer Arnold Saratoga, CA 95070 September 7, 2000 James Walgren, Community Development Director City of Saratoga Planning Department 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Subdivision application for 20251 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road by Howell and McNeil Development schedule for Planning Commission review Sept. 13, 2000 Dear Mr. Walgren: We are writing in regards to the application request for the subdivision approval at 20251 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road by Howell and McNeil Development. We live at the first house on the left side entering Carnelian Glen Court and thus expect to be considerably impacted by any construction and development of the neighboring site. When we purchased our home, part of its charm was the view across the street of dense shrubs and the few blossoming fruit trees that were remnants of the old orchard. The lack of any home fronts and driveways made our location more secluded and private which helped to balance the active and noisy side near Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. Then suddenly, without notice, 500 feet of fence came down. Work was done quickly, if not efficiently, as we heard hammering into the evening hours. Debris left from the haul -away was the only telling sign that a fence once existed. We quizzed the workers to find out what was happening but it wasn't until we received a notice from the City of Saratoga Planning Commission that we found any answers. We don't mind change if the scale and charm of our street is maintained. We are disappointed that we received no prior information from the developers regarding such a sizeable development. We do realize that they are here for the business, but we are here for the community. However, whether it's the pressure from the Council or the desire of two businessmen to be a part of the community, Mr. Howell and Mr. McNeil have since spent a considerable amount of time explaining their plans and listening to our feedback. We hope this stems from a genuine interest in our concerns. Some of the issues that we have brought up to Mr. McNeil and Mr. Howell are the spacing and grouping of the driveways so as to avoid our having more than one driveway facing our property and also allow for equitable distribution of on -street parking and curbside recycling. We hope that the access to the flag lot will not look like a fenced alley and that the postmaster will allow each new home to have its own street side mailbox rather than a communal mail center. We are interested in having any upgrade of Letter to Saratoga Planning Commission Page 1 000 2;13 the CalTrans easement to the South East side of Saratoga -Los Gatos Road (S/R 9) and Carnelian Glen Court be carried over to the North East side (with respect to privacy and noise abatement) in order to avoid an asymmetrical and untidy appearance to Carnelian Glen Court. We are not interested in the erection of some monumental gate as exists for Villa Montalvo, but rather an attractive, landscaped area that can be enjoyed by all residents and visitors to Saratoga as they travel Highway 9. We then expressed a concern that the grading of the new homes is done in such a manner as to divert rainwater runoff away from our property, which is at a lower elevation than the subdivision. We have also requested that for as long as possible, construction traffic including dumpsters and portable toilets be confined to the existing access road rather than Carnelian Glen Court. If any of the subdivided lots are sold separately, we would hope that those individuals would work with Howell and McNeil Development in a complementary fashion. We expect that the subsequent marketing and sales of all the homes will be done in a tasteful, discreet manner with minimal traffic and disruption to the neighborhood. Most importantly, we expect that the scale, style and landscaping of the new homes will maintain the existing charm and character of the street and will only enhance our neighborhood. We do have a rather eclectic group of custom homes on our street but ours is a very traditional ranch style and we do not want it to look like the outdated house that no longer fits into the neighborhood. From our recent contacts with Mr. Howell and Mr. McNeil, we believe that they will respect our requests and will keep us informed and educated as to the plans and progress of the real estate development. We are thus willing to support their requested application for subdivision. Respectfully submitted, Tom and Jennifer Arnold cc: Howell and McNeil Development Letter to Saratoga Planning Commission Pa e 2 0 0C4 I � J o 14' Oak E 2 g' OMe Q Re OG2 (� I M M M M GC-1 OG2 / (E) Oaks and Cedars M M M • -M-- / _ M / M S GC-2 M S S Ro Ro — Ro \ S Ro Ro New Bouk)ers — Proposed 6' wide Asphaa Path 1 . 6' Oak — (E) tree to remaln, typ. / Proposed 6' Mph Wood good neighbor fence Y Re With 12' Wiles On top Rc Re V T 1 Ro • `\ 6.Oak Re Re 1 36' Oak I 00 v OMe • - 0i \ a, �• e: ky R i \\ 6' Olive I Re R T_1 g' ON" )R Re 0 • \ Re 00 T-1 C C C 00 C C G C C • / C C C a' Olive C r C C C GC-2 \ \ \ Path to be continued and to . C ,( conned with the •xM" path C Y / C at the north aide of Horseshoe. MuM Oak GC-1 M 1 \ C A O m GC•2 C C 36' Pine C T-2 Ro T 2 A A A C A C C 20' Oa A A A — GC-2 / PLANTING LEGEND SYM BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME OTY SIZE T-1 CntY atldriW. -A w..tMn R~ 3 24' b. T 2 a— 4� Co M UM Oak 2 w bit A Mdo..WM a I JpM d kj~ MW-100 a sow c C4.naa.a'J2ya Corrl.r Cabers ilk` 23 1 am N mmwr..GrrbU.M O.Ow a" 12 6aM R RamM C.~ Masts POPPY l 1 a✓ RC Ro IeMrra.M,-K ffdm Pp Crldda Coa..be" C.W-" war Rp.• 11 10 SOW 1 am a 9" d..wrm CW.M W up • 1 ad CC-i AMW.Mplgb.l -4W DNA" e b a m 1 W OF2 a.odwb paral.'Irb PwW Coyab Brwh e b f a 1 ad oc-3 H jd—. W— N.. Red 7 a t ad SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD PLANTING NOTES tlr pMMada war bola arW r.rsy ar Md.rrla d r wit.. pro b M•ep'�. The p1Mr n Ma W bah• w dklprb drW b aM aMd . •naiad by a• LWW.np k~ N pWd raWYl Mna eMram b li. pWi+•..I.hl.A.d M lM a.ront MMrtan I . , d tka.ry 81.* p AWWd by The MMdan AwdYbn d N..•rYraa- Th.OVA our is fW ba*KW# oaMMWO.. In o.• d dMa. —Y. to pion MMa aay.nk N tnw b be A,," pb * w"w of MrMM rd.d. 7M amM r..Mvw dr right b nark• wbrbAaM .ddUdr M d.bhM b aM plMar9 KhWM. It.a..My ra. Mork I. b praar+• artlr drMp. ar. b b. e.."I l.d by "A"•4.MmMr. b lM aaM.d oro• Ir.1Mn nw...ly. The IMW.a.O• om*ada dj a 9UW WM.s r b... bar a prod at parr yW w0d IN Mne. Ow. pMbd d IN mantle. pmbd •MM• b•.. MW Mna.. n.a..—y. N N.aq •.k. pYM aM oar. bw b nrrrb. N ooftd MMM MW pbd ob Mee b. NA kmn rode. and drib W-W sun r In MnW- kpdy need dop bpdr.•.r - b.a,barer tint.. N p1Mr..o b. •1p k11pM.d. .w J 9 IL SHEET NO: L-1 BARRIE D. COATE AND ASSOCIATES NartkulWnl Consultants (400 353.1052 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CAA 95033 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE HOWELL AND MCNEIL PROPERTY 20251 SARATOOA-LOS OATOS ROAD SARATOOA Prepared. h.Request of Christina RaciiOe Community Planning Dept. city of su-p 13777 FMtwl. Avenue Zogs, CA 95070 Site V sit by: Michael L. Bench Coaching Astoria June 22, 2000 Job 00440-095A rrY 3mgAwfflaa�.rw Arreera.tw..arNl4 Nwrd Awes AlrrlNRgeb 2 am.y�-t+cr g�dsw.d. M.,gloo apetlasen ere typically woM muaining hat coda es removed if ngcasary to facilhtte consbucdon Mitigations recommended hew are intended to pewnt signi0eami derline Treea N I-7 and 910 ban been asreued in. meccas reP«t by this office dated A012/, 2000. With the exception orbs Nl, their kleatifyiognumbers haw been changed fa this report Tuna N 16-21 in the April 21, 200o «pat ere now bwa 012-7. Tie 015 in the April-2800 report is N ID M this report The top halfof ate Ng is very sparse, which if an irditarionof siFdfleam atrw, probably a rewh of several yea of,ougM scan end mil compaction, which maybe. mewl, of the sdjacmv open space ton pnTAdn parking Although Oe canopy is sparse, no i gnificam difeme k observed. This tree mar be able to 0least prosily rococo ifginn supplemental ioigation. In this mm, imption must be initiated nmadimly. Beaux of it debilitated condition, tree NI will no be able to tolerate soy Wditioal mete, including the digging ofg.ming pit inside its ouropy. untea the tree u Provided with irrigation Even with irrigation, the gaming of panting proposed would likely cause a 1.vmr kwoo The primary risks to The e.iaing trees ere catmetion methods presented by the plan The. include: 1. The method of demtdmon of use exiattng trivewar atijaam b Iris I I6 may pox. ,Tgoificamritk. Becanhae ofde likely editera dlargo grmdtiea 0"may roof jlat andet tla Aiwwwy noun, it will ha eranthal that the mil dirady,mdu The editing driveway nor be,oambed during dmnditon. Vehicles most rat thin owf tha (unlace a w demnul:tion of da.xi dog surface. 2 The a mind of remwd of the urdatnery ckub! may Pie - sews milk to the roof systems of existing tees if the shrubs ere pulled or tom Out by machinery such as a btcbr. 3. It.ppeaw than,m, dth.mu u hers would re thin Their erow,u be raised in Order to motent p.ai 1Ueda theirannpiaa to eammr that good neighbor fence. Ifthi. posting was m inroad approdmaay 30%or the canopy. The ba may FaduJly dedine. e. Fens coat ction is proposed adpodd to des mink oftree 010, M tht.wnt• it may be e.pediem to use due tree btmk fa a hams pat This must be plevered 5. If. auger is cod to dig des bola fa Oa feat podta, tree NI and 010 may sulfa figoiflrn. foes Warlea Nknee pool ate modad within 3 fir orthe busks. In ad,von, The bus Marching maY result M sigaRam hark m&ies if- anger pen to be wed seeder date cathopiea. 6. Thep,opaad ghtarery of garmng pita iredh the won coon.. ofvea NI ad W svmuld resW, in signiRam root,mage. Tie Ng, the Mannar)' ping, la in fairy poor health and would not likely survive. Tore 19 would III* doelira. MotIgAw//.nandn RawaaaYwa ArTY NwrJAwf lAnwi/1*atr I rrl3w+raa-2.. CrY Ar4 dirNa Asrfgaraml A, the request OfChmsti. RaWiBv, PWW g Daputmem. City of Semmp IM. repot Use lan,cap pkn proposed for public right of way, which is located bawem S.rstoga/IAa Oats Rood and Lot NI, on1ha No, l and McNeil proposed subd A i.n =.I 20231 &ruoga/l,as Gan ROW in that conleet dpaaalid damage a a the removal of..i" Den. This raped flutter povi6M Information about the health and antctl.e of On. mea masite, and nukes recommeodadoes by which damage to the trained bees eat be kept within mcePWle horticultural peacticas to Pretwort de.lim The Panwvimmd for this upon 1, that Preliminary larhdseap Plan prepared by Hag Land Design, La Ono., Sam L-I, dated May 21, 2000. This rp proposal asepses ten tress to some least ofrisk doaumrim Procedure one suggested to mitipe the damage than would be expecsed. Eight of the trees Ian beat, r.eaed in. previous nevey. A bond equal To 23% the .1. df des ben added Res this report is suggested. Ohm"rdar Thuseramtreesmthis.il.Naterem..kddemnggobyp p..d.a.Wution Smen d Ihpe ore haw been suvey.d alredy r Oasd d thta enviraungmat upon far des proposed caw subdivision, These scvaa ere arm /1.7 and 110. The atmhed mrp showa The location dThae bees and their approximaecuepy,dimm rms. 1be ten bees are clwiffed as rollover. T- NI, 6, 7, 9, 10 esaat It- Oak (Qran.v ogrwk) Traa N3, 3, A, 5 Mine. aYP-(Cfpanm.rimrim) Tres fit Monterey pia (Pima rdwe) Tha haatTh ad stn,nmree leach tpI" la "sled on a acak of I b 3lExalian -Poor) coo data slow, thrl fdtow this ent. Becawa the vemMeatiar l to 5 matiro may be difir 'uh a imaprK Oa owW l cadidon of esdt of din tpecimea if rued u follow', to.id wvthPinning gtaepdknl M.sglul F.a goatees_ _._ f3sreelaer lf.esitMvs 9ngJaees_ 3 selasr _Iy1 S 2 1 6 7 9 10 1 I Secapkeal .pacitrr must be retained a my cap .d wltekws 12mcdoha arc needed b Taus Thetis in their cumer"I condition must be used Fla. *Hoer must be recited if possible W with" mkw dcup mo ore Mhiptm poarker twat nta ded base rat itdmdad to Eau danaga YAIMn.apaprad hatieihhunl armu,r, fat ordes to pew, dacfim. IisNrasOAwNNwaernlae�rre4N�NlY N,aca A.Nakwil151wy 3 r»E s.wr-ram cr. rt..i.+.+rw 7 The marching for ludxapa irfigshoo may result in xvae mot damage depending on The location ofthe esh, VA" R. a The eorotrhrionof the mpob Pam may cols slFificam ro vi damage b beer N I andNg if."wouldbe Duda into the EsisanS WI. 9. If Ell soil were to ha used to eve se rmrdntra a�acmn W tries, this slow may cause. ,ignificam risk of ma loss. In addition m dam specilk rifles atl dTha ben may be emoted to ale Or mate of the (tole» ng evens can .on to abannaion s re N r 4w1 rely damage um'. 1. The atakpilirydmnmiab a!ai. 111pment Urdu the canopies. 2. The dumpuug dsaemuc6an materials, rpecWly waste motors h. such a palming product, mortis, amrAae, eteJ under the oonopin. J. 7be wmucluo IafrlC, meal Tng foot trmlic mess, the t" systems, and the puking d vehicks a commtuton ogdpmew under the -Psa tinder The tanopres. A The grading of the surface mil rewiring in the -.I of meammies or absorbing roof tiro' cquipMnt piing s Brakes MaMhn a bark injuries, u a reaWt car arhEclion Lou ciom. 6. The _"in$ for A.Fou d utilities adjacent ro bas The pant seluties is compatible wire the edsnng trm_ Them are wwW additional mull soul Iiw oaks On this site In addition to the mere mult4.emcoter Iiw oat that I. to be on"d. Them is a fine 7 incbdfameer cola nth oak looted malt of the Iwo dive tress mlesmast ton edetrng drivew+Y this it well worth rewiring teeaeawbftatbat The following m!mcao auygatoo ere im ndod to red- the 1-1 ofemsmuction daage a acxpuble lawis, an that returned sun cam reasonably be assured of sl 61 without decline These suggearior ve based on the "N"buch" plan provided. If any clunges ro daft Five occur8,ring eaebucaolt the fdlowing may require shoation. I. Any pomun of"driveway within 12 fees of tha uunks of veers N I-1 must be demolished by hand 2. TU.Oildan becomcaexpoxd kll.wing datndnion afdw edetingdriKwaymuabe caredvimJincha dwend dtip in. Odom pewmdizw- ndtheabaoNing mess. "Ha wood chip must ha spread immediately following demolition (I.e., with 1- 2 hours), the spelling must be by huh", and the era most be thoroughly won down. The rienholitton of Tlhe extnng stout. within lS feet of the trunks dbed.I-7 and within 25 feu of the bunks of trees a&10 most be done by sating dam m that Found by hand ether dun pulling them out with machinery. tlrBanq Aa A sun, iw■i owodwr A" Far N,.I""onw" Ry^b a rrn.rwaw.-r+a taus xr.Lr+rea s. Those sections of tic maw agWt Amway within 15 feu dthe hunk of bat 06 and within 25 feu of the trunk of time Ng must be coutbected completely on top of the exisnog gmde without Fling or excantion 5 Ifmy underground utilities will crow this area, the betehing for them must be locald Outside the ealhoPy perimaters dreWned tea. For ashy bat where this -1 be achievd. 1 "1111 thY the city arbaia be ooesultM A 2-foes motion of each bunch djacem b my b.e mum be left thpemd for final Inspection by the city uborta. 6. Any pat hot.clo.ar than 5 rid of the book of bee Nl and closer than 10 fat Of' bunk Of- 010 must be dug by hadt arse encountered If mot encountered dot cox 3 mchct in diameter or larger. Ore Pal hole mom be nelocsted. 7. The new fence must be taut red a minimum orA feu from tla tank-Ofau Nl and 010 Any pruning must be done by an ISA codified "halt and according to ISA Wakes tbapw Sunduds, 1991. No bnnclm Wgu don 3 ineho mlw be"to..taunter the wood f A minimum Of I irchas cleuurot ma" be requited m Provide fin Mash annual tap.- 9. 1 sing a Thai that pkmikg plan be rlrvised r rood on the attached Flan to reduce the roes damage, which could be awed by digging fm ptaatit, an me' PbNg, -"a Out this tree would be same& 10. SthpgemanW fvigaton mud be provided b retained tray 01.9 during the drY months leap nraM wcadq leis d m 1 inch ofrairfall). RTigam with 10 gdbm fte each Inch fVuok dameles every Two works dca*.o rho comuction peril. I 1 ItrMs IadxaP.4 it don caner conanuction disk Tat. i wgpg That tenpauy oommrirZ krokg la P;:Z:and be.: f soled es the etched asap Fencing cot be dchain ink a minimum, laigbt d5 fast smtolned coo ttal pope drives I & Inches into the gr.oad Fcndlrg mad be k plan pia in. the mini duty now muertls a egWlmam, ard mop wm am J. pave mail .II wemuc5i1 t oomPIIW and given Ohad approval. That poked. tnrcing mast too b xmponrily moved duringrontrulbon Forcing most be loeaed enedy n pawn on the atkchd rap. 12.1 suggest that A fldl 3-inch kYes ofowua wood chip be spored over the entire root none dtees 0I-9. Speadrng must be does by lard. 13. Ludsape, irrigation vendors. which teas a root non, arWor--"I- fo any otlw lur,cap favues muM ha es classe thus 15 moot the mink manaw flom era mints. Hawewr, radial trenches tong b. mode ifdo trench. each no closer Than 5 ,Ines the oak dilater b My ma's balkt ifde,Po" of such a dnipr are no .I.- thm to ket apart at do peiraer aThe "I" tit p "WHIM iinii■■■E-n■■■■��■■� ��n■n■■on■m■nn■nnn i♦ ��'f�■■■i�fi■n■■ ■i■n ■ ■ ■■©�i■■ii■■■■can nil ,��nnno■n■■nn�■■n■■■n n REIL.ClNENi r.r F.vaLUrS ).,I•SM has Rrr•Slm N'u.n•xID wT..•„Im l2 w„•f5dur p1'r•....?roc, flr.4rreY,WAr.+rY+gswsrYlrr�NEY Nr-I.W Nrnril/15Mry 3 Mrr dirrga-Vf +r.4.9..ar. IE.1 suggest thud • drip system be required for Ws,mire grating paten. lf,, a kr milishes were b 1,rated, mat of The pdmm including the nditry tea would become wscegibk,o disease. I5. Ianndss+Pa unatuiab (wbbre, dewmanw lark sto,as. krcing teal must Ica be directly in anuct with the bock of- bat dw w the risk of disease. 16. I suggm that herbicides must not M spayed to kill tun&' y wee, tf 20%or more of the treea bW moortnae would be sifecud. As an ahetma i.,1 suggest tat undni;d gams be mowed a"b the FolehQ and the W fufa. dtho Hems of logo gwou may M printed YATh hubieide. Tres loon c.n.h.ab hembisldas mler being arrayed on the soil bus Dees rrc not known a abmm he"dcida Goren mots of gams of diifil species. 17 M jerials a equpmem must nu be stored, stockpiled, dlunped, or hided on tits. Myrma aia terials (including mono, concrete, Pain product. atc ) must M rcmosed tom tire. It Fill mil must not be hhxd under rha con pies of the witting beta ,c :,tame conmret r any Omer Pulpose V.Gx AnsesvrmY The Kllaa of the bats are addressed wording to ISA Standards, Sanoth Edition. The vain of beta I1.1 and 10 ere assented in the spot, which addmernes the subtlMsiat dated April 28, 2000. No additional bond is suggested for these tees The combined vWw of due bees Ng and 9 is H. Mg. 1 suggest a bad equal to 25%of the bul Kla of These Two, ben To adore their Protection. Respxtmlly ubmi hall Bend , (u�m� Bu tie, t iPa Enclmum: Tree Data Accumulation Chars Pr�deetiK Fencing MLB('1 Inb Tide. Howell/McNeil lob Add—, 20251 Sereing./L., Caner Road. Sareloga Inb*0400NSA I- n, 2MI 1 a 1 �■ �o©�■■,Fo�i■ni■nin�un �� ��■■■©On. ■0■■■■ ■ ■n■■N■■� ,�:��o��nnn■■nnni� pEm.ClM[Nr l par F v.I.UrS i-fv sr a' h n.n s-wnvsr •and -n vrr . • a..n s �m. - ss.rs.' r . .r cab 1111e. 4 111/1,1cNeil )ob AAJx,,2(12515euluga/I.ax t;alov Rated, Semen sga - -_- )cab N114-110-095A 20M V �.-�I - - m"a. ( car I D a 1 J _- fensb urnnn r'enotl Fence` SARAIOr,A LOS GATOS ROAD BARRIF. U.COA7'E ANDASSOCIA7'FS Tree Press vation ` -- Pcotactiv_rencinil 2T555 summil IN I.m f.,rns Ca 9SOm aou5ndos: _ xvaalwndc au.n m conrmuns Adrt mint fgnslm<Ign perbm polecats for t slauq ee prwge0 belore pradnp or slur rpuem.nr ma[ .Ibw.d pan Iiw goD.ny v(t/ N Tor o! fence hung vNh - Iluorncent Ilavll sty tape 6' erY 10 leer. rt, l Itnk or welded vtrr 2" d!ewerer tleomtmcliona pw9h blow p2.a GI Dlne car i angle Dnsr Inr9rhplaa Yw aN W..IhlM carom and \ f apses lencep k non gMtal, aMw taaY9 Y v awwdaweabga.cllvwr Dom crap F 1 i,nrr ph,rrd an 111. Itne rr 5u2 -ear the tree anany oJlut r. rre Do„!btr Thee bran n1 vfrr �� n P' above `round .near can tr rt.. g vfllsnte pal,reebenv,rn v Orav>y _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ tin. car ry ,•... �-«car'✓�; �) '"j � �� slttn• 1 ^� 'T If" Y/nan cisvuclbn is b hatr Piece IMM.In a 1 Ir MDY M one sge.11w Ianca mouq be itledr2-J Jett peyavllMl conitrUabn WI `'�'/ / belneen tdnsnurliPn .rq Ills Tree Imnt a � A I� 3 4EET NO: L-2 Gopr�7P+a1 �reev:�n9 Pl'ah ,_,oa1e- In=34�_00 new-+rec 1o1x NO : Diceck driveway access 4o CarvieGan Cow+ Muu%cL n& Occur iF Lof 5 d ivewa�, +ies mkV t-& 4 j�sa bo driveway. y% +ha} sihialion,the shaded mk 4yee, would (e.Wlaim. SCREEMING L.�,I.ID ',.. ) Eki5111'fL'tfLG�o reMain. Lame alp tea, • Qoorrus ar�ci(�Ga • LM,+beQulana ca�i{ocnica. hlediuna -keos . A�bulus'rlarioa' %OliaS occidenteli 5 UK C8 • HeFaamdas arbo-liFlia • Myrica ca�i(omica • CearwWNs'Ra�Haottv�an' 4�A�y_rv.ShNbs • Garr�a euip4ica • nv�prrur+S ��lifornica SHEET NO: L-1 ga+ee, qJ l°.>J •9o.n Owner: Howell & Mc Neil Development Co. 225 Glen ridge Avenue Los Gatos, Ca. 95030 Tel. 395-3542 Fax. 358-1199 Engineer: Weatfali Engineers, Inc. 14583 Big Bain Way S=95070 Fax. 867`6261 Now: Existing Zoning - R4-20,000 Existing Generalplan- residential Existing Use - residential Proposed Use - tsidential Utilities: Gas & Electric - Pacific Gas and Electric Co. Telephone - Pacific Bell Water - San Jose Water Co. Sanitary Sawer - West Valley Sanitation District Cable TV - AT&T Cable Avenge Main - 8.8% REVISION ➢ °�- �45 GLEN p9 COURT r, 00' �¢ 'P1ME \ -. `°.N•'�111��� t� ���Jd. L4----r._:]Tt'T1----._ :']10:1L =-- ---Y-- •� re - --_ °• "bob � Jo•rr O Jb•o � � g.9_e 1vJ Je & - p +so.s 7a.t.'. ..Wb. p> \�T-I�-•ar—T�>+•in i ^ \ h pVVV ..yr.o \� o �.qS 4y I ?.>f.>e 'idl\1 e I/ -/'•�J __, 1 ( ��9r i-r✓l M.z2 __ LL � .be 'e,� �I ��5� \ I \ a� z9 r.6e�_, 26 hOSF T�� •1 ° .ae� �� 1eo.+6 1 {eo. t+ j p.> I I.fe1.JJ •' I pl..}y__._l Efl p'Y26 `' •>� \ 1°' •IJ +eo !` i _ {er. r J J _. - ._ u9. see v>. bV''• �� ' i 9 \\00 .. \\l .+b .z I I \ ( •a°o. p!" a�, ' ,fie - �.._. `� �6 �OS� °493 ° 9 \ / � _ en.eJ J -/ 'L '{e� ° �ae . 7-__,F910'�rJ_/h .er/z6 I I ap J. °➢x s \ •}>r.Jp / .ae.° .. 1 �, i 3 1 9 I ' �_ � I, E.,.rf>„ trio' � . 9 *t•• •. � / /9 �\��Q� e� 1 � _ I L • ➢. e ' ' ' uii> P 1 29:f � once �s. s J , �J I/)/ z•iflE zr 3/' l / •a)x.e 9. tJ \9tJ. W S90SF - > (1..�� /. '0 \` O.r� ! i' ..>e. {z _ -- _ l°. ,? 0' J, ��v. -�� —� 9. f+ I / / �L- ♦ e ;ry a f, Hefr�erKf {��\ 17. Zp> /\\\s"'F`��j `-_+--_-_--_.� �-�' �_ _ � ''?� r a ro 11/ v{, re ->I \ R�'' :�,roff \ !• _� / e,l �P •a?�.e. ... ``�\ � \ �'� r _- '_ �� a>\ .i,l{„ ➢zf, .>r->�n.s�C �' /=' \ � .° •ad2.%EE �>yQ.., DATE: A /'/i z000 SCALE: HOR. :"'30' WESTFALL ENG I_NEERS , I NC . VERT. DESIGNED: Jf BY:KAREL CYMBAL. .1. 34534 14583 BIG BASIN YAY, SARATOGA, CA 95070 14081867-0244 naavN: u0 DATE: f -gym \ • •• �_...-�-. p 0,40 5t Zq'N E.. Ss.eosemenf 6JlZ OR c�aa \ T A VICINITY MAP JOB NO. TENTATIVE MAC LANDS OF HOWELL & MC NEI L SHEET 2MI SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD, SARATOGA OF Y