HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-11-18 FINAL written comm -applicant
CITY OF SARATOGA
Memorandum
To: Mayor Miller & Members of the Saratoga City Council
From: Debbie Bretschneider, City Clerk
Date: November 18, 2020
Subject: Agenda Item: 2.1. APCC20-0002 - Appeal of a
Conditional Use Permit and Design Review Application for a Residential
Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE) on Saratoga Creek Drive (APNs 389-
06-020 & 389-06-021) (Written Communications)
These Written Communications from the applicant were received after the
November 18, 2020 Council agenda was published.
1
Via Email
November 18, 2020
Mayor Howard Miller
Vice Mayor Mary‐Lynne Bernald
Council Member Rishi Kumar
Council Member Yan Zhao
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Palm Villas Project Supplemental Response to the Appellant’s Submittals
Dear City Council Members:
This letter and the attached documents respond to claims made by the appellant in various submittals
related to the appeal of our project approval by the Planning Commission. We addressed many of the
appellant’s inaccurate claims in our letter and attachments sent to you on October 27, 2020.
This letter and attachments address new inaccurate claims and clarify information about the project.
Certain information from the attachments is summarized below. Additional information is included in
the attachments.
1.Transportation Issues
The attached letters from Hexagon Transportation Associates, Inc. (dated November 18, 2020)
addresses the inaccurate claims about the project parking, loading, driveways, and other transportation
issues. Several important project facts are highlighted below.
a.Project Parking Meets or Exceeds All Code Requirements
The project’s 48 parking spaces exceed the City’s Code requirement of 37 spaces. Each lot meets the
applicable parking requirements. The project provides substantially more parking than will be needed, a
conclusion which has been validated by two expert parking studies.
In the parking garages, the project will use the mechanical lift system (“WOHR Combilift 542”) provided
by Harding Steel. This system will present five (5) spaces at the garage ground level with six (6) spaces
below ground level in building 1 and four (4) spaces at the garage ground level with four (4) spaces
below ground level in building 2. All spaces are independently accessible by the vehicle drivers – no
2
assistance is needed to enter or exit spaces. The spaces will be meet City Code requirements, including
the 9’6” in width requirement. (See project garage plan with Harding Steel WOHR lifts.)
b.Project Delivery Facts
The appellant consistently mischaracterizes the project deliveries by suggesting that large delivery
trucks (SU‐40) will be in constant use and unable back in or out of the loading zone, will have their
engines running and emitting exhaust, and the sound of constant back‐up beeping noise will disturb the
quiet nature of the surrounding buildings. These claims are completely inconsistent with our project
operations. None of the claims of delivery related disruptions imagined by the appellant will occur with
our project.
We know from 13 years of experience the project’s few regular monthly deliveries will be delivered by
2‐axle trucks and vans (similar to Amazon delivery vans). These vehicles fit in standard size parking
spaces. The project loading area on lot 2 and the circular drive on lot 1 can be easily accessed by these
delivery vehicles.
Our deliveries usually take about 5‐10 minutes; van drivers usually pull up to the front door and turn off
the vehicle’s motor; and boxes are never opened outside or in public view. Back‐up safety beeping is
rarely, if ever, required.
We are a modest‐sized memory care residential facility. We do not require deliveries associated with
uses such as a food service establishment, grocery retail establishment, hospitality establishment, or a
large assisted living community.
The regular deliveries we receive are for small medical supplies, which are delivered every two (2) weeks
by way of an Amazon type of Cargo Van (e.g., Dodge ProMaster Cargo Van). Occasionally, we receive
other small deliveries by similar sized vans/trucks. This is the extent of our regular deliveries.
Our menus are set, portions are small, and many of our residents have a medically prescribed diet of
pureed foods. We do all food shopping once a week, by ourselves, using one Toyota Tacoma standard
bed truck.
None of our facilities (nor other similar facility that we know of) has a loading facility like the one
required by the City Code. We expect the project loading facility will be used infrequently, because of
the limited number of deliveries we receive each month and the likelihood that the van/truck vehicle
drivers will use the circular drive on lot 1 or park in a regular parking space on lot 2.
In previously submitted loading vehicle turning movement studies, Hexagon assumed the use of SU‐30
trucks, because they are the "standard" size for parking/loading evaluation purposes. Deliveries to our
other communities have never been made by a truck of this size. We will have no need for deliveries
requiring this large truck size for our regular operations in Saratoga. Nevertheless, as shown by the
turning movement studies, the loading facility can accommodate this size of a truck should it be needed
for an unforeseen or infrequent reason. Additionally, the loading facility meets all Code requirements,
including sufficient room for maneuvering and appropriate screening.
The attached Hexagon letters include additional turning movement studies using the size of vans/trucks
that will make deliveries to the project. There is ample room to accommodate these smaller vans/trucks.
3
The appellant also claims that opening and closing the fence around the loading area would expose
loading activities and cause adverse visual impacts on neighboring properties. This suggestion is
conjecture and ignores that facts. As noted above, our use of the loading facility would be infrequent.
We receive only a few deliveries each month and these deliveries would not need to use the loading
facility. Our regular monthly operations do not require deliveries from large trucks requiring the opening
of the loading facility fence. Nonetheless, opening and closing a fence or gate at a loading facility is
standard operating procedure and the short time that the fence or gate might be open would likely
never be observed by anyone on a neighboring property. There is no risk of a substantial adverse impact
on any neighboring property from our regular deliveries.
c.Lot 2 Driveway and Setback
Contrary to the appellant’s claims, City staff has properly determined that the required setback for lot 2
is measured from the side lot line. The loading facility is located outside of the setback area. The lot 2
driveway is not a street under the City Codes. It does not provide the principal access to any abutting
lots. All nearby lots, including the project lots, have primary access from streets – Saratoga Creek Drive,
Village Drive, or Saratoga Avenue.
The lot access memo and graphics attached to the Hexagon letters show that the principal access to the
lots fronting on Village Drive is Village Drive. The principal access to the project lots is Saratoga Creek
Drive. The principal access to the appellant’s 10‐acre undeveloped parcel to the south is Saratoga
Avenue, where it has an existing entrance. There simply is no lot that could consider the lot 2 driveway
as its abutting, principal means of access. Appellant’s claim that the lot 2 driveway is a “street” is not
supported by the facts.
d.Extension of Saratoga Creek Drive
A small portion of Saratoga Creek Drive at the southern end of lot 1 is not fully extended to the lot line.
Such an extension would result in constructing only half of the street for this short distance, because lot
2 does not extend into this area. Constructing half of a street is not useful and could be confusing for
drivers. Additionally, there is no necessity at this time for this awkward extension.
We have always acknowledged that we are responsible for constructing the short extension of the street
on lot 1 if and when the property to the south is developed.
2.Project Complies With Code Requirements
The appellant mistakenly claims that the project violates several City Code requirements. Attached is a
table (“Palm Villas Project Compliance With City Law”) that verifies the project complies with the City
Code requirements identified by the appellants.
In particular: (a) there is no General Plan mandatory requirement for a trail on the project site; (b) the
parking requirements for each lot are met or exceeded on the respective lots; (c) the loading space is
allowed on lot 2 because the lots are adjacent and adjoining; (d) all the parking spaces, including the lift
spaces, are independently accessible and there are no tandem spaces ; (e) the lift spaces meet size
requirements for full sized spaces and only four of the other project spaces are compact spaces; (f) the
setback for the loading facility is properly measured from the side lot line because the driveway/parking
lot is not a street (i.e., the principle means of access for any lot); (g) the front setback area includes
4
landscaping with allowable areas for driveways, parking, and walks; (h) delivery truck/vans will be of a
size to maneuver on site; (i) the loading area is screened and there is no Code prohibition on the normal
opening and closing the screened area as necessary.
3.Saratoga Creek Trail Not Feasible
The appellant claims the project site must include a trail to accommodate the future development of a
trail connecting Brookglen Park with Jones Trail. This proposal is not feasible. It is not in the City’s trail
plan and would be impossible to implement. The attached memorandum and graphic addressing
appellant’s proposal lists the reasons why such a trail could not be constructed as envisioned by the
appellant, including an infeasible 20’ high, 450’ long pedestrian crossing over Highway 85. This crossing
over Highway 85 would be required to include eight landings plus 300’ of pedestrian ADA ramps on each
side of highway 85 just to get to the 20’ high and 450’ long pedestrian crossing.
We appreciate your consideration of our project. The appellants have made many claims based on
significant misrepresentations about our project. We hope this submittal, our previous letter, and the
staff report clarify the facts. We will be happy to answer any questions you might have at the hearing.
Sincerely,
Michael Sneper and Garry Sneper
Attachments
Hexagon Transportation Associates, Inc. November 18, 2020 Memos to Michael Sneper
Project Garage Plans with Harding Steel Lift System (WHOR Combilift 542)
Nearby Lot Access Memorandum and Graphics
Palm Villas Project Compliance With City Law Chart
Memorandum and Graphic Addressing Appellant’s Saratoga Creek Trail Proposal
Memorandum
Date: November 18, 2020
To: Mr. Michael Sneper, Palm Villas
From: Gary Black, AICP - President
Subject: Response to November 1 Comments from Keith Higgins - Palm Villas Design Plan
in Saratoga
This memo addresses comments made by Keith Higgins in a letter dated November 1, 2020. In two
earlier memos, dated August 21 and October 27, 2020, Hexagon responded to comments from
Keith Higgins dated July 6 and September 9, 2020, on the Palm Villas design plan in Saratoga,
California. Many of the comments and responses are the same or similar to the earlier letters.
The following paragraphs list each comment from the Higgins letter and provide responses to each.
Comment: Underground garages with lifts will be inconvenient; the design is in conflict with
Parking Facility Design Standards; and does not meet the minimum parking
required by Saratoga Municipal Code. Persons arriving at the Palm Villas will
prefer parking in the private lots of adjacent properties which will be more
apparent and easier to access. People will avoid trusting their car to a parking
attendant; nothing will ensure that a parking attendant services will be provided
in the future. The failure of the project to meet the minimum parking standards of
the Municipal Code on Lot 1, Lot 2 and the project as a whole will be discussed
in detail below.
Response: This is a repeat comment from earlier letters and was responded to in Hexagon’s
October 27, 2020 memo. The project will not have valet parking. All motorists will
self park. The lot attendant will be available as a courtesy to answer questions
and provide directions if needed.
Comment: There is only one parking attendant (valet) offered for two, separate
underground parking garages with lifts and a fenced loading space in a third,
surface parking lot.
Response: This is a repeat comment from earlier letters and was responded to in Hexagon’s
October 27, 2020 memo.
Comment: The valet parking is likely to have functional difficulties. It is assumed that the valet
operation will utilize the drop-off area indicated on Lot 1. If a vehicle arrives while
the valet is parking or retrieving a vehicle in the underground parking area, the
driver of the arriving vehicle will not be aware there is a valet available. If the
driver is aware, the driver will need to wait until the valet arrives with the retrieved
vehicle. This would create potential congestion on Lot 1. In the long term, it could
Palm Villas Design Plan, Saratoga, CA November 18, 2020
Page | 2
affect access to the currently vacant parcel to the south.
Response: This is a repeat comment from earlier letters and was responded to in Hexagon’s
October 27, 2020 memo.
Comment: Shift changes require increased parking for overlapping shifts and will not work
with lifts. This is because spaces occupied by the shift workers on-site at the time
the following shift arrives will not be available. Those spaces will become available
when the shift leaves, giving the appearance of adequate parking. However, the
arriving shift could be required to park off-site. This problem will be exacerbated
by the requirement of a valet to retrieve and park each incoming and exiting car in
the various underground lifts. The time to utilize the lift will be delayed by the time
it takes the valet to shuttle each car to drop off or pick-up area, which will likely
cause congestion on Saratoga Creek Dr.
Response: This is a repeat comment from earlier letters and was responded to in Hexagon’s
October 27, 2020 memo.
Comment: The proposed parking system is overly complicated and consists of multiple
parking areas. There is no ability to determine available parking in most of the
spaces from any vantage point on the site. The majority of spaces are
underground and not visible from the public street or on-site surface parking areas
and drop-off area. In contrast, all available parking spaces in the surrounding
professional office park are easily visible and accessible. This will cause Palm
Villas visitors to park on the adjacent properties. This will negatively impact the
nearby medical and professional office staff, patients, and visitors. No information
is provided by the applicant regarding parking occupancy in the surrounding
parking lots. This would be helpful to monitor this issue in the future if the project
is constructed. The complexity of the parking design is not consistent with City of
Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-35.010, OFF-STREET PARKING AND
LOADING FACILITIES - Purposes of Article, which states, "Off-street parking and
loading areas shall be laid out in a manner to ensure their usefulness, protect the
public safety and, where appropriate, insulate surrounding land uses from their
impact." Furthermore, the Puzzle Lift is in conflict with City Municipal Code
Section 15-35.040 - "Design standards for off-street parking facilities. (e) Each
parking space shall be accessible from a street or alley, independent of any other
parking space... " While it may be possible to retrieve one car at a time from the
puzzle lift, all other cars will be blocked from access until the access ramp is
cleared of others waiting in line. Therefore, only one car in the system is
accessible independent from any other parking space, while all remaining parking
spaces are dependent on the car blocking the loading ramp while it is being
parked or retrieved.
Response: The project proposes to use the mechanical lift system shown on the attached
garage plans. This is not a tandem parking system. Each car may enter and exit
independently. There will be two lift systems plus 28 non-lift spaces. The non-lift
spaces alone can accommodate the maximum estimated parking demand of 22
vehicles, based on the two independent parking demand studies, one included in
the FEIR and one in the August 21, 2020, response letter. Vehicles waiting at the
lifts will not be a problem.
Palm Villas Design Plan, Saratoga, CA November 18, 2020
Page | 3
Comment: The dimensions of the Citylift Puzzle automated parking system spaces are
indicated to be 8'- 6 1/2" wide on the Palm Villas plan. The Citylift Puzzle
website indicates that the automated lift spaces have an effective width that is
much narrower. Compact spaces require a minimum width of 8' according to
the City Municipal Code Section 15-35.040 - "Design standards for off-
street parking facilities." This compares to the required width of 9' - 6" for
the standard spaces in the project.
The above cited Code Section allows a maximum of 25% compact spaces;
however, the maximum allowed compact space count is exceeded with the Puzzle
Lift system. Lot 1 is proposed to provide a total of 22 spaces, which would allow a
maximum of 5 compact spaces. A total of 2 compact spaces are proposed in the
driveway and a total of 11 are proposed in the automated parking system. This is
a total of 13 compact spaces, which exceeds the maximum allowable by code. A
total of 9 standard spaces are proposed. This results in 59% compact spaces and
only 41% standard spaces. This does not meet the parking requirement for Lot 1.
Lot 2 is proposed to provide a total of 26 spaces, which would allow a maximum of
6 compact spaces. A total of 4 compact spaces are proposed in the common
parking lot and a total of 9 are proposed in the automated parking system. This is
a total of 13 compact spaces, which exceeds the maximum allowable by code. A
total of 13 standard spaces are proposed. This results in 50% compact spaces
and only 50% standard spaces.
The project as a whole is proposed to include a total of 48 spaces and is required
to provide a total of 37 spaces, according to the plans. However, a total of 26
spaces are compact. This leaves a total of 22 standard spaces. Assuming 37 is
the correct parking requirement for the entire project, the minimum required
number of standard spaces is 28. A total of 22 standard spaces are proposed for
the entire project. This is a deficiency of 6 standard spaces.
The deficiency in standard spaces is further aggravated by the use of automated
parking for 20 of the project's compact parking spaces. In surface parking lots,
compact spaces are often used by standard sized vehicles that would extend
beyond the parking space and preclude the ability of someone to park adjacent to
them, unless it was a very small vehicle. This would result in the loss of perhaps
20% of the compact spaces, but about 80% would still be available. In contrast,
automated parking systems cannot be used at all by vehicles that exceed the
width, height, or length that can be accommodated by the parking system. This
will have to be carefully monitored by the parking attendant to make sure that
oversized vehicles do not attempt to use the system. If a vehicle exceeds the
parking dimensions, it will have to be directed to the surface parking area in Lot 2.
If there are no more spaces there, it will have to park in the parking lots on the
adjacent properties. This will almost certainly happen due to the deficient number
of standard spaces.
Response: The garage plans have been revised to include mechanical lift systems with
parking stall dimensions of 9.5’ by 18’, which complies with the Saratoga code.
There will be only 4 compact parking stalls (of 48 spaces), which is 8.3% of the
total number of spaces. This complies with the Saratoga parking code.
Palm Villas Design Plan, Saratoga, CA November 18, 2020
Page | 4
Comment: The two compact spaces in the entryway on Lot 1 each have a dimension of 7.5
feet wide (center to center of the double striping) by 14 feet long with a 2-foot
overhang. There may be an additional 0.5 feet of striping on the outside edge of
each space, so the total width may be 8 feet. The Municipal Code does not seem
to give credit for overhangs, so the depths of the spaces may not comply with the
Code. However, Code Section 15-35.040,c states that "Sufficient room for
turning and maneuvering vehicles shall be provided on the site." This would be
provided by an offset in the curb line to allow a vehicle to begin a turn as it backs
out of the parking space. This is not provided by Parking Space 20.
Response: The compact spaces meet the parking code dimensions when considering the
overhang. There is sufficient room to maneuver in and out of the spaces.
Comment: The viability of Compact Space 16 is questionable due to the adjacent 6-foot
fence along its east edge. This will essentially create a wall and limit the ability of
a small car to open the door wide enough for entry and exit from the passenger
door.
Response: Having a parking space against a fence is common in parking lots. In all parking
lots, motorists must be careful when backing out because of limited sight distance.
A motorist may be parked next to a panel van and would have no sight distance,
just like being parked next to a fence. The proposed design is not in any way
unusual or unsafe, and it is not prohibited by city code.
Comment: The loading space on Lot 2 is located within the required setback from a private
street that serves 5 parcels, which is in violation of Code Section 15-35.070
because the easement on Lot 2 qualifies as a street according to Code Section
15-06.660.
Response: This is a repeat comment from earlier letters and was responded to in Hexagon’s
October 27, 2020 memo.
Comment: The loading area on Lot 2 is fully enclosed with a 6' fence to meet the screening
requirement. The fence will make the loading space non-functional.
The fence must be rolled back to open it prior to arrival of a delivery. If a delivery
arrives while the fence is closed, it will be forced to stop on the private street and
will block access to the other properties served by the street.
It does not appear to be possible for a truck to parallel park fully within the loading
space without obstructing traffic on the private street.
It does not appear to be possible for a truck to turn around on Lot 2 to arrive and
leave the loading area, which is in violation of 15-35.070 - Design standards for
off-street loading facilities.(b) Sufficient room for turning and maneuvering vehicles
shall be provided on the site.
Response: This is a repeat comment from earlier letters and was responded to in Hexagon’s
October 27, 2020 memo.
Comment: There is no loading space on Lot 1 in violation of Code Section 15-35.050. In an
Palm Villas Design Plan, Saratoga, CA November 18, 2020
Page | 5
attempt to claim compliance, Lots 1 and 2 are apparently being considered to be
adjacent. However, the two lots are not adjacent because they are separated by a
public street. Each is a separate building of over 5,000 square feet and therefore
each is required to provide a separate loading area.
Response: The project is considered as one entity for the purpose of the required number of
loading spaces.
Comment: Public safety risks are posed in several locations
The fenced loading space on Lot 2 blocks sight lines of westbound traffic along
the Ingress/Egress Easement by cars backing out of the parking spaces (Spaces
13 through 16, especially 16) next to the loading area. The fence also blocks sight
lines to pedestrians walking out from the adjacent parking spaces.
Response: This is a repeat comment from earlier letters and was responded to in Hexagon’s
October 27, 2020 memo.
Comment: The proposed project is a senior residential facility that is a single campus
bisected by a public street. This implies substantial pedestrian traffic back and
forth across the street by residents, staff, disabled or impaired people, medical
personnel, and deliveries. Often these pedestrians will be focused on conducting
business and possibly involved in severe medical situations and will not be
focused on vehicular traffic on Saratoga Creek Drive. This is a major issue that
must not be ignored or minimized. This will affect other existing and future users
of Saratoga Creek Drive. The safety risks posed by the mid-block crosswalk were
discussed in detail in my previous comment letters.
Response: This is a repeat comment from earlier letters and was responded to in Hexagon’s
October 27, 2020 memo
Comment: It does not appear that adequate sight distance will be provided for vehicles
exiting the underground parking. Analysis will be needed to confirm that adequate
sight distance will be provided, The analysis will also need to consider the
proposed steep (20%) grades and the potential of parallel parking along the
project frontage. These analyses were requested in my previous comment letters.
Response: There is confusion about the design of the ramps. The ramps have been designed
to have a flat section at the top so that vehicles exiting the garages can see
pedestrians on the sidewalk. They also will be able to see vehicles on the street. If
on-street parking has the potential to block sight distance, red curb can be painted
adjacent to the driveways. This is standard practice. The ramps will be designed
with adequate transition slopes so that they can function without vehicles
bottoming out. The exact design of the ramps will be worked out at the building
permit stage. An example of how the ramps could work with transition slopes is
shown on the attached garage plans.
Comment: No on-site passenger loading is designated for Lot 2. Much of this may occur on
Saratoga Creek Drive rather than a protected area on the premises. There should
be a passenger loading area on- site to reduce the public safety risks.
Palm Villas Design Plan, Saratoga, CA November 18, 2020
Page | 6
Response: This is a repeat comment from earlier letters and was responded to in Hexagon’s
October 27, 2020 memo.
Comment: Incomplete extension of Saratoga Creek Drive.
Future development of the 10-acre parcel to the south of the Project will not have
access to Saratoga Creek Drive without being required to construct the extension
along the Palm Villas frontage. This is in conflict with Code Section 14-25.030 -
Design standards and dedication of streets. "(i) Streets adjacent to property
lines. Where the property line of the site to be subdivided or developed is
adjacent to an existing street, the following provisions shall be applicable:
(4) Whenever any new street of a proposed subdivision or building site (as
distinguished from an existing street) will lie along and adjacent to any boundary
of the subdivision or site, it shall be offered for dedication and improved to its full
width as provided for that type of street in Table I of this Chapter."
This should not be the responsibility of future development of a neighboring site
which is not adjacent to the unimproved Palm Villas road segment.
Response: This is a repeat comment from earlier letters and was responded to in Hexagon’s
October 27, 2020 memo.
Comment: Pedestrian sidewalks are incomplete, so this will block ADA access to future
developments on the 10- acre parcel to the south.
Response: This is a repeat comment from earlier letters and was responded to in Hexagon’s
October 27, 2020 memo.
Comment: A large Oak tree exists on Lot 1 at the curb edge of the Saratoga Creek Drive
easement. The incomplete extension of Saratoga Creek Drive leaves this tree to
permanently block any possibility of building out that section of the street over
Palm Villas property in the future. This will need to be considered for the Palm
Villas frontage improvements.
Response: This is a repeat comment from earlier letters and was responded to in Hexagon’s
October 27, 2020 memo.
Comment: The current plan reduces the amount of on-street parking that could be provided
by the project if standard frontage improvement involving extending Saratoga
Creek Drive to the southerly boundary of the project was completed. On-street
parking is further reduced by red-curb zones that would be required for the
emergency turnaround and on-street passenger/patient loading for Lot 2.
Additional reduction in on-street parking is caused by the excessive number of
curb cuts for the five driveways that serve the two lots.
Response: The project is not relying on on-street parking to meet the parking code. Sufficient
off-street parking is provided.
Palm Villas Design Plan, Saratoga, CA November 18, 2020
Page | 7
Comment: Five driveways on the two lots pose many public safety risks.
The proliferation of proposed driveways will result in inordinate traffic conflicts
compared to what would normally be provided by the amount of project street
frontage. This is compounded by a mid- block pedestrian crossing within 15 feet of
three driveways.
Response: The number of driveways is not in violation of any codes or typical design
standards.
Comment: Confusion of where to park with so many separate driveways separating the
various parking lots may result in increased risk of traffic and pedestrian conflicts.
Response: Almost all employees and visitors to the site will be regular users. They will know
where/how to park on site. For the occasional new motorist, there is ample
surface parking.
Comment: No localized traffic study was completed to examine the circulation through the
project and likelihood of trespass onto the surrounding, private driveways and
parking lots of the neighborhood. The driveways and parking lots are
interconnected as a design feature of the adjacent professional office park.
Response: This is a repeat comment from earlier letters and was responded to in Hexagon’s
October 27, 2020 memo.
Comment: Landscape buffers are inadequate between Abrams' parking easement to the east
of Lot 2 and the building and parking spaces on Lot 2. This should fit the design
characteristics of the Professional Village, which has existing landscape buffers of
5' to 1O' to parking lots, substantially larger than the 18" provided to the Palm
Villas 2 building. No landscape buffer is provided to the southeast parking space
on Palm Villas parking Space 17. Abrams' parking easement is designed for cars
to be parked perpendicular to Palm Villas space 17. A landscape buffer on the
east side of Palm Villas Space 17 is necessary to offer safe separation between
the right-angle parking layouts.
Response: This is a repeat comment from earlier letters and was responded to in Hexagon’s
October 27, 2020 memo.
Comment: A parking plan illustrating the layout of future spaces along the easterly property
line of Lot 2 was requested in the 2017 and September 2020 letters. This would
address some of the setback deficiencies described in Comment 9, especially
Space 17 in Lot 2.
Response: This is a repeat comment from earlier letters and was responded to in Hexagon’s
October 27, 2020 memo. A plan has been provided.
Attachments
Revised garage plans.
LOT #1
389-06-020
SARATOGA CREEK DRIVE
SARATOGA, CA 95070
METRO
GROUP
DESIGN
DATE :
SCALE :
PROJECT NO :
DRAWN BY :
A-1.2
Palm Villas 11-17-20.pln11/18/202011:13 AMThe plans, ideas and design on this
drawing are the property of the
designer,divised solely for this
contract. Plans shall not be used,
in whole or in part, for any purpose
for which they were not intended
without the written permission of
METRO DESIGN GROUP. c
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS..
1475 S BASCOM AVE SUITE 208
CAMPBELL, CA 95008
(408)871-1071 phone
(408)871-1072 fax
www.metroarchitects.com
SHEET NUMBER
PALM VILLAS
SARATOGA
CHECKED BY :TS
ARCHITECT :TOM SLOAN
PROJECT NAME
15600
8-19-20
N
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
2
3
4
5
3
2
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
T
(N)
15 16
--
2.00'
18.00'
10.00'
8.00'
25.00'
25.00'54.26'10.00'
9.00'26.00'18.00'15.02'19.63'
50.00'21.56'19.05'6.00'12.
0
0
'
25.00'
7.50'7.50'14.00'2.00'4.00'8.00'
9.00'
4.00'16.33'9.09'16.78'2.65'9.46'
25.00'
80.24'18.00'R 30'
R 305'
6' HIGH SOLID CEDAR
FENCE + 2' LATTICE , TYP.L = 10.10'R= 925.00D = 0°37'32"2' PG&E/PACBELL EASEMENT
DENOTES
TRUNCATED DOMES
INDICATES EXISTING
TREES DRIP LINE
DENOTES PRECAST CONCRETE
PAVERS SYSTEM - TYP.
EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN
PER ARBORIST REPORT PREPARED
BY DEBORAH ELLIS, MS, JAN.29,2016
15" PLANTER - TYP.
297.70'
LOWEST ELEVATION POINT OF
THE LOT AT THE BUILDING'S EDGE
300.07'
HIGHEST ELEVATION POINT OF
THE LOT AT THE BUILDING'S EDGE
INDICATES CREEK
PROTECTION EASEMENT
ACCESSIBLE
PATH OF TRAVEL
INDICATES 15'
SETBACK FROM TREE TRUNK
INDICATE
S
PROPOSE
D
LOCATIO
N
OF PIV AND FDC
LANDSCAPED AREA EXISTING PARKING
AREA TO REMAIN EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN - TYP.
INDICATES TREE
PROTECTION FENCE
ACCESSIBILITY
PAVEMENT SYMBOL
ACCESSIBILITY
PARKING SIGN
VAN ACCESSIBLE
PARKING STALL
INDICATES PROPOSED
LOCATION OF PIV AND FDC
STEPS
NO FENCE, HEDGE, RETAININ
G
WALL, ENTRYWA
Y
ELEMENT, PILASTER, GATE,
OR OTHER SIMILAR ELEMENT
LOCATED
WITHIN A TRIANGLE
HAVING SIDES
TWELVE FEET IN LENGTH FROM EITHER SIDE OF A DRIVEWA
Y
WHERE IT
INTERSEC
T
S
WITH EDGE OF PAVEMEN
T
SHALL EXCEED THREE FEET IN HEIGHT
ABOVE THE ESTABLIS
H
E
D
GRADE OF THE ADJOININ
G
STREET -TYP.
NO FENCE, HEDGE, RETAINING WALL, ENTRYWAY ELEMENT, PILASTER, GATE,
OR OTHER SIMILAR ELEMENT LOCATED WITHIN A TRIANGLE HAVING SIDES
TWELVE FEET IN LENGTH FROM EITHER SIDE OF A DRIVEWAY WHERE IT
INTERSECTS WITH EDGE OF PAVEMENT SHALL EXCEED THREE FEET IN HEIGHT
ABOVE THE ESTABLISHED GRADE OF THE ADJOINING STREET -TYP.
(E) WOOD FENCE
TO REMAIN
INDICATES SECOND
FLOOR ABOVE
TREE PROTECTION FENCING
INSTALL SIGN #2
ON WALL/ RAILING
INSTALL
SIGN #2ON WALL/RAILING
CycleSafe ProPark® STAND-ALONE
BIKE LOCKER FOR LONG TERM
BICYCLE PARKING -2 BICYCLE
SHORT TERM BICYCLE
PARKING RACK
FOR-2 BICYCLES
SMALL DASHED LINE
INDICATES MAX. 200' DISTANCE
FROM SHORT-TERM BICYCLE
PARKING TO ENTRANCE PER
CGBS 5.106.4.1.1.
SINGLE
FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
R- 12,500
S A R A T O G AC R E E KSCVWD
EASEMENT
(VACANT)
ZONED PROFESSIONAL
& ADMINISTRATIVE (VACANT)ZONED PROFESSI
O
N
A
L& ADMINIS
T
R
A
T
I
V
E
PARCEL 1
PROPOSED TWO-STORY
BUILDING
PROFESSIONAL
& ADMINISTRATIVE
PLANTING AREA
SHRUBS & GROUNDCOVER
26
25S20° 52' 50"W 95.45'N 69° 07' 10"W 61.15'S12° 48' 45"W26.41'S 58° 11' 15" E 216.20'S 12° 48' 45" W45.00'N 77° 11' 15"W 184.09'
25.00'25.00'
134.09'N 67° 17' 18"W 115.00'
25.00'
25.00'L = 78.54'R= 300.00D = 15°00'00"L = 53.36'R= 900.00D = 3°23'49"L = 85.08'R= 325.00D = 15°00'00"L = 9.47'R= 900.00D = 0°36'11"INGRESSPUE
EASEMENT
2' AIR SPACE ESM'TFOR OVERHAN
G
13'-0" ESM'T FOR D/W &PARKING
PURPOSE
S
F.F.=299.25'
SITE PLAN LEGEND
PROPERTY LINE
(E) GRADE MINOR CONTOUR LINE
(E) GRADE MAJOR CONTOUR LINE
(E) FENCE TO REMAIN
PROPOSED FENCE
PROPOSED BUILDING
PROPOSED CURB
TREE PROTECTION FENCE
PROPOSED CONCRETE
AREA
EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN
EXISTING TREE
TO BE REMOVED
PROPOSED TREE 286288NO PARKIN
G
F.S.=288.75'
FRONT
SETBAC
K
REQUIRED &
PROPOSED
FRONT SETBACK
SIGNTRASH AREARAMP
RAMP
300SIGN(E) 10",12"OAK
(E) 7"OAK
(E) 25",18,
19",8"
SYCAMORE
6,6,5,4"
BRAZILIAN
PEPPER
TREE
(E) 6",7"
OAK
SMALL TREES
DBL 6"
BIRCH
3-5"BIRCH
(E) 18"
LONDON PLANE
10"SYC
CLUMP
FL(E) 8"
OAK
SARATOGACREEKL = 61.09'R= 875.00D = 4°00'00"S
S
26'INGRESS
& EGRESS
ESMNT.DOC.#4359982
26' WIDE INGRESS & EGRESS
ESMNT.DOC.#4359982
18' WIDE SANTA CLARA CO.FLOOD CTRL.&
WATER DIST. ESMNT.DOC.#4089816
18'SANTA CLARA CO.FLOOD CTRL.&
WATER DIST. ESMNT.DOC.#4089816290290296288286284282292294296298284290292294296298298296 2984 yd. bin4 yd. binTRIM (E) 9",10",
8",4",4"
BLUE ELDERBERRY
PER ARBORIST REPORT
(E) 12",18"
29",30" OAK
(E) 7",8",12"
ELDERBERRY
(E) 10",12"OAK
(E) 12"
ELDERBERRY
(E)8"
OAK
12
E.P.S12° 48' 45"W45.00'WM
WM
MIN . SETBACKEGRESSINGRESSDEAD
END
4,5,5,4"
BRAZILIAN
PEPPER
TREE
L = 71.99'
R= 275.00
D = 15°00'00"60'30'PROPOSED SIDE SETBACK20'20'6'
20'
14'30'30'10'20'L = 71.99'R= 275.00D = 15°00'00"EMERGENCY VEHICLE TURNAROUNDS 12° 48' 45" W45.00'(E) 13",10"
ELDERBERRY
15 %
SLOPE
5 %
SLOPE
SSTANDARD PARKING SPACE
CCOMPACT PARKING SPACE
8"GREEN
SHWR
20 21
C
22NO PARKINGC
PLANTING AREAPLANTING AREATYP.TYP.1.5 %
SLOPE
1.5 %
SLOPE
5 %
SLOPE
F.F.=299.25'
60" WIDE WALKWAY ON GRADE
5 % MAX
PROPOSED ASPHALT
CONCRETE AREA
SETBA
C
K
TOPOFBANKSETBACKCREEK 6 FT TALL CHAIN LINK -
POSTS AT 10 O.C. MAX. 2 FT. DEEP MAX.
19'-0"
5'
MAX
PLANTING AREAPLANTING AREA
15 %
SLOPE
20 %
SLOPE
1
T1
(N)
T1
(N)
T1
(N)
L-1
2
L-1
2
TP-1.4
1
--
--
--
--
A-1.2
2
A-1.2
2
CONNECT
I
O
N
TOFUTURE SIDEWAL
K D R I V E(E) 20" OAK INGRESSEGRESSINGRESSEGRESS300EGRESSEGRESS1'-6"R 11/2"
PALM VILLAS
PARKING
SIGNAGE DETAIL
SCALE: 1"= 1'-0"2
INSTALL SIGN ON WALL/ RAILING
PROPOSED
SITE DEVELOPMENT
PLAN
DZ
1" = 10'-0"
SEE PROPOSED
SITE DEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR LOT 2
NOTES:
1. PRIOR TO FOUNDATION INSPECTION BY THE CITY,
THE LLS OF RECORD SHALL PROVIDE A WRITTEN
CERTIFICATION THAT ALL BUILDING SETBACKS
ARE PER THE APPROVED PLANS.
2. DISPOSITION AND TREATMENT OF STORM WATER
WILL COMPLY WITH THE NATIONAL POLLUTION
DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM ("NPDES")
STANDARDS AND IMPLEMENTATION STANDARDS
ESTABLISHED BY THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY URBAN
RUNOFF POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM.
1 11-01-20 D.Z.
LOT #2
389-06-021
SARATOGA CREEK DRIVE
SARATOGA, CA 95070
METRO
GROUP
DESIGN
DATE :
SCALE :
PROJECT NO :
DRAWN BY :
A-1.2
Palm Villas 11-17-20.pln11/18/202011:13 AMThe plans, ideas and design on this
drawing are the property of the
designer,divised solely for this
contract. Plans shall not be used,
in whole or in part, for any purpose
for which they were not intended
without the written permission of
METRO DESIGN GROUP. c
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS..
1475 S BASCOM AVE SUITE 208
CAMPBELL, CA 95008
(408)871-1071 phone
(408)871-1072 fax
www.metroarchitects.com
SHEET NUMBER
PALM VILLAS
SARATOGA
CHECKED BY :TS
ARCHITECT :TOM SLOAN
PROJECT NAME
15601
8-19-20
NT
(N)
11
12
13
3
2
3
2
T
(N)
15
16 16.00'5.00'10.00'5.00'2.00'13.00'7.00'28.00'14.00'2.00'20.00'14.00'
8.00'
25.00'
25.00'54.26'9.00'8.00'7.50'7.50'7.50'7.50'
45.00'
4.00'26.00'18.00'18.00'15.02'7.50'7.50'
9.50'
35.68'
50.00'14.74'33.00'22.32'22.88'12.00'
7.50'7.50'14.00'2.00'4.00'8.00'9.00'
4.00'
7.50'7.50'16.78'2.65'18.00'R 30'
R 305'
VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL
ACCESSIBILITY PARKING SIGN
ACCESSIBILITY PAVEMENT SYMBOL
L = 10.10'R= 925.00D = 0°37'32"S 22 ° 42 ' 42 "W
13 .00 '
16' PG&E/PACBELL
EASEMENT10' PUE WITH
5' W.C.E.'S
PARKING
EASEMENT
296.08'
LOWEST ELEVATION POINT OF
THE LOT AT THE BUILDING'S EDGE
297.34'
HIGHEST ELEVATION POINT OF
THE LOT AT THE BUILDING'S EDGE
DENOTES PRECAST CONCRETE PAVERS SYSTEM - TYP.
ALIGN PROPOSED
PAVERS AT TRANSITION
TO EXISTING ASPHALT
INDICATES PROPOSED
LOCATION OF PIV AND FDC
DENOTES PRECAST CONCRETE
PAVERS SYSTEM - TYP.
DENOTES ASPHALT INDICATES EXISTING
EDGE OF PAVEMENT
EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN
PER ARBORIST REPORT
PREPARED -BY DEBORAH ELLIS,MS, JAN.29,2016 INDICATES BUILDING LINE
6' HIGH SOLID CEDAR
FENCE + 2' LATTICE , TYP.
DENOTES MIN. 45' X 12'
OFF-STREET LOADING AREA
DENOTES PROPOSED
FENCE - TYP.PRECAST CONCRETE
PAVERS SYSTEM ON GRADE - TYP.
LANDSCAPED AREA
EXISTING PARKING
AREA TO REMAIN
LANDSCAPED AREALANDSCAPED AREA
DENOTES PRECAST CONCRETE PAVERS SYSTEM ON GRADE - TYP.
RAISED PLANTER
ACCESSIBLE
PATH OF TRAVEL
STEPS
NO FENCE, HEDGE, RETAINING WALL, ENTRYWAY ELEMENT, PILASTER, GATE,
OR OTHER SIMILAR ELEMENT LOCATED WITHIN A TRIANGLE HAVING SIDES
TWELVE FEET IN LENGTH FROM EITHER SIDE OF A DRIVEWAY WHERE IT
INTERSECTS WITH EDGE OF PAVEMENT SHALL EXCEED THREE FEET IN HEIGHT
ABOVE THE ESTABLISHED GRADE OF THE ADJOINING STREET -TYP.
NO FENCE , HEDGE , RETAINING
WALL , ENTRYWAY
ELEMENT , PILASTER , GATE ,
OR OTHER SIMILAR ELEMENT LOCATED WITHIN A TRIANGLE HAVING SIDES
TWELVE FEET IN LENGTH FROM EITHER SIDE OF A DRIVEWAY WHERE IT
INTERSECTS
WITH EDGE OF PAVEMENT SHALL EXCEED THREE FEET IN HEIGHT
ABOVE THE ESTABLISHE
D
GRADE OF THE ADJOINING
STREET -TYP .
ROLL-UP DOOR
6' HIGH SOLID CEDAR
FENCE + 2' LATTICE , TYP.
6' MIN. HIGH
BI-PASSING
FENCED ENCLOSURE
INSTALL SIGN #2
ON WALL / RAILING
INSTALL
SIGN #2
ON WALL /
RAILING
INSTALL SIGN #1
ON POST
CycleSafe ProPark ® STAND -ALONE
BIKE LOCKER FOR LONG TERM
BICYCLE PARKING -2 BICYCLE
SMALL DASHED LINE
INDICATES
MAX . 200 ' DISTANCE
FROM SHORT -TERM BICYCLE
PARKING TO ENTRANCE PER
CGBS 5 .106 .4 .1 .1 .
SMALL DASHED LINE INDICATES 141' DISTANCE
FROM SHORT-TERM BICYCLE PARKING TO ENTRANCE
PER CGBS 5.106.4.1.1.
5 -8 "YUCCA
S A R A T O G AC R E E KENCLOSEDTRASHAREA(VACANT)
ZONED PROFESSIONAL
& ADMINISTRATIVE
PROFESSIONAL
& ADMINISTRATIVE
PROFESSIONAL
& ADMINISTRATIVE
PARCEL 2
PROPOSED TWO-STORY
BUILDING
26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18S 12° 48' 45" W45.00'25 .00 '25 .00 '
N 67 ° 17 ' 18 "W 115 .00 '
N 67 ° 17 ' 18 "W 42 .92 '
S 60° 45' 24"W 164.88'N 28° 37' 35" E 43.00'N 25° 07' 20" E 99.38'INGRESS /
EGRESS
EASEMENT
INGRESS / EGRESSEASEMENTACCESSIBLEPATH OF TRAVEL25.00'
25.00'L = 78.54'R= 300.00D = 15°00'00"L = 53.36'R= 900.00D = 3°23'49"L = 85.08'R= 325.00D = 15°00'00"L = 9.47'R= 900.00D = 0°36'11"COMMON
PARKING LOTINGRESS
2' AIR SPACE ESM'T
FOR OVERHANG
13'-0" ESM'T FOR D/W &
PARKING PURPOSES SITE PLAN LEGEND
PROPERTY LINE
(E) GRADE MINOR CONTOUR LINE
(E) GRADE MAJOR CONTOUR LINE
PROPOSED FENCE
PROPOSED BUILDING
PROPOSED ASPHALT
PROPOSED CURB
TREE PROTECTION FENCE
NO PARKING
F.F.=299.00' (± 0'-0")
F.S.=288.50' (-10'-6")
17
FRONT SETBACK
REQUIRED &
PROPOSED
FRONT SETBACK
SIGNRAMP
RAMP
SIGN16
C
5 -8 "YUCCA
(E ) 10 ",8 "
7 ",6 " OAK
8 "YUCCA
6 ,6 ,5 ,4 "
BRAZILIAN
PEPPER
TREE
(E ) 6 ",7 "
OAK
SMALL TREES DBL 6 "
BIRCH
3 -5 "BIRCH
CLUMP
(E ) 8 "
OAK
L = 61.09'R= 875.00D = 4°00'00"TYP. STANDARDSPACETYP.STANDARD
SPACE
TYP.COMPACT
SPACE
TYP. COMPACTSPACES S S S S S S S S S
C
26'INGRESS & EGRESS
ESMNT.DOC.#4359982
26 ' WIDE INGRESS & EGRESS
ESMNT .DOC .#4359982
18 ' WIDE SANTA CLARA CO .FLOOD CTRL .&
WATER DIST . ESMNT .DOC .#4089816
18'SANTA CLARA CO.FLOOD CTRL.&
WATER DIST. ESMNT.DOC.#40898162962
9
8 2962983 yd. bin
(E )8 "
OAK
(E) 10",12"OAK
PROPOSED
CONCRETE AREA
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN
EXISTING TREE
TO BE REMOVED
PROPOSED TREE
SSTANDARD PARKING SPACE
CCOMPACT PARKING SPACE
(E) 10",12"OAK
12
E.P.S12° 48' 45"W45.00'
WM
WM
MIN. SETBACK5 % MAX
SLOPE
5 % MAX
2 yd. bin
EGRESSINGRESSDEAD END
4 ,5 ,5 ,4 "
BRAZILIAN
PEPPER
TREE 2%PARKING
& DRIVEWAY
EASEMENT
COURTYARD
L = 71 .99 '
R = 275 .00
D = 15 °00 '00 "60'30'REQUIREDSIDE SETBACKREQUIRED REAR SETBACKREQUIRED SIDE SETBACKPROPOSED REAR SETBACKPROPOSED SIDE SETBACKPROPOSED SIDE SETBACK14
20'20'6'
20'
14'30'30'10'20'L = 71.99'R= 275.00D = 15°00'00"OFF-STREET
LOADING
AREA
C13
C
EMERGENCY VEHICLE TURNAROUNDS 12° 48' 45" W45.00'
15 %
SLOPE
5 %
SLOPE
20
21
C
22NO PARKINGC
PLANTING AREAPLANTING AREATYP.TYP.1 .5 %
SLOPE
LANDSCAPED AREA1 .5 %
SLOPE
20 %
SLOPE
5 %
SLOPE BALCONY ABOVE60 " WIDE WALKWAY ON GRADE
1.8%5 % MAX
F.F.=301.00'2%2%
1.8%5 % MAX5 % MAX
CC
TYP.COMPACT
SPACE
15
CC
MAX. SLOPE
MAX. SLOPE1.8%PLANTING AREA
PLANTER
PLANTING AREAPLANTING AREA
15 %
SLOPE
20 %
SLOPE
--
--
14
1
T 1(N )
T 1(N )
--
--
--
--
----
--
--
T 1(N )
--
L -1
2
L -1
2
TP-1.4
1
A -1 .22
A -1 .2
2
A-1.2
1
CONNECTION TO
FUTURE SIDEWALKD R I V E(E ) 20 " OAKINGRESS EGRESSINGRESSEGRESS300EGRESSEGRESS2'-0"1'-6"2'-0"1'-6"
R 11/2"
R 11/2"
PALM VILLAS
PARKING
SIGNAGE DETAIL
SCALE: 1"= 1'-0"2
INSTALL SIGN ON WALL/ RAILING
SIGNAGE DETAIL
SCALE: 1"= 1'-0"
NO
PALM VILLAS
PARKING
BEYOND
THIS
POINT
INSTALL SIGN ON POST
1
2" DIA. CALV. STEEL PIPE
(PRIME & PAINT BLACK)60" ABOVE FINISH FLOOR OR GROUND SURFACE80" ABOVE FINISH FLOOR OR GROUND SURFACEOF THE ACCESSIBLE ROUTESEE PROPOSED
SITE DEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR LOT 1
PROPOSED
SITE DEVELOPMENT
PLAN
DZ
1" = 10'-0"
NOTES:
1. PRIOR TO FOUNDATION INSPECTION BY THE CITY,
THE LLS OF RECORD SHALL PROVIDE A WRITTEN
CERTIFICATION THAT ALL BUILDING SETBACKS
ARE PER THE APPROVED PLANS.
2. DISPOSITION AND TREATMENT OF STORM WATER
WILL COMPLY WITH THE NATIONAL POLLUTION
DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM ("NPDES")
STANDARDS AND IMPLEMENTATION STANDARDS
ESTABLISHED BY THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY URBAN
RUNOFF POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM.
1 11-01-20 D.Z.
LOT #2
389-06-021
SARATOGA CREEK DRIVE
SARATOGA, CA 95070
METRO
GROUP
DESIGN
DATE :
SCALE :
PROJECT NO :
DRAWN BY :
A-2.0
Palm Villas 11-17-20.pln11/18/202011:13 AMThe plans, ideas and design on this
drawing are the property of the
designer,divised solely for this
contract. Plans shall not be used,
in whole or in part, for any purpose
for which they were not intended
without the written permission of
METRO DESIGN GROUP. c
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS..
1475 S BASCOM AVE SUITE 208
CAMPBELL, CA 95008
(408)871-1071 phone
(408)871-1072 fax
www.metroarchitects.com
SHEET NUMBER
PALM VILLAS
SARATOGA
CHECKED BY :TS
ARCHITECT :TOM SLOAN
PROJECT NAME
15601
8-19-20
85'-51/2"
6'-5"32'-2"32'-4"16'-2"
87'-1"
4'-91/2"19'-91/2"32'-11"28'-0"1'-1"22'-4"41'-2"1'-1"23'-11"32'-11"65'-8"1'-1"37'-8"26'-11"65'-8"5 FT. DIA. CIRCLE INDICATES
MANEUVERING SPACE AT ACCESSIBLE
RESTROOMS - TYP. (ADA)
UP
ENTRY LOBBY
KITCHEN
TRASH
ELECTRIC
FIREPLACE
CONTROL
STATION
DINING & ACTIVITY
ROOM
17'-0" x 26'-7"
ELEVATOR
OPEN TO ABOVE
DN
A
A-5
UP
2 yd. bin
3 yd. bin
OFFICE
9'-3" x 10'-0"
8'-0" x
10'- 3"
BEDROOM
SHOWER
RM.
14'-0" x 12'-6"
DN
PANTRY
UP
BEDROOM
14'-0" x 11'-10"
RESTRM RESTRM
BATH
(F)
PHARMACY
A-5
B
A-5
B
BEDROOM BEDROOM
15'-1" x 11'-9"15'-1" x 11'-9"
DN
201 202 203 204
BEDROOM BEDROOM
15'-1" x 11'-9"15'-1" x 11'-9"
206 205
BATH
BATH
BATH
BATH
A
A-5
28'-0"59'-1"
87'-1"
87'-1"
6'-5"32'-2"32'-4"16'-2"1'-1"37'-8"26'-11"65'-8"65'-8"24'-6"40'-1"1'-1"DASHED 30" x 48" RECTANGLE INDICATES
MANEUVERING SPACE AT ACCESSIBLE
RESTROOMS - TYP. (ADA)
CLEARANCES AT SINGLE ACCOMODATION
TOILETS - TYP. (ADA)
ELEVATOR
DN
LOBBY
OPEN TO BELOW
skylight above
14'-0" x 12'-6"
BEDROOM
A
A-5
BATH
14'-10" x 12'-7"
13'-3" x 15'-3"
BATH
BEDROOM
14'-0" x 12'-6"
DN
BATH
SHOWER
RM.
15'-1" x 11'-10"LINENSALON
6'-10" x 7'-10"
PHARMACY
DINING & ACTIVITY
ROOM
19'-0" x 22'-8"
CONTROL
STATION
A-5
B
A-5
B
BEDROOM
15'-1" x 11'-9"
14'-10" x 12'-7"
SHOWER
RM.
ELECTRIC
FIREPLACE
BEDROOM
207 208 209
BEDROOM
15'-1" x 11'-9"
210
211212
BEDROOM
214
BEDROOM
215
BEDROOM
216
BATH
BATH
BEDROOM
15'-1" x 11'-9"
BATH
BATH
BATH
30" x 48"
A
A-5
N
87'-1"30'-4"1'-1"64'-7"2'-3"4'-2"32'-2"32'-4"16'-2"1'-1"22'-4"41'-2"1'-1"60'-11"23'-11"2'-3"18'-0"1'-91/2"44'-21/2"65'-8"4'-0"1'-0"9'-6"9'-0"8'-0"
87'-1"65'-8"1'-1"14'-71/2"49'-111/2"8"2"20'-8"2"8"6"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"6"6"19'-71/2"
18'-11/2"61/2"
BREAK ROOM
LAUNDRY
1A
UP
ELEVATOR
MACHINE
ROOM
ELEVATOR
ELECTRICAL
ROOM,TEL.
RAMP
TYP. STANDARDSPACESSTANDARD
PARKING SPACE
PARKING
LEGEND
A
A-5
A
A -5
UP
ACTIVITIES
OFFICE
A-5
B
A-5
B
10 % SLOPE
S2
5 %
SLOPE
STORAGE
20 % SLOPE
ENTRANCEENTRANCEENTRANCEENTRANCE3 S
&S4S5
&S6S7
11
WOHR COMBILIFT 542
9 STANDARD
PARKING SPACES
S
15 %
SLOPE
10 S
S8S&9
&
TS / DZ
1/8" = 1'-0"
PROPOSED LOT 2
FLOOR PLANS
FIRST FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN
FIRST FLOOR AREA:4,492 SQ. FT.SECOND FLOOR AREA:4,649 SQ. FT.
PARKING GARAGE
BASEMENT AREA: 5,254 SQ. FT.
1 11-01-20 D.Z.
LOT #1
389-06-020
SARATOGA CREEK DRIVE
SARATOGA, CA 95070
METRO
GROUP
DESIGN
DATE :
SCALE :
PROJECT NO :
DRAWN BY :
A-2.0
Palm Villas 11-17-20.pln11/18/202011:13 AMThe plans, ideas and design on this
drawing are the property of the
designer,divised solely for this
contract. Plans shall not be used,
in whole or in part, for any purpose
for which they were not intended
without the written permission of
METRO DESIGN GROUP. c
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS..
1475 S BASCOM AVE SUITE 208
CAMPBELL, CA 95008
(408)871-1071 phone
(408)871-1072 fax
www.metroarchitects.com
SHEET NUMBER
PALM VILLAS
SARATOGA
CHECKED BY :TS
ARCHITECT :TOM SLOAN
PROJECT NAME
15600
8-19-20
N105'-5"2'-41/2"8'-61/2"66'-1"8'-101/2"2'-10"28'-3"35'-71/2"19'-101/2"21'-8"45'-8"18'-0"2"10'-11"20'-10"61/2"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"6"6'-31/2"9'-6"9'-6"2"10"21/2"8'-0"9'-0"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"9'-7"105'-5"28'-3"21'-8"33'-10"21'-8"12"48"48"
19'-9"27'-101/2"16'-2"
88'-81/2"
2'-41/2"81'-4"5'-0"
88'-81/2"
24'-31/2"18'-0"
18'-2"
18'-11/2"
BREAK
ROOM
ELEVATOR
ELEVATOR
MACHINE
ROOM
RAMP
PARKING GARAGE
1
2
14
15
ELEVATORMACHINEROOM
UP
S
S
S
SSTANDARD PARKING SPACEPARKING
LEGEND
TYP. STANDARD
SPACE
TYP.STANDARDSPACEELECTRICAL
ROOM,TEL.
STAIR ON
GRADE
UP
LAUNDRY
A
A-5A-5
A
B
A-5
B
A-5
A-5
C
A-5
C
10 % SLOPE 15 %
SLOPE 5 % SLOPE
16 S
17 S
18 S
19 S
MAINTENANCE
ROOM
ELEVATOR
ENTRANCEENTRANCEENTRANCEENTRANCEENTRANCEENTRANCES5
&
S&S12 13
S&S10 11
S&S8 9
S7S
&S4
6
WOHR COMBILIFT 542
11 STANDARD
PARKING SPACES
S3
20 %
SLOPE
TS / DZ
1/8" = 1'-0"
PROPOSED LOT 1
PARKING GARAGE
PARKING GARAGE
BASEMENT AREA: 8,408 SQ. FT.
1 11-01-20 D.Z.
LOT #1
389-06-020
SARATOGA CREEK DRIVE
SARATOGA, CA 95070
METRO
GROUP
DESIGN
DATE :
SCALE :
PROJECT NO :
DRAWN BY :
A-5.0
Palm Villas 11-17-20.pln11/18/202011:13 AMThe plans, ideas and design on this
drawing are the property of the
designer,divised solely for this
contract. Plans shall not be used,
in whole or in part, for any purpose
for which they were not intended
without the written permission of
METRO DESIGN GROUP. c
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS..
1475 S BASCOM AVE SUITE 208
CAMPBELL, CA 95008
(408)871-1071 phone
(408)871-1072 fax
www.metroarchitects.com
SHEET NUMBER
PALM VILLAS
SARATOGA
CHECKED BY :TS
ARCHITECT :TOM SLOAN
PROJECT NAME
15600
8-19-20
25'-0"8'-0"17'-0"
19.05'8'-3"9'-6"1'-0"9'-6"12'-6"19'-11/2"13'-7"10'-0"6'-6"1'-6"9'-6"8.72'8'-3"55'-21/2"8'-0"
FIRST FLOOR
F.F.= 299.25'
BASEMENT
F.S.= 288.75'
SECOND FLOOR
F.F.= 310.25'
TOP PLATE
= 318.75'
DENOTES EXISTING GRADE
(E) 297.83'
14' ABOVE
AVERAGE
ELEVATION
AVERAGE
ELEVATION
= 298.88'
HIGHEST ELEVATION
OF THE STRUCTURE
WITHIN 30' FROM
PROPERTY LINE AT
RIDGE = 321.60'
296.01'-FLOW LINE @ DRIVEWAY
CENTRLINE
296.27'
296.15'-LIP
295.77'
290.00' 288.75'
293.82'
SARATOGA CREEK DRIVE
CLPL
FRONT
SETBACK LINE
PL
10 %
SLOPE
1.5 % SLOPE
LS
REQUIRED SIDE SETBACK
PARKING GARAGE
RAMP
SALONBEDROOMBEDROOM
STAIR
OFFICEBEDROOMBEDROOM
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
20 %
SLOPE
MIN. CLEARMIN. CLEAR5 %
15 %
SLOPE
A
C
B
25'-0"25'-0"30'-0"9'-6"6'-7"31/2"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"BASEMENT
F.S.= 288.75'
FIRST FLOOR
F.F.= 299.25'
TOP PLATE
= 319.75'
SECOND FLOOR
F.F.= 310.25'
AVERAGE
ELEVATION
= 298.88'
BASEMENT
F.S.= 288.75'
FIRST FLOOR
F.F.= 299.25'
TOP PLATE
= 319.75'
SECOND FLOOR
F.F.= 310.25'
AVERAGE ELEVATION
= 298.88'
TOP OF THE RIDGE = 328.88'
ALLOWABLE AND PROPOSED
TOP MOST ELEVATION PT. OF
THE STRUCTURE
LP LC
FRONT
SETBACK LINE
PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT ABOVEAVERAGE ELEVATION POINTSARATOGA CREEK DRIVEELEVATOR
PARKING GARAGE
BATH OPEN
ATRIUM BATHHALL HALL BATHCLO.CLO.
BATH BATHHALL HALL BATHCLO.CLO.
CAR LIFT PIT
BATHBATH
BATHPHARM.
ELECTRICAL
ROOM,TEL.
ELEVATOR
PIT
WOHR COMBILIFT 542
19.05'8.72'30'-0"14.00'13.74'4'-9"9'-0"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"BASEMENT
F.S.= 288.75'
FIRST FLOOR
F.F.= 299.25'
TOP PLATE
= 318.75'
SECOND FLOOR
F.F.= 310.25'
14' ABOVE
AVERAGE ELEVATION
AVERAGE ELEVATION
= 298.88'
HIGHEST ELEVATION
OF THE STRUCTURE
WITHIN 30' FROM
PROPERTY LINE AT
RIDGE = 321.60'
BASEMENT
F.S.= 288.75'
FIRST FLOOR
F.F.= 299.25'
TOP PLATE
= 319.75'
SECOND FLOOR
F.F.= 310.25'
AVERAGE
ELEVATION
= 298.88'
HIGHEST ELEVATION OF THE STRUCTURE
WITHIN 30' FROM PROPERTY LINE AT
RIDGE = 326.62'
14' ABOVE
AVERAGE
ELEVATION
ALLOWABLE AND PROPOSED
TOP MOST ELEVATION PT. OF
THE STRUCTURE = 328.88'
321.60'
TOP OF PARAPET WALL = 325.00'
LP
REQUIRED SIDE SETBACK
MECH.
EQUIP.
MECH.
EQUIP.
PARKING
GARAGE
OPEN ATRIUM
DINING & ACTIVITY
ROOMKITCHENELEVATORCOVERED
PORCH COMMUNITY
OUTREACH AREA BEDROOMHALLHALL
BEDROOMHALLCONTROL
STATION
DINING & ACTIVITY
ROOM HALL BATH CLO.
HALL
SECTION 'A'
DZ
CROSS SECTIONS
LOT 1
AS NOTED
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
SECTION 'C'
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
SECTION 'B'
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
SECTION 'A'
SECTION 'B'
SECTION 'C'
1 11-01-20 D.Z.
LOT #2
389-06-021
SARATOGA CREEK DRIVE
SARATOGA, CA 95070
METRO
GROUP
DESIGN
DATE :
SCALE :
PROJECT NO :
DRAWN BY :
A-5.0
Palm Villas 11-17-20.pln11/18/202011:13 AMThe plans, ideas and design on this
drawing are the property of the
designer,divised solely for this
contract. Plans shall not be used,
in whole or in part, for any purpose
for which they were not intended
without the written permission of
METRO DESIGN GROUP. c
REVISIONS
ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS..
1475 S BASCOM AVE SUITE 208
CAMPBELL, CA 95008
(408)871-1071 phone
(408)871-1072 fax
www.metroarchitects.com
SHEET NUMBER
PALM VILLAS
SARATOGA
CHECKED BY :TS
ARCHITECT :TOM SLOAN
PROJECT NAME
15601
8-19-20
25'-0"8'-0"17'-0"30'-0"4'-81/2"9'-6"1'-0"9'-6"1'-6"9'-6"6'-0"24"10'-0"4'-0"
1'-6"6'-6"10'-0"4'-0"15'-11"9'-0"6'-2"10'-0"8'-6"8'-3"2'-0"12'-0"8'-6"6'-7"8'-0"55'-1"
BASEMENT
F.S.= 288.50'
FIRST FLOOR
F.F.= 299.00'
SECOND FLOOR
F.F.= 310.00'
TOP PLATE
= 318.50'
TOP OF THE
RIDGE = 325.84'
TOP OF THE RIDGE = 326.71'
ALLOWABLE AND PROPOSED
TOP MOST ELEVATION PT. OF
THE STRUCTURE
AVERAGE ELEVATION
= 296.71'EXISTING GRADE
TOP OF PARAPET
WALL = 325.08'
PROPOSED FENCE
SEE DET 1/L-1 -SIM.
295.70'
295.96'-FLOW LINE @ DRIVEWAY
CENTERLINE
296.10'-LIP
296.20'
291.92'
289.50' 288.50'
NO FENCE, HEDGE, RETAINING WALL,
OR OTHER SIMILAR ELEMENT LOCATED
WITHIN A TRIANGLE HAVING SIDES
12' IN LENGTH FROM EITHER SIDE OF A
DRIVEWAY WHERE IT INTERSECTS WITH
EDGE OF PAVEMENT SHALL EXCEED 3' IN
HEIGHT ABOVE THE ESTABLISHED GRADE
OF THE ADJOINING STREET -TYP.
PARKING & DRIVEWAY
EASEMENT
295.10'
290.12'
LPLC
SARATOGA CREEK DRIVE
FRONT
SETBACK LINE
PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT ABOVEAVERAGE ELEVATION POINTMECH.
EQUIP.
MECH.
EQUIP.
DINING & ACTIVITY
ROOM
OFFICEPANTRY RESTRM RESTRM
RAMP
PARKING GARAGE
COURTYARD
BATH
DINING & ACTIVITY
ROOMBATHHALL
Lot 1 -296.10’ (flow line) and 296.24’ (Lip of gutter)
Lot 2 -296.07’ (flow line) and 296.21’ (Lip of gutter)
10 %
SLOPE
BALCONY
1.5 % SLOPE
20 %SLOPE
CAR LIFT PIT
5 %15 %
WOHR COMBILIFT 542
N 28'-0"14'-0"L = 10.10'R= 925.00D = 0°37'32"S 22° 42' 42"W13.00'
MID POINT
PROPERTY LINE
L = 85.08'R= 325.00D = 15°00'00"S 12° 48' 45" W45.00'N 25° 07' 20" E 99.38'N 28° 37' 35" E 43.00'S 60° 45' 24"W 164.88'
N 67° 17' 18"W 115.00'
N 67° 17' 18"W 42.92'INGRESS /EGRESSEASEMENTINGRESS /EGRESS
EASEMEN
T
SIDE SETBACK CALCULATION:147'-5"AVERAGE WIDTH OF THE SITE: 147.42'
147.42' x 10% = 14.74'
SIDE SETBACK: 14.74'
PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATION WITHIN 30 '
FROM PROPERTY LINE AT REAR SIDE OF
THE LOT: 326.71' ( SEE SECTION 'B' - SHEET A-5.0)
REQUIRED REAR SETBACK: 33.00'
PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATION WITHIN 30 '
FROM PROPERTY LINE AT NORTH SIDE OF
THE LOT: 325.87' ( SEE SECTION 'B' - SHEET A-5.0)
29.16'-14.00' = 15.16'
15.16' / 2 = 7.58'
14.74' + 7.58' = 22.32'
REQUIRED NORTH SIDE SETBACK : 22.32'
AVERAGE ELEVATION: 296.71'
30.00'-14.00' = 16.00'
16.00' / 2 = 8.00'
25.00' + 8.00' = 33.00'
AVERAGE ELEVATION: 296.71'
13.04'54.85'
20.00'13.99'
EXISTING TREES
EXISTING
GRADE
EXISTING
GRADE
298.0'
F.F. = 299.25'
F.S. = 288.75'
284.0'
282.0'
282.0'FL=281.5'
PROPOSED TREES
F.F. = 299.00'
F.S. = 288.50'
PL P
PROPOSED BUILDING LOT 2PROPOSED BUILDING LOT 1
SARATOGA CREEK DRIVE SARATOGA CREEK DRIVE
INGRESS /
EGRESS
EASEMENT
PARKING
& DRIVEWAY
EASEMENT
L
EXISTING
PARKING LOT
330
290
300
310
320 L
P
EXISTING
GARAGE 280
L 310
P
280
320
300
290
330
SARATOGA CREEK
DRIVE
SARATOGA
CREEK T O P O F C R E E KB A N KCENTERLINEOF THE CREEKSANTA CLARA WATER
DISTRICT EASEMENT
CREEK
PROTECTION
EASEMENT
25' CREEK SETBACK
A
13.00'30'-0"22.32'29.16'9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"BASEMENT
F.S.= 288.50'
TOP PLATE
= 318.50'
SECOND FLOOR
F.F.= 310.00'
FIRST FLOOR
F.F.= 298.00'
TOP OF THE RIDGE = 326.71'
ALLOWABLE AND PROPOSED
TOP MOST ELEVATION PT. OF
THE STRUCTURE
AVERAGE ELEVATION
= 296.71'
HIGHEST ELEVATION OF THE
STRUCTURE WITHIN 30' FROM
PROPERTY LINE AT RIDGE = 325.87'
AVERAGE ELEVATION
= 296.71'
EXISTING GRADE
PL
PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT ABOVEAVERAGE ELEVATION POINTPARKING EASEMENT
REQUIRED SIDE SETBACK
SL
BEDROOM
DINING & ACTIVITY
ROOM
CONTROL
STATION
DINING & ACTIVITY
ROOM
CONTROL
STATION BEDROOMHALL
HALL
PARKING GARAGE
B
SECTION 'A'
SECTIONS
LOT 2
AS NOTED
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
SETBACK CALCULATION
SITE SECTION '2'
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
SETBACK CALCULATION
SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"
DZ
SECTION 'B'
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
SECTION 'A'
SECTION 'B'
1 11-01-20 D.Z.
Memorandum
Date: November 18, 2020
To: Mr. Michael Sneper, Palm Villas
From: Gary Black, AICP - President
Subject: Response to November 11 Comments from Keith Higgins - Palm Villas Design Plan
in Saratoga
This memo addresses comments made by Keith Higgins in a letter dated November 11, 2020. In
two earlier memos, dated August 21 and October 27, 2020, Hexagon responded to comments from
Keith Higgins dated July 6 and September 9, 2020, on the Palm Villas design plan in Saratoga,
California. Higgins also submitted a letter dated November 1, 2020, which has been responded to in
a separate memo from Hexagon. Many of the comments and responses are the same or similar to
the earlier letters.
The following paragraphs list each comment from the Higgins letter and provide responses to each.
Comment: As indicated on Number 1 on Attachment 1A, a truck attempting to back into the
Lot 2 driveway toward the loading area must make a 3-point turn in the middle of
a public street, and then back up approximately 150 feet to the loading facility,
while traveling across both lanes of the driveway easement. This also requires
encroaching onto the Lot 1 driveway, which could be under separate ownership in
the future. This is shown at Number 1 on attachment. Turning around on Saratoga
Creek Dr. would result in blocking traffic on the public street in both directions
during the turnaround maneuver. The turnaround on Saratoga Creek Dr does not
demonstrate compliance with Saratoga Code Section 15-35.070 (b), which
requires that “sufficient room for turning and maneuvering vehicles shall be
provided on the site.” The Code requirement is to provide a maneuverable
loading area so that truck staging does not need to occur on a public street.
Response: This code provision does not prohibit backing into or out of a loading zone from
the adjacent street. Hexagon has revised the turn movement diagrams for an SU-
30 truck that show they can get in and out of the loading zone without
encroachment into the aisle (see attached). It is important to note that almost all of
the service vehicles coming to the site will be large vans, not single-unit trucks.
Examples of the vans are Dodge 3500 or Ford Transit. These vans can fit into a
standard parking space and have the same maneuverability as a passenger
vehicle.
Comment: The back-in maneuver fails to fit the truck into the loading space. As indicated at
the parked location designated by Number 2 on Attachment 1A; in order to clear
the end of the fence along the side of Parking Space 16, the back of the delivery
truck would extend 2 feet beyond the fence at the east of the loading area. The
loading area is clearly not long enough to accommodate this maneuver. This is a
violation of the Code.
Palm Villas Design Plan, Saratoga, CA October 27, 2020
Page | 2
Response: It is important to note that almost all of the service vehicles coming to the site will
be large vans, not single-unit trucks. Examples of the vans are Dodge 3500 or
Ford Transit. The attached diagrams show that these vans could easily use the
loading zone by driving in forward and turning around within the parking lot to exit.
Hexagon understands that loading zones are typically analyzed for SU-30 trucks;
examples are large UPS trucks. Even though this size of truck servicing the site
would be rare, the attached diagrams have been slightly revised to show that an
SU-30 truck could back fully into the loading zone, even with the fence, and could
exit out forward.
Comment: Option 2 – Forward Entry / Forward Exit (Attachments 2A and 2B, on-site
maneuver) –
As indicated by the truck turning template at location designated Number 1 on
Attachment 2A, it is not possible to fully enter the loading area without hitting the
fence on the east side of the loading area. The loading area is clearly not long
enough to accommodate this maneuver. This is a violation of the Code.
Response: The diagrams have been revised and are attached. The typical delivery vehicle
that would service the site could drive in forward, turn around on site, and exit
forward.
Comment: The truck parking location identified by Number 2 on Attachment 2A indicates
that the delivery truck is not able to park within the loading area. It encroaches
into the private street easement by about 2 or 3 feet, which has the potential to
impede vehicular traffic. This is a violation of the Code.
Response: All diagrams have been revised and show no encroachment into the driveway.
See the attached turning movement diagrams. (There is an access easement
through the lot 2 driveway, which is not a street per the City’s code definition.)
Comment: Number 1 on Attachment 2B highlights the location where the truck would be
required to perform an 8-point turnaround maneuver in order to exit the parking lot
in a forward direction. This would impede vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the
ingress/egress easement, which is a violation of the Code.
Response: The typical delivery vehicle servicing the site (cargo vans) could turn around on
site. An SU-30 truck could back in and exit forward. See the attached turning
movement diagrams.
Comment: Number 2 on Attachment 2B highlights the location where the truck would
encroach more than 3 feet beyond the east fence line of the enclosure. This
demonstrates that the loading space screening prevents a truck from completing a
turnaround maneuver onsite.
Response: Delivery trucks, even SU-30 trucks, could fit entirely within the loading zone. See
the attached turning movement diagrams.
Comment: Other issues with the turning template exhibits are as follows.
The truck turning templates do not indicate what is done with the gate for the
Palm Villas Design Plan, Saratoga, CA October 27, 2020
Page | 3
loading area enclosure. The templates use the entire length of the loading area for
maneuvering, while straddling several feet over the enclosure gate line. It will be
impractical if not impossible to provide an enclosure fence and still be able to
accommodate entry to the loading space as depicted in the templates.
Response: The revised turning diagrams show that only a portion of the fence would need to
be opened to admit trucks. The city code does not prohibit opening and closing of
a fence. This is typical of a loading area operation. See the attached turning
movement diagrams.
Comment: The templates use an SU-30 Single Unit Truck as the design vehicle, which has a
length of 30 feet. The loading area must be 45 feet long, which implies that it must
be able to handle a 40-foot long SU-40 Single Unit Truck. It is not possible for the
City or the Applicant to limit delivery trucks to a maximum length of 30 feet. The
loading area design will not be functional with a 30-foot truck, nor will it be
functional for a 40-foot truck.
Response: There is no need to analyze for an SU-40 truck. This size of truck would not be
servicing the site. Hexagon typically analyzes loading zones for an SU-30 truck
because this is a typical delivery truck size. However, in the case of Palm Villas, it
has been the applicant’s experience that its senior memory care facilities are
serviced by large vans and not SU-30 trucks.
Comment: The loading area will create sight distance limitations that are illustrated by the
truck turning templates. The first is the encroachment of a parked truck into the
drive aisle. This will impede the sight distance for Parking Space 16 and likely
Parking Space 15. Attachment 1B indicates that a delivery truck will exit the
loading dock and will not be able to observe passengers exiting Parking Space
16. The sight distance exhibit in the Metro Design Exhibit LF-1 of the Palm Villas
Letter provides a sight line assuming the vehicle in Space 16 has already backed
out of the space and is far enough to observe a westbound vehicle encroaching
into the eastbound lane. The vehicle is shown to be backing in the wrong direction
for exiting the parking lot to Saratoga Creek Dr. It does not address being able to
observe a westbound vehicle in its normal location in the westbound lane or if it
happens to be closer to the loading area fence line. It also does not consider
westbound pedestrians walking along the loading area fence line at Space 16.
This is illustrated on Attachment 3.
Response: Having a parking space against a fence is common in parking lots. In all parking
lots, motorists must be careful when backing out because of limited sight distance.
A motorist may be parked next to a panel van and would have no sight distance,
just like being parked next to a fence. The proposed design is not in any way
unusual or unsafe, and it is not prohibited by city code.
Comment: The last full paragraph of Page 3 of the Palm Villas Letter states that shift
changes will occur at 6am, 2pm and 10pm. This is consistent with my experience
on senior housing projects for which I have performed traffic analyses. This
demonstrates the importance of meeting all aspects of the Code parking
requirements for the project because the 2pm shift change, which will be the
largest shift change, will occur during or near the time of peak parking demand for
the medical and dental offices in the project vicinity. According to Parking
Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 5th Edition, January 2019,
Palm Villas Design Plan, Saratoga, CA October 27, 2020
Page | 4
medical and dental offices have 84% to 100% of their peak parking demand at
this time. General offices have about 93% to 97% of their peak parking demand at
2pm.
The proposed parking supply is calculated on Table 1 below, which is a recap of
the parking tabulation on Palm Villas – Saratoga (Lot 1), Plan Sheet A-0, Metro
Design Group, 8-14-20. This appears to be consistent with Article 15-25 of the
Saratoga Municipal Code.
Table 1 – Proposed Parking Requirement and Supply
Project
Component
No. of
Guests
Guests
per
Space
Guest
Spaces
Req’d
No. of
Doctors
Doctors
per
Space
Doctor
Spaces
Req’d
No.
of
Staff
Staff
per
Space
Staff
Spaces
Req’d
Total
Spaces
Required
/Provided
Lot 1 48 3 16 0 2 0 12 2 6 22 / 22
Lot 2 30 3 10 0 2 0 10 2 5 15 / 26
Total 78 3 26 0 2 0 22 2 11 37 / 48
The proposed parking supply is based on the anticipated staffing tabulated in
Table 2 on the following page, which is based on the summary on pg. 2-19, “Palm
Villas Saratoga Project Final Environmental Impact Report,” Dudek, August 2020.
Table 2 – Employee Count
Shift No. of
Employees
6am to 2pm 21
2pm to 10pm 14
10pm to 6am 5
Parking Attendant 1
Total Employees 41
Peak Parking Demand – 2pm
Shift Change plus Attendant
36
The project parking supply does not assume any doctors, although the Code
requires “one space for each two doctors providing medical services on a regular
basis.” An allowance of at least one space should be provided to accommodate
one or two doctors visiting each of the two lots, which could be under separate
ownership in the future. This would provide one on-site space reserved for a
doctor for emergency purposes and for convenient access for this essential
medical provider who should not be required to search for a parking space when
arriving at the site.
It should be noted that the Code only requires one space for every two
employees. In other words, only 11 employee spaces will be provided for the 36
employees who will be on-site during the 2pm shift change. It is critical that these
spaces be properly managed and that the correct number of standard parking
spaces are provided. Table 3 below summarizes the discussion of the effect of
the excess number of compact spaces on the likelihood of a project parking
deficiency.
Palm Villas Design Plan, Saratoga, CA October 27, 2020
Page | 5
Note: * - Exceeds 25% compact allowance, violating Municipal Code Section 15-
35.020 (i)
Table 3 Compact and Standard Parking Space Breakdown
Project
Component
Required
Parking
Supply
Proposed
Parking
Supply
Maximum
25%
Compact
Based on
Required
or
Proposed
Parking
Proposed
Compact
Spaces –
Car Lift /
Common
Proposed
Compact
Spaces -
Total
Minimum
Required
No. of
Standard
Spaces
(difference
between
max
compacts
and total
spaces)
Provided
Standard
Spaces
Standard
Space
Deficiency
Lot 1 22 22 5 11 / 2 13* 17 9 8 deficient
Lot 2 15 26 6 9 / 4 13* 11 13 2 surplus
Total 37 48 11 20 / 6 26* 28 22 6 deficient
Note: * - Exceeds 25% compact allowance, violating Municipal Code Section 15-35.020 (i)
As stated in my previous letter, the project will exceed the allowable percentage of
compact spaces. The project attempts to make up for this by providing a surplus
number of parking spaces on Lot 2. However, this still does not provide an
adequate number of standard spaces. The deficiency in standard spaces is
further aggravated by the use of automated parking because they cannot be used
at all by vehicles that exceed the width, height, or length that can be
accommodated by the parking system. This was discussed in detail in my
November 1, 2020 letter.
Response: The garage plans have been revised to include mechanical lift systems with
parking stall dimensions of 9.5’ by 18’, which complies with the Saratoga code.
There will be only 4 compact parking stalls (of 48 spaces), which is 8.3% of the
total number of spaces. This complies with the Saratoga parking code.
Comment: Overflow parking from the project will likely result from any of the following, which
are described in my previous correspondence.
1. The inadequate number of standard parking spaces.
2. No allowance for doctor parking.
3. The inability to find an open space even if one is available due to the
fragmented parking lots.
4. The comparative inconvenience of parking in an underground parking
area.
5. Additional comparative inconvenience of parking in the proposed
Palm Villas Design Plan, Saratoga, CA October 27, 2020
Page | 6
mechanical parking systems in the project’s underground parking lot.
6. The comparative difficulty in parking in the underground and certain
surface parking spaces that would require multiple maneuvers to enter and
exit.
Response: The gist of this comment and many of the comments by Mr. Higgins in previous
letters is the contention that employees and visitors to Palm Villas would park off
site in some other property’s parking lot rather than using the parking facilities at
Palm Villas. This contention is not supported by the facts of this project. First, the
project provides more parking than required by the code and as determined
necessary both by the Hexagon parking study and the Fehr & Peers parking study
of similar facilities. Second, Mr. Higgins believes that particular parking spaces are
designated for particular users, which is false. While project employees will be
asked to park in the mechanical lift spaces, all spaces will be available to anyone
coming to the site. The parking lots of the surrounding properties are farther away
from the entrances to the Palm Villas buildings than are the on-site parking lots. It
has been Hexagon’s observation over decades of parking studies that motorists
park as close to building entrances as possible. Palm Villas is proposing more
stalls than required, and in every case they are closer to the buildings than the
surrounding properties. None of the claims by Mr. Higgins in this letter are
supported by the facts. These arguments are speculation based on inaccurate or
inapplicable assumptions.
Comment: There are remaining issues regarding the ramps providing access and egress to
and from the underground parking on Lots 1 and 2. Grade breaks greater than 2%
are generally required to include a vertical curve. This does not appear to be the
case for this project, as shown on Attachments 4A through 4E. An analysis of the
ramp vertical alignment still has not been provided. Also, the adequacy of sight
distance provided as a vehicle exits the ramp has not been established. The sight
distance needs to accommodate vehicular traffic on Saratoga Creek Drive and
pedestrian and bicycle traffic along the sidewalks. In addition, this project has the
unique characteristic of potentially generating pedestrians using wheelchairs and
walkers. A slow-moving pedestrian in a wheelchair could be in the sidewalk at the
end of the ramp and not be visible over the front hood of the vehicle as it exits the
ramp. This needs to be analyzed as well.
Response: This is a repeat comment that was already addressed in the October 27, 2020
response to comments.
Comment: The separation of the project into two buildings separated by a public street
results in long distances for ADA travel between businesses. This is compounded
by the circuitous path of travel between the front doors of the buildings on the two
lots as shown on Attachment 5. A straight-line path of travel may be taken to
minimize the walking distance. This problem also will occur if the single surface
ADA parking space is occupied or blocked that serves the building that is the
destination of someone arriving at the project. They would be required to park at
the available ADA space across the street. This would result in a similar very long
path of travel to reach their destination. It is understood that an ADA space will
also be provided in the underground parking for each building. However, this
space will not be readily apparent to someone arriving at the project. The
fragmented locations of the ADA spaces will be problematic and likely to result in
Palm Villas Design Plan, Saratoga, CA October 27, 2020
Page | 7
disabled pedestrians being required to cross the public street. Further they likely
will be tempted to follow a straight-line path, which would result in crossing outside
the crosswalk.
Response: Palm Villas proposes adequate ADA parking for each building separately in
accordance with the building code. There is no expectation that disabled people
would need to cross the street.
Attachments
1. Turning radius diagrams for delivery area.
CHECKEDCITY OF SARATOGAPALM VILLASTURNING TEMPLATE EXHIBITHEXAGON TRANSPORTATIONCONSULTANTS, INC.4 North Second Street, Suite 400San Jose, California 95113Ph: (408) 971-6100 www.hextrans.comFIGURE NO.DRAWNDATESCALECONCEPTUALPLANNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
CHECKEDCITY OF SARATOGAPALM VILLASTURNING TEMPLATE EXHIBITHEXAGON TRANSPORTATIONCONSULTANTS, INC.4 North Second Street, Suite 400San Jose, California 95113Ph: (408) 971-6100 www.hextrans.comFIGURE NO.DRAWNDATESCALECONCEPTUALPLANNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
CHECKEDCITY OF SARATOGAPALM VILLASTURNING TEMPLATE EXHIBITHEXAGON TRANSPORTATIONCONSULTANTS, INC.4 North Second Street, Suite 400San Jose, California 95113Ph: (408) 971-6100 www.hextrans.comFIGURE NO.DRAWNDATESCALECONCEPTUALPLANNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
CHECKEDCITY OF SARATOGAPALM VILLASTURNING TEMPLATE EXHIBITHEXAGON TRANSPORTATIONCONSULTANTS, INC.4 North Second Street, Suite 400San Jose, California 95113Ph: (408) 971-6100 www.hextrans.comFIGURE NO.DRAWNDATESCALECONCEPTUALPLANNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
The traffic report from Mr. Abrams includes a comment: “Lot 4 of the Saratoga Professional Village has a driveway
easement over the proposed Palm Villas Parcel 2 parking lot, connecting to the extension of Saratoga Creek Drive. The
driveway easement serves as the primary access to the Lot 4 parking easement on the east end of Parcel 2. The future
development of Lot 4 will require standard driveway aisles and parking space dimensions. This improvement should be
illustrated on the project site plan to document that adequate setbacks and parking aisle intersections can be designed
properly.”
Response:
It is likely that Lot 4 will front on Village Dr. - same as 12961 Village Dr. Whereas, Lot 4 is next door to 12961 Village Dr., it
will have a Village Dr. address as well. Primary vehicle access to Lot 4 parking will most probably be from Village Dr. and
then by way of bi-directional vehicle connectors on both sides of the lot. Long Established "bi-directional vehicle travel
arrows" have been painted on the pavement and are well defined. It is highly unlikely that vehicles will access Lot 4
primarily via Saratoga Creek Dr. E.g. drive thru Palm Villas and then enter Lot 4 by way of the non-exclusive easement.
Further, the Palm Villas project plans show that the project has been designed to accommodate and comply with the
terms of the non-exclusive easements for driveway access and parking. The project does not include any barriers to the
appropriate use of these easement areas and access is available to Lot 4. The design and site plan development of Lot 4,
which is not part of the project and is owned by a separate party, is unknown and speculative. At the time Lot 4 is
developed, that project must comply with applicable City Codes with respect to the use, design, setbacks, and parking in
effect at the time such an application is submitted to the City. Use of these easements by the potential future users of Lot
4 would require consistency with the easement dimensions and terms.
12961 Village Dr. with Established Bi‐Directional Vehicle Travel Markings
Lot 4 – The Vacant Site Next Door to The North
Established Bi‐Directional Vehicle Travel Markings
Lot 4 ‐ Likely Primary Access from Village Drive.
City Council Appeal Hearing 11/18/2020 SMRH:4815‐9073‐0706.1 ‐1‐ Palm Villas Project Compliance With City Law Code Description Code Compliance Open Space Conservation Element (OSC), Policies 5.1, 5.4, 5.8 No Trail Required. City requires trails to be guided by City’s Trails Master Plan, with linkages to other trails, and prohibits trails along Saratoga Creek in the project area adjacent to residential properties. No City plans for creek‐side trail through Lot 1. OSC prohibits trails adjacent to residential neighborhoods, which border Lot 1. No practicable possibility for linkage to other regional/citywide trail. Steep creek bank and dense riparian vegetation make creek‐side trail on Lot 1 infeasible. Section 15‐35.020(h) Parking Met or Exceeded. Off‐street parking spaces shall be located on the same site as the use for which the spaces are required or on an adjacent site. Each building site meets or exceeds the number of required spaces. Lot 1 requirement: 22 spaces. Lot 1 has 22 spaces. Lot 2 requirement: 15 spaces. Lot 2 has 26 spaces. Total required spaces: 37. Total provided spaces: 48. No shared parking is necessary. Shared parking is allowed because the lots are adjacent and share a common boundary line in the center of the road. Section 15‐35.050(g) Loading Zone Allowed on adjoining Lot 2. Off‐street loading zone shall be located on the same site as the use for which the loading zone is required, or on an adjacent site. Project requires 1 loading space located on Lot 2. Lots are adjacent (nearby) and adjoining (common boundary). Section 15‐350.040(e) Spaces Are Independently Accessible. Each parking space shall be independently accessible. All parking spaces are independently accessible. No tandem spaces. No valet parking. Parking lift vehicle rotation allows each driver to independently enter and exit the spaces. Multiple lift spaces simultaneously available. (Harding Steel, WOHR Combilift 542) Section 15‐35.020(i) Lift Spaces Are Full Size. 8.3% Compact Spaces. No more than 25% of the parking spaces may be compact spaces. The lift spaces will be full size: 18’X9’6”. (See garage parking plans with Harding Steel lifts.) Only 4 of the 48 parking stalls are designated as Compact Parking Stalls. (8.3%)
City Council Appeal Hearing 11/18/2020 SMRH:4815‐9073‐0706.1 ‐2‐ Code Description Code Compliance Sections 15‐06.587 and 15‐06.660 Setback Measured From Lot Line. Setback must be measured from lot line, not driveway. Street means an existing permanent public or private right‐of‐way, which is used as the principal means of access to abutting properties. 28’ wide ingress and egress easement/driveway within Lot 2’s parking lot is not a “street,” because it is not a principal means of access to an abutting lot. Lots identified by appellant have principal access via Saratoga Creek Drive, Village Drive, or Saratoga Avenue. The setback requirements are properly measured from the side property line. Sections 15‐18.100(b) and 15‐80.010(c) Landscaping Provided with Allowable Exceptions. 10 feet of the required front setback area shall be landscaped and permanently maintained. Exceptions include walks, driveways, parking areas, decks, platforms and patios. Landscaping in front setback meets the requirement. Areas for pedestrian and vehicular access to the site and parking are allowed Code exceptions. Section 15‐35.070(b) Sufficient Turning Space for Delivery Vehicles. Sufficient room for turning and maneuvering vehicles shall be provided on the site. Hexagon turning studies show that large trucks (SU‐30) can maneuver on site. Trucks are not prohibited from entering or exiting the site by backing up using the street. Project will not require large trucks (such as SU‐30). Hexagon turning studies for the type of project delivery vans/trucks show all maneuvering can occur on site. Section 15‐35.070(h) Loading Area Screened. Loading area screened from adjoining sites. Screen provided around loading area. There is no Code prohibition on moving screens as needed to accommodate delivery trucks. Project requires small vans and trucks for the few regular monthly deliveries, which will easily fit behind the screen. Section 15‐35.070(h) Loading area not allowed in setback area. Side setback requirement is 14.74’. Project loading area located 35’ from the side lot line.
City Council Appeal Hearing 11/18/2020 SMRH:4815‐9073‐0706.1 ‐3‐ Code Description Code Compliance Loading Area Not in Required Side Setback. Lot 2 driveway is not a street per Section 15‐06.660. See above. Section 14‐25.030 Subdivision Approval Requirements Requirements for streets pursuant to a subdivision approval. Project does not require a subdivision approval. The parcel map was previously approved.
1
Palm Villas Project Appeal
City Council Hearing 11/18/20
Response to Appellant’s Proposal For a Trail Along Saratoga Creek
The appellant and members of the Save Saratoga Creek organization are critical of the
City for not exacting an easement on the top of bank of Saratoga Creek for a pathway to
connect Brookglen Park to Jones Trail.
There are several key responses to deny exacting such an easement:
1.A trail in this area to create a connection from Brookglen Park to Jones Trail is
not shown on the General Plan.
2.City policy is not to place trails through the backyards of residences along
Saratoga Creek between Prospect Avenue and Tollgate Road (Open Space and
Conservation Element, Policy 5.8).
3.It is not possible to extend a trail or pathway through the Vineyards
condominium development.
a.At the time of subdivision the City did anticipate a pathway along the bank
of the creek at the rear of the Vineyards.
b.Residents petitioned that this not be implemented.
c.The petition was referred to the Trails and Pathways Committee for study
and recommendation.
d.The committee recommended that there be no pathway.
e.City Council formally rescinded any condition of installation of a pathway
for this area of approximately 925 feet.
f.Today the interior roadway and resident parking spaces abut the top of
bank that is fully landscaped and includes large sycamores and redwood
trees; in places the top of bank is only a few feet wide.
g.The residents then complained of incidents of car break-ins and
thefts. These incidents still occur and remain a concern to the present
residents who would find an open trail rather than tree cover adjacent to
their private road and parking.
4.There is a pathway – sidewalk and bike lanes from Brookglen Park to the point of
where the Jones trail connects to Saratoga Avenue south of Highway 85.
5.Finally, the expanse of right of way for Highway 85 that crosses Saratoga Avenue
and proceeds west is great – it includes not only separated lanes in each direction
but on and off ramps to and from Saratoga Avenue. There is no creek bank
2
under the highway crossing. There are sound walls on either side of the
highway. Adjacent to that right of way is railroad right of way. Spanning these
combined right of ways requires a pedestrian bridge of approximately 450 ft. at
20 ft. in height, to which must be added ramps on either side that meet ADA
standards. See attached exhibit. This is an engineering and construction cost of
multi-millions of dollars.
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE -
APPROX. 450 FEET IN
LENGTH & 20 FEET IN
HEIGHT - NOT INCLUDING
300 FOOT LONG ADA RAMPS
JOE'S TRAIL
EXISTING SIDEWALKS
RAILROAD
TRACKS
OVERHEAD
POWER LINES
FREEWAY WITH
ON AND OFF
RAMPS
IMPOSSIBLE CROSSING