HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020_11-18 FINAL appellant written comm
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 appellant were received after the
November 18, 2020 Council agenda was published.
~PRICE, POSTEL Se PARMA LLPTodd A. Amspoker
Susan M. Barham Couuse/lors at Law
Kristen M. R. Blabey
Shannon D. Boyd
Timothy M. Cary 200 East Camllo Street, Suite 400
Tara L. Christian Santa Barbara, CA 93101-2190
Melissa J. Fassett
Ian M. Fisher Mailing Address: P.O. Box 99
Arthur R. Gaudi
Cameron Goodnkvt Santa Barbua, CA 93102-0099
Emily B. Hazringcon
Christopher E. Haskell www.ppplaw.com
James H. Hurley, Jr.
Eric P. Hvolball Ph (805) 962-0011 Fax (805) 965-3978
Mark S. Manion
Steven K. McGuire email:
Our File Number:
22899-2
November 18, 2020
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Members of the City Council
Mayor Howard Miller
Mary-Lynne Bernald
Rishi Kumar
Yan Zhao
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Timothy E. Metzinger
Shereef Moharram
Craig A. Parton
Kenneth J. Pontifex
Douglas D. Rossi
Peter D. Slaughter
David W. Van Horne
C.E. Chip Wullbrandt
Ryan D. Zick
CAMERON PARK OFFICE
3330 Cameron Pazk Drive, Swte 100
Cameron Park, CA 95682-7652
Ph (805) 962-0011
Fax (805) 965-3978
Re: Appeal of the Palm Villas Saratoga Project, CUP15-002/PDR15-0019
November 1$, 2020
Dear Mayor Miller, and Members of the City Council:
After sending in our letter yesterday, we noticed another significant violation of the
City's municipal code caused by the proposed Project. On April 16, 2015, in response to the
developer's first development application, the City notified the developer that "the rear setback
for structures in the Professional/Administrative (PA) zoning district are 25 feet from the rear
properly line, plus two feet for each one foot of structure height above 14 feet." (April I6, 20I5
letter attached.) These mandatory setback rules are still applicable. (See Saratoga Municipal
Code sections 15-46.035(a) ("Where a protected creek passes through or along a building site.
building setbacks for any new construction shall be measured from the top of creek bank on the
City Council of Saratoga
November 18, 2020
Page 2
site rather than from the property lines of the site.") and 15-18.080(a)(3) ("One foot shall be
added to the minimum rear setback area for each two feet of height by which a structure exceeds
fourteen feet in height.").) The proposed building on Lot 1 still violates these mandatory
setbacks. The developer is proposing a 25-foot setback from the designated top of bank. (See
attached site plan for Lot l.) However, the building on Lot 1 is 30 feet high. (See attached
building elevation for Lot 1.) This means that 33 feet of rear setback must be provided, 8 feet in
excess of what is illegally proposed.
This is yet again another violation of the City's municipal code, and again requires that
the Project be redesigned so that it is in compliance with the City's laws. As we have indicated
before, it should be staff s duty, not Mr. Abrams' duty, to ensure that the proposed development
conforms with the City's development rules.
This violation also supports the Abrams family's contention that the City cannot support
the required findings for a CUP on this project. In particular, the rear setback clearly violates the
City's municipal code, and section 15-55.070(c) cannot be satisfied. In addition, the enhanced
setback requirement for creeks and taller buildings is clearly intended to prevent the obvious
adverse community consequences caused by towering buildings next to creeks and lot lines.
Therefore, section 15-55.070(b) cannot be satisfied either.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Very Truly Yours,
Todd A. Amspoker
For PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP
cc: Daryl Abrams
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 8b8-1200
April 16, 2015
Golden Age Properites
Attn: Michael Sneper
3333 S. Bascom Ave.
Campbell, CA 95008
RE: Application No. CUP15-0002/Conditional Use Permit Application —
Vacant Lot at Saratoga Creek Dr,: Application Deemed Incomplete
Dear Mr. Sneper:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Mary-Lynne Bernald
Mann y Cnpge[lo
Rishi Kurnnr
Emir Lo
Hozvard Miller
The Planning Department has reviewed your request for an Conditional Use Permit to construct a
assisted living facility on a vacant lot located on Saratoga Creek Drive (near Cox Avenue). Prior
to continuing the processing of your application, please provide the following:
Community Development Department
Design Review. The proposed use will require the construction of a new medical office
building on the vacant site. Please provide staff with a Design Review application
demonstrating the proposed building that will be used to accommodate the proposed use.
Please include conceptual grading/drainage plan as well as locations for potential trash
enclosures (for solid and hazardous/medical waste). Please see City Code Section 15-46.030
for design review application requirements.
2. Setbacks and Top Bank of Creek for Lot 1. The rear setback for structures in the
Professional/Administrative (PA) zoning district are 25 feet from the rear property line, plus
two feet for each one foot of structure height above 14 feet. Where a protected creek passes
through or along a building site, building setbacks for any new construction shall be
measured from the top creek bank on the site rather than property line. Please delineate the
top bank of creek and demonstrate how the proposed building will meet the setback
requirement.
3. Average Width. Please confirm the average width of the site (both Lot 1 and Lot 2), which
is required to detezmine the required side setback.
4. Neighbor Notification. Provide signed neighbor notification forms from adjacent home /
business owners that may potentially be impacted by the project.
5. Story poles. After your project application is deemed "complete" you will be asked to install
Story Poles showing the roof lines and general area of the project. The project will not be
scheduled for approval until after the story poles are inspected by the Planner. Story poles
shall not be removed until the end of the appeal period/final decision.
Please bear in mind that it is always difficult to identify all issues at this stage of your
application, and there may be additional information requested by the Planning Department or
other agencies during the review process. For additional information concerning the City of
Saratoga's code sections please refer to our web site www.sarato ga ca.us. Click on municipal
codes and use the search engine to find specific sections.
Please be advised that the proposed project cannot be deemed complete until all issues and
concerns have been addressed.
If you have any questions, please call me at 408-868-1212
Respectfully,
~~.c~,
Michael Fos i
Planner
~_~ ►ROFFSSION~L ~~~n ~n~ ~iac vice s~ifwxM•xaa~vou•11DMINETRATIVE ~+~[ ~ws~r~~a~~:art~~~ EJEI➢IG p~gSR1G ~imSMD V~o~F is MF-m.(El w000~d[F--~-_ _ wcs[w`ru uiu r~xum u~ua c°~T°~1°~ ry~mcvoE Haar. ri.a.iwnwugea uscrerty m4v~w. m. ~ ~~~~ ~—,...,Mplp '~ \'- 10 \ (EI ~9'j- '_" yam N 77' 1~~ 1 -3~ ~ 139.09 iswwa „a,J PALM v[LLAS -. ~' ~-- _ _ _PARKING i i ~ ~ i -- --i--- --A.xrwcn.E. ---- --_= _---=-=---= _ gr;,Ea - - _.i -T~~__+-~~ ~ _-'~ S~ ~ mxr.u. i ~ ~ --~n ~ ~ ~ ~ a' ~ly~~p• um s rnaR+ormE '_'-' ~ ~ ~ i i -- ~ iii~~, 'i ' ~ ~ Sy~ppE I ~ TREE VRO~ECTiON FENQMG _ i i ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ensn ~imac w~x.xrt umewc '__ i ~_'~=~Z96 ~~ ti ~~ iscxc. i', ru !. N 6 ° OT 10"W 16115 I i ~ ~ ~ $~ ~ i ~ ~ i i i _"_r i2 msr.0 vo, a~w.w uiuxc 9~ i '~^-~~ ~.i _... %~ '. i i qi i i ;i.SIGNAGE DET_pil _ni\ i ImE a* ~r m~ rmoews eor~ RAMP .... ~~y, ~ ~ .~ ~~'. YI ' ,_._... b.l~! ~ ~ ~1 1 a ~ ry ~ ~\ ~ I ~, ~'wY siOVE iSavE .. il~a~~ 1 1 ~ w '~ Ill 61 ~~~N ~' ~ ;. ~ ~ N'° '. 1` ~moK i ~ I \~ .. F.F =zssas ~".:w.Nuwa ~ i i ~ F-. n+c ►~ ..I a~ o- s ~~ I ~ -og __~i ~ ~ I \ tE1 u'.~o• 1 I ~t i 1 ~~O I I B~` ~ ~ 1 eioweeaar ~ ; ~ ' ~ n m _. _ ~_ l _ ~ 1 13 i '- +n.a`~ ~ 1~ 1 _ ~! ~E~' ~ ~ ` - eQflESf E1EV~T10N PoQ?IX y ~~~ 1b I 161 N ~. ~ _E', U\ iJ$ i ~ ~ ~ r ' 1 i ;I ~ 1 ~ ~i ~ ~ ~b' t ~ ~ i ~ 1Dior ~r TMe euaoae>en.~~ ~~IGlFS cMgOSfDnona ory exo wc-~ ~_I~- sewea ~ Y~E ~~~~ Iw_L'~`~~ri I~1I....Y ~~ WplSINGLE a~) ~~ ~ ~~;~~~~.µ~~~ ~FAMILY 3 ~a~';/ ~~ a~III '~I/a ~~~ E~,rwaff,~~%~~.i;',':55~~~~ ~.'~9 URESIDENTIAL ~N~\`a`:~~'~ ~ ~; ~ ~~ ~ ~»~h,:~h~ ....~I6. 'i/ v~~ ~QR- 12,500NIO~o~ ~. ~~%~; ; ~' ~~ • IIPARCEL 1I~L` ;/, .~ ~~'~.,S:~t~S~Jr~smr,~,~r. I1~~`+~"f"'+ ~~PROPOSED TWO-STORYBUILDING~l''O 'Af'QI~d'~1 ~ ~1.~ ~ I ~~ lfl u`,u'r ~ ~ ~ -i'` 4 ~~ 1~'_F.F. 299.25 h'y/FS: 2BBJS Amin ~~~~maxS'1~~,'~!~ .~M~i':.'iC ~",i:viwm :Mi..~~~/~n. ,J~.~ ~ ~ hr i ~' __.-----'"_`{]aa~aa~ °ro_. T a °1j~'0r i;;::; ~ r q,,Q'~;rn I ~ ~ ~ ~1 -- .ors en,*r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ;5>'` ~` y~~,.~ ' ~ " ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ Onucacsio1 - ~ ~ r ~u ~~-~ ~ ~~ ~ 1 ~ y i -~nos: ~ ; , , ~ i ~ ~ I ~ . ~ry -~l` &a•'~ b i ^~ f-'oa,,.L GRIOI2lO FWNOlTION INSGECfION BY THE CI7V,. I h11P.lR'b~R~ ~; ~~ I ~.0 T '~ J1THE LLS OF RECORD SMALL VROVIDE A WRITTEN ' , ~~~i' ~ ~ I ~ ' S ~ / ~ /"~ ~ceanFlunoHnurnueunnu~sersnta ~ v~ ` ~1 /~ ~ ~'~. — ---- ~ ~%%~~ ~~ ~pi l..ARE PE0. THE APVROVED PLANS. ~ ~ aD ~. ~ ~ti ~ A ~ ~ / ~ ~- *I&OY ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •'~55 &f -- - ~~j 1~ N N~NwN % 1 ' I ~ ~ \ O~TI OF l4(NEt / ^ 7~ ~ ~~~1 DISPOSITION AN07RFATMEM OF STORM WATER' p~ N f ~ ~/ ,~~.: ~.\ ~ 4?9' y - '~/I ~ y~vnu cona~r wrtN nee runora~ aouunoN ' „a, ti m a . . a x~ / - ~ ~~ mDISCHARGE EIIMINAiION 5Y5'fEM ('NVOES') ~ ~:. ~ -~ „J / B'8 ri ~ ~''~STMIDMDS AND IMVIEMENTAl70N 5fAN~ARDS 14D11E19'.lY ~ ~ .3 '~°~ ~ ` tiw iIR.PFSTABLSHED BY THE S1HTA QARF VALLEY URBAN r RUE sDEveeRv~ •A Sy~e~ t '• p ' 3' . , ~. •"~ R ^fwrwc~vouunor~va~vErmor+v~nn. ~ r~.uocsruwxr ~"!s*E ~ .: i ~~ ~, /~SiE ~I~II LEGEND I ~ ;~ 1162p, ~ ~~ t /'k~ ; mxv au• jp~ ~ ~~ ~ I ~ie~.n~r~ -------- mioe+E ~ -.{7w'aurzchnans ffErcte -_ _ ~ '`/ e~ -. ~ , i ~ / ;mmoe ~wbx rurtwa r ...... ...... __.. r~o~snw. O ,— Ov~aortei~wx~r~~ertxr O's'°'un°'-TMr '', ~,8 ~.... ,, ~ '//. ~ ' `~;~ ~(fl ~rl¢m~rw~x —+_+_ m~nartwL _ pyplUtE5IX6t1nG ...~OEtgiES PREfiSi cOx~Eie' ~ / %i i i1RfE51IR1V 1111E Mv9l55KlEM-T9. ~~ ~'. \~ / ' `~1` I~ ~~f.VA'M¢m RNA fLS~p4m¢m — W ````3 m~r.urou~ ~a~xuw sam ~orc `'`'-~, .'"~+~:~,~ --' ~'' :!riu.~ewmru ~ °as'~~ n.r~um wrnxc \ - rtxct. z~uma.iw~ - ~~\__,vas ~ om~ans is \`"F"1_--- - ~8 ~'%z ~ cwr.~r wwowswa c ~VA~~ _ ~o~tuc ~aamaurw ~ ~ --Isq*~ ~A$i~i~N•• ~ o-~ ZONED PROFESSIONAL ~ '~- ~~*°~~°~~ ~ "_!/(~ ~~OY DEBdUX f116, M.1.W.19.20~6` 5~~<--1B WmE 5N1i~QAM WA00D CILLJ ``.rsE..m,Ecnw nu we~.~vo..a toi J &ADMINISTRATNE _ _- ~f~ w•,t•o~*.~«.. ~.,.o.,.,.`~~ ~~ ~ is wmE ul[iSSa H.vai~ F9MIDDG~IUWl3~~~`s,,~M E T R ODESIGNuwn~vc Giur~OwsaP~VROJECT NAMEPALM VILLASSARATOGAw~,izoSARNTOW CREFI( DRIVESNFPTOCA. U 950)0REVISIONS"~ ~~wii!.t~'~ ~ ~~:,4'~~aSEE PROVOSED`iPROPOSEDSITE DEVELOPMENTSITE DEVELOPMENTULAN FOR LOT 2p~Ni`~DATE : &3420vei c : 1' = 10'-0'~ssw~s+x ~`°'r~z'~iF11 p~4'y+m.ry~~ PoohWc~peys sOIE~~ BY : l5APLM7IECf : TOM SLW/VPOIC{T NO : L600SHFET NUMBER~IA-1.2
rov or Tx[ uocE = au.ss•~~ sw.~s r~oa~o~sr~~vnno~vr~. ofiovocrNe ~ 3 ------ --------- —ROOF = 11&67' - 1 5.~~ 7 -_ - :... _ _ ,'. \ '.}28 7517 71-.,.... '. ~_ _ _~_ ~.__ __.~~ WTD►OF WML _ _ _~.~~ '~ b t1 i tl d rare 3ia ~s ~ P—~PIATE s ]18.75' ~ ~ ' _+,vr. •...••_ - t_TOP OF WALLf,,v ' j ~ ~ tv ~ Cn ..... ._. .._ _ ..__ ... ....-- _- S~ ~ Wx',SECOND iLOOR _ _ ~ — .._F.F.s 310.35' $- - - - _ ~. _. __ - ..,`~', ,. `r $ ~~10.25UR o ~~' iWSf7NG GRADE I`'o ~`n'. FIRSf FLOOR ~ ~ ~_-- • •.. ~. ~~ I ~ ~ 'w.• ~ f ., ... I RRSfI99.ISF.f.= 299.25' ~ _...... _ _ _ -_ _.LAVENGEELEVAT[ONAVERAGE ELEVATION -2982!' j 7 . 2—~ ..397.70'300AT ~ LOWEST ELEVATIONHIGHEST ELEVATION POINT OF FINISNED 29s`m~ POI1R OF THE lATTHE LOT AT THE BUILDING EDGE GRADE = 299A8• AVERMiE ELEVATION 707M AT THE BUILDING EDGEAT VJESf ELEVATION~~- — o ate: ~~,.s,~~~ o ~: Kw...,~,~SOUTH ELEVATION ~,. .`-~ o ,.~~ 5~, ~..~. ~,,,m„E a ❑,~,~,~~.,~, ~ ~.o ~~ w~~:- ~~b~~ ~~ ~a9~o ~a~w~~ ~E ~~~~ ago.,moo. o ~~m.G wo na s: rov or nee aces = s7a.ss•:.,~~ ~ nuavneit ,wo morosm330.75' ~ W, ~o TOP hgST ELEVATION 7f. OFTOV OF TlIE 1 ~~ 328.75' :. 7 5 . LOP OF RAT TOP OF GARAPET '...~ ~ 3 328.86 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _n~0.00E 320.25 WALL & EIEV.SHAFT = 325.00'ROOF = 326.62' I b„i - - - _ _ - ~._.. I '..~ .1. __ 30.00' _ _ -%9.05'_ _.~.: _...:. `" f1.~1__G tl tl _f~ b tl "^~. — _ — -~-~riahF i~iaLL.~1 ~ mSECOND FLOOR _~ .:' ~-„~. ~ .~...-~~...~ '; :'-:v '. ...,.. - __- _ _.-__. _. ~.~._~...._. _ ... ...... ...._'~_..,.. 4 _.._. - SKOND FLOOR~ FF.= 310.35' ~ F.F.= 310.35' I ~ laEl4S~ING GRME ~~~~.~{.~~~ i ~ f $ fRRST FLOOR .I, ~,-=~~ ~ +'-~ '. i aF.F.= 299.55' ~ ~~~ ~~~1` JJ ~ ~ fI0.ST FLOOR(EPk99.60' 7 ._. ' i :j } _. ~ _ _ _ _ ~ _'. F.F.= 399.35'~/ } __K' '__"" _-'"_ '~__ - _AVERAGE EIEV~TION ^~ GEi = MB.s!' ~ EIEVARONi ~L._ 4"- {~ ~_-_ ~`~ ~~^~ 29848FIIQSHED ____________ _ ]GOAT IXIST[NG GRADEGRADE =299.00' ~~- HIGHEST ELEVATION POINT OF 297.70'~~ " ~' THE LOT AT THE BUIIDIfSi EDGE LQWEST ELEVATION~"J~ '~ , ,n' AT WEST ELEVATION POINT OF THE LOTr'." r AT THE BUILDING EDGEEAST ELEVATION ~. '~~lM E T R ODESIGNG R O U P^ma ~. O.VROJECf NOMEPALM VILLASSARATOGALOT elN9~06-OlASAR~IOG~OtEIX DRIVESM~TIXJ~, U 95UJ0REVISIONSPROPOSEDELEVATIONSLOT 15[p~ 3/16' = 1'-0'DRAWN BY: DZCHEIXm 8'! : 1SARCHRC{f' TOM SLORNPR~]ECf NO : 15600SHEET NUMBERA-3.0
Todd A. Amspoker
Susan M. Basham
Kristen M. R. Blabey
Shannon D. Boyd
Timothy M. Cary
Tara L. Christian
Melissa J. Fassett
Ian M. Fisher
Arthur R. Gaudi
Cameron Goodman
Emily B. Harrington
Christopher E. Haskell
James H. Hurley, Jr.
Eric P. Hvolbøll
Mark S. Manion
Steven K. McGuire
Our File Number:
22899-2
Counsellors at Law
200 East Carrillo Street, Suite 400
Santa Barbara, CA 93101-2190
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 99
Santa Barbara, CA 93102-0099
www.ppplaw.com
Ph (805) 962-0011 Fax (805) 965-3978
E-mail:
Timothy E. Metzinger
Shereef Moharram
Craig A. Parton
Kenneth J. Pontifex
Douglas D. Rossi
Peter D. Slaughter
David W. Van Horne
C.E. Chip Wullbrandt
Ryan D. Zick
CAMERON PARK OFFICE
3330 Cameron Park Drive, Suite 100
Cameron Park, CA 95682-7652
Ph (805) 962-0011
Fax (805) 965-3978
November 17, 2020
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Members of the City Council
Mayor Howard Miller
Mary-Lynne Bernald
Rishi Kumar
Yan Zhao
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Appeal of the Palm Villas Saratoga Project, CUP15-002/PDR15-0019
November 18, 2020
Dear Mayor Miller, and Members of the City Council:
This letter supplements our prior letter dated November 11, 2020. Since that time, our
analysis of the proposed Project has continued, and we have discovered additional violations of
the Saratoga Municipal Code that would be caused by the Project. The purpose of this letter is to
summarize those violations. In the following, each violation is identified. In addition, we have
cited the applicable provision of the City’s required CUP findings provided in section 15-55.070
that would be prevented by these municipal code violations.
1. Implementation Requirement OSC 5.6 of City’s General Plan
The City requires the dedication of trails in the development and subdivision entitlement
process. By failing to enforce a dedication requirement for the public trail on Lot 1, the City is
out of compliance with its mandatory policy of the General Plan. This violation prevents the
City Council of Saratoga
November 17, 2020
Page 2
City from granting the proposed CUP, in that the Project will be “detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.”
(Section 15-55.070(b).)
2. Section 15-35.020(h)
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. However, a public street (Saratoga Creek Drive) separates
the two development lots. This violation prevents the City from granting the proposed CUP, in
that the Project violates this provision of the municipal code, and will “adversely affect existing
or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood,” and will “adversely affect surrounding
properties or the occupants thereof.” (Section 15-55.070(c) and (d).)
3. Section 15-35.050(g)
Off-street loading spaces shall be located on the same site as the use for which the
loading spaces are required, or on an adjacent site. A public street (Saratoga Creek Drive)
separates the two development lots. This violation prevents the City from granting the proposed
CUP, in that the Project violates this provision of the municipal code, and will “adversely affect
existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood,” and will “adversely affect
surrounding properties or the occupants thereof.” (Section 15-55.070(c) and (d).)
4. Section 15-35.040(e)
Each parking space shall be independently accessible. 20 parking spaces are included in
two parking lifts. None of the spaces in the parking lifts are independently accessible. This
violation prevents the City from granting the proposed CUP, in that the Project violates this
provision of the municipal code, and will “adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the
immediate neighborhood,” and will “adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants
thereof.” (Section 15-55.070(c) and (d).) The reason for the impact to other properties is the
unlikelihood that the public will actually park in the parking lifts, causing trespassing and use of
other easily-accessible surface lots in the Professional Village.
5. Section 15-35.040(i)
No more than 25% of the parking spaces may be compact spaces. Project includes 48
total spaces and 26 (or 54%) compact spaces, including compact spaces in parking lifts. This
violation prevents the City from granting the proposed CUP, in that the Project violates this
provision of the municipal code, and will “adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the
City Council of Saratoga
November 17, 2020
Page 3
immediate neighborhood,” and will “adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants
thereof.” (Section 15-55.070(c) and (d).) The reason for the impact to other properties is the
unlikelihood that the public will actually park in the compact spaces included in the parking lifts,
causing trespassing and use of other easily-accessible surface lots in the Professional Village.
6. Sections 15-06.587 and 15-06.660
Setback must be measured from street, not lot line; driveways that serve 5 lots are
categorized as streets. Access driveway on Lot 2 serves five parcels and is therefore a street. Yet,
the building’s setback is measured from the lot line, not the street. This violation prevents the
City from granting the proposed CUP, in that the Project violates this provision of the municipal
code, and will “adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood,” and
will “adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof.” (Section 15-55.070(c)
and (d).) The reason for the impact to other properties is the illegal placement of the loading
area in the setback, causing congestion in the adjacent driveway and interference with other
property owners’ access rights.
7. Section 15-18.100(b)
10 feet of the required front setback area shall be landscaped and permanently
maintained. Neither front setback area complies with this requirement. This violation prevents
the City from granting the proposed CUP, in that the Project violates this provision of the
municipal code, and will “adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate
neighborhood,” and will “adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof.”
(Section 15-55.070(c) and (d).) The reason for the impact to other properties is the lack of
landscaping is out of character with the generous landscaping provided in all other portions of
the Professional Village.
8. Section 15-35.070(b)
Sufficient room for turning and maneuvering vehicles shall be provided on the site.
Developer proposes that truck seeking to access loading zone will turn around in public street.
Onsite turnaround template blocks access easement of adjoining owners. Onsite turnaround is
impossible. Maneuvering into the loading space is impossible, either back-in or forward entry.
This violation prevents the City from granting the proposed CUP, in that the Project violates this
provision of the municipal code, and will “adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the
immediate neighborhood,” and will “adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants
thereof.” (Section 15-55.070(c) and (d).) The reason for the impact to other properties is the use
of the adjoining public street for turning around delivery trucks will block access to other
properties and will interfere with the property rights of other property owners.
City Council of Saratoga
November 17, 2020
Page 4
9. Section 15-35.070(h)
Loading area must be screened by solid wall or fence. Loading zone will be open to view
while fences are moved to allow truck ingress and egress. This violation prevents the City from
granting the proposed CUP, in that the Project violates this provision of the municipal code, and
will “adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood,” and will
“adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof.” (Section 15-55.070(c) and
(d).) The reason for the impact to other properties is the sight of unattractive delivery operations,
coupled with the resultant interference with access and the property rights of other property
owners.
10. Section 15-35.070(h)
Loading area shall not be located in a required front, side or rear setback area. Loading
facility is illegally located within the required side setback area. This violation prevents the City
from granting the proposed CUP, in that the Project violates this provision of the municipal code,
and will “adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood,” and will
“adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof.” (Section 15-55.070(c) and
(d).) The reason for the impact to other properties is the illegal placement of the loading area in
the setback, causing congestion in the adjacent driveway and interference with other property
owners’ access rights.
11. Section 14-25.030
Public street must be improved by developer to its full width to all applicable lot lines.
Developer is not intending to improve public street to boundary line with Abrams 10-acre parcel,
requiring Abrams to trespass on Palm Villas property when street is completed. In addition, the
existing large oak tree on the Palm Villas property is in the way of the sidewalk and proposed
street, requiring Abrams to trespass on the Palm Villas property and cut down the tree. This
violation prevents the City from granting the proposed CUP, in that the Project violates this
provision of the municipal code, and will “adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the
immediate neighborhood,” and will “adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants
thereof.” (Section 15-55.070(c) and (d).) In addition, this violation is “materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity.” (Section 15-55.070(b).) The reason for the impact
and injury to other properties is that the public roadway, as proposed by the developer, would
block the Abrams family from access to their 10-acre property. This constitutes a taking of the
Abrams family’s property rights. The Abrams family will need to trespass on the Palm Villas
property in order to complete construction of their access. In addition, removal of the oak tree,
also on the Palm Villas property, would additionally require trespass and cause environmental
damage which should have been considered in the draft EIR. The Palm Villas developer should
City Council of Saratoga
November 17, 2020
Page 5
not be allowed to transfer environmental consequences caused on its property to another property
owner.
We also think it important to note that there have been substantial changes to the
proposed Project which were only included in the Final EIR, not in the draft EIR. These
substantial changes include the two parking lifts in the underground garages, which were not
considered or referenced in the draft EIR. In addition, the loading zone on Lot 2 was
substantially modified to include the rolling fences features, and the illegal turning maneuvers
which would be required in order for trucks to use the loading area. “A lead agency is required
to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR” after notice of
public review has been given but before final circulation. (Guidelines § 15088.5(a) (emphasis
added).) The term “information” can include changes in the project as well as additional data or
other information. New information is not “significant” unless the EIR “is changed in a way that
deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse
environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect
(including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to
implement.” (Ibid (emphasis added).) Several cases hold that a project’s EIR needs to be
circulated when changes were made to the project after the draft EIR was circulated. For
instance, see Gray v. Cty. of Madera (2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 1099, 1120 (recirculation required
when EIR amended a mitigation measure related to water well monitoring system, which
constituted “significant new information”), and Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth,
Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 412, 448 (recirculation required when
responses to public comment in final EIR revealed a new potentially significant environmental
impact that had not yet been addressed, specifically the revelation of periods of low water flows
that would impact fish population).
In the case of the parking lifts, the public was denied the opportunity to comment on the
impact of the lifts during the DEIR circulation. This is important, because the parking lifts do
not appear to comply with the City’s municipal code. In addition, the public’s ability to actually
use the parking lifts should be considered. If members of the public choose not to use the lifts
(which seems very likely), the impact on adjoining property owners is obvious. Instead of
parking in the lifts, motorists will seek other available lots, resulting in trespass and congestion.
The parking lifts should not be foisted on the public without property environmental review.
The new proposed design of the loading zone, with the moving fences and consequent
illegal turning maneuvers, should have also been considered by the public. In particular,
property owners and inhabitants of the Professional Village should have been allowed to
consider this carefully. This was prevented by Palm Villas’ decision to significantly modify the
loading area after circulation of the DEIR.
City Council of Saratoga
November 17, 2020
Page 6
We also wanted to add additional details to the developer’s contention that the Project
approvals are appropriate because of the 5-year application process. The developer’s initial
application in 2015 for a CUP was deemed incomplete by the City on April 16, 2015. (See
attached April 16, 2015 letter.) The developer decided to modify the application to instead ask
for a Design Review/Zoning Amendment later that year, and that application was also rejected as
incomplete. (See attached July 16, 2015 letter.) Four years later, in February of 2019, the City
finally sent out its Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR. (See attached Notice.) No
explanation has been given for this 4-year hiatus, which was obviously a decision made by the
developer. The developer should not be allowed to complain that its application has been
pending for 5 years. This is not correct. This has been a two-year process, not unusual for
projects of this significance.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Very Truly Yours,
Todd A. Amspoker
For PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP
cc: Daryl Abrams
Incorporated October 22, 1956
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Mary-Lynne Bernald
Manny Cappello
Rishi Kumar
Emily Lo
Howard Miller
July 16, 2015
Golden Age Properites
Attn: Michael Sneper
3333 S. Bascom Ave.
Campbell, CA 95008
RE: Application No. CUP15-0002/Conditional Use Permit Application –
Vacant Lot at Saratoga Creek Dr.: Application Deemed Incomplete
Dear Mr. Sneper:
The Planning Department has reviewed your request for an Design Review / Zoning Amendment
(previously Conditional Use Permit) to construct a assisted living facilities and associated
parking on a two vacant lot located on Saratoga Creek Drive (near Cox Avenue). Prior to
continuing the processing of your application, please provide the following:
Community Development Department
1. Sign Program. The proposed use will require signs of the facility. Please provide a sign
program associated with the project.
2. Trash Enclosure. Provide trash enclosure locations for both parcels. Trash enclosures shall
be located in an area that is sensitive to protecting the creek for Lot 1.
3. Adequate Backup Distance. Adequate backup distance does not appear to be provided for
parking spaces associated with Lot 1.
4. Top Bank of Creek. Not top bank of creek on plans.
5. Tree Protection Measures. Page C-2 notes that excavation shall not occur within five feet
of any existing protected trees. Clarify in the note where the distance is measured from (i.e.
trunk, canopy).
6. Parking Stall Design. Parking stalls on Lot 1 need to be double striped.
7. Off-Street Loading Facility. Per City Code Section 15-18.120, off-street loading facilities
shall be provided. A nursing home, which is a use most similar to the proposed assisted
living facility, requires one off-street loading space per 50,000 sq. ft. of floor area. Please
demonstrate that at least one off-street loading facility is provided.
8. Parking Lot Design for Lot 2. Staff has concerns that ingress/egress for the parking lot for
Lot 2 does not have access to the 20’ parking and driveway easement located east of the lot.
Please design the lot to have access to the easement or provide the City with an explanation
on why it cannot be used.
9. Standard Parking Dimension. Plans erroneously noted that a standard parking dimension
with a 9’ width. Standard parking dimensions per City Code require a 9’6” width.
10. Building Heights. Please call out maximum heights proposed for elevations for Lots 1 and 2
in linear feet (as well as sea level elevations).
11. Mechanical Equipment/Elevator Shaft. Will mechanical equipment and/or the elevator
shaft be totally screened or enclosed within the attic? If not, please confirm the equipment
and/or shaft will be totally screened.
12. Lighting Plan. Please provide a lighting plan for both Lot 1 and 2.
13. Front Setbacks. Show front setbacks on both parcels from the proposed street.
14. Parking Concerns. Staff has concerns that adequate parking has not been provided, due to
the proposed sizes and use of the structures. Provide documentation to justify how the
parking will be met. Justify how the proposed use differs from nursing homes in regards to
parking. Based on City Code, 29 parking spaces are required (excluding required parking for
doctors).
15. Building Coverage for Lot 1. Per City Code Section 15-18.070, maximum net site area
covered by structures shall be 30%. Structure coverage for Lot 1 has been calculated to be
34%. The Planned Combined District Overlay may allow some flexibility with overall
structure coverage, but we suggest you make an effort to meet the minimum standards of the
existing (P-A) zoning district, especially since parking is a concern (refer to Comment 14).
16. Misspelling. Cox Avenue has been misspelled on several parcels on Sheet A-1.
Please be advised that the proposed project cannot be deemed complete until all issues and
concerns have been addressed.
If you have any questions, please call me at 408-868-1212
Respectfully,
Michael Fossati
Planner